MR. CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, it's after the hour, and we will convene this meeting of the Human Resources Committee. Perhaps we could start off by going around the table and having people introduce themselves.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: With that, we can move on to the order of business, which is appointments to agencies, boards and commissions.
MR. TIMOTHY OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Education, Appeal Board of the Education Act, I so move Stewart McInnes, who would comprise a one-person board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Steele.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Just my usual comment that I think it's a bit of a shame that we don't have information before us that would indicate, either for this appointment or any appointment, whether the person being proposed is in fact the best qualified. It's difficult to see how this committee can do meaningful work when we are not given the information we would need to make that judgement. Apart from that, that's all I want to say about this particular appointment.
1
MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Smith.
DR. JAMES SMITH: I think we know a lot about this person. I certainly would support his appointment. We're on very close terms. This is the gentleman who solicited donations to the Tory Party from our caucus. (Laughter) He's still friendly with us. He's not one to hold grudges. I think he would be fair in this job, and I certainly support his appointment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will assume you contributed. (Laughter)
DR. SMITH: No, I'm saying he still speaks to us even though we didn't contribute.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
DR. SMITH: Seriously, Stewart McInnes is well-known. He ran, and he was a member, wasn't he?
MR. OLIVE: A federal MP, yes.
DR. SMITH: I think he's a very competent person, and I support him. I think we have the information on him.
MR. OLIVE: Question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question has been called. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: Just following up on Dr. Smith's last comment, the point is not whether we have information on Stewart McInnes because, of course, we do. The information is that we have no idea what the qualifications of the other nine applicants were; that's the point.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Education and the Advisory Council on the Status of Women: Linda Carvery, council member; Mary Elizabeth (Liz) Chisholm, council member; Mary Hamblin, council member; Patricia LeBlanc, council member; Candy Palmater, council member; Doreen Paris, council member; and Nancy Vromans, council member. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Mr. Samson.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm just curious, and I know we've raised this as a concern in the past. There was a tendency of government not to keep people on boards for any real length of time for them to get accustomed to what the role of the board was or to get experience. This board, on the other hand, seems to be just the opposite in that it leaves me to question whether people are remaining on the board for too long and whether it's wise to continually put people on for extensive periods of time or if we should be gradually introducing new blood into these boards, new ideas and new backgrounds.
I note that two of these members already have seven years on the board and are being reappointed once again. I guess I'm just questioning whether we have any indication from the minister if she feels that - well, I guess those with seven years will now have almost 10 years on the same board. I'm just curious if the minister has been made aware of this or if it's her intention that she wants the same people to be on this board for such an extensive amount of years. So I guess the question is, is the minister even concerned about a balance there, getting new blood in while at the same time maintaining a level of experience on the board, and whether that has been addressed at all, or has the chairman been made aware of that issue or been provided with any sort of information on that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I have not. Ms. MacDonald.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I, too, want to raise the concern that there were 27 applicants for these positions, and you know, without knowing who all of the applicants are, it is difficult to determine whether or not we have the most qualified people for this important body. I think we should note for the record that at least two of the appointments that are going forward here today are former PC candidates and it's important that we understand that this is not the Advisory Council on the Status of Tory Women; this is for all women in the province. (Interruption)
I think that really we need people who can maintain an objective role on behalf of the women of Nova Scotia, particularly in light of some of the public policy that this government
has tried to introduce that would severely harm women and children in this province. I think it's important to put that on the record.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any further discussion. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: I was going to raise this at the end of the meeting, but the comments of the member for Richmond brought it up and I just want to pursue this idea of the length of time that people serve. As I look into some of these proposed appointments, not this particular list, but since I've been elected as a member 14 or 15 months ago, I've heard from people that they've been told that when they're not being reappointed that the government has one of two policies. One is that there is a policy limiting the number of ABCs that a person can sit on simultaneously and the second one is a policy encouraging turnover on ABCs - in other words, limiting the number of years that a person can serve. But it seems that
these policies are trotted out in order to justify not reappointing people who are experienced and qualified, but they're more respected in the breach, as the saying goes.
I would very much like to find out whether there are formal government policies on these points because, as I say, I've heard from people that they get cited as a justification for getting rid of people and yet there are any number of people who are appointed in breach of those apparent policies. I think it's really important for this committee to write to the Executive Council to find out - are they official policies or are they not?
If they're not official government policies, then I think that a number of people, particularly executive assistants to ministers, need to be told that because they're generally the ones who deliver these justifications to people who inquire about why they're not being reappointed. So the member for Richmond has raised a legitimate point and it's something that I think needs to be pursued.
There's at least one example on these proposed appointments that raises these questions, but I would like to make it a more general issue. We on this committee need to find out - are these policies out there or aren't they?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this something we could pursue after we finish the motion that's on the floor?
