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. Brooke Taylor was replaced by Mr. Gary Hines.]

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

In Attendance:

Mrs. Darlene Henry

Legislative Committee Clerk

Mr. Gordon Hebb

Legislative Counsel

WITNESSES

Public Service Commission

Mr. Rick Nurse

Commissioner

Mr. Gordon Adams

Executive Director of Planning and Coordination

Ms. Patti Pike

Executive Director of Strategic Human Resources Management

Mr. Joel Marsman

Senior Consultant of Employee Health and Safety Promotion

Ms. Rebecca MacKay

Policy Analyst

Ms. Colleen Gareau

Communications Advisor

HALIFAX, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2004

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

9:00 A.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Ronald Chisholm

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good morning. We'll bring the Standing Committee on Human Resources to order. For the record I would like to go around the table.

[The committee members introduced themselves.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: With us today we have the witnesses from the Public Service Commission. We have Mr. Rick Nurse, Mr. Gordon Adams, Ms. Patti Pike, Mr. Joel Marsman, and Ms. Rebecca MacKay. Normally the process with the committee is we allow for presentations, up to 20 minutes, probably, 25 minutes, and from there we will go into a question-and-answer period. So, there's a few things that we have on the agenda that we want to discuss with you. Mr. Nurse, if you want to take over, it's all yours.

MR. RICK NURSE: Mr. Chairman, I know we sent the list of folks joining us today. I'm not sure if you mentioned Colleen Gareau. Colleen is also with us, and she's a Communications Advisor with the commission, so I also want to include her in the record. I want to say thank you to your committee. Our intent, really, is to try to brief you on two topics, the disclosure regulations and policy, and also on where the Public Service Commission is with respect to occupational health and safety regulations and policy and activity. With your okay, what I think will be more helpful for you is if we speak to the disclosure regulations first, and then pause. So I will try to cover those in about 10 minutes, and then, with colleagues, be ready to answer questions. Then, if that works, we'll turn, when you say go, to the topic of occupational health and safety and the commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That sounds fair. For the information of the committee, we decided to put the Public Service Commission on first. Then we'll do our appointments after. We may go over a little bit, from 10:30 a.m., we'll just see how it goes. With the okay from the committee, we can maybe go beyond 11:00 a.m., if we have to. Hopefully we can keep it to the time allotted. Mr. Nurse, you're on.

MR. NURSE: You also have some material. I'm sorry we didn't get it to you sooner than quite late yesterday, and this morning you have paper copies of the slides we'll be covering. So go to those, if that works, and we'll also put the slides up as I speak, to try to keep me on track and on time.

The objectives, first of all, of the disclosure of wrongdoing regulations and policy, there were a number: first to attempt to clearly define wrongdoing and to include in that definition reprisal as a wrongdoing in and of itself; to provide a process for employees who want to disclose; to protect employees from reprisal action being taken should they disclose; to protect their privacy and the privacy of other witnesses and folks involved in the process; and, finally, and just as important, to be sure that at the end of the day we're accountable along the way and to the public at the end of the process.

What are the disclosure regulations and policy? Essentially, as said, policies to guide a process for disclosure of wrongdoing by all employees of the provincial government. I will speak, over the next couple of minutes, to what I would argue are the key elements. One, the application, in other words, who does it apply to, the definition itself, the process, the how, the when and the where, the protection aspects of the policy and, finally, the accountability aspects.

The application, as I said, the hope is that we've written regulations and policies that will apply not only to the course, it will serve as covered through the regulations under the Civil Service Act, but all employees who are direct employees of the government, including, through the policy, casuals and contract employees. The definition, and I won't read what's on the paper, I will try to speak to those slides but I won't take you through what I'm sure are more than busy slides. Essentially, the definition is meant to capture wrongdoings that have to do with illegal acts, unethical acts, gross misconduct - which is later defined in the body of the regulations - risk of harm to individuals, and through the regulations we speak to that again, where there is concern about an imminent risk or danger to people. As I said, we include in the definition, for the purposes of the regulations, the taking of a reprisal against an employee.

After defining the application, who these regulations and policies apply to, and providing a definition to guide our judgments, we then go on to provide choices to employees. This is one of the places, Mr. Chairman, where we know there has been some misunderstanding, if not confusion, as the regulations have been released. I would want to draw the committee's attention to the frequent use of the word may, when it comes to the choices that employees have through the regulations and policy. Under Section 6.1, where employees choose to initiate, through this formal process, disclosure, they may choose to take their issue either to the immediate supervisor, to the deputy head, or to the Ombudsman, depending on the judgments that those employees make about the most appropriate and the most useful place to take their concern.

The regulations go on to offer a fourth choice, and that is, also, when an employee feels that the situation they're facing may create imminent and serious danger to life and health, the fourth choice would be to take that issue to the police. A fifth way, if you like, of dealing with concerns around wrongdoing provided to employees is the choice, again, to approach the Conflict of Interest Commissioner for general advice on, is what I think I'm seeing or what I'm seeing truly wrongdoing to that individual, what is your best advice on where I might take this. So it is really general help on where to take the issue and, in the judgment of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner through that conversation, does it seem appropriate to take it in one or another direction.

