HANSARD

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Mr. Ronald Chisholm (Chairman)

Mr. Brooke Taylor

Mr. Cecil O'Donnell

Mr. Frank Corbett

Ms. Maureen MacDonald

Ms. Joan Massey

Mr. Russell MacKinnon

Mr. Leo Glavine

Ms. Diana Whalen

[Mr. Frank Corbett was replaced by Mr. David Wilson (Sackville-Cobequid).]

[Mr. Leo Glavine was replaced by Mr. Daniel Graham.]

In Attendance:

Mrs. Darlene Henry

Legislative Committee Clerk

WITNESSES

Nova Scotia Government & General Employees Union

Ms. Joan Jessome

President

Mr. Ian Johnson

Policy Analyst/Researcher

HALIFAX, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2004

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

9:00 A.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Ronald Chisholm

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will bring the meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources to order. We will go around the table, starting with Mr. Graham, for the record.

[The committee members introduced themselves.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess the first thing on our agenda is the appointments to the agencies, boards and commissions. So if we could, Mr. O'Donnell.

MR. CECIL O'DONNELL: Under the Department of Community Services, I so move Glendon Thomas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the Board of Directors for the Preston Area Housing Fund.

Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Education, to the Nova Scotia Advisory Board on Colleges and Universities, I so move Patrick LeGay and Silvana White as members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. O'DONNELL: To the Saint Mary's University Board of Governors, I so move John Fitzpatrick and R. Larry Hood as members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Health, to the AIDS Advisory Commission, I so move Thelma Coward-Ince and Dorothy Malcom as members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. MACKINNON: Under the Department of Health, to the Provincial Dental Board, I so move Kore-Lee Cormier, Odette d'Eon, Dr. John Miller, Dr. Andrew Nette, Dwight Rudderham, Dr. Andrew Stewart and Angela Worsley.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I think we might have been a little bit hasty there. The Department of Environment and Labour, Resource Recovery Fund Board (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we did.

MR. TAYLOR: I so move Gerard MacLellan as a member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

We will deal with the one that Mr. MacKinnon has already moved, the Department of Health Advisory Commission on AIDS.

Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. O'DONNELL: Under the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage, to the Sherbrooke Restoration Commission, I so move Judith Jollota.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, on another matter, a Human Resources matter, did members of the committee receive the letter from Gwen Haliburton yesterday?

MR. TAYLOR: Last night I saw mine.

MR. MACKINNON: You saw it. I was a little intrigued, I know she took issue with my comments, Mr. Chairman, but what I found a little interesting (Interruptions) I sent for a copy over at our office. It will come over just momentarily. What I found interesting in her letter is she took exception not only to my comments but the tenor in suggesting that she had made a career of applying for these boards. She indicated quite clearly, she did not apply for this board. She was asked to apply for this board. I look at this Form "A" recommendation and it indicates, Question No. 11, "Was this person solicited to apply for this position?" The answer is no.

So I'm just a little curious if perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you could undertake, on behalf of the committee, why the discrepancy because I certainly don't want to leave Ms. Haliburton with the impression that we have a bone to pick with her personally or anything like that. It's a bit of a contradiction that the formal form that we have to go by says one thing and her letter says something quite different.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it's a dead issue.

MR. MACKINNON: It was until she sent me the e-mail yesterday.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, all committee members, by the way, I understand, were copied that letter that was sent to you. Now some haven't had an opportunity, maybe you haven't had a chance to read it. I'm just wondering, before we do anything, if we could maybe bring it back at a subsequent day and if there is some action to be taken then we would all be perhaps informed and have had a chance to read the material. I did read it and I understand the member may have some concern with her letter. I will leave it at that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The issue, I think, is a dead issue. The candidate was defeated here at the last meeting so what is the issue? She wrote a letter.

MR. MACKINNON: She wrote a letter indicating that she did not apply but the form says that she was not solicited. She indicated in her letter that she was asked to apply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That could have been by . . .

MR. MACKINNON: Well, that's what we would like to get some clarification on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we will deal with it at a later date.

I guess the next item on our agenda is the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union. We'll take a short recess.

[9:09 a.m. The committee recessed.]

[9:10 a.m. The committee reconvened.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

With us, we have Ms. Joan Jessome, President of the Nova Scotia Government & General Employees Union, as well as Mr. Ian Johnson, Policy Analyst/Researcher with the NSGEU. We welcome you to our Human Resources Committee meeting today. How our process works, I guess you probably know, is we allow 15 to 20 minutes for you to do a presentation, and then we'll open up the floor for members to ask questions.

Ms. Jessome, the floor is yours.

MS. JOAN JESSOME: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you this morning about the Civil Service Disclosure of Wrongdoing Regulations and Policy. I also want to thank the committee for taking steps to address other aspects of the mandate besides appointments to agencies, boards and commissions, as you did on April 27^th and again on October 26^th by having the Public Service Commission address you on those two occasions.

As you may recall, I first requested this opportunity to speak with you in my letter of September 21^st. At about the same time I also wrote to the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, on September 24^th, in which I outlined our concerns about the new regulations and policy as we will do this morning. For the record, we have yet to receive a reply to this letter. After your meeting with the Commission on October 26^th, I wrote to you on November 15^th to again request this opportunity.

With your decision of November 30^th to have me here this morning, we are pleased to see your interest in continuing to examine the adequacy of the regulations and policy. To assist your further consideration, I want to outline in some detail how the current regulations

and policy do far more to protect the government than they do our members and, worse still, how they will serve as a gag order, contrary to their stated intentions. On October 26^th, Mr. Nurse referred to the regulations and policy as offering both a credible ear and protection. What we want to see is a simpler, safer and more effective approach through legislative protections.

I want to spend a few minutes on why the disclosure protection is important, not just a frill or a trivial matter. It has certainly been our experience that front-line workers are the ears and the eyes of how well services are being delivered. They are very concerned about the adequacy of their services, how they can be improved, what waste or inefficiencies may exist and, certainly, if public safety is at risk, such as the QE II Emergency Department earlier this year.

Unfortunately, what we constantly hear from our members is that their services and their insights are not taken seriously. They are very troubled by the various obstacles they face in bringing their concerns forward, let alone to get a fair hearing and a satisfactory response. In fact, when we hear from them, it is almost always after they have exhausted all known avenues within their department or organization, such as their supervisor, senior management and even internal reviews. This is especially frustrating for those groups of members who have professional obligations under their code of ethics and/or standards of practice to advocate and raise issues of concern to their patients or clients. They include nurses and social workers.

Our ongoing experience was confirmed last year when we did a poll of our Civil Service members in advance of the current round of bargaining. Among other things, it found that 27 per cent of our Civil Service members had witnessed some form of corruption, unethical behaviour or mistakes, but were afraid to report it. The Public Service Commission's own employee survey conducted earlier this year reported that less than half, that is 46 per cent, of respondents felt that they could report their concerns about ethical dilemmas or conflicts without fear of reprisal. Clearly, these concerns have to be addressed.

[9:15 a.m.]

When the Commission released the new regulations and policy on September 27^th, they spoke about the need for new protections beyond that which is presently available in existing legislation such as the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Human Rights Act, the Civil Service Act and the Ombudsman Act. This is about the only point we agree on with the Commission about the regulations and policy.

In our view, almost every aspect of the regulations and policy is flawed. In the first place these are regulations, not legislation. This shows a lack of understanding or even respect of the need for adequate protections. It is also ineffective because regulations can be changed or removed at the whim of the government of the day. If you question our concern

here, just think if labour standards or occupational health and safety, or even freedom of information and protection of privacy were only provided by regulations. Most people agree this would be unacceptable in this day and age, and so the same should apply to employee disclosure protection.

These regulations and policy only apply to provincial employees. They do not apply at all to the broader public sector employees, employees in provincially regulated bodies or to private sector employees. In our view, there are no fewer concerns from employees in the private sector than for employees in the public sector.

As pointed out by committee members on October 26^th, we now have a complex process which will easily intimidate most employees with concerns. Even our members who have come forward in the past have told us they would have second thoughts about doing so under the new regulations and policy. One example of this unnecessary complexity is that the use of a written form is required. This is not to say that many employees would be unwilling to express their concerns in writing, but it should not be an initial requirement in order to receive protection.

In addition, contrary to assurances of the Commissioner, employees are required to go through internal channels before going to the Ombudsman unless there is imminent and serious danger to life, health or safety, and there is not sufficient time to make a disclosure under these regulations and policy. Appendix 20-C makes it clear that the Ombudsman's Office cannot investigate disclosures unless an employee has exhausted all other procedures beforehand. The Commission's own Q&A fact sheet also outlines the need to go through internal channels first.

Worse still, any concerned employee is encouraged to seek advice from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner before going through the designated process. In our view, this makes no sense whatsoever, considering what advice this Commissioner could offer. It also serves to further delay possible action on employee concerns.

We are also troubled by the time limit of only being able to go back a year for any disclosure, and we have concerns about the lengthy time limits for responses from the various steps in the internal channels if someone does try to go that route. We are especially concerned that no employee can go public about their concerns. This is frequently the only way we and our members have brought forward a concern after everything else has been tried and failed. This is clearly designed to intimidate employees, despite assurances of protection from reprisal.

The regulations and policy provide a whole section to prevent false or misleading disclosures. However, there is no clarity as to what types of actions by employees are or are not covered or who determines what is a bad faith disclosure by an employee. Advice by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is probably of questionable value unless it applies directly

to alleged conflicts of interest. In our experience, we are not aware of very many instances over the years that might be considered a bad faith disclosure. Our members almost always come to us after all other routes have been exhausted. There is also no provision to require a bad faith disclosure be proven before action can be taken, or that an employee has the right to appeal such a determination.

Finally, if any concerns make it through to the Ombudsman, there is no requirement to report on the specific types of disclosures brought forward, and not just the number, and any specific recommendations proposed, as well as the response of the relevant department or body.