MR. STEELE: Yes. I raise it now because it is relevant to these particular appointments, but, yes, I would like to pursue this further at the end after we've finished with the proposed appointments.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Steele. Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: I would like to have the indulgence of the committee. I would like to respond to a comment by the member for Halifax Needham. It's mind-boggling to me that regardless of political stripe, all three Parties in Nova Scotia work very hard to get highly qualified candidates to run in elections. I emphasize regardless of the Party. The honourable member for Halifax Needham is probably a good example of a qualified, female candidate who won an election more than once, who works hard for her constituency and the only reason she has a problem with two of these candidates for the Advisory Council on the Status of Women is because they were PC candidates.
If the fact that we all worked so hard as Parties to get well-qualified female candidates to run and be part of the governance of Nova Scotia, when we go through that process they do get very well qualified; all three Parties get very well qualified females to run and it's a credit to all three Parties to do that. To sit here, as a female member of a recognized Party in Nova Scotia and clearly defame two women who do have the qualifications, educationally, within the public, their peers, their respective Party organizations, I think it's
absolutely disgraceful. I can't believe that the member for Halifax Needham would sit here in front of this public committee and chastise these two individuals because they're women candidates.
Mr. Chairman, I think she owes an apology to those two people, as a matter of fact to all potential female candidates in Nova Scotia. What she's saying is, we know that you work hard, we know that you have to work and it's unfortunate, but in many cases they have to work a lot harder. When they make it, they make it because they're qualified to be there and to then turn around and dump on them, I think is disgraceful.
[9:15 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for those comments. Mr. Samson and then Ms. MacDonald.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on a couple of points after the comments from the member for Dartmouth South, and it's not very often that I fully agree with some of the concerns raised by the New Democratic Party, but I think in this case the way that the member for Halifax Needham did make her comments was such that she was concerned that because of the fact that at least two of these ladies have a clear affiliation with the Conservative Party, which is now in government, that they may in some way feel pressured not to speak out against any government policy that may impact the women, and whether that is a real fear or not a real fear, it certainly is legitimate to raise that concern. To say that that's not a legitimate concern to bring up, I don't think it's a fair statement. I think my friend, the member for Dartmouth South, is stretching a bit of a long bow in the offence he's taken at these comments. I think that's . . .
MR. OLIVE: Are you saying they don't have any integrity?
MR. SAMSON: Not at all.
MR. OLIVE: Well, that's what you're saying, that they don't have any integrity.
MR. SAMSON: What I am saying is I agree that they may be put under a level of pressure, because of their support of the government, not to speak out on certain policies that they may not personally agree with in their capacity on the advisory council. Whether that happens or it doesn't, we can't predict but I certainly think it's a legitimate concern to raise. I'm just curious, Mr. Chairman, and I can't think of the boards, but there appears to be a tendency by this government, again, to appoint certain individuals to numerous boards. I think the member for Dartmouth South and others have talked about all the qualified people who are out there regardless of their political affiliation, but there appears to be a couple that the government is certainly quite fond of.
Mr. Chairman, I'm curious, could you ask the staff to advise us on just how many committees Linda Carvery has been appointed to? I believe Gwen Haliburton is another example of an individual who has been appointed to numerous committees. I'm just curious, if there are so many qualified people out there, why are the same individuals being put on numerous committees and other people not brought in on that? I am wondering, could the chairman advise us, at least on those two individuals?
Just on a final note. I know the government, after Christmas, with the liquor board appointments, had gone underground a little bit in their blatant political appointments, so it's good to see that the real face of the Hamm Government has once again appeared. I'm sure that a lot of the poll workers, the Tory poll workers in Cape Breton North and down in Chester-St. Margaret's will be really pleased to see that the government is taking care of poor Stewart McInnes with his appointment to the Board of Appeal of the Education Act. I am sure they agree he really needed that appointment, really needed the funds, and I am sure they will remind the members next time they come knocking for their support.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. MacDonald.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I just want to say to the honourable member for Dartmouth South that, with all due respect, I do feel that I am probably better able to comment on women's experience, as a woman and as a woman who is elected to office and as someone with a long history of working on women's issues. My concern is that we have an advisory council that is capable of functioning in a very neutral and objective fashion in terms of giving advice to government and critiquing the policy of the government and the implications for women.
As my colleague, the member for Richmond, indicated, it's a legitimate concern to raise if government is appointing members of this council who have been candidates and who may be candidates again. I, too, want to raise the concern of multiple appointments for some individuals. I note that Dr. Linda Carvery was on the Nova Scotia Arts Council as an appointment that I believe came through this committee, but also has been appointed I know on the interim configuration now that the Arts Council is abolished, and that was an appointment that didn't come in front of this board but was made unilaterally by the minister. So these issues are important issues given that we had a fairly substantial human rights complaint in the province around how appointments are made to boards and commissions, the role that patronage plays in appointments to bodies that have some consequence for public policy and the interest of Nova Scotians generally. After all, women in this province constitute a little more than 50 per cent of the population and I don't think we should be treating this particular council in a cavalier fashion at all. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for those comments. Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, just to follow up. I am just sitting here trying to think of some recent and some past female candidates. I'm wondering what the member for Halifax Needham would say, for example, about Rosemary Godin, if she was one of the people on this list, or Eleanor Norrie from Truro, or the late Eileen O'Connell, or Maxine Cochran? Would she have the same opinion of these people as she obviously does of Linda Carvery and Liz Chisholm?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Clarke.