I should mention, before going on, that as you read you'll see that the formal process does require written disclosure. If you look to the policy material that we provided you, we've tried, also, to introduce very simple forms that folks can use to do that. We don't anticipate that past practices of saying to a supervisor, I have a concern, in a less formal way before initiating this process, as happens before we go to grievances or before we enact harassment policy or whatever other policy. It is our firm hope and belief that employees who do have concerns will continue to raise them informally in advance of exercising this policy.

From the choices then to the protection and you will see that they take two directions, first and foremost, protection for employees against reprisals. We describe what that protection is and then include in the list of what reprisals might constitute, things like disciplinary measures, demotions, terminations. I would draw your attention to (d). We agonized quite a lot over how you find a way in regulations or policy to deal with the less tangible kinds of reprisals that concern people. So (d) does open the door to consideration of any measure that adversely affects the employment or working conditions of the employee. If you prompt me later, I can perhaps offer an example of that that I am familiar with that I think kind of shines a light on the "what if" of that section of the policy.

Again, from a protection point of view, we say a number of times, "No person shall take a reprisal against an employee." and, of course, we also reaffirm that these regulations do nothing to interfere with Civil Service collective agreements and other rights under the Civil Service regulations.

Protections also, on the other side of the coin, are included in the policy and regs for employees against malicious disclosure. While there is a hope that this wouldn't be a frequent, if ever, concern, again, as we were drafting, it was our view that if we were to open the door to a process for people to disclose, there also needed to be a complementary protection against wrongful disclosure, if you like.

Now, to accountability. The point that I'm trying to make on accountability is that there are requirements in the regs and policy throughout that will cause the system to be accountable to the disclosing employee on a regular basis. So if you look at the "internal"

process: the supervisor; the deputy head must investigate, must respond and must take those actions in a reasonable period of time.

In passing, if you saw the paper recently, Steve Hindle, I think, who is the president of one of the national unions said that people from a disclosure of wrongdoing point of view want two things, a credible ear and protection. I would submit to the committee that the protections are well included in this material and the credible ear, I guess, will be a judgment that people will make. I take some heart in the employees' survey where employees said - not enough, 68 per cent - that they could discuss openly workplace issues with their immediate supervisor. So that's the first place where if I have a disclosure concern I would go. I believe that for those folks who responded that way, that's one credible ear.

For the Ombudsman and for the deputy heads, the numbers weren't as good, it was kind of 50/50, so if you hope that those folks who responded positively see those ears as credible, then those resources will be used and where they're not considered credible by a number of staff then it is our belief that the arm's-length independent agency of the Ombudsman is the other credible ear, not to mention the police. From the accountability point of view, the Ombudsman, again, is required to give written notice to the disclosing employee under certain time frames and specifications.

Finally, the accountability at the Public Service Commission is that the commission must report annually and most important, I think, from an accountability to the public point of view, the minister tables the report received under that section in the House of Assembly and is therefore available to the public.

Since approval of the regs and policy, our implementation process has included announcing the effective dates which is essentially immediately upon approval. Our rollout strategy was communicated far and wide and then commission staff have made themselves available to do presentations to all departments and any other groups asking for advice on the interpretation and the application of the policy. From those presentations we continue to track the frequently asked questions and continue to try to clarify and that process will be ongoing.

[9:15 a.m.]

We will, of course, develop the database that will contribute to all of the reporting processes and the other instructions to the Commission were then on the basis of that experience and with an eye to a broader application, with an eye to creating a similar opportunity to public servants beyond the core; that we would consult with ABCs based on our experience, learn from them, what similar mechanisms, if any, they have in place and in the absence of similar mechanisms, to encourage those agencies associated with government to introduce similar policies and practices.

Where to from here? Our sense is that we do need to gain experience and, again, to quote the recent article, whatever the rules and regs might be, only experience will show us what about them works best and what about them may well need some adjustment. So gaining experience, continuing the education to be sure that front-line staff and supervisors understand our commitment to the regs and policies and know that we will follow them as rigorously as they have been written.

Consultation with the broader public sector, as I've said, report through the minister to the Legislature and, as again we've committed to staff, to re-survey employees to learn whether that concern they did express about their ability to disclose without fear of reprisal has been in any way helped by this strategy.

Why don't I stop there, Mr. Chairman. I've been talking for about 10 minutes. We have some of the frequently asked questions in the material to you that I can respond to or maybe we can just respond to questions that might come from you now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The only one I have on the list so far is Mr. MacKinnon. So, Mr. MacKinnon, if you want to start.

MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nurse, right to the point, how can you show that these regulations are not articulated in a manner that ensures that the fox continues to guard the chicken house?