For all these reasons, these regulations and policy seem designed to give the appearance of protecting employees when they are really intended to provide new protections for the government. Worse still, the government wants to encourage the adoption of a similar approach by the district health authorities and other government entities.

As I stated earlier, we do agree with the Commission on the need for protections for employee disclosures. We clearly have major differences on what specific provisions should be offered and in what form. To our knowledge, Nova Scotia is the first jurisdiction to propose providing such protections by regulation for which, by the way, we were earlier invited to provide comments that were almost completely ignored.

However, contrary to the Commission's information provided on October 26^th, there have been legislated protections in place in other jurisdictions prior to these regulations and policy. For example, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan have had some protection in their labour or employment standards laws for several years. At the same time, we have heard that they are hard to enforce in non-union environments and only offer protection to those bringing forward violations of a law or regulation. In addition, the Criminal Code was recently amended to make it a criminal offence for an employer to prevent whistleblowing or seek retaliation, but only applies to violation of legislation.

New federal legislation in the form of Bill C-11 has been tabled again, this Fall, to provide disclosure protection to federal public servants. However, we understand that it has some serious flaws in terms of employees not being able to go to an official who is sufficiently independent to fulfill their role. Employees are still being required to go through internal channels in order to receive any legislative protections, the limited types of concerns to which it applies and punishment for frivolous or vexatious complaints.

What we want to see here is a separate piece of legislation that would do the following:

• Apply to all workers in the public and private sector.
• [Page 8]
• Cover violations of duties and standards, as well as legislation.
• Allow a concerned employee to go directly to an independent person who can investigate an employee's concern and report on them in a timely manner without seeking anyone's prior approval.
• Provide adequate resources to this independent person to investigate and report on employee concerns.
• Require a response from the relevant department, agency, board, commission or other body in a timely manner.
• Can prevent an employer from taking reprisals and not just provide protections to an employee who has been subject to them.

The closest to what we desire in terms of legislative protections is Bill No. 32, which was the Whistleblowers Act tabled by the MLA for Cape Breton Centre. At the same time, we see the need for some amendments to make it broader in its coverage and stronger in terms of protections to be provided to employees.

In our view, employee disclosure protection, whether in the public or private sector, is a serious issue that goes to the heart of our system of government and individual rights. The current Civil Service regulations and policy do not provide the necessary protections that employees want and deserve. They seem designed to provide more protection to government than to employees. In fact, the previous situation, without regulations, would be preferable to these regulations and policy.

What we need are simple, secure and effective legislative protections. These protections could be provided by Bill No. 32, with some further amendments. We therefore recommend that the committee do the following:

• Ask the Ombudsman to appear before you on the adequacy of these regulations and policy, and the extent to which his office has heard from concerned civil servants.
• Call upon the government to scrap the current regulations and policy.
• Urge the Public Service Commission and perhaps representatives of other relevant departments and agencies to work jointly with the labour movement on a new piece of legislation, similar to Bill No. 32, that would apply to public and private employees.
• Encourage the development of legislation and other possible assistance to support the establishment of an independent, non-partisan organization, to promote and assist
• [Page 9]
• employee disclosure protection. These organizations are in place around the world such as Public Concern at Work in the United Kingdom.

We appreciate this opportunity to speak with you and we welcome your questions and comments. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, who wants to go first? Mr. Graham.

MR. DANIEL GRAHAM: I'm happy to go first on this and I'll provide a few preface remarks with respect to this. The first is, thank you for coming and thank you for showing your interest in this issue, Ms. Jessome and Mr. Johnson. This is a matter of great concern to me, certainly, I've expressed it in the House. In the past, I've asked the minister questions concerning this particular challenge during Question Period in the House. To give the minister the benefit of the doubt, I recently sat down with she and Mr. Nurse, who is referenced in your presentation, to determine whether or not I'm missing anything with respect to my understanding of what is and is not contained in this piece of legislation.

I'm disappointed to report that I'm not missing anything and, in fact, the description that you've given of this legislation is completely appropriate. I think it enhances paranoia beyond what is already quite obviously there. Your presentation, I thought, was right on when it gave the background to this in the first place, in speaking about what exists in our Civil Service already - 27 per cent of civil servants have witnessed corruption, unethical behaviour, or mistakes but were afraid to report it; 46 per cent felt that they could report their concerns about ethical dilemmas but they could not do it for fear of reprisals.

That's the context for some of this and we all know in a healthy democracy there are clearly occasions when the thousands of public servants are privy to information that is relevant to the health of our province - in this case - and they sometimes feel compelled to come forward with it. In the most severe cases, it's when there are allegations of criminal conduct but there are other times when they have felt stifled.

I would like to get to some specific points that you've raised, but on the question of setting the context for this, I would provide this additional comment. While the federal piece of legislation is not a perfect one - and you've pointed that out - back in April of this year, with majority support, the federal government came forward with whistleblower legislation that appeared to be clearly flawed and was heavily criticized. What they did was take that piece of legislation off the table, they consulted with the Opposition Parties, and came forward with something that the Opposition Parties have said is a substantial improvement, and it is legislation.

When one contrasts that with the circumstances in Nova Scotia, where we have a minority government all through this process, and the government, with minimal consultation - as you've pointed out, you've been ignored in this process, although there was token consultation - does an end run on both Opposition Parties and tables this as a piece of

regulation. It is very troubling about the health of a minority government, it is very troubling about the health of a minority government when they do this end run.

Let me begin my questioning by asking you this, when we look at the square question of whether or not there have been enhancements of employee protections, or a contribution made to the possibility that there might be more disclosures, are you aware of anything in these written regulations that wouldn't have existed for employees to give them encouragement before, under the common law, for example? Are you aware of anything that improves their situation, that wouldn't have given them these kinds of protections just under the laws that existed if you went to court about these matters?

MS. JESSOME: I speak to members right across the province and I have some examples of things people have witnessed and they feel a lot more comfortable prior to these regulations, in bringing something forward, than they do with the regulations.

MR. GRAHAM: I throw that out as a general question, whether or not there is anything that the government can point to under these new regulations, that actually provide enhancements that employees wouldn't have had before? I'm prepared to suggest that by and large, there are no improvements on what existed before. All that they have done is define the parameters of the channels that somebody might go on and I would suggest that when one looks at what the effect of this is, it really is a gag piece of regulations. The most egregious of those relates to the requirement that somebody first of all go through a specific process - and I think I have the exact regulations . . .

MS. JESSOME: It's not just the processes. If they don't follow the process they can actually be fired.

MR. GRAHAM: Right. It's interesting to note that in Section 6 (2), it requires that somebody ". . . may make a disclosure of a wrongdoing . . . if they believe on reasonable grounds that (a) it is necessary to do so to prevent imminent and serious danger to the life, health or safety of a person . . ." So in other words, Regulation 6(2)(a) says, unless the employee is looking to prevent imminent and serious danger to the life, health, or safety of a person, they can't go outside the regime that has been suggested. When I first saw that it occurred to me well, surely, a literal interpretation of that is unreasonable.

In some circumstances you need to make disclosures to the police, or to your doctor, or perhaps to your union shop steward, or your legal counsel, in these circumstances. But when one looks at the disclosure process that's associated with this - and this is for explanatory purposes - there's a policy statement that was released by the government and No. 4 clarifies what Section 6 sets out. It says under Disclosure Process that, "An employee may make a disclosure of wrongdoing to the police department or police agency that the employee reasonably believes can address imminent and serious danger, only if they believe on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so to prevent imminent and serious danger

to the life, health or safety of a person . . ." So they have specifically said that you can't go to the police in these circumstances.

[9:30 a.m.]

Let's look at the punishment for not following these regulations. If one goes to the latter part of the regulations, it clearly sets out that somebody can be disciplined, all the way up to the possibility of being dismissed. So here's the scenario as it exists and as I presented it to the minister (a) in Question Period and (b) in a private meeting, and the response so far has been completely and utterly unsatisfactory.

I would like you to respond to this, that we have a situation right now where 46 per cent of the government employees in Nova Scotia fear that they would receive some type of reprisal if they were to issue a complaint, 27 per cent seem to have seen corruption or misdeeds happening, and now they are told that if they witness a fraud, if they witness stealing in the workplace, and they go to the police about this matter, then they're subject to discipline or dismissal. Surely that is completely Orwellian, surely that demonstrates that the government's real intention with respect to these regulations was to shut down any disclosure of misdeeds that are happening inside government.

MS. JESSOME: And they're effectively doing that. In talking to people and asking them to bring issues forward and wanting to meet with different occupations across the province, they're very reluctant because they're afraid that it will be found out that they're the ones who are speaking and they'll be fired. It is happening. When you cite those percentages, the department that has the highest percentage is the Department of Environment and Labour, which is totally responsible for our regulations under OH&S and everything else in the province, and they're the ones who feel most at risk of reprisals against them without being protected if they were to bring something forward. You can imagine what they're privy to.

MR. GRAHAM: The Department of Environment and Labour is responsible for ensuring that Nova Scotians feel healthy and that they receive clean water, for example, on a regular basis, that mine sites, for example, are properly inspected. We know the history in Ontario with respect to Walkerton, we know our own history with respect to these types of issues. Now we have the workers in that department, it would seem, as the group most paranoid about issuing any concerns about disclosures?

MS. JESSOME: They are. In fact I spoke with one yesterday and suggested that I pull a group of them together to meet with them to address some of the issues. They're extremely nervous of that, because they're afraid that something they say can be linked directly back to them, to the region that they work in in the province. That makes me very nervous, because I know some of the work that they're doing.

MR. GRAHAM: Have you raised these concerns about the bizarre interpretation given to Section 6(2)(a) with the minister, and what kind of a response have you gotten?

