MR. CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, it's past 9:00 o'clock. Perhaps we could come to order. We will start with the introduction of our members here this morning. Perhaps, Dr. Smith, if you would start for us.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Good morning everyone. We have appointments to agencies, boards and commissions as our first item of our agenda, so if we could take a look at those, please. Mr. Taylor.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I would move Myrna Adams-Mood as a Film Classifier to the Maritime Film Classification Board under the Department of Environment and Labour, and I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It has been moved. Is there any discussion? Mr. Steele.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: I just want to note for the record, Ms. Adams-Mood's supporting letter dated December 7, 2001, although, of course, I have some sympathy for the views that she expresses in the letter. It just struck me, in the context of what we are trying to accomplish here, as a very odd - no, that's not a fair thing to say - it's an unusual reason to put forward in support of one's application for a job and if I can summarize her letter, perhaps unfairly, it is that she needs the money. It just struck me as unusual to put that forward as a reason and it made me wonder whether the minister, in putting her name forward, had other reasons, perhaps an evaluation of her past performance but of course, as usual, that kind of really useful information that would be useful to me as a member of the Legislature, doesn't appear in the book. So, as usual, I have no idea because I'm not given the information to decide whether this is the best person for the job.
1
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, for the record, I abstained on that one.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The Resource Recovery Fund Board, Poul Thomsen.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, for the Resource Recovery Fund Board, Poul Thomsen as a board member and I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The Department of Health.
MR. JOHN CHATAWAY: Mr. Chairman, I move to the Health Authority, Cape Breton District No. 8, Norman Connors to be a board member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion? The question is being called for. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
DR. JAMES SMITH: I've been in that area, Mr. Chairman, and various parts of rural Nova Scotia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you've been everywhere, Dr. Smith. (Laughter)
The Department of Justice.
MS. MARY ANN MCGRATH: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Justice, the Human Rights Commission of Nova Scotia, I would move the appointment of James E. Dewar, Q.C., as commissioner and chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: When Mr. Dewar was first appointed to this position, I admit that I had some really serious concerns about the process because I'm sure everybody recalls that he was the election agent of the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Robbie Harrison, and it just
seemed too convenient that the minister's own official election agent should be the one who would turn out to have the perfect qualifications to chair the Human Rights Commission. When you consider that given the fact that political affiliation discrimination is prohibited in Nova Scotia, it's illegal, you would think that the government would go out of its way to appoint somebody as the chief guardian of the Human Rights Act, against whom no word fair or unfair could be said with respect to the reasons why he got this particular job. Years have passed, times have changed, we have a different government that is now putting forward Mr. Dewar again.
I think it would be very helpful, in fact necessary, for this committee to know what the government's evaluation is of Mr. Dewar, as Chairman of the Human Rights Commission. Is he doing a good job? Has the government evaluated him? Should we take it for granted that by putting him forward that they have reviewed his position and decided that he's doing a good job? We don't have that information before us and in order to make a proper decision as informed legislators, we really would need that kind of information.
It is very disappointing to me when somebody is being put forward for reappointment to have simply no idea in the material before us about whether they are doing a good job or not, or whether the government has even asked that question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I just might comment that earlier on the honourable member for Halifax Fairview was concerned that an appointee indicated truthfully and honestly that she had some difficulty with her financial situation and she put that in writing. The member abstained from that vote. Now he's questioning the ability of an honourable person to perform as the Commissioner and Chairman of the Human Rights Commission. He makes comments like that off the cuff, I suggest, without any type of information to substantiate his concern. He's concerned about it but he hasn't expressed as to why. So there is a lot of huff and puff there but very little concrete information against Mr. James E. Dewar, Q.C., in this case.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Any further discussion? Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: First I will just mention the Q.C. There was a time when any lawyer with 15 years' experience got the Q.C. so the fact that somebody has a Q.C. essentially meant that they had practised for 15 years, that's what it meant. Let me be very clear about this, since the member has clearly misunderstood what I said, let me say it again. I am not questioning Mr. Dewar's ability, I'm not saying he's qualified for the position, I'm not saying he's not qualified for the position. What I am saying is that as an MLA on the Human Resources Committee, I don't have the information before me that would allow me to make the judgment about whether this is the best-qualified person for the job. That's what the minister has certified by putting his name forward and I don't have the information to say
whether that's correct or not. I don't see how members of this committee, in those circumstances, can be expected to vote on whether this is the right person for the job or not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstention?