MR. CECIL CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, there's comments and questions raised with regard to the length of time someone serves and/or the number of boards and that. But I would hate to think that we're going to get embroiled in a discussion. The reality is, all political Parties, when they're identifying and looking and searching for candidates, ofttimes are going out to find those who are connected to their community, our community leaders and people who they feel would be the best representative for the area. I would almost say anyone by any Party, and they've been all identified from one time to another at this table, would say that and would defend, if they were of that political persuasion, the character of those people and I would say that their dossiers or the CVs would be indicative of community involvement.
While we encourage community leaders to get involved in the political process, I don't think we should taint people who enter the political process from serving Nova Scotians as well. I would say that's a unilateral thing and I think we're discrediting the process if we're trying to discourage people from being active participants in the governance model of this province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ms. MacDonald.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Once again, I would just like to make it clear for the record, my concerns are not about these people, these women. My concern is about the government and the government's practice of appointing to boards and commissions people who are clearly aligned with the government of the day, and this calls into question the ability of people who are appointed to be objective with respect to the role that they are given when they get to serve on boards and commissions and various advisory bodies. So, once again, I'm not calling into question these women, but I am questioning the government and the minister who is appointing these individuals here today.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your remarks. If there is no further discussion, the question has been called. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Excuse me, abstentions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There are two abstentions. Two people have abstained and the record should show that those are the two NDP members at the table. Mr. Chataway.
MR. JOHN CHATAWAY: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Education, St. Francis Xavier University Foundation: Elizabeth MacDonald, Donald Munroe, John T. Sears are all to be members of this foundation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion? We will call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, for the University College of Cape Breton Board of Governors, Robert McNamara and Corrie Stewart as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is so moved. Is there any discussion? We will call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. JON CAREY: Mr. Chairman, I move the membership for the Department of Environment and Labour, Alcohol and Gaming Authority, Film Classifiers: Ulysses J. Cottreau, George A. Fraser and Irma Mullen. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Smith.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, it may be obvious, but I'm just wondering, can we have a little bit of update on the no advertisement? A lot of these have run out of - I notice on one applicant, she said she was currently on the board. Yet when you look at the records - that we weren't provided with, but which we did obtain - of who was up-to-date, she had clearly run out of date. It may be obvious and I might have just missed it, but why was this no advertisement? There are people on the board who have applied to be reappointed and are not being reappointed. Why no advertisement?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The answer to that, I guess, would be a letter that was circulated from Minister Morse with regard to these extensions. The reason for the extensions, as I understand it, was to allow the committee to function while the review is in process and until completed. So these are extensions to get us to the end of the review period that's currently taking place, is my understanding. Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: The concern that I would have is we all know that there was no advertisement for this; the minister's saying he just wanted to continue while the review is taking place. I guess I'm just concerned that a precedent is maybe being started here where obviously the minister and his department are hand-picking who they want to continue and who they don't want to continue. That's the concern, because I'm aware of a number of individuals here whose appointments expired who reapplied for reappointment and obviously were not chosen. I guess I'm just concerned that we're going down a dangerous road here where the minister is deciding on his own, without any advertisements, who he wants to see continue on the board and obviously who he didn't particularly want to see continue on the board.
My big concern is that today this will go and no one is going to raise a concern, and then the next time it happens, the member for Dartmouth South will pull out Hansard and say, look, last time we did this you guys didn't have a problem; why is it a problem now?
MR. OLIVE: I wouldn't do that.
MR. SAMSON: I've been around here and seen his antics long enough to be able to, I believe, accurately predict what would happen. So for the record, I think this is a dangerous practice that the minister is doing here. The last time a minister told me that a program was under review, it was the in-home support program; two and a half years later, it's not finished yet. So I get quite concerned whenever I hear a minister of this government saying that something is under review and they just want a little bit more time.
I'm wondering if it might be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, if you could write to the minister, just for our own information, and ask him how they came about selecting these particular three individuals and not others who had reapplied, what criteria were used or what was the reasoning behind that. Because at this point in time we have nothing to indicate why these particular three individuals were chosen to continue their appointments and not others who had clearly reapplied for this. I don't think that's asking too much from the minister, to indicate what process was used, and I would ask that the chairman write to Minister Morse and put that question to him.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? We do have a motion on the floor currently, and is that typically something that we would have a motion on the floor, to write a minister?
MR. SAMSON: It's just a request.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If so, is that something we could take care of at the end of this, perhaps, if that would be okay?
MR. SAMSON: Sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. So we do have a motion on the floor now. Any further discussion? Dr. Smith.