MS. JESSOME: We've raised concerns all the way through this process with the minister and with the deputy minister. They come back to us that they really truly do believe that this is in the best interests of the public of this province. I think it's in the best interests of government. Even the issue of if you witness something that's longer than 12 months, in fact the deputy minister made the statement to me, well, if somebody has witnessed something that was 18 months ago, surely if they come to us, we're not going to say to them, well, we're not going to listen to you. I said, well, you just told them that they can't come to you because it has to be within 12 months.

It takes a lot of guts for somebody who witnessed something to decide to put everything they own out on a limb, including their job, and write it all down, through all these steps, and then make sure it's within the time frame, and the time frame of getting back to them. It's totally ludicrous. With the process that was in place before, they could at least come to the union. They're even afraid to come to their union now, because it's going to be directly linked back to them.

I've talked to people. If you look at the Department of Community Services, you need to be able to ask the people working in Community Services why there was $18 million in overpayments. Somebody had to witness that. Somebody has to be able to say, well, we know why that's happening. But they're not going to come out and say anything. They have caseloads of 200. There's OH&S issues with Community Services. You go to the deputy sheriffs in this province, 68 permanent deputy sheriffs and 111 casuals. The casuals are doing

things that are putting themselves at risk, and putting the prisoners at risk.

You go to vehicle compliance officers. I can tell you of vehicle compliance officers who have pulled trucks off the road and have been interfered with and told to let that truck back on the road. You can go to the OH&S officers. They are scared to death because there have been firings across the province. They are scared to death to get their heads out of the sand, to stand up, because they don't know who's going to be next and where the target is going to land.

So when you have regulations like this in place, then all you've done is put a gag order on them. The child protection workers, a couple of years ago, used their own time, their lieu time because they work a lot of hours, they work a lot more hours than this government pays them for. They used their own time to come down and meet with the Minister of Community Services, who assured them nothing would happen to them, and 10 of them were docked a day's pay.

There's example after example after example. These regulations have just put a gag order. If they plan to take this over and applying this to the health authorities, I can tell you

what the front page of the paper is going to look like, the government puts a gag order on health care workers speaking out on patient safety.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. MacDonald.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Actually that's exactly where I wanted to go, around the issue of health and health care workers. Under the regulations and policy, do you feel it would be possible for the emergency room workers to go forward with the kind of information they brought out publicly last year, or not? Do you think this would . . .

MS. JESSOME: If these regulations applied to the district health authorities today, then there would have been nothing in the news about the emergency room, because they could have been fired. I don't want the front page of the paper - that's not what this union is looking for. I've met with employers and I've said to them, I've met and talked to the Department of Environment of Labour, I've talked to the Capital Health CEO, I've met with the CEO of the IWK when issues have come to this union where the members wanted to be on the front page. They want the public to be able to know about it and do something about it. I said to the employers, I'll give you the opportunity to try to fix it. If you don't fix it, then we have to make it public.

It's not about being in the media, it's about trying to get the issues resolved so that people don't get hurt and things aren't lost. We're trying to be responsible. We exhaust all those avenues before it actually blows up and becomes front page. But the emergency room, I would have to advise them that, understand, with these regulations, you could be fired, up to and including termination. I've met with the head of the emergency room in the QE II, to talk to him about issues, to see if we could resolve some of this stuff. We do try that avenue. At the end of the day, that's all we're going to be able to do, because with these regulations, whoever they apply to, the way they're written, nobody is going to come forward.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: You indicate in your presentation to us that the government is wanting to encourage the adoption of a similar approach to the DHA and other government entities. What do you mean by other government entities?

MS. JESSOME: It could be the liquor stores.

MR. IAN JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, they've indicated in their documents that came out about the time of the regulations and policy, that they would want to, after six to eight months, look at expanding it, not only the district health authorities but all other agencies that are part of the government, including the liquor stores, correctional facilities. It could be a broad . . .

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Could it mean universities? Could it mean non-profit organizations that are fully funded by government?

MS. JESSOME: It could actually mean anybody who would fall under Bill No. 20. In Bill No. 20, the government has interfered in the collective bargaining process for every public sector employer in the province. They've done that. Regulations do not have the teeth that legislation does, and they can be changed, amended at a whim.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: You said a moment ago that you do have some examples of what public sector workers have witnessed, the kinds of incidents they would want to bring forward. Can you provide the committee with a few of those examples now?

MS. JESSOME: If I did that, then it could be pointed right back to where these people work because the incidents are specific to areas of the province. There could be only one department office in that area, and it could go right directly back to them, and I would be putting them at risk. They're not protected. Now if it was something that was life and limb, then I would be obligated, I believe personally obligated, to make sure that would become known. Some of the issues are processes within departments, and it's also the service, that's what I'm referring to. Some areas are safety with the staff and some are issues with management, some issues are with finances.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I think there was a proposal on the table not so long ago at this committee about bringing people forward into the Red Room to have a special session of this committee in the Red Room to look into this and to have some time allotted to the union, or your members, to come forward. Do you think that would be an effective way to address this issue?

MS. JESSOME: You won't get anybody, nobody will come forward. I have talked to people who are pretty strong-minded, and they're activists within the union, most of them and no, they won't come forward. There isn't any protection, there really isn't. You can talk about reprisals, but I know right now of reprisals against employees that are happening, by managers, because they have raised issues. The comments are, who said that, we'll find out who said it and they'll be sorry, and I know things are happening so they're not going to come forward.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Just a comment and I'll finish, Mr. Chairman. I think that it's fair that probably all of us, as MLAs, have had the experience of having people who work for the DHAs, or in government, call us with information and concerns. It's apparent to certainly me, as a member, of how scared, of what risks people feel they're taking when they call us to provide information. They want us to look into a whole variety of decisions that have been made by government that have an impact on not only them, but they're generally calling because it has an impact on the public in some way.

I certainly feel that we haven't provided adequate protections in these regulations to deal with that. It's obvious that we need something much stronger than these regulations which - as Mr. Graham has pointed out - in some areas they're punitive, they assume that

people are just troublemakers and not legitimate concerns and doing a public good or public duty by raising these issues. I do think we need to do something more than what we've done so far. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacKinnon.

MR. MACKINNON: I would like to thank Ms. Jessome and Mr. Johnson for coming in on this important issue. I, too, want to go back and focus on this issue of 27 per cent of all Civil Service members witness some form of corruption, unethical behaviour, or mistakes but were afraid to report it. Were they afraid to report it to the union?

MS. JESSOME: Yes, both the union and the employer.

MR. MACKINNON: How would you know that there was an issue if they didn't report it to somebody?

MS. JESSOME: Because we do a bargaining input survey prior to bargaining and that's where that question was asked.

MR. MACKINNON: Having served with the Department of Labour for a bit, as you know, I look at the different sections, Section 17, and again in Section 45 of the Act, that deal with the issue of prohibiting employers from taking discriminatory action. They defined discriminatory action as " . . . an action that adversely affects an employee with respect to terms or conditions of employment or any opportunity for employment or promotion and includes dismissal, layoff, suspension, demotion, transfer of job or location, change in hours of work, coercion, intimidation, imposition of any discipline, reprimand or other penalty including reduction in wages, salary or other benefits, or the discontinuation or elimination of the job of the employee. That's Section 45, it's a little general and I know the scope of what we're dealing with on whistleblowing is a little more focused for what you've referred to as corruption and misdeeds within government.

[9:45 a.m.]

I guess I'm trying to mesh the two together because I do see that there is some protection there, but I'm just wondering if every available opportunity is not taken to deal with this within government presently. I know, even as minister, I was advised - you always get this legal advice from the Department of Justice and every department is assigned legal counsel - very clearly, that we could never dismiss an employee because of what they believed to be a real threat or fear to their well-being, or to something that they believed would threaten the safety or well-being of the department, even if it wasn't real, if it was apparent. If they believed it was so, even if it wasn't, they still received that protection.

MS. JESSOME: Mr. MacKinnon, are you making reference to the OH&S?

MR. MACKINNON: Yes.

MS. JESSOME: Can I give you an example? October 1^st this year, down at the New Glasgow Department of Community Services Office. In fact, I'll take you back to the evening of September 30^th, I went down to meet with 27 NSGEU members, Community Services workers, who had been complaining for several years to the department because they believed they were being made ill because of a sick building. I met with them that night and suggested to them that they had two choices but it was theirs. One, they could continue to go to work in that building and continue to get sick, or two, they could exercise their right under the OH&S Act, because they had reason to believe that the workplace was making them ill.

That night 21 of them said right away that they were going to do it - and they had to do it independently, sign the letter and go through the process - but there were five people in that room who stayed behind and they had the same protection as those 21 people, they were all permanent employees, all union members. One woman was visibly ill from this building with serious health conditions and she was going to go to work the next morning because she was in a stand-alone position and did not trust - and I could not convince her, nor would I try to convince her because it had to be her decision - that she would not be retaliated against later on when they decided to eliminate that stand-alone position and she would have no work.

Another member came from another office, was transferred to that office, still technically on probation, did not feel that those regulations would protect her if she exercised her right. The same excuses went for the five of them, that they did not feel - and there was no way they could be convinced, when they had 21 of their co-workers going to walk out the next morning. So the employer tried - and this was the Department of Community Services - they walked out, I met with them, the employer came and met with us. That afternoon the employer said okay, you're going to report to work on Monday but your hours are no longer 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., you'll be reporting to work from 1:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. and you'll drive around your district for three hours and go to an office at 4:30 p.m., which was not their office.

So you can't say that this doesn't happen. Thank God that we were there because we said under the Act, you cannot be retaliated against, your hours of work cannot be changed, and we were able to enforce that. But we could do nothing for those five women who went to work the next morning, even though they had the same protection.

MR. MACKINNON: I understand that and I can appreciate it, 100 per cent, what you're saying, which goes to the very heart of the point I'm trying to make. No matter how many rules, how many regulations you have, there are still going to be individuals who will

never trust the system, they don't trust government. The general public doesn't trust the government. Many of the public don't trust the Public Service. That doesn't mean to say that the Public Service is not doing its job and doing it well, it's just that people have that in their heads.