MR. STEELE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I abstain on that vote as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Review Board under the Criminal Code.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, for the position of chairman and member to the Review Board under the Criminal Code, I move the name of Peter Lederman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I object to this appointment in the strongest possible terms. As I have said many times before, this is one of the most important tribunals in Nova Scotia because it is one of only two tribunals that has the power to decide whether people should be free or behind bars.
If I could just read a very short excerpt from a document which I will identify when I'm finished, let me read a description of the qualifications for this particular job: "These members must make important decisions concerning the liberty and autonomy of mental health consumers who come before these boards . . .", that's including the Criminal Code Review Board, " . . . according to the law and the Constitution . . . Dealing with the legal decisions which these boards are empowered to make concerning mental health consumers requires special sensitivity, knowledge, experience, and anti-discriminatory attitudes . . ." Then it says that there should be representatives from mental health consumer groups, health care providers and the legal profession in the decision about who to appoint to these tribunals.
[9:15 a.m.]
The document from which I was reading, Mr. Chairman, was the settlement agreement in the Archie Kaiser human rights case because, of course, the Criminal Code Review Board was one of the two tribunals at the centre of the Archie Kaiser complaint. Now the government, in January of this year, made a commitment to substantially reform the process by which people are selected for a whole range of tribunals, but most especially for the Criminal Code Review Board. In the settlement agreement, they gave themselves 12
months to come up with a new process. That 12 months is up in January 2003. Right now, we have no idea what's going on. Whatever is being discussed is being discussed in secret. We don't know who is doing the review, what their terms of reference are, who they're reporting to, or when they're going to report.
One would think that if the government were truly committed to the terms of the Kaiser settlement, if they really believed, in their hearts, in what they committed themselves to doing in the Kaiser settlement, which is essentially to eliminate patronage appointments to a wide range of tribunals, including the Criminal Code Review Board, they would not appoint a chair past January 2003. At that point, whoever gets appointed today can throw their hat in the ring and in the new, reformed, better process, if they become the new chair, so be it. If in the new, open process it's apparent that they're the best person, that's fine, everybody can accept that.
Instead, the government is proposing to appoint Mr. Lederman until November 2005, for three years, well beyond the mandate of this government, well beyond the deadline for implementing the Kaiser settlement. By proposing an appointment lasting for so long, using the old, discredited process, the government is just thumbing its nose at the Kaiser settlement.
I want it to be very clear and so I will say it explicitly, I am not objecting to Peter Lederman because he is a well-known Tory, which he is, I am not objecting to Mr. Lederman at all. I simply have no information before me to tell me whether he would be a good chair for this very important tribunal or not. I have no information so I can't say one way or the other. My objection today and the reason that I'm going to vote against this is because the government is proposing to appoint him until November 2005, when the principled thing to do is to limit his appointment until January 2003, so that, at that point, he can throw his hat in the ring and take part in the new appointment process imposed by the Kaiser settlement. That's what a principled government would do, and that's not what is being proposed to us today.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Further discussion?