MR. NURSE: Our sense is, as I'd said in the 10 minutes, the message we got, Mr. Chairman, is that staff do feel that they see wrongdoings and occasionally feel the need to communicate those but fear reprisal. So the policy is designed with certainty around reprisal, with creating opportunities and where people will go to, an ear that they trust, and if there is a concern within the system, then, as I said, the approach to the Ombudsman and the public reporting, we believe will address any concern that this is a matter of an attempt simply to keep issues internally. That's not what the policy and the regs are about.

MR. MACKINNON: Well, if that's the case, why does the employee have to go to, perhaps, the director in the department who may be very well involved in perhaps a cover-up or a serious violation of what we consider to be their public duty? Why not allow them to go directly to the Ombudsman? The Ombudsman would be the independent voice to be able to make that determination whether it's a frivolous or a very important complaint.

MR. NURSE: You're absolutely right. In fact, the regs are written that way. The regs are written to say the employee may go to the supervisor, may choose not to, and if they do and they consider going to the deputy head, they may choose not to go there either. Having made that judgment in fact may go directly to the Ombudsman and as you said, the Ombudsman then in the regs makes a determination whether there is a more appropriate, as in useful, system.

If, for example, the issue might have been dealt with through a grievance, it is anticipated that the Ombudsman would make that judgment. If not, the Ombudsman would do the investigation, make recommendations back into the system, and may, in fact, put timelines and reporting requirements to that department, to the Ombudsman as well. So your point is spot-on, and it is in the regulations, it's written that way.

MR. MACKINNON: What, essentially, were the driving factors that compelled your department to develop these regulations? Do you have specific cases? Do you know of any specific cases?

MR. NURSE: Where - I'm sorry?

MR. MACKINNON: Well, you just don't make up regulations because you think it's a good idea and not have any basis in fact.

MR. NURSE: I would say that the first part of the process was informal or anecdotal comments from staff, wherever in the organization, saying I have concerns but I don't know where to bring them because I'm a bit nervous about reprisals. Yes, there were informal expressions of concern about reprisals.

MR. MACKINNON: How many?

MR. NURSE: Again, it's not documented, so I can't tell you how many, but enough that as people began to talk about it, that was a factor. While we talked about it, I know that other existing systems were used by staff to express concern about issues and the need for a disclosure policy. I'll give you one example, to speak to your question directly. When we did the employee survey, there were two, only two, but there were two comments in some 4,000 responses where employees added a comment, in the comment section, saying I have a concern about an issue in a given area and would encourage someone to look at it.

Those, as you know, were anonymous. I can report to the committee that the concerns that were expressed were properly pursued. But again, to your question, that kind of added some energy to our wish to see mechanisms in place early. Then, as we began the analysis of the employee opinion survey and, in fairness, other surveys in the country that spoke to this issue, the federal government's interest in wrongdoing regulations and so on.

What was happening elsewhere, informal signals, the employee opinion survey, that's where we asked the question, do you feel comfortable raising issues, and where half of the people who responded, approximately half, said no, those are all reasons why we would have mounted a regulation and a policy to cover the issue.

MR. MACKINNON: Who does the Ombudsman report to?

MR. NURSE: The Legislature.

MR. MACKINNON: Why not to the deputy minister, so that more immediate action can be taken? If the Assembly is not open . . .

MR. NURSE: I'm sorry, I didn't understand your question. I thought you meant in the . . .

MR. MACKINNON: The annual report.

MR. NURSE: . . . law controlling that.

MR. MACKINNON: I'm talking case specific.

MR. NURSE: I thought you meant where does it report ultimately. The Ombudsman first reports to the disclosing employee. The Ombudsman may respond to the department with advice on what to do, timelines around when to do it. The Ombudsman may speak to a member of the Executive Council on a particular issue, if the judgment is made that it needs to be raised to that level. If there's a concern that it involves an elected official, then the commissioner who has responsibility for that Act, the right title you would know, may also be then brought in. Finally, the Ombudsman reports annually, through the Public Service Commission, and the Public Service Commissioner writes a report that takes that information plus information from departments for a complete report to the minister, which gets tabled in the House.

MR. MACKINNON: Forgive me if I'm not as well informed on this particular issue as I should be, but the Public Service Commission, here you have yourself, Mr. Adams, Ms. Pike, so on and so forth, but are there any unionized employees on this particular committee that articulated the regulations?

MR. NURSE: On the committee, no.

MR. MACKINNON: Why not? That seems to be the polarization issue, where the two different points of view seem to be coming from, because of a lack of communication. Why wouldn't they be involved, if they're one of the chief stakeholders at hand, in the process? Was that a policy decision of government, or is that at your level, or what?

MR. NURSE: It may well . . .

MR. MACKINNON: Who made that decision to exclude . . .

MR. NURSE: It would have been the commission. We drafted the policies and regulations, and didn't in their drafting, and don't always in their drafting, consult widely. It's a fair criticism.