I appreciate the points that were made and it could be very real but I'm a little temperate in the sense that having served in that department I see that sometimes there's a balancing there and you need evidence. I'm an evidence-based person and I haven't seen any evidence yet, I've heard lots of hearsay, but I haven't seen evidence. I need one shred of evidence to convince me.

You made reference in your closing remarks about the Ombudsman. Perhaps that would be an interesting take, that perhaps our committee could write to the Ombudsman. I know he prepares an annual report and so on but I'd be very interested, because that would obviously, at some point, unless there's a suggestion that the Ombudsman's office is toothless. I see no evidence of that.

But you can see where I'm going with this, I mean we need some evidence. We have a lot of statistics and good, sometimes you need these surveys in the department to get a general feel. I've seen it being done in the Fire Marshal's Office. The minister of the day did his level best to downplay it and not have it released, and there were a lot of concerns there. But there are processes to flush that material out, one way or the other. I guess I'm asking you, can you give us anything, any document that we can lay our hands on, as a committee, to point to one particular instance since these regulations came in, or even just prior, or corruption - there are some serious words in here - unethical behaviour?

That's a relative term, because I've dealt with senior bureaucrats who I wasn't really too keen on the way they treated some of the employees beneath them, under their supervision, and I dealt with it because I was a hands-on minister. I would go from division to division, as you know. I didn't like that kind of stuff, and I dealt with it. I felt, from my limited experience, there was as much bureaucratic patronage as there was political patronage, and I didn't like it. Somewhere in between is the truth. Everybody has to be protected.

MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I have a full answer to your question. Joan has already outlined for you a number of examples that are current, one of which, if I can just mention a bit, is the situation in Community Services where one office - I won't mention the office - and I don't think it's isolated, has income assistance caseloads of over 200 people.

MR. MACKINNON: Yes, that was pointed out at a committee right in this room several weeks ago.

MR. JOHNSON: You're asking for an example of corruption or unethical behaviour or mistakes, that's unethical, sir, according to the social workers' code of ethics.

MR. MACKINNON: But the senior departmental staff have acknowledged that, and acknowledged that it is a problem.

MR. JOHNSON: But they haven't solved the problem, sir, and the problem is the department hasn't acted on it even though we've now written twice so far.

MR. MACKINNON: All members of the Legislature are now aware of that, since that meeting. Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, we have a responsibility through the IRS as well. That may be unethical, it may be unfair to the employees and so on, but we as legislators all know that and we haven't done anything about it.

MR. JOHNSON: But you were asking for an example of something that has come forward.

MR. MACKINNON: I was thinking more in terms of, when I said unethical behaviour - the word corruption is used in here, I'm looking for somebody doing something that's criminal, with a criminal mind, a criminal intent and trying to cover it up. To me that's the meat and potatoes of what I see sometimes in this that's not covered in the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

MS. JESSOME: You're specifically asking for something on corruption. I can cite issues on safety, safety in the courts, the interference of judges in the duties of the sheriffs, on how prisoners or inmates are to be handled in the court system with the public around, but those deputy sheriffs are not going to come forward, they're not going to tell you which judges, they're not going to tell you which courtrooms are unsafe.

MR. MACKINNON: Then we have a major problem. It goes beyond writing rules and regulations.

MS. JESSOME: You have a casual workforce of 1,100 people in the Civil Service who have absolutely no protection.

MR. MACKINNON: I know my time is getting limited, Mr. Chairman. I can come back for a second round.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our guests for coming in today. It's a very interesting presentation. I apologize, I missed part of it, but I did read through the rest of it during some of your earlier discussions. I apologize if I'm repeating some things that

have been said earlier. Very serious allegations here relative to a poll that was carried out, speaking of corruption and unethical behaviour and mistakes and things of that nature.

Having said that, you've indicated in your presentation, on the top of Page 8, regarding what you would like to see the government, in this case the minority government, do. You want this new piece of legislation, a separate piece of legislation to apply to all workers in the public and private sectors. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to wear my private sector employer's hat just for a few moments.

I'm wondering, under what authorization are you here advocating on behalf of the private sector?

MS. JESSOME: Well, I'm advocating on behalf of workers, that if they witness any wrongdoing they should be protected, whether they're in the private sector, whether they're in the public sector, whether they're unionized or not unionized.

MR. TAYLOR: Is your poll that broad, that you've covered . . .

MS. JESSOME: The poll that we did, and the poll that government did, was directly applied to Civil Service members.

MR. TAYLOR: To the public sector.

MS. JESSOME: Civil Service members, not public sector - they're public sector but not all public sector.

MR. TAYLOR: I guess what I'm saying is you used an example earlier on, and I trust that like most everything that was presented here this morning that it has some validity to it relative to vehicle compliance officers. Somebody - I have no idea who, a nameless, faceless person - allegedly picked up the phone and asked what - would you expand on that type of comment a little further, because it certainly hasn't been my experience, unless I misheard.

MS. JESSOME: You didn't mishear it, that somebody was called and said put the truck back on the road.

MR. TAYLOR: Somebody called . . .

MS. JESSOME: And directed an officer to put the truck back on the road.

MR. TAYLOR: And how often have those types of allegations been made?

MS. JESSOME: Not very often.

MR. TAYLOR: I would certainly submit they haven't been, because I have to say that the compliance officers I know, and I know a good number of them, carry out their duties to the letter of the law. I think you know that, too, Mr. Chairman, from some of your previous experiences.

MS. JESSOME: They didn't comply.

MR. TAYLOR: So I really find - it may happen, it's never been my experience in over 20-some years in the trucking industry, and I think some of my colleagues would say the same thing. In fact, just recently at the scales in Enfield there was a situation where, in fact, they went over and above and beyond policy, and it was brought to my attention. We certainly support our compliance officers. They do a great job. I've never had an allegation like that made.

MS. JESSOME: They certainly do, and they didn't comply with this request. They certainly do a great job.

MR. TAYLOR: I'm a bit confused, either . . .

MS. JESSOME: They went to their supervisor.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay. Well, you're saying here this has to apply to all workers in the public and private sector. Again, I'm not sure that you are actually here speaking on behalf of private sector employers and employees out there this morning.

MS. JESSOME: I'm speaking on behalf of workers being protected if they choose to bring something forward that they've witnessed.

MR. TAYLOR: But that's hypothetical, if they choose.

MS. JESSOME: They can't be forced.

MR. TAYLOR: You don't have a poll here that, in my opinion - believe you me, I think we need adequate provisions in place to protect the public sector because that is where you have directed, originally, your concerns relative to the regulations and policies, but now we are being asked to agree that private sector protection is necessary. I think there certainly has to be protection, but I really don't think that we have the necessary information to go that far. Are you speaking for union and non-unionized both?

MS. JESSOME: I'm speaking on behalf of workers, if they choose to go public with something they've witnessed. If people do anything then they're protected, they can't be forced to bring anything forward. I'm not saying the private sector is witnessing anything,

I'm not saying that they need protection, but if something happened, they should be protected as well as public sector workers.

MR. JOHNSON: If I could add, Mr. Chairman, I think the experience in other jurisdictions - I'm thinking right at this point of the United Kingdom, where the legislation does apply to both private and public sectors. It's been our experience, I think it's fair to say, that there are as many concerns in the private sector as there are in the public, and they're coming out all the time, not by us but through other groups and organizations. All we're saying is the evidence elsewhere and the experience elsewhere is that this should be considered here and not just for the public sector.

MR. TAYLOR: I do think that monitoring the private sector would be a large task.

MR. JOHNSON: It may well be, sir, but the point is that these protections, we feel, should be equally available to private sector workers as well as public sector workers. We do represent some private sector workers, they're not the majority but nonetheless. So we can speak in that sense. The labour movement generally tries to speak as much as we can, not necessarily to take away from people, but in the interest of all workers. That's what we're trying to push forward.

[10:00 a.m.]

MR. TAYLOR: Have you priced what a new system to monitor whistleblowing in the private sector would cost?

MR. JOHNSON: No, we haven't done a costing, if that's what you're asking. What we're trying to seek at this point - as we've pointed out - is the need for legislative protections, the details. What we would ask you, as a committee, to look at is how, in fact, to move further along on this way. We're not experts, necessarily, on enforcement, although we may have some ideas. If you would like us to look at that further, we can do our best but, with respect, I think that's a bit of a red herring. What we're trying to do is get the principle of legislative protections accepted and for you, as a committee, and maybe other agencies - we've proposed this process as well - to try to look at developing legislation further. Obviously, that would involve looking at the enforcement issue that you suggest.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I'll pass for now. I'm certainly not convinced at all that our presenters have brought the necessary information to this committee relative to the private sector.

MR. JOHNSON: If I could add, the most dramatic example - and you may disagree with me - frankly, is the Westray disaster. That, sir, if you need - do we need 26 more people killed? That's an example where protection was not there and that's in the private sector. I don't like to bring that up but frankly, that's a serious concern and if you have any question

about why it should be applied to the private sector, surely, you would consider that and the recommendations of that inquiry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. David Wilson.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): Thank you, again, for your comments today to the committee towards the regulations and maybe potential legislation down the road. I truly believe that is where we need to go with this, there are definitely some flaws with the regulations and people aren't feeling comfortable coming forward when they witness wrongdoing in the workplace. I have a few comments and a couple of questions.

Joan, you mentioned that you'd rather hopefully solve a problem before you go to the media. Definitely, as an MLA - and many of the members here, I believe, would probably feel the same way - you would like to help the people who are coming to you with problems. One of the things we try to do - or I try to do - is contact as many department heads, or follow a chain of command, if you want, on trying to address issues and hopefully have them solved.

There are times when the doors are closed and we don't get the proper answers. Part of the job that an MLA can do is bring it up in a news release, or bring it up during Question Period in the Legislature. I feel that with these regulations the employees are going to limit our ability to do that and I think that's the wrong path to take.