DR. SMITH: Again, a further question. We're talking about a review of the classification system, aren't we, and is this moving into a Maritime or a more broader area? Is this what they're looking at here, scrapping the board, changing it? Is that what the review means, and when will that review be over with? When will we know more about this?
MR. SAMSON: Soon, very soon.
[9:30 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Under review is really the only information that I have. I know there's been discussion with regard to something different, but I'm not aware of what direction the discussions have been going. I'm also not aware of how long it will take for the review to be completed.
DR. SMITH: These appointments, just to refresh my memory, are for how long?
MR. OLIVE: To the end of March of next year, to the end of the fiscal year.
DR. SMITH: Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: If I may, Mr. Chairman, Dr. Smith's point just reminded me of something. What's actually stated in our form was that the term of appointment is March 31, 2003, or the date of proclamation of Section 98 to Section 101 and Section 25 to Section 53 of the Justice and Administration Reform (2000) Act. What it doesn't say is - just picking up on the comment from the member for Richmond, it doesn't say there explicitly, whichever is sooner. Because it may be that those particular sections of this Act, which after all was passed in 2000, so we're already a couple of years into it without proclamation - it's not stated clearly that if that doesn't happen, the appointment will run out. That may well be the government's intention, but it may well be worth adding a caveat to our approval, that our approval is based on that that is our understanding of the term of appointment. It's either March 31st or the date of proclamation, whichever is sooner.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on that?
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I think what we're looking at is to try to find a way to keep the film classification board operating while this review is going on and, quite frankly, I'm not aware of any deadline or timetable for that review. It has been ongoing for awhile and it does involve a number of external forces to the government, so I think that, you know,
I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill here. This is a pretty standard form. The minister did advise the committee in advance of what he was asking for and it's not a long-term appointment. It's until March, until the end of this fiscal year, and hopefully the results of the review on the film classification board will be complete by then and further action taken in accordance with the legislation.
I appreciate what the member for Richmond is saying, and I, for one, would not want to see this set as a precedent. I understand that comment. I think it's fair that the chairman possibly write to find out just what the circumstances were here so that we don't get into the situation again, but I don't consider it a major faux pas or any underhanded, covert way to move people through ABCs. So, you know, I don't think there's a need for caveats or anything else. I just call for the question, and let government complete its process regarding the film classification board.
MR. STEELE: I may not have explained myself very well because the member for Dartmouth South just spoke for awhile and didn't at all address the point that I was raising. The way it's phrased in the document before us is that the term of appointment is until (a) happens or (b) happens, and the point I'm raising is that the (b) event may never happen. So I'm simply asking for it to be clarified that it's (a) or (b), whichever occurs first. It seems like an awfully small thing to ask for, to make sure that it's clear that that's the basis on which we're approving these proposed appointments.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion?
MR. OLIVE: Question on the original motion, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEELE: I suppose I'm proposing an amendment to the motion, that it be approved exactly on the basis that is laid out in front of us except that it's stated to be whichever is earlier. That is surely what the government intends and so surely they have no problem with agreeing to that amendment to the motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have an amendment to the original motion currently on the floor and it is to clarify whichever comes first. Any discussion on the amendment?
MR. OLIVE: Other than I will just repeat my comment. I don't think it's necessary.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. On the amendment. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is defeated.
Question on the original motion?
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, the fact that the government would actually go so far as to defeat that clarification makes me wonder if maybe the member for Richmond has more of a point than he even realizes. The fact that they won't even agree . . .
MR. OLIVE: The grassy knoll, the grassy knoll.
MR. STEELE: . . . to clarify this, whichever event occurs first. What we've just done, apparently, according to the information in front of us is that if these people are appointed, they may be appointed contingent on an event that never happens so they never have to come back to this committee for reappointment. It seems so odd that the government members on this committee would actually go so far as to refuse to clarify such a simple thing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your comments. On the original motion. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Two abstentions by the NDP caucus duly noted for the record.
MR. SAMSON: I'm just curious. Are we still going to write to the minister - I know you wanted to deal with the motion first, or do you want to deal with that after the rest of the appointments?
MR. CHAIRMAN: If you don't mind. We've got a couple of things and then we can do them.
MR. SAMSON: Sure.
MR. CHATAWAY: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Health. They recommend that Connie F. Morrissey be a board member on the Board of the College of Occupational Therapists of Nova Scotia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion?
DR. SMITH: On the status of that board, she would be the only person on that board, is that correct? On the list, there are no other members. This is an Act we passed over a year ago, there are currently no members on this board. It's odd that it would be one person alone coming forward. If the board is activated, why wouldn't there be an executive at least? It says duties would be to manage and direct the affairs and businesses of the association. She's in a position as a board member, I was wondering if she was a salaried person?