MR. MACKINNON: It seems like a topping-down methodology.

MR. NURSE: Well, I beg to differ. The employee survey was very much a bottom-up message that we, through this policy, are seeking to respond to. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that that's where the message came from and that's what we acted on.

MR. MACKINNON: Satisfaction surveys - and I'm only speaking from my experience, sitting on this and a few other committees and the limited time I do have in public service, from 1988 - we've asked time and time again for copies of these satisfaction surveys, and we never seem to get them. I recall the Department of Environment and Labour, in different divisions within that department, they have never seen the light of day. Why aren't these satisfaction surveys being made public?

MR. NURSE: You're speaking about the employee opinion survey?

MR. MACKINNON: That one may be the one you have right there.

MR. NURSE: No, that's the one I was speaking about.

MR. MACKINNON: But as a rule, you've completely isolated one of the most important stakeholders in this entire process, and I'm absolutely amazed. I'm flabbergasted, quite frankly, that you haven't included them. If the commission did this, and then brought it up to the ministerial level, the minister takes advice from the senior directors, for the most part.

MR. NURSE: You've named two things, one . . .

MR. MACKINNON: You've excluded the most important . . .

MR. NURSE: . . . the opinion survey. It was released to employees first and to the public with a press release, with all of the material and copies of the full report available, and reported publicly. I don't want to mislead the committee. I have a sense that there was some - and I don't want to make excuses - informal sharing of the draft and some discussion before it was all finalized for reaction, but I can't say that with certainty this morning. I can say that that is often the practice that we don't formally engage. We would look for an opportunity to share the "what if" draft and get summary action. But you're quite right to point out that that wasn't formally done. I just want to look to my colleagues, to be sure what I'm reporting is accurate. (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. O'Donnell.

MR. CECIL O'DONNELL: How does Nova Scotia compare with other provinces with regard to policy or regulations for disclosure of wrongdoing?

MR. NURSE: In terms of what they have compared to what Nova Scotia would have?

MR. O'DONNELL: Yes.

MR. NURSE: Let me just defer to Gordon.

MR. GORDON ADAMS: During the course of the preparation of materials that led to the development of the regulations, we did extensive research throughout other jurisdictions in Canada and elsewhere in the world. As far as a formal regulation or policy under the caption of disclosure of wrongdoing, we're the first. The feds have put forward policy, some time ago, but provincially we're the first in Canada. There have been sections of other regulations, much as we do have here in Nova Scotia under other Acts or regulations, that do have some aspect of protection for disclosure, but under this title, we're the first.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. MacDonald.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Thank you for being here today. I'm one of these people who is of the opinion that it takes a considerable amount of courage for a front-line staff member to take up the issue of wrongdoing, particularly when the wrongdoing relates to a co-worker or a supervisor or a senior manager. This kind of legislation is important and it's important that we get it right. My concern, when I look at the volume of material that's in front of us, is that you practically have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out this Act, these regulations and the policy that goes with it.

[9:30 a.m.]

I want to draw your attention to Page 4 of your handout, of the overheads that we didn't go through. The middle overhead there, Disclosure of Wrongdoing Highlights . . . Protection for employees against malicious disclosures, I think there are aspects of that regulation that concern me, because while this says that employees will be protected against malicious disclosures, the prohibition there is that an employee has to make a disclosure of wrongdoing in accordance with the Act, the regulations and what have you. I think that given the complexity of what's been developed here, it's really unlikely, I think, that you're going to get people being prepared to come forward or people who even know how to do it.

The possibility that coming forward could result in the allegations that it's just frivolous, vexatious or whatever, I want to know who makes the determination that an employee who has laid information has acted in bad faith. What is that process? How can employees know that in determining that they would receive a fair and impartial investigation or analysis of what has occurred and why? I don't understand, by seeing any of this information, who that is, who's going to make that determination. I think that's a very important point, because that, in fact, is what front-line workers, in particular, need to know, if they're ever going to make any effective use of this legislation.

MR. NURSE: I think your point is well taken. Just last week when talking to a small group of unionized folks, one of the people I had just met pointed at me and said, this is not about you, I don't mean you, but I don't trust management. So your point from that point of view is well taken. I don't think it is only true of front-line staff, I think it's human nature for us, if we're going to face what is a troubling, unique, challenging situation, that it will take some soul-searching and courage.

I think our challenge is to be sure that the commitment to making the policy work, the commitment to making disclosure as easy as possible is properly supported. We provided four doors to choose from, if you have concerns. I know that even with the policy as written, there's a huge need to be sure that the communication around use it, here's how it can work, is an important piece. Only this week, again, with deputies, we tried to drive home the need to be sure that in-department supervisors and front-line were talking about the policy, being encouraged to use it. I met with one union president Friday and talked about the same thing, despite your concerns and objections, we hope that you'll encourage people to use the policy. And it's not a good enough answer, but the reality is time will tell. Maureen, I don't know if that answers it or not.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: It doesn't really. I still think people need to know, who's going to decide whether . . .