Do you feel with these regulations it puts the burden of proof solely on the accuser or the employee, when they see wrongdoing in the workplace? Do you believe that the proof of burden is solely on them to come up with all the information on what they have witnessed in the workplace?

MS. JESSOME: There is no question. Not only is the burden on them, it's a burden with the process that they have to go through to get it all laid out. I'll give you an example. Over many years I have brought workers of all different occupations to the Legislature when the House has been sitting, sometimes on good news, most times not. They have always been able to call their MLAs out and raise concern with them, sometimes it has been directly related to their workplace, it is directly related to their duties, directly related to government.

If I were to ask today, under these regulations, would I be able to recommend to those members to do that - considering that Rick Nurse, I believe, before you here, made the comment that if the child protection workers did today what they did several years ago, they could be disciplined up to being fired - then my responsibility to my members is to recommend to them, no, I would not advise you to go to the House and call out your MLA, which, to me, is a democratic right that has been taken away from them, and that is what these regulations do.

If I look at the success that we've had - because we've had issues raised on the floor of the House - I think it's a shame that we could lose that. There are things that have gotten resolved and things that have been prevented from happening. My recommendation to the people I represent would be, I can't protect you, under these regulations. Although Civil Service collective agreements supercede regulations because it's a legal document, they can be fired by the way this government works, it takes you two years to get to arbitration to get your job back. The recommendation would be to the membership, put the duct tape on.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): I've witnessed many organizations and many different groups of people coming to the Legislature in the last year and a half, bringing their concerns forward. I think it definitely needs to be an avenue for them to do so when they find themselves with doors shut in front of them. As an MLA I have protection on the floor of the Legislature, I believe that people in the gallery, or organizations that bring concerns to me where I can bring them forward, should have protection, too.

Do you believe legislation could address this and hopefully protect them a little more?

MS. JESSOME: It would depend on what is written. We've had many pieces of legislation in this province in the last several years that were not good for workers.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): A bit of a comment, the member for Halifax Needham mentioned earlier about health care and being a former health care professional working in the Province of Nova Scotia, last year when I witnessed many of the nurses, paramedics, respiratory techs, and physicians come forward with the situation seen in the emergency rooms, I was amazed because I have worked with many of those people over the last 10 years and these aren't the type of people who would go forward in a public forum and raise their concerns. I definitely believe it was a last resort for them and I commend you for doing that. I've talked to many of them since then and I'm sure many of us would disagree if things are better or worse than last year.

If the situation arises, or things escalate in the emergency rooms as we saw last year, that you would find yourself with the nurses, with the paramedics, with the respiratory techs, or the physicians doing another public outcry of some of the problems we've seen in the emergency rooms over the last several years, do you feel you would do this in the future?

MS. JESSOME: I don't think it would be what we saw in January past. I think there may still be some people who are just willing to risk all and that's what it comes down to, willing to risk being fired, being disciplined, being ostracized by your co-workers, not getting promotions, getting rotten shifts, all that stuff can happen and it's very hard to prove. It's like anybody who is active in the union, it's very difficult to prove that you're being penalized because you're a union activist, try and prove it, but there may be people who are willing to risk it and let's hope there are.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): I think there are but there are many who can't do that with family commitments and stuff, so I just want to say continue working on their behalf, I'll continue to work on their behalf and I believe our Party will, to hopefully bring forward legislation that would really protect anybody who witnessed wrongdoing in the workplace and feel that they're protected when they do come forward. Again, thank you for your comments today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham.

MR. GRAHAM: Ms. Jessome and Mr. Johnson, I just want to reference again the foundation for this. As I said before, the most egregious part of these end-run regulations is that they limit people from going not only to their MLA, not only to the media, not only to the union, not only to their lawyer or doctor, but it specifically says that they can't go to the police unless there is a risk of imminent harm to their personal safety.

The foundation for this document - you'd have to agree with me - when they set up a process like this is that people trust the possibility that if they're going to report things to their supervisors that it's going to continue up the chain in a good-faith manner. Of the 8,000 provincial government employees who participated in the survey that was reported on in the middle of the Summer, 53 per cent responded. Here was the response to two of the questions that were put before these people.

On the question of whether senior management will try to resolve issues raised by employees in this survey, 36.1 per cent agreed but 39.1 per cent disagreed. Similarly, when the question was put to them, can I report concerns related to workplace ethical dilemmas or conflicts without fear of reprisals, only 46.3 per cent agreed and 34.7 per cent disagreed.

What that suggests to me, frankly, is a level of paranoia that exists about whether or not the foundation for this document, reporting up the line, is justifiable. If this many people are saying that they can't trust reporting up the food chain, then what's the food chain worth? This really doesn't make any sense if there's not the foundation of trust that one would expect.

There are examples. To say that the problems aren't pervasive and therefore there's not a problem, I think, is missing the point. We need to make sure that every Nova Scotian who can be protected through Environment and Labour, through occupational health and safety improvements, through reporting of problems actually gets helped, and if there is a single employee in this province who feels particularly intimidated because of the regulations that are in place, then we need to find ways to ensure that that person has an avenue that they feel safe with. Otherwise, we have the potential for real harm to happen.

I'd like to flip to specific examples that are fresh in the minds of some Nova Scotians. Some of these relate to those people who, as Mr. Wilson has pointed out, have exercised their democratic right to speak to their MLAs. We've had experiences where people in fact make calls to us. As recently as this past week, there were people who were reporting on some inappropriate behaviour about government wrongdoing. I'm not, as you aren't, at liberty to report exactly the details of that, because those people would be subject to reprisals. But the line sometimes goes cold, because those people feel that they've been intimidated, and that this new regulation in place is hanging over their head. That's been specifically said to me.

We had placed before the Legislature, in this last session, a letter written by some brave workers in district health authorities regarding VLT use. The bottom line of a lengthy letter that they wrote was that the government's exercise in getting to the bottom of VLT consultations was a complete and utter sham. Now, would it be your understanding that by allowing this letter to go public that those people would be subject to discipline under these regulations, and as a result Nova Scotians wouldn't have found out about the process of non-consultation under VLTs?

MS. JESSOME: You're saying that those employees were under a district health authority?

MR. GRAHAM: Yes.

MS. JESSOME: If those regulations applied, then I would have to give them advice that yes, they would apply to them and they could be disciplined. Yes. One of the biggest problems we have is the fact that they can't go public. Lots of times when things come to my level, they've already gone through that supervisor and the manager and the district supervisor and the manager over that person and the layers and layers of bureaucracy, and doors are shut or yes, we'll deal with it, and nothing gets done. It's the frustration that brings it, usually, to my level, and then to the media. They can't make these issues public now without fear of reprisal, and the regulations are not a law. They say you can't be disciplined or have anything done against you, but try to prove that.

MR. GRAHAM: In today's news, there is the suggestion in some reports that the government didn't follow a report about the possible use of MRIs, and if someone were to find and question some of the authors, or the people who are civil servants who were around that document, and they complained that the proper procedure wasn't followed or something like that, do you have any opinion as to whether or not those people might be subject to discipline?

MS. JESSOME: If they were to release information and they didn't follow the process, the regulations clearly state that they would be open to discipline.

[10:15 a.m.]

MR. GRAHAM: What if they didn't release the information but they actually were asked, what do they think of this, they're known to be the authors of this, let's assume that they happen to be public servants and they're asked about it, do you think that there would be a chill sent to them about whether or not they can be candid about their views on this particular matter, whether or not they would be less forthcoming than perhaps they would otherwise be, because of these regulations?

MS. JESSOME: Yes, they would be less forthcoming because of those regulations.

MR. GRAHAM: You're familiar with the challenges in Antigonish with the district health authority there and the complaints by nurses, about a year or so ago, with respect to the computer system they had in place in Antigonish. Nurses, again, bravely came forward and said that this was putting patients at risk. I don't know whether they're part of your union or whether they're . . .

MS. JESSOME: Not yet.

MR. GRAHAM: Not yet, there's an optimist. They would still nonetheless be caught by these regulations, of course.

MS. JESSOME: Yes, they would.

MR. GRAHAM: Is it fair to say that those complaints that they registered about this computer system putting people in danger would have made them subject to discipline?

MS. JESSOME: If these regulations applied to the health authorities then yes, they could be subject to it. It was the Premier at this sitting of the House who made the reference that they would try to put these across the health authorities, it was right out of his own mouth.

MR. GRAHAM: We're also aware, for example, of the allegations concerning inappropriate criminal behaviour possibly happening at the Liquor Corporation in Nova Scotia. There is presently a police investigation about a possible fraud at the Liquor Corporation, it's on the public record that that . . .

MS. JESSOME: The trucking?

MR. GRAHAM: . . . the shipping and those issues. If that kind of behaviour were discovered in the public sector, is it fair to say that those people would be barred under these regulations from going to the police, because it wouldn't have involved a complaint under Section 6(1) of imminent and serious danger to the life, health, or safety of a person?

You're also aware that in some circumstances when you have the dynamics of employer/employee, there is a power dynamic associated with that. There is a natural reluctance on the part of some employees to complain about things for the first period that they actually discover it, and that period could last for sometimes longer than 12 months. Sometimes the people associated with the wrongdoing have a close, sometimes even intimate relationship with the wrongdoers and the nature of that power relationship could keep somebody from reporting these things for a period of longer than 12 months, it could be years. This piece of regulation wouldn't provide for disclosure in those circumstances, is that fair to say?

MS. JESSOME: The regulations say that but the deputy minister says if somebody was to bring something forward after the 12 months has expired, then they would look at it. Our comment back was, they're not going to bring it forward, the regulations clearly states 12 months. It doesn't say, oh, by the way, if you decide to bring something up later on we'll look at it. It says 12 months.

MR. GRAHAM: Or at such a reasonable period as may be appropriate to the circumstances.

MS. JESSOME: It doesn't say that.

MR. JOHNSON: Even our ER members, the complaints they brought to us go back several years, really back to the setting up of the emergency department of the QE II.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Massey.