MR. OLIVE: If you look at the Act itself, I think it says the board consists of four members of the college elected in a manner provided by the Act. They will elect four; three persons appointed by Governor in Council - I would suggest this is one of the three to be appointed. So, one may want to assume, although it's dangerous to assume, the college has in fact already appointed four - they're just not listed here. They probably should be, but they would be appointments by the college and this is one of three to be appointed by the Governor in Council. That would be my interpretation.
DR. SMITH: The health professional Act as followed, like the dental, medical and all the others, is usually about three Governor in Councils or government appointments.
MR. OLIVE: But I think the point, if I may, the point that the member for Dartmouth East raises that if there are other appointments, regardless of who made them, they probably should have been listed on the first page as they are in most boards, the people are currently there. That would have clarified the issue up front. I don't think that's an unreasonable request on behalf of the member, if that's what he's asking for.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps that's information that we can request and get back to the committee.
DR. SMITH: It may have to be re-advertised. If there are only two responses for this, if there are three positions like the Act provides, there may be work to do on here. It's really important that these groups get up and running. I know they've been waiting for their legislation and it was granted to them and now to help them make it work.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, that brings up another matter that was discussed earlier, and I'm glad Dr. Smith brought it up again. The fact is that we don't seem to be getting the number of people applying that one would expect. This is a relatively new Act and you would have thought that there would have been a number of people interested in getting involved in this, but in fact the record will show that there aren't. One may wonder sometimes why the appointments and the names of the people put forward are who they are from the point of view of the number of applicants.
Here's a very good example of why I'm sure the government would have loved to have appointed three instead of one, but when you only have two applying it makes it very difficult. One might ask why the other one wasn't - I don't have that answer. That's just an example, and probably not a bad example of the difficulty sometimes in getting the members of the public to show an interest in the governance of the province and take positions on these boards.
DR. SMITH: In some ways I think that's - and I don't want to paraphrase the member for Richmond - what we're saying, that some of these are fairly high-paying boards. The fact is that people are getting a couple of appointments on boards. On the other one now, not to
pick on Gwen Haliburton, but there is an example on the judicial appointments. There is some reimbursement there, it's fairly significant. She's also on the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and I think maybe there's some question of some others.
If the message starts getting out that there are only going to be Tory friends who are going to get the high-end appointments and the rest of the work, with very little reimbursement, is left to the ordinary people, I think the message very clearly will be, why bother? I think that's the danger of these multiple appointments on high-paying boards. I bring this up not in a partisan way, but it's a fact and we're seeing evidence of this happening. There are names that you can bring forward to substantiate what I'm saying. I think there's a danger there, and I don't think it's that. People have other things to do with their family life and they have to make choices. I think it's important that we do what we can to encourage good people to come forward.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just for clarification, perhaps even for my own clarification, I notice on Form "A" we have 10 meetings per year, time commitment expected at $250 a year. I guess this is one of the ones that certainly isn't high paying. Any further discussion?
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, Department of Justice, the Provincial Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, I so move Dr. Frances A.C. Galvon and Lorne R. Perry as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we will call for the question.
MR. OLIVE: Question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
That concludes our business on appointments to agencies, boards and commissions, but we did have a couple of other issues brought up earlier that we will move on to now.
MR. STEELE: I have two items, Mr. Chairman. First, it's just a small thing, but since our meetings are recorded and transcribed I just thought it was important to say this. At the last meeting certain comments that could have been perceived as negative were made with respect to somebody being appointed to the Round Table on Child Care. The comments were
centred around the fact that the person was a former NDP candidate. I thought it was unfortunate at the time and I thought it was even more unfortunate when I ascertained later that the person was in fact not an NDP candidate, but simply shared the same last name as somebody who had been an NDP candidate.
I just wanted to note for the record that I thought it was very unfortunate that those kinds of comments would be made in such a partisan way before the people who made them had verified whether they had their facts correct or not.
[9:45 a.m.]
The second thing was the one I raised earlier, Mr. Chairman, and that is that I have been told on more than one occasion by people who are not being reappointed and wanted to be reappointed that the reason cited in each case by the executive assistant to the minister for their not being reappointed were two policies that were supposed to be government policies. The first policy was a policy limiting the number of ABCs on which a person could serve simultaneously. The second policy was a policy encouraging turnover on ABCs so that a large number of Nova Scotians could be given the opportunity to serve the government, the implication of which though, of course, is that people who had served for some time on an ABC would not be reappointed simply because they had served for some time.
Now I think it's worthwhile for this committee to find out, by asking you, Mr. Chairman, to write the Executive Council office whether these are in fact government policies, because they seem to be followed at times and not followed at others. I really think it would be helpful to clarify whether, in the opinion of the Executive Council office, these are in fact official government policies or not. So I guess my motion would be that the committee direct the chairman to write to the Executive Council office to inquire whether in fact there are official government policies in these respects.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion. Mr. Samson, I saw a pen move. Is that . . .