MR. NURSE: Let me speak to that.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: . . . that is frivolous, vexatious, in bad faith? What's that process?

MR. NURSE: Great question. It will depend, obviously, on each individual situation. Let's say an employee brings an issue to a supervisor, the supervisor has to make a judgment, has to do an investigation, has to respond, saying got your disclosure, here's what I found, here's what we're going to do about it. Let's say in that case it was valid and the employee gets the report and says good enough, I'm at peace; or not good enough, I need to take it further. In that case, if it were me, I would skip the deputy, because I've tried the department once, and go to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman receives the same ask, does a review, draws the same or a different conclusion, and maybe, in this example, at that level expresses

some concern about the validity and the reasoning behind the employee bringing that one forward. I think that's where it may be named.

The employee is the one who learns, from one of those levels, that that's a concern. Mr. Chairman, I can't, this morning, say definitively, and when that conclusion is drawn, here's how the grievance process, if you like, or the disciplinary process and grievance process, take over, but it would be my understanding that once named, once addressed, then the employee's right to grieve that conclusion, moves over into the collective agreement and that process, which is well used, well understood.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Then I think that's a real problem, because you need to know, right at the outset, what the ground rules are and who the players are and how it works. I'll tell you, if I was in a position where I thought that I could be disciplined, and I'm not real sure who's making those decisions, and I'm fairly low on the totem pole, then it's unlikely I would be prepared to bring forward my concerns about wrongdoing. You really need to know what your options are and what the process is.

I want to give you a scenario, and I want to ask you how you see this scenario fitting under the definition of wrongdoing, as we have it in the Act. This is a scenario that may seem like small potatoes in the grand scheme of providing public services, but, really, what the public, I think, is most concerned about when comes down to government services is that there's fairness, there's transparency, there's accountability, and that's the language today, of the provision of government services.

Let's say a front-line worker who works for a housing authority is concerned that a unit of housing has been allocated to an individual who hasn't lived in the province for 30 years, but this individual was able to get on a wait list for a housing unit and that individual has a family member who's a member of the management team in, let's say, the Department of Community Services, which oversees the Housing Division. How would that front-line worker take up that issue under this legislation? Is that an appropriate scenario, if the front-line worker feels that the fairness, the principle of fairness, the principle of transparency and accountability, and in fact adhering to the policy for how housing is allocated, has been violated in some way?

When I look at the definition of wrongdoing, I think that perhaps that scenario in fact wouldn't fit under the definition, because it doesn't contribute to any of these categories, gross mismanagement, danger of life, health, blah, blah, whatever, but at the same time, for other people who are on the list, for front-line workers who are dealing every day with people who really need housing, there is a feeling of wrongdoing and some violation of what public services in this province are meant to do. Would that fit? How would that fit?

MR. NURSE: It's not hedging - the answer is it depends. My first gut is it would, and I'll just say why. If it was brought to me as a supervisor, one, you look at, is this an employee? Let's assume yes, and not split hairs there. So the person - it applies. Is it wrongdoing? The wrongdoing definition does speak to ignoring an Act or reg of the country or the province. So it may be on analysis when that employee refers it to me that a regulation has been ignored. In making a determination about the degree of wrongdoing, then we would also want to get some sense of intent. Is this a manager who really did engage in what is more currently called "bureaucratic patronage" as opposed to political patronage and what would you do?

If a judgment was made that the manager had acted inappropriately, you would take action there and seek to undo, if that was possible, or at least seek not in the future and then you would report within 30 days to the employee and say, this is what the conclusion was. So I do believe that some judgment will be made around do we strictly apply the definition and look for a way to exclude the expression of concern or do we create a climate where we say, do you know what? If you have a concern, bring it to us, we'll try to give you, within 30 days, a complete and satisfactory answer. If, in this case, the employee says not good enough, I think the manager should have been fired and other action should have been taken, I'll take it to the Ombudsman and so on and so on.

So, again, I think it is really important to note that it depends, because of the details of a scenario could send - again, the parallel is a grievance, and the arbitration process can send it left to right, but the employee in that example, as I've said, has at least two places where they can say I've got a concern, satisfy me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dave Wilson.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): Mr. Chairman, just a few questions. I think it's important that we make this as strong as possible for the workers and hopefully protect them when they do find that they need to come forward and expose some wrongdoing in the workplace. But you had mentioned in the employees' opinion survey that about 50 per cent of the employees don't feel comfortable raising issues about wrongdoing in the workplace. A lot of that stems from concerns about their job security in the future or future advancement and things like that. This employees' opinion survey was done approximately how long ago?

MR. NURSE: February.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): Are you scheduling in the future another survey after . . .