MS. JOAN MASSEY: I'm probably going to repeat a lot of what has already been said but just to get it straight in my mind, the process is very complex and it seems to be a process that people have to go through internally, so within their own department they may be speaking to their own supervisor and this sort of thing. To me, if I was in someone's position like that private or government employee, I would find that intimidating in a lot of circumstances, right off the get-go. As you said, there's the fear of reprisal, which would be in the back of these peoples' minds.

I would assume a lot of times it would be very hard to go through the process and actually have something proved. It might be a very long, drawn-out process, you're still at the job, you're still working, you'd be in those kinds of awkward situations. Everyone has talked about this and you're really giving up the right to talk to anybody else about this issue or problem. That would be something that would be of concern to, I know, the MLAs around the table and certainly, our MPs. We do hear from people in our constituencies about problems they do have in their workplace. I think it would certainly tie our hands up to a certain extent, and we've already seen that happen here this morning where, I'm sure, all of us have really specific examples.

I just feel like I'm sitting here with a zipper across my mouth, so I think employees would feel the same way only they're the ones actually going through the situation and I'm just the one sitting listening to it. There's just something innately wrong with these regulations. Obviously, this government is not taking the needs of our employees throughout this province seriously.

Somebody has a commercial on TV right now where it talks about workers being hurt in the workplace and it will show a young person walking down a hallway and it's sort of a clip and it will show him maybe in his basketball outfit or whatever, and then around this square it shows him on crutches. There are people being hurt in the workplace - I don't know on what kind of a basis, on a regular basis or anything - but if this government is not going to take those kinds of issues to heart, and put those protections there for people, it's sort of two-faced, isn't it? It's like we're saying this but we're really not going to table any legislation that has really any kind of teeth.

I know our MLA for Cape Breton Centre could not be here today but he did table Bill No. 32 back on October 27, 2003. I know, in your presentation, you did touch on that for a little bit. If that was to be tabled again, with some amendments, I'm just wondering do you have any sort of concrete ideas of what those amendments would look like?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, we do, we're still putting them together. One obviously is the application of the bill. At this point it hasn't applied outside - as we read it, anyway - the direct Civil Service, so we want to see it broadened to include other workers, if possible, including the private sector.

Another concern was in terms of the Ombudsman acting, to be able to set and require responses from departments and agencies and to the recommendations that his or her office makes within a specified time period. That is possible under the Ombudsman Act, as we read the bill, it doesn't have that in it but it's not a major concern.

The third area is the protection from reprisals. The onus, even in that bill, is on the employee, to respond to something, where we feel the onus should be on the employer to justify why reprisals should be taken. So those are some specific things that if the committee accepted or if there was consideration given to the bill further, we would like to add to that or propose those kinds of things.

MS. JESSOME: On the reference you made to the ad on TV, I believe that's sponsored by WCB. You know that WCB issues 12,000 cheques a month, there are 12,000 Nova Scotians hurt on the job.

MS. MASSEY: That's a lot, isn't it? That is too many people being hurt. I don't understand why there would be a 12-month deadline to report any past problem, it could be sexual harassment or somebody being hurt on the job, especially with regard to sexual

harassment because that is something that would be very difficult for somebody to deal with in any type of situation. Sometimes it takes you a while to build up the courage to go forward with an issue like that. I just think that is downright . . .

MR. MACKINNON: Nasty.

MS. MASSEY: I'm looking for a parliamentary term to use. (Laughter) I can't even think of the right word. It just gets your blood boiling. It's nasty. It is. I'm going to use Russell's term.

MS. JESSOME: But the 12 months is a deterrence and you're right, for anybody who is witness to anything, it does take some time to make sure you have seen what you think you have seen, do a little bit of your own investigation, find out if you have any support, is it big enough to bring forward, what is going to happen to me if I do, and that all takes time. So 12 months is not a lot of time when you are looking at what the issues are to bring anything forward. There's nothing else in those regulations that says we will look at anything, any time you want to bring something forward.

MS. MASSEY: Certainly, it says in the regulations that sexual harassment shall include but not be limited to the following and then it says in what may be perceived as a humiliating, intimidating - so if something happened to you, then you have to sit back and say, how am I perceiving it, how is somebody else going to perceive it. So there are all those questions that would be in your mind. So I just find that it shouldn't be there.

Then, also the provision to require a bad-faith disclosure be proven before action can be taken, that's very gray, that whole area. So basically, the employee has no right to appeal if that was proven but I'm not sure, in this document, how that gets proven.

MS. JESSOME: They become an investigator and the onus is all on the employee. It's a lot of responsibility after they have ridden it out for months on end.

MS. MASSEY: Right. So it just seems convoluted and drawn out. I would just like to talk a little bit about certainly these regulations are trying to do something for employees who work for the province but I really want to just close off by talking about, what about the other employees? You are absolutely right. Are these people not important to this government? You have to ask that question. Are these employees who work throughout our province, are they less important to this government? I'm just asking the question. I'm not saying they are or they aren't. I'm just asking that question. I'm putting that out there to the government to say, think about that.

MR. JOHNSON: That's our point. I mean that's why we said, think about if labour standards, if occupational health and safety were done on a regulation basis for a restricted group of employees, it's the same thing. Do you want to see that? I hope not.

MS. MASSEY: I don't want to see it.

MS. JESSOME: And we do have a concern because it is not clear if the casuals, because it says or an employee appointed by the province. Under the definition of employee, casuals are not considered employees. So we're not sure of those 1,100, 1,200, sometimes 1,800 casuals who work in a lot of different areas that require a lot of regulations being enforced, the whole bit, whether they are protected. We know they don't have pensions, benefits, vacation or anything like that and yet some of them have been working for 20 years to 28 years for this province on a regular basis and they have no protection.

MS. MASSEY: Well certainly I know personally, myself, I have had people speak to me about workplace safety, issues around the environment of their workplace, lack of training or no training and those kinds of issues and sexual harassment and bullying in the workplace. So it's not something that I know we don't - we hear it from people and so if I'm hearing of it and I just have my little old office and one assistant, I can just imagine what's really going on in this province. I think the government needs to shake their head and come up with some legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacKinnon.

MR. MACKINNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Speaking about legislation, I believe we do have it. Section 45(2) states very clearly on the issue of discriminatory action, "No employer or union shall take, or threaten to take, discriminatory action against an employee because the employee has acted in compliance with this Act or the regulations or an order or direction made thereunder or has sought the enforcement of this Act or the regulations or, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, because . . ." and there's a list of them.

[10:30 a.m.]

A number of them indicate, like subsection (d), (e) and (f) state, "(d) the employee has sought access to information to which the employee is entitled by this Act or the regulations, or has been assigned the role of the observer pursuant to Section 42 . . ." This one I find very important and noteworthy, "(e) the employee has testified or is about to testify in any proceeding or inquiry pursuant to this Act or the regulations; or (f) the employee has given information to the committee, a representative, an officer or other person concerned with the administration of this Act or the regulations with respect to the health and safety of employees at the workplace . . ."

I raise that because as you know, any organization, whether it be in the private sector or public domain, when you have 25 employees or more, you have to have your joint occupational health and safety committees, with equal representation. They have to keep accurate and clear records of all activities in the marketplace on any issues of safety,

violations, corruption, misdeeds, mistakes, or anything. Under the IRS process there are very strong checks and balances in there.

I guess I get a little concerned when I keep hearing we don't have legislation and we don't have protection, and I know there are loopholes. These regulations that we're talking about, I guess, I'm a little more focused on the fact that there could be some government corruption or something really nefarious going on that employees are afraid to come forward. There are, I believe, you mentioned over 1,100 or 1,200 casual employees, so they would fall through the cracks and that would be a concern for me, whether they would have that protection or not.

I guess my question to you is, given this - and this Act certainly supercedes these regulations and I think you would have to agree with that - how do you rationalize this? If these don't work, why not just go right into the Act where there's greater strength? The point about being afraid to report something like the issue of sexual harassment, it may be real or it may be only apparent, but if that employee actually believes that that is happening, that employee gets protection, even if all of the evidence indicates to the contrary, there are processes for that. So I guess I'm open-minded on everything, I really am, I think you know that, but I'm looking for some evidence and some justification of how you rationalize between one and the other.

MR. JOHNSON: I can try to answer that. I think there's no question, there are protections, as you say, in the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations. There is a question, as you suggest, in terms of the enforcement, or loopholes. What we're trying to get at, I guess, is the broader issue of legislative protections for all employees and not just on occupational health and safety areas. I guess the evidence that is mounting across the world, really, in the U.S., U.K., Japan and other countries, and our own experience, is that we need a separate and distinct set of protections for employee disclosure that would not just be limited to occupational health and safety, although that is clearly an important area. That is what we're trying to propose. This would complement and not take away from those protections.

MR. MACKINNON: But the issue you raised about the caseload for Community Services workers, over 200, that would certainly fall under this Act.

MR. JOHNSON: It could, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: And nothing seems to be done about it, by either management or the union.

MR. JOHNSON: We are trying to do something.

MR. MACKINNON: This Act would give you that protection and give you the legislative teeth to go and enforce it.

MS. JESSOME: What it comes down to - see, this is why I get so defensive of the people I represent, I met with those Community Services workers and I'm watching people who are burning out because of their caseloads. Do you know what they say to me? They don't take their lunches, they don't take their breaks, they're there at 7:00 p.m., they're there at 6:30 a.m., they're working through the whole day without a break because they're afraid that the phone call they don't answer is the little boy who's not going to get his medication, or the elderly who have no food, or somebody who has just run out of oil. So they will work.

I can't go in and say to them, because under the OH&S Act, they have a right to refuse if they believe the workplace is making them ill and listening to what they are going through, about their health conditions, yes, I believe the workplace is making them ill. Can I recommend to them to walk off the job and leave a caseload of thousands because it would never be just one in that workplace. We are playing on the fact that these people and the job that they do and the profession they have chosen and the people they are trying to take care of, the most vulnerable people in this province, are not going to exercise their right under the OH&S Act and they have no protection under any other Act.