MR. SAMSON: Not on this particular issue, no.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, just to remind the honourable member and other members of the committee that there is a review, as the member for Halifax Fairview actually is aware, of the process being done under the direction of the Minister of Justice. I'm not sure that there's any advantage at this point in time to be asking for what he perceives to be a government policy, perceived or otherwise at this point in time, until this review by the Minister of Justice and Executive Council is complete. I think at that time we probably can expect to get some direction in response to his inquiry. So I'm not sure that this motion is
appropriate at this point in time for the purpose of clarifying something that may or may not be in fact the approach taken by the government in relation to the operations of the ABC process. So I can't support this motion at this time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: As a matter of fact, I'm not aware of the review of the ABCs being conducted allegedly by the Minister of Justice because it is being carried on in secret. We have absolutely no idea whose doing it, what their terms of reference are, what their objectives are, when they are going to report, whose going to report. We have no information on any of those, one would think, basic questions about a review and so I can't see the harm in asking the Executive Council office. I am saying here today that people have been told, people who have served Nova Scotia on ABCs have been told, that the reason they're not being reappointed is because of these policies; these policies which very evidently are not always followed. They seem to be followed when they're convenient, but not followed otherwise. So all I'm asking for is that we ask whether there are in fact these policies in place. I think it's important to know whether the executive assistants to the ministers who are saying these things are mistaken or whether they are reflecting a government policy that is not being followed in other departments. It seems to me important simply to ask the question. I'm not sure why it is that a secret review may or may not be going on right now is a reason not to ask those very simple questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: I think it's a legitimate request, just asking what the rules of the game are, basically. If I wanted to know what the rules are around film classification and the member for Dartmouth South told me, well, we're not going to tell you because there's a review going on and they might be changed, I would consider that to be quite a bizarre answer, which the answer he's giving now I would have to term as being bizarre also.
I think it's legitimate for us to request what the rules are here, are there any limits on how many boards someone can serve on, or are there any limits on the amount of years they can serve. The fact that we as committee members don't readily know that, I think it's a serious concern to start off with. Whether they're going to be changed or they're under review I think is irrelevant. The question is, what are the rules that we are operating under? Do such rules exist? I think that's a legitimate question.
If they get changed, they get changed. We should be aware that they have been changed. If they are put in, we should be aware that they are put in. I think it's a legitimate request, and not to allow the chairman to ask if that's policy, I think, as a member of the committee, it certainly would fly in the face of our responsibilities here of reviewing these appointments if we're not even comfortable with what the rules of the game are. I think it's a legitimate request. It's just an inquiry. Let's see what comes back. Maybe there is no
policy. If there is, what is it today? If it's going to be changed, then we should be made aware of any changes that take place. I certainly have no problem supporting the chairman putting the question forward and finding out on behalf of the committee if such rules exist.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, a couple of things. First of all, there is no secret hearing going on. The honourable member for Halifax Fairview, although he quite possibly may never get the opportunity but, when you win an election, you form government and you have an Executive Council. Executive Councils sit and have these meetings. They don't invite members of the union to sit in with them, and they don't invite anybody who has an opinion to sit in around the Cabinet Table. He may recognize that someday, but we can only hope that for the sake of Nova Scotians he doesn't.
The fact is that they're not secret. Those are things that are done by the government of the day; call it the Executive Council, call it the Cabinet. Those decisions have to be made based on the policy of the government of the day and not by some willy-nilly committee that has ulterior motives, political or otherwise.
The second issue is, the member for Richmond makes the comment that my statement is bizarre. Again, you don't take a system that's been without these "so-called policies or rules" since well prior to 1999 - the opportunity to clarify these issues was available to the previous government, they didn't take it. We have taken that initiative under the Minister of Justice. They didn't. Now that they're sitting on the other side of the table, all of a sudden it's important to get this done.
It sort of reminds me a bit of the smoking bill. They had a chance to bring it in in 1994 and didn't, and now they think everybody should stop smoking but they didn't have the political will to do it then. Now they've seen the light, and they want to change all the rules or they want to do . . .
DR. SMITH: Relevancy. (Laughter)
MR. OLIVE: They want to have a complete review done around this table of the policies and procedures of the ABC appointment process. I don't think that's fair, it's not reasonable and it's certainly not bizarre to not want to do that. Let the government do what it does best in governing without the political shenanigans of the Opposition.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: With all due respect, maybe the member for Halifax Fairview wants to sit in on that review, but I'm certainly not interested and I don't think my colleague is either. The question is very simple. I think the member may have answered it there, if he
feels comfortable with that answer, in saying that no such policy currently exists. If that's the answer, fine. I think that's what the nature of the inquiry is. If there is no policy, I guess that's what we're questioning. Is there a policy about people serving on boards at the same time; how many boards can they serve on; how long can they serve?
If there's no such policy that exists, then that's fine. That's the answer. That's all we're asking. I don't think anyone's asking here that we develop the policy or that we write the policy. I think the question to start off with is, does one exist? If it does, what is it? Because, obviously, we don't know.