MR. NURSE: Absolutely. One other brief comment. We're also working with other Public Service Commissions in the country to be sure that we're not only doing comparisons over time, our survey to future surveys, but doing comparisons on similar questions in other provinces. So that employee survey process is now reasonably well entrenched in what we will be doing.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): I looked under one of your slides on Page 2 about when someone wants to bring a wrongdoing forward and you've listed the supervisor, deputy head and Ombudsman, and I think I would have to agree with my colleague who had mentioned about the possibility of bringing a wrong disclosure forward and the possibility of some kind of reaction or some kind of consequences to that. I think a lot of employees - and you said it earlier about how they don't trust management - when you list these three people as who you can go and see, have you looked at or were you thinking about maybe why you wouldn't include a union representative that an employee can go to? They would feel more comfortable, maybe, going under that umbrella. Would you look at possibly a disclosure infraction with a union bringing it forward, or actually, I'm sure a lot of MLAs get concerns from employees who don't know where to go. So if that comes to my office or any member's office or a union's office, how do you deal with that? What would you suggest is the avenue you would take then?

MR. NURSE: I would hope that you would encourage the employee and it may well be the ideal situation, not that someone isn't concerned about a wrongdoing, but they bring it to someone who could say, do you know what? There is a mechanism in place; what of those do you have some faith in? What I did say was that 68 to 70 per cent will say, do you know what? I've got a reasonable relationship with my supervisor, I'll start there. Another 24 or 25 per cent won't give you that answer, they'll say, I don't really have trust within the department, I guess I'll take it to the Ombudsman. I would wager that you'll say, well, okay, try that once and let me know how it goes. That's you helping someone who has brought it to you but moving it into a system that's meant to serve them and maybe in a supportive way being somewhere nearby but not creating a couple of tracks for it to be dealt with, giving that reg and policy a chance to work.

[9:45 a.m.]

Again, in the same way, and I hate to keep going back to it, as the collective agreement and grievances do, one of our great debates with labour around grievances is that sometimes they don't get dealt with fast enough. In this one, at least on the way to the Ombudsman and beyond, the employee has the commitment in the policy that says we have to act within a certain number of days.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): Under your Frequently Asked Questions, the third one there is kind of interesting about taking their concerns to the media. How does that affect the employee? If they chose to go to the media and maybe expose

something before going through these other steps, will they fall under some kind of consequences by doing that, under Section 20, I believe?

MR. NURSE: The expectation is that once in place - let's go back to the argument when folks used to talk about going to the media was, we have nowhere else to go. The regs and policy are intended to provide for clear places to go, some internal, some external and the process that is designed to protect employees from reprisals when we follow that process meant to cause those responsible for managing the system to manage properly. So the belief is that that system, once in place, should be the one that is followed. I won't speculate this morning on what employees might or might not do when they've gone through all this and still feel, I'm just not satisfied. The belief is that when you go this route, including the Ombudsman and the Legislature, that we will be able to satisfy employees that their concerns have been properly addressed.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): I think it would be important too and hopefully in your survey in the future to try to see and try to expand the people they can go to. I think it's important that you try to factor in that they can go to the union and maybe take that step. Because I think the most important thing is that you're trying to get someone to come forward and I really believe that it's going to take the extraordinary person to come in and say that there's something going on. So I think you need to strengthen this and you really need to allow different avenues. If it means that a union rep can go to the supervisor or the department head or even an MLA, I mean I don't see how an MLA bringing an issue forward to try to resolve it, hopefully, that should be looked at maybe in the future about different regulations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Whalen.

MS. DIANA WHALEN: Good morning. Just a couple of questions that I had, it's very interesting to look at this. I'm pleased to hear that we are perhaps the first province, you're saying in Canada, to do this?

MR. NURSE: Yes.

MS. WHALEN: I'm surprised to hear that, but at least we're on the road to doing something. On the survey, I think a lot of it begins with the survey that you did of employees and it should become a regular part of business, I guess, with the Public Service Commission. What I'm wondering about is whether or not there is any intent to make even the highlights of those surveys public and whether or not you've communicated back to the employees, since they've participated to tell them what the trends are and what areas, as the Public Service Commission what you're going to work on?

MR. NURSE: The results of the survey were communicated to all employees and to the public in the Summer. We from there committed to creating vehicles in every department and, in fact, an advisory group at the senior deputy level that is already being populated to be sure that we respond to the top three or four concerns in the immediate future and then try to raise the positive response to the other questions. So it was widely reported back to staff an action to show that we're following up on each item, including the question about do you feel comfortable? The answer from enough staff saying, no, as I've said, that's important information. That should drive a response. You'll forgive me if I take some heart in a positive response around the way people feel about dealing with front-line supervisors.

MS. WHALEN: Sixty-eight per cent.

MR. NURSE: Yes, not where you would want it to be, but at least 7 out of 10 who have a concern may take it there, given that response. So the rest we have to continue to work on.

MS. WHALEN: This is one of your top three or four concerns, is what you've said, back to employees and you're working on it this year.