MR. MACKINNON: And I understand that and I agree. I see it but the issue is, coming right down to due diligence as well, if they can't look after themselves, how can they look after anybody else?

MS. JESSOME: Because they will kill themselves trying.

MR. MACKINNON: Well, exactly, and I appreciate that but we all have a responsibility.

MS. JESSOME: Look at the child protection workers. Look at what happened to them when they raised the issue because there were five vacancies and they are putting themselves at risk. I know child protection workers who have taken children to their homes and put them on a mattress on their kitchen floor because there was no place to take that child.

MR. MACKINNON: Yes.

MS. JESSOME: So what do they do? I mean, where are they going to go? So they come down and they raise those concerns with the minister who assured them that wouldn't happen, this is before these regulations were put in place, and they were all docked. So what is that message that has been sent across? Don't do this, civil servant, you make sure you keep your mouth shut because we know how to get you and we will get you in your pocketbook.

MR. JOHNSON: We are talking about issues of Public Service, too. It's not just individual complaints and that's where there's a crossover.

MR. MACKINNON: I think we are going in the same direction here, it's just how we are going to get there. I guess just one final question, Mr. Chairman, if I could. What you are saying is, there is a culture within government, or an atmosphere or whatever, that prevents employees from being anything less than paranoid about their job security and the fact that whether they are a good public servant or not because they do or they don't do a certain job description, for example, the community service workers and I know they go to the end of the earth to help people.

The bigger question for me is, is this document, in modifying it, going to be able to answer in any way, shape or form, that concern? Is it a legislative requirement or is it some general policy that government has to develop a new level of confidence and trust and mutual respect from one level to the next, right to the minister's office so that an employee, when they are walking down the corridor and they meet the minister, they don't start to shake or are afraid that they may be identified if they think they didn't do a good job that day, or they may be on soft ground? Do you know what I mean?

MS. JESSOME: There is no question that the survey that was done by government points to them, that they have issues of trust and respect within the departments. Every department, no department is exempt from it. If you look into the survey, I think one of the questions that was asked - I don't know the proper wording - was along the lines, do you believe that government is going to take this survey seriously and act on the issues that were raised in it? A great majority of our members or their employees said no. They have no faith that this is going to be looked at. It's their belief and the survey was asked of them.

I don't understand the issue of why we can't we have this. This isn't about saying that we have a corrupt government, we have everything going wrong, we can't fix it. This is about if anything happens, if we witness anything, just protect the people who have the courage to bring it forward. If it never gets used, and hopefully it's because there was nothing happening, then great, but if it is going to be used, put the protection there. It's as simple as that. I don't know what everybody is so afraid of. I don't know what the issue is, why this isn't in place across the county. Look at Enron, look at Westray, look at . . .

MR. MACKINNON: Well, I'm certainly not afraid. I'm open-minded but I want evidence.

MS. JESSOME: It's everywhere. It does happen. It's about protecting it if it happens, about being preventive instead of reactive. It's about thanking people who have the courage to save our tax dollars and the health of our citizens in this province. That's what it's about. It's beyond me and this, all this does is say to our members, to the people I represent is, you are not protected, government is still protected, the process is too long, you can be fired and

forget it. Just put the duct tape on. You can't go to the public anymore, you can't raise your concerns at the House, you can't raise them to the media, you can't raise it with your neighbours anymore. What a horrible feeling for a worker to witness something and know they are still no further protected because now they can be fired and they didn't do anything wrong.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I welcome another opportunity. A couple of times this morning our guests have thrown out the horrific example of Westray as rationale as to why there should be additional coverage for the private sector. Having a number of working mines in my constituency and in central Nova Scotia, I know that in the aftermath of the Westray disaster we have developed, or at least strengthened, the occupational health and safety protection for employees in this province. I find it a little bit offensive, or at least troubling, that some members around this table, or at least one member, would suggest that we don't care about the private sector. Of course we care about the private sector but there are many employers and employees in the private sector who have difficulty coming to grips, if you will, with the existing Occupational Health and Safety Regulations that are in place but it is the law, it's the legislation. I just wonder, do our guests feel that we should be policing the private sector for things outside of safety-related issues?

MS. JESSOME: I will go back to my statement, Mr. Taylor. I believe that any worker in any part of this country and, definitely, in this province, if they witness something that is putting public safety at risk or tax dollars or it can do damage - you can have the private sector that deals with water, the private sector deals with environment - if they are doing something at risk, then they should have something besides the OH&S Act. If that doesn't have enough, they should have something that covers everything and if they want to use it, it's there to protect them.

MR. TAYLOR: I certainly . . .

MS. JESSOME: The OH&S department in this province, the OH&S officers, I have been working extremely close with them over several months now, and the department itself is in a mess. The morale under the OH&S officers in this province is something that this government should be ashamed of and nothing is being done to address it and I can tell you . . .

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I think that our guests should bring in, or at least our witness, should bring in an example of where there are some difficulties with the private sector, to be more specific. Generally, you are saying public, you are saying it should apply to private. You are not telling us who is going to police the private sector, how it's going to be monitored.

I don't want any employee in the province to feel intimidated about bringing forward a concern but I feel that with the Occupational Health and Safety Act that's in place, that we have a provision. I'm not saying that it's in fact enforced like it should be but what I'm saying is, we have heard from employers and every member around this table has heard from employers that have some, I will say, issues with the Occupational Health and Safety Act but if there is trouble with morale at the Occupational Health and Safety Division, then I think that should be dealt with but just to simply say that the legislation or to imply that the legislation, relative to safety issues in this province, isn't strict enough, I just don't buy it because you are not citing an example of where it could be beefed up. Give us an example or offer a suggestion.

MS. JESSOME: You have made reference to the trucking industry with your past history. Right today, if somebody in the trucking industry came to you and raised an issue, they have more protection than the people who are employed by this government.

MR. TAYLOR: So they are in the private sector, a good number of them, too. I rest my case, Mr. Chairman.

MS. JESSOME: Well, why do the people in the public sector, why can they be fired? Say you had a vehicle compliance officer and you had somebody in the trucking industry. They both witnessed something. The trucking industry person brings it to you, the vehicle compliance officer brings it to the media, they can be fired.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, that's the point I'm trying to make. There are safety programs. There are safety officers in the private sector relative to a lot of trucking companies and you are right. The trucker can come forward. He has protection, he is safe and the compliance officer, if they are feeling intimidated, then there has to be necessary provisions in place but that's the point I'm trying to make, is the distinction between the two and I think, quite frankly, you failed to make it.

MS. JESSOME: Oh, I think I made it very clearly. You fail to understand.

MR. TAYLOR: Suit yourself.

MR. MACKINNON: Can we agree to disagree?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. MacDonald.

[10:45 a.m.]

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Well, we've talked around some of the issues in a way, I feel. I will be fairly blunt. You mentioned how poor the morale is around the workers who have a responsibility around occupational health and safety in the province, I

think morale in Community Services, in my view, is probably the worst of any department, and I think if the government were ever to provide the rates of absenteeism in that department and what have you, I think we would all be startled by the reality. I know, as an MLA, when I try to make contact with workers who work for the Department of Community Services, the turnover, the people who are off on sick leave, it's absolutely staggering. Because I come out of the social work profession, I know exactly how difficult it is for these people to do their jobs with the resources that they've been denied, that they know are necessary.

I don't think the existing legislation is sufficient, whatsoever, particularly for workers in the care fields of health and community services. We're not simply talking about matters of criminal negligence or these kinds of behaviours, we're talking about managerial competence and incompetence in many cases, we're talking about ethical conduct, we're talking about professional codes of ethics and whether or not people - nurses, social workers, physiotherapists, these various professional groups - are able to maintain professional standards in public work settings when they don't have the tools provided to them, and you have managers whose performance bonuses are not based on ethical practice, standards of practice, but are in fact based on financial considerations.

It's been almost impossible, as members of the Legislature, to get at this, because the people who talk to us about the very severe restraints that they try to provide services under, they're not free to speak publicly. These so-called regulations and policies have just made it even harder for those folks to talk to us. The only way to address that is, I think, through law and through legislation. There probably isn't anybody at this table - well, I don't know, maybe there are people at this table - but I talk regularly to people in the caring fields who have to turn people with mental illnesses away, who have had, literally, to leave people with mental handicaps, intellectual handicaps on the street because they have inadequate in-home supports, the Community Supports for Adults Program has been ravished. These are things that we all know.

The workers who are actually trying to deal with these individuals have no tools, no resources, and the managerial competence in the Department of Community Services, for example, the wars that are going on between the Department of Health and the Department of Community Services that the workers can tell you about have not been able to be brought forward into the public so that the government gets held accountable for the chaos that they have created between those two departments. Let's be clear about that.

I think the only reasonable response is that we require some legislation to protect people who are working in this field, who understand what's going on and why it is that we're not able to provide adequate services, or they're not able to meet the real needs of people in this province.

I don't know how other members of the committee would feel, but I would be prepared to bring a motion forward at this point, Mr. Chairman, that we call upon the government to scrap the current regulations and policy, and that in fact they bring forward a new piece of whistleblower protection legislation in the Spring session, and that they use the time between now and the Spring session to widely consult with labour groups and with other relevant stakeholders in this.

For example, speak with the Ombudsman; speak with the Opposition Parties, who have a lot of experience in terms of speaking to people in the caring fields; speak with the professional associations that are out there, the Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers and various professional groups, around their ability to uphold their professional codes of conduct without the protections that the people who are members of their associations require in the work they do.

Mr. Chairman, I would bring that forward as a motion. Hopefully my colleagues will see fit to move this forward.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Just a question for clarification. It seems a little bit like the Law Amendments Committee in reverse, but I wonder if the member would repeat the gist of that motion again.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I move that we call on the government to scrap the existing regulations and policy, and bring forward new whistleblower protection legislation in the Spring session, and that the time between now and that session be used by the government to consult widely with all of the stakeholders with respect to what whistleblower protection legislation would look like that would really afford some protection to the workers of this province.