For the member to say that we're trying to draft policy and take over control of the government, such bizarre statements - I go back to my term bizarre. It's a simple inquiry. I'm not sure why he's so hesitant. If there's no policy, then that's fine. Yes, if none exists now and there wasn't one before 1999, then, sure, we didn't have a policy either, if that's what he feels is important to point out and makes him feel better, but that's not the issue.
I think it's a legitimate question. If there are executive assistants or anyone else pointing out that there are limits that exist within the government then, my God, the members of this committee should be aware of that. If there isn't, then fine. If they're going to put that under their review then so be it, and we will see what comes out of that review when they're ready to do it. But, again, why we could not ask if such policies currently exist or if they're being practised is, again, bizarre to say the least.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I think what we're talking about is trying to carry forward a system that is not going to fall back into political patronage. When we formed government in 1993, there were people in departments whose sole job practically was to get Tory appointments to committees, and the Savage Government made a real attempt to change that. With all due respect to the member for Dartmouth South, I think he would be aware of that because he's from that riding; he now represents that riding. I think Premier Savage paid a personal political price for what he did. He tried to make the system better, to take a system that was non-functional and to make it better. What we're asking now is to continue that process, much like the smoking bill - if you want to stop me on relevancy, you can, Mr. Chairman, and I will adhere to that, but times are different and attitudes change and people want the system to be fair and open now, otherwise we will have less people applying, and that was my concern earlier.
So we're saying continue the process and keep doing the good things and we will give you credit for it. It's your government, you have the majority, get on with it, but don't hide behind and don't drop back again, like you did with the Liquor Commission just before Christmas, and think you're going to sneak those through in the spirit of Christmas. (Laughter)
The chairman of that committee chastised me outside the Legislature one day because I said the only thing he did really that qualified him for that appointment was the fact he wrote a book on Alexander Keith, but I said oh no, he was far more, he was a Tory. So those seemed to be the qualifications that he met. I just wanted to say - trying to be on a positive note - that there is some history here, it only goes back a decade or two, but there have been some very significant changes made and we're saying let's keep it moving and not go back to the bad old days.
MR. OLIVE: Just a final comment, if I may, Mr. Chairman. I have a few issues. One - first of all this conversation or this issue came up, if my memory serves me correctly, because the honourable member for Halifax Fairview indicated that some EAs had made some comments about policies and procedures. Well, to the best of my knowledge, EAs don't make policy. He didn't say who said it or in what context it was said, so I'm not sure if this discussion has emanated from a hypothetical situation perhaps, or one that has been basically created out of nothing in order to stir up some conversation regarding policy, maybe we should put that in context.
The second issue - Dr. Smith mentions and I agree, Dr. Savage did, when he came to power in 1993, decide that the system needed to be overhauled. He began a process and it's been a work in process ever since. I think it's been a work in process since 1999 when the government changed. Because in fact it is a work in process, in some cases, we learn every day from what happens through this ABC process. This all-Party committee has found some areas and indicated some areas that need to be fine-tuned and I think all of that information has been gathered up, with all due respect to all members of the committee, and I believe that the Minister of Justice has that information and that he is in fact working on redefining some of the processes, et cetera.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the third point I would like to make is that we have one of the fairest and most open systems through our screening panels in Canada right now, and that is a major move from 1993, from where Dr. Savage started. I think if Dr. Savage had have been allowed to go, he may have landed up at the same point, but his own Party wouldn't let him do it and his own caucus wouldn't let him do it. On the other hand, we have a great screening process in place; it does work; and it does eliminate the political influence that Dr. Smith talks about. Can it be better? Yes, it probably could be. I don't know. But I do believe that this process is under review and if it can be made better, it will be made better. Therefore I don't see the need now to sort of jump in from left field and say, okay, where are you, let's pick out a couple of things that have been stated supposedly by an EA and let's ask the question about where they are in this total framework of this ongoing development. I don't think that's right. I don't think that's necessary.
[10:00 a.m.]
Let's let government do what government does. When that policy and the new policies and the old ones, whatever, are put back in a form that can be presented to this committee for review, then let's wait for that. Let's then make our comments about what might work and what might not work. That's basically where I'm coming from in opposing the motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll have two final comments. One from Mr. Samson and one from Ms. MacDonald.
MR. SAMSON: Mine's very brief. I'm just curious if the member for Dartmouth South could indicate what government department will be paying for and supplying the blindfolds for the members of this committee to put on until such time as they're ready to come out with these rules. I'm just curious when they will be provided and if any specific colours will be given for our blindfolds and if he'll be providing them to us before the end of the House session this Spring?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your comments. Ms. MacDonald.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Well, I note that government members consistently say that we, here in Nova Scotia, have the fairest and most open process in all of Canada, but I have yet to see any evidence that this is the case. The only thing we have is the word of government members who like to say this over and over again and are never challenged to produce information that would substantiate that claim. So I think given that that claim is made repeatedly at this committee and given that there will be, perhaps, some information coming forward about the operating of this committee and appointments in the future, perhaps we could ask the staff that are connected to the committee, through the Legislative Library, to gather up information of what occurs in other provinces so we can have some way of determining whether or not that claim that we have the fairest and the most open process in all of the country is accurate or not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That certainly seems like something we can work on. I expect it would take a bit of time, but we can ask Darlene if she would try to gather that information and make it available to the committee.