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, if I could perhaps add, Mr. Lederman, as I think Mr. Steele knows, is certainly a very well-respected member of the community. I am speaking of the community of Truro and Colchester County. There doesn't seem to be any question about that. I would think, whereas the member for Halifax Fairview is a member of the Bar also, he would recognize not only Mr. Lederman but also Mr. Dewar as being highly qualified, not only in their practices but in their other professional activities and volunteerism in the community. I think it's somewhat degrading when not only an MLA but a member of the Bar would criticize colleagues who have had impeccable records in their profession and in their community. It's absolutely surprising that that member of the Bar, an MLA, would
criticize somebody with the qualifications of Mr. Lederman and Mr. Dewar. I guess we can expect another abstention, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: Every time the member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley speaks I feel compelled to say, no, you've misunderstood again, member. I'm not criticizing Mr. Lederman, I don't know how I could have been more clear. If the member wants to deliberately misunderstand me, that's his prerogative. I don't know how I could have been more clear. I'm not criticizing Mr. Lederman personally or, for that matter, Mr. Dewar personally. What I am criticizing is the government's refusal to provide to this committee the information that we need to make proper decisions about whether, in fact, these are the people who should be approved.
It is the lack of information that I'm criticizing, and that is squarely the responsibility of the government. Both Mr. Dewar and Mr. Lederman are being reappointed today. We have zero information before us to indicate what the government's evaluation is of whether or not they're doing a good job. I simply don't know. I'm not going to take it for granted. I wasn't elected to take things for granted. I'm not sitting on this committee to take things for granted. Just because the minister says so is not a good enough reason to put these people on these very important tribunals. If they're the best-qualified person, then by golly the government should be able to prove it. If the government can't prove it or won't prove it, that probably tells me everything I need to know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other comments?
MR. BRIAN BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I wonder if the NDP member has nominated a name that he would like to put forward in place of this name?
MR. STEELE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have two responses to that. One is that, as the member knows or should know, under the rules of this committee this committee is not empowered to put forward names, even if I thought I were able to do so, I'm not. It so happens that I'm aware of a person, very qualified, very experienced, who did put their name forward, who has not been chosen. So clearly the government has decided that Mr. Lederman is more qualified, better qualified than another person that I'm aware of. I at least have some yardstick to measure this against.
I don't know if Mr. Lederman is the best-qualified person, because I am aware of somebody else who did apply, who is eminently qualified for this, who wasn't chosen. It leaves the question in mind, why Mr. Lederman? My essential point today is that I don't have the information before me that would allow me to answer that very basic question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Further discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
That concludes our appointments. Committee Business from the agenda, we have the Standing Committee on Human Resources Annual Report for 2001-02. Most signed off at the last meeting, I believe. Darlene, do you have any update on that?
MRS. DARLENE HENRY (Legislative Committee Clerk): The report that was signed off at the last meeting was the previous report, from 1999-2001. This report is a report from the previous year, 2001-02. It's two separate reports. It just so happens that the other report happened to be delayed over that length of time, but we're just doing our annual report to the House as to what we've done over the past year.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion on the report as you have received it?
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I believe that was the same report that was discussed under our previous chair, in which case an issue arose about whether the NDP members of the committee would sign the report. We had indicated at that time that we would not.
MRS. HENRY: This is a different report.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That was the previous year.
MRS. HENRY: That was the report under the previous clerk for the years 1999-2001. This has just happened since Mr. Morash came on, and myself, from 2001-02, as required under the House, to report annually.
MR. STEELE: I will have to review that again to see if we will be able to sign this one.
DR. SMITH: You haven't read it? (Interruptions)
MR. STEELE: Thanks for that intervention. I have read them both, but in my mind I'm confusing the previous one and the current one, and I just want to make sure that when it comes to saying whether we'll sign it or not that I'm not confusing the two reports. I have read them both quite thoroughly.
DR. SMITH: Why break with tradition? Just don't bother signing this one either.
MR. TAYLOR: What about a minority report? (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps we will go on. November 26th is our next meeting, and at that time perhaps the report could be presented for signatures. If there are discussions about it at that time, we could deal with them at that point. Any further business?
A motion for adjournment is in order.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The meeting is adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 9:25 a.m.]