MR. TAYLOR: Just a question relative to that, is it implied that all the references to existing legislation that are in the present regulations and policy would be shelved until new legislation came forward, or would we be back to what apparently our guests feel was a better system, before the existing legislation came in place? Is there any concern that we wouldn't have protection for the employees? I'm just trying to get clarification.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I would argue that the existing policy and regulations that were brought forward are worse than what existed before they were brought forward, and that we should go back to the regime that we had before in the interim, pending legislation.

MR. GRAHAM: I would argue, frankly, that there's nothing lost. The question that I was pursuing in the early going was whether or not there were any enhanced protections for

employees under this legislation that wouldn't have existed under the common law. Frankly, I can't find any that wouldn't have existed through other Acts or through the common law. So, whatever protections would have existed before, they're more substantial for employees if we scrap this than if we continue with it. From an employee perspective, they're far better off and, I would suggest, better protected as a result of this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacKinnon.

MR. MACKINNON: A couple of points, and I agree with the two previous speakers. Number one, we can pass the motion, but that doesn't mean to say that the government will change the policy. Number two, I like the recommendation that came before ourselves from our witnesses, asking that the Ombudsman appear before the committee on the adequacy of these regulations and policy to the extent to which his office has heard from concerned civil servants. I would be very interested in hearing from the Ombudsman before we jump the gun. I'm not inherently opposed to the motion at all, but I would like to have all the facts here. That's a very important point that you made, and it must be because you highlighted it as number one, and going down to the legislation is the last issue. I would be very interested in hearing from an expert on the front line on that particular issue.

MS. JESSOME: We're hearing from experts over and over, the front-line workers. They're telling us that this doesn't work.

MR. MACKINNON: And I agree, but I do have to take some exception to the comment that was made by the member for Halifax Needham, suggesting that the Occupational Health and Safety Act is not adequate in addressing needs. The Act itself is strong, it's the people who are enforcing it who are not, if that's the issue. Maybe it's the environment, maybe the culture within government, there could be a whole lot of reasons. When you have equal responsibility under IRS to both employers and employees, and that's not being exercised, we all have a responsibility.

All members of the Legislature have a responsibility to answer to those employees who are overworked. (Interruption) Well, wait now, with all due respect. We all have a responsibility to those public servants in Community Services who are overworked because we were all apprised of this almost two months ago, and we haven't done anything - we're all responsible.

MS. JESSOME: So I can recommend that they . . .

MR. TAYLOR: Honestly, I think everybody around this table wants to help. We want to make sure that there are adequate provisions, irrespective of views on certain issues and matters and detail. I think, generally, everybody around this table wants to make sure that no employee in this province feels intimidated. Still, I don't feel comfortable in that I have enough information.

I know our guests are very sincere and they are talking, of course, to the people they represent, the front-line workers, but I do think to be fair and to be balanced, it would be incumbent upon us, perhaps, to invite the Ombudsman in. I think it's probably time the Ombudsman did come in before the committee, Mr. Chairman, so we could hear from an individual who is supposed to take these kinds of concerns, work on them and sort of vet them through, so to speak. Again, I don't know what the mover of the motion feels about that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wilson, first.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): I believe the Ombudsman should be contacted to see where he sees we should go with it but that can be one of the interest groups the government can go and seek, get some information, and get some guidance from. Pertaining to the OH&S Act, it's not called the occupational wrongdoing Act, the purpose of it is occupational health and safety. We believe there should be a separate Act for wrongdoing and whistleblowing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. MacDonald.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Not to belabour the point, but I do think it is important that the members of the committee recognize that the health and safety legislation does not really help around the areas of professional codes of ethics and conduct. This is a very serious problem for many of the professional groups working in the caring field, in the public sector, so that's the first thing I would say. The second thing is, I think it would be great for the committee to have the Ombudsman come before us but I don't see the information, frankly, that the Ombudsman is going to bring to us will result in us saying, yes, these regulations and policy are fine.

The regulations and policy are simply inadequate, they're extraordinarily flawed and time is of the essence here. We have an opportunity to press the government to do the right thing for the public sector workers and the people they serve in this province. Let's not waste our time foot dragging, by bringing in Tom, Dick and Harry, to slow that process down. Let's bring the Ombudsman forward to hear what his point of view is but at the same time, I would argue that we should go forward with pushing the government to scrap the existing regulations and policy, allow the former regime which provides more protection to workers to take its course and push forward with legislation for the Spring.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham.

MR. GRAHAM: I would echo the interest in having the Ombudsman appear, but I don't believe that it's something that should be done as a precursor to the motion going forward, and for that matter I would second the motion of the member for Halifax Needham.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It has already been seconded.

MR. GRAHAM: It has, okay, I hadn't known that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Just again, I'm reading that recommendation about the Ombudsman. We were asked to bring him before this committee and have him discuss the adequacy of the regulations and policy, and to what extent his office has heard from the concerned civil servants. I think that would be a more balanced approach than simply saying we're going to scrap the law, or send off a missive to the government asking them to scrap the law. I think it would be more productive to the civil servants in this province if we did bring the Ombudsman in. This is one of the recommendations that has been made and I would certainly be pleased to support that but I can't support scrapping the regulations and policy, based on the presentation here this morning. I still have a need to seek out more information and that's the approach I will be taking, Mr. Chairman.

[11:00 a.m.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacKinnon, the last word to you.

MR. MACKINNON: Just more of a personal note, I'm really concerned that we are kind of throwing cold water on the credibility of our witnesses by referring to the Ombudsman as Tom, Dick or Harry. That was the number one recommendation with our witnesses. I find it a little disappointing to suggest that that is the calibre of representation that would be brought forth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

MR. TAYLOR: I think you should call for a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.

YEAS NAYS

Mr. Graham Mr. Chisholm

Mr. David Wilson (Sackville-Cobequid) Mr. O'Donnell

Ms. Massey Mr. Taylor

Ms. Maureen MacDonald

MR. CHAIRMAN: For, 4. Against, 3. Abstentions, 1.

The motion is carried.

So that concludes our business for the presentation by Ms. Jessome and our people from the NSGEU. We thank you for coming in.

MS. JESSOME: It's been a pleasure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We do have a little bit more business that we have to conduct so I would ask the committee to stay for a second or two to do that.

Some of the committee business that we have, the bulk advertising, Phase II of that, we did one part of it there with the ad that we had in the paper. It seems to have worked quite well. I'm hearing that we got quite a few more responses.

Ms. Massey.

MS. MASSEY: Are you talking about the ad?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MS. MASSEY: I just wanted to mention, I did see it in the paper there, I think it was in The Daily News, I mean it was our nice, big, new way of doing it but it was shrunk down so small, I swear it was about this big. I wish I had cut it out and brought it in. I think whoever is in charge of doing that, if it gets shrunk too small, then it's useless in . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, The ChronicleHerald was the only one I saw.

MS. MASSEY: I think I saw it in The Daily News. I have seen it very large . . .

MR. TAYLOR: Was it always small in The Daily News?

MS. MASSEY: I'm not positive of The Daily News but I'm just thinking it was in The Daily News and it looked small. It wasn't even taking up the whole page, do you know what I mean?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There were some other issues that we had talked about, so in order to get that done before the April deadline of getting that out again, we will have to have some more discussion. We should do that no later than February probably. What are your wishes? The January meeting is pretty well booked. February is booked on education issues.

MR. MACKINNON: Special education?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, February.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: What are you looking for, Mr. Chairman? A half-hour discussion? A 20-minute discussion? What do we need?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it shouldn't take very long to do it.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Fifteen minutes?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, we just wrestled and dealt with a very difficult issue here, everybody around this table. I would like to think that we would bring the Ombudsman in. I really think that that is very timely, it's topical. The government is going to be leaning on us, this committee and the minority government for a little guidance because, in fact, they will take that letter very seriously that's going to be sent to them.

MR. MACKINNON: He can show up with Tom, Dick or Harry.

MR. TAYLOR: But I do think it would be nice to get his perspective. It may coincide nicely with what we were told here this morning, but that's a moot point now. Let's do it.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion that we bring in the Ombudsman at the first available date.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Darlene was just telling me around January 13^th or January 18^th, and then maybe we could have a 20-minute discussion on the bulk ad as well. (Interruptions)

MRS. DARLENE HENRY (Legislative Committee Clerk): As early as possible in the new year, basically, after the holidays.

MS. MASSEY: I'm just wondering, on the bulk ad, if we can get some information with that? Is there any possibility of getting some feedback? Is it too soon to get feedback, if we're getting more replies, responses, and how many males and females - is there any breakdown yet?

MRS. HENRY: Yes, we'll send you some stats (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll have that available. The January 25^th meeting, the Department of Education officials, do you still want them to come in on student debt? That was a continuation. January 25^th, February 28^th for special education. Just exactly what do we want on that? Darlene had some discussion . . .

MRS. HENRY: Well, she sent me an e-mail, basically wanting to know what the topic of interest would be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What are the topics going to be, so the department people will know? (Interruptions)

MR. GRAHAM: It's hard to narrow it, Mr. Chairman. It's broadly related to the delivery of special education in the Province of Nova Scotia. Concerns have been expressed about whether or not the recommendations of an independent committee were followed with a response by the government with respect to special education. There have been public comments about the contrast between the delivery of special education in this province in relation to other provinces. I think it's appropriate and timely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have that scheduled for the February 28^th meeting. (Interruptions) The annual report of the committee, is everybody okay with that? Have they looked at it? (Interruptions) We're just looking for everybody to sign off on it. (Interruptions)

A motion to adjourn?

MR. MACKINNON: I so move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are adjourned.

[The committee adjourned at 11:09 a.m.]