We have a motion on the floor. Is everyone aware of what the motion is? It's been awhile. We're ready? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is defeated.
The next item of business was yours, Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: I'm hoping we don't have to go through the rigorous process of motions for this. I'm assuming my earlier request of asking the chairman to indicate to us how many committees Linda Carvery and Gwen Haliburton were on - I'm hoping I don't need to go to a motion to ask that. That's the first item and I'm assuming the member for Dartmouth South's nodding, so I guess I'm safe to slip that one by.
MR. OLIVE: Public information . . .
MR. SAMSON: Except the rules of this committee aren't, but anyway, we will take what we can get, I guess, a little bit at a time.
The second one, which again I'm hoping I don't need a motion for, is that you write the Minister of Environment and Labour and just ask for clarification on what process was used to select the three individuals that he's asked for reappointment. In light of the fact that there was no advertisement, there were a number of other people - I know of a couple who indicated to me that they had reapplied - and I'm just curious as to how did he pick these particular individuals for this. Why only three and why the three that he actually chose? I'm just curious if there's a specific reason - they do appear to come from different geographic areas, but I'm just curious what the logic was behind that, just to advise us of that for our own information.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we deal perhaps with one at a time? We'll deal with the first one, how many committees that the candidates have been on or that Gwen Haliburton and Linda Carvery are on?
MR. OLIVE: I can't speak for my co-members from our side on that. My opinion is, that's public information. Even if we said no, it's a matter of public record, so I don't have a problem with that. It's a reasonable request.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So we will endeavour to get that information to the committee and make that available.
MR. OLIVE: On the second issue, I would just remind the honourable member that way back, in late 1999, I think it was, we took the date of the ad that was in the paper which meant that at any point anybody could apply for a board when they so desired and I'm only surmising here, but if, in fact, the ad for this was not in the latest issue, it may well be that these names have come as a result of these people applying on a previous ad and that that resource, or that list, would be available. (Interruption)
MR. SAMSON: They are all the reappointments that just expired.
MR. OLIVE: No, I understand that, but, at the same time, you did ask where the names - correct me if I'm wrong, I thought you asked if the minister could indicate where the names came from.
MR. SAMSON: No, no, no, no. If I can interject, the question is just what process did he use? We know that these are people who are on the board whose terms had expired, there were a significant number whose terms had expired, yet only three were chosen for reappointment and I guess my curiosity was, why only those particular three of the existing members of the board whose terms had expired? So I'm not questioning where the names came from. They're obviously coming from within the board. Their terms had expired along with a number of their other colleagues on that board, yet out of all those expired, only three individuals were chosen for reappointment and I guess the nature of my inquiry was just why those particular three individuals?
MR. OLIVE: Then I would like, Mr. Chairman, to get a clarification in this letter that you're going to write, I presume, as to whether the names that were brought forward were from the list of those expired only. Isn't it important to know that? Isn't that what you're asking or were there other names brought in that were not from the original expired list and, if so, where did they come from? Is that what you're asking? I think that's what you're asking.
MR. SAMSON: I wasn't, but if you want to ask, that's fine.
MR. OLIVE: No, but I mean you've got to clarify, you know, you only get what you ask for, okay. I mean if you're asking a very general question and I'm not . . .
DR. SMITH: It's very important what you ask.
MR. OLIVE: Well, no, but I think for one point, if there was no ad this time, but there was an ad before - these are two points here, Mr. Chairman. If there was no ad this time, but there was an ad before and there were names submitted and they're in the resource file, then they are legitimate names to be considered for appointment to the board. If there are a number of expiries on the board and the minister chose, for whatever reason, three of those people to be reappointed without an ad, then we have a situation where why was it only those people who were on the board whose terms expired, why didn't they go to the other list and maybe reappoint new people? I don't think that's an unreasonable request.
MR. SAMSON: I think basically that's the rough draft of your letter right there, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we have the information that we need to write a letter to get some clarification.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, just for information, I have the list here of the full board and two of the people who were reappointed today, their appointments expired in March and one will expire at the end of June, but the whole other group, there's no one going beyond June obviously and most appointments have expired in March and also the question is why just those three came forward and not others.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Very well.
DR. SMITH: It would also be a question because . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will draft up a letter to that effect to try to capture the things that have been said here today and forward it along to the minister for some clarification.
DR. SMITH: I don't know how many, but it's all one page plus three on another page. There are quite a number of people involved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further business? The only other thing I have is our next meeting will be on June 25th from 9:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. in this room for appointments. Thank you very much for coming out today.
We stand adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 10:10 a.m.]