MR. NURSE: This is. The other concerns, you may remember from the survey, had to do with merit hiring and career opportunities, and whether or not we would act on the results of the survey. I can only tell you we are bound and determined to show that at least we acted on the results of the survey.

MS. WHALEN: That may be reflected when you do your next employee survey in February. What I'm wondering about is if there has been any feedback at all, officially, from staff about these regulations that are in place here, that are before us today on reporting wrongful misdeeds.

MR. NURSE: I know from the presentations that are done, those discussions have included all the "what ifs", can you talk about this section, talk about that section. Lots of response to the presentations, looking for more specific descriptions of how it will work and so on. That's part of the communication and implementation. That general comment I can turn to my colleagues for, what else are you hearing from the field - would that be helpful?

MS. WHALEN: I just wondered if you're getting some feedback. It's still early days. You said you want to see what's going to happen, and I guess we have to give it some time. What I would like to draw is a parallel between this and the sexual harassment and the ability to report that in the workplace. I think there is a similarity, because I think that a lot of times people would hesitate to report that as well, because of the fact that you'll be considered a troublemaker, perhaps there'll be reprisals, it's a career-limiting move or something like that. I'm wondering if you can say from the policies that you have in place for sexual harassment if there's a parallel here, because I don't know exactly how you deal with that.

MR. NURSE: There's a parallel. It's not the same, but let me say this, the harassment policy includes identification of people who volunteer to be investigators and support staff who disclose harassment or express concern about harassment. Those employees are followed and supported. I said earlier; in fact, if you remind me, I may be able to speak to an example of where someone in another place made a disclosure. It was dealt with as a harassment issue, and to give you a number around that, because I asked recently, well, what's the experience, can you give me a number of real cases that kind of came the distance as defined by the policy, informal level/formal level. I believe the number was four or six in this year, and four to six last year. If you ask me if the policy has been used, yes, to some degree, and that's the formal piece. I understand there are informal pieces.

In that one case that I'm most familiar with, harassment was alleged, the employee had help with that. Some months later the employee came back and said, my work atmosphere is really pretty cold; you've helped me deal with the harassment, but I'm not enjoying the workplace anymore.

MS. WHALEN: This is the subtle reprisal that you're talking about.

MR. NURSE: Right, or just the inability of people to deal with what was a real issue and then the awkwardness of having named it and dealt with it. As I thought about that, I know we've tried, through the harassment policy, to fix that, but as I thought about it this policy came to mind because it would occur to me that that individual might say, I disclosed, although it was specific to harassment, a wrongdoing - this wasn't management, it was two employees - but now I am suffering reprisals, or this is not good management. I can't tell you that in my heart I decided that belongs there or there, but I get from that experience a sense of what reprisal could look like in those informal hard-to-distinguish settings. I believe that we have to be ready to speak to those as well.

MS. WHALEN: And is experience going to be the way we deal with it case by case? You'll have to wait and see what . . .

MR. NURSE: Yes, we have experience in other areas that would serve us well, I believe, in this one.

MS. WHALEN: One of your questions at the back refers to why we don't have an external body to deal with these disclosures. Wouldn't it be easier to go to an external body that has no vested interest in the operation of the department or government's position or even the optics of something, that they would be uninvolved? I would think you'd get more objective service.

MR. NURSE: With respect, I don't entirely agree. I think that the policy is designed to cause people who have responsibility to be accountable, so part of it is internal. Then there is, in the policy, an arm's-length body that already has the power in legislation to investigate

us. I believe that is a mechanism that's there to be used and should be when employees don't feel satisfied internally. That is arm's-length, it is objective, and we believe that's the right way to go.

MS. WHALEN: I'd like to just echo Ms. MacDonald's comments about how this seems very complex, I think, to the average employee, that maybe it needs to be communicated to them differently than it's been communicated to us here.

MR. NURSE: Ouch.

MS. WHALEN: It begins to look like the Acts that we look at in the Legislature. I think the other members would agree. I think they would really need a much more streamlined or just a simpler view of what you do, because I don't think that a lot of people would want to wade through to try to decipher - that when you get to the choices one, that you're getting there, here are your choices.

MR. NURSE: If you look right at the very back of the policy section, there are two forms for reporting. We really did try to keep that straightforward so that it would be easy to do.

MS. WHALEN: I haven't had a chance to see that.

MR. NURSE: But you're right, we understand that a big part of this is communicating the how and talking about it to everybody, and that will take a little while. I mentioned earlier, I know that I raise it regularly at deputies, to say, come to this table and say, you're working with the commission to be sure that front-line staff know the policy, have a chance to talk about it, have a chance to do what some of you have done with the "what if", but mostly hear the message that this is meant to be a response to your expression of concern. Trust issues are real and we have to sort of begin to overcome those. We live in an environment where we sometimes, by other relationships, undermine those trusts. I think part of this is about changing the workplace more generally, and not about just one policy.

MS. WHALEN: I heard you answer earlier about discouraging employees from going to the press, that now there is an avenue, you've said we've provided you a proper internal avenue to take. If employees do go to the press, is that something they would be penalized for, punished?

MR. NURSE: I would rather answer by saying that if they have a disclosure and don't use this process, then that's considered inappropriate behaviour, and they do leave themselves open. The policy has been there, it needs to be encouraged, it needs to be followed. That's our belief.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hines.

MR. GARY HINES: Thank you, guests, for coming in this morning. This policy is no different than any other policy, it's left open to the great power of interpretation all along the way. Also, it leaves an avenue for people who have great ability to persuade to flaw the process. One of the things that you, all along the way, have told us in the information that I've been able to read since I got here this morning is that the disclosing employee has a series of steps that they follow, timelines, et cetera. What about the alleged offender? At what point in time is the alleged offender made aware that they are under investigation, that they are being pulled into a process that they're going to have to stand up and defend themselves and get through? Where does that take place?

MR. NURSE: Again it would depend on the specifics. Once disclosed, at whatever level, the person doing the investigation will need to make a judgment about, will the investigation be hindered by early disclosure, and the judgment has to be that against, if it's about me, my right to know that an investigation is ongoing. So those judgments would be made at the early stage of mounting the investigation, and well before that particular level of investigation comes back to the employee. So a judgment about whether the person named in the disclosure would be made within the first week to two weeks of the review, I would think. Our advice would be, unless there's a compelling reason, from the point of view of getting good, accurate, getting to the bottom of it, we owe it to one another to say that we're investigating one another. Early would be the short answer to your question.

[10:00 a.m.]

MR. HINES: Employees are protected from reprisal when they report wrongdoing, my concern is that as time expires that an individual will park that in the back recesses of their mind and then when they feel that the coast is clear, so to speak, that they will come back then. Now, is there an opportunity for somebody who originally made the claim to sense that that's happening and then come back into the process?

MR. NURSE: Absolutely, there is no time limit on the expression of concern about a reprisal. Well, there is in terms of when you become aware of it, you have 12 months to disclose it, so, as you have just said, if three years out, because someone senior to me that I disclosed is beginning to clearly impact on my career, on my work life, three years later and I'm making the judgment, this really does feel like a reprisal, then the policy gives me 12 months to bring that forward as a wrongdoing.

MR. HINES: It would come through the same process as the original complaint?

MR. NURSE: Yes.

MR. HINES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Glavine.

MR. LEO GLAVINE: There's really one question. I was thinking in terms of the scenario that certainly sometimes we'll hear coming from the workplace where somebody is in their last year of work and something historical, of a serious nature, has occurred and you're talking about this 12-month reporting window and this is an allegation now that has surfaced. What will happen in that circumstance? In other words, outside the 12 months.

MR. NURSE: I think I understand, where someone has been with the Public Service, is no longer an employee and wishes to disclose?

MR. GLAVINE: Yes.

MR. NURSE: It's not covered by the policy because the person is not an employee, but what I would expect is that the person would disclose and we would respond accordingly. I would think that a retiree now with knowledge of this would - but I'm saying it's not covered - as the retiree would you say, well, I think I'll contact the Ombudsman or if it was, again, at a different level, do I contact the conflict of interest person, the Ombudsman is free, separate from this policy to investigate any allegation about misbehaviour in government. So a retiree, before this policy, had the right to go to the Ombudsman. So there's room.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacKinnon.

MR. MACKINNON: A short snapper, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're past 10:00 a.m. and we do want to talk about occupational health and safety a little bit as well, so we'll just allow for maybe two short snappers. Maureen, do you have one? Okay, three short snappers.

MR. MACKINNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, you're very benevolent.

MR. NURSE: I can't promise you short answers. (Laughter)

MR. MACKINNON: I'm determining from what I'm hearing here today that the greatest authority in this whole process is with the Cabinet, the greatest power seems to be or appears to be with the senior directors within government and the greatest fear is with the employees within the Public Service. I guess the reference was made to an employee that fears this convoluted process because your opinion survey doesn't give an overwhelming endorsement, 50 per cent, in coming forth. But there is a provision in the Occupational Health and Safety Act that does provide relief.

How do you deal with a matter that is brought to you as a formal complaint? Let's say I, as an MLA, wrote you a letter saying that I have employee A and here are all the particulars but that employee is fearful of losing his or her job because of the structure within the government. I think the point was raised in a side way there before. How do you respond

to that official complaint from the MLA? Do you refer it to the Ombudsman directly or do you keep it internal?

Let's say that there was a paper trail, e-mails, memos, some logs, that would show the essence of what the problem is. I've seen this in the past - not with e-mails, because at that particular point we didn't have them. That was under a previous administration during the 1980s, the Buchanan Administration, that politics interfered with just about every facet of government and justice and living in Nova Scotia. That was determined by a number of public commissions and reports, so I'm saying it with some basis in fact. How do you deal with that? I, as an MLA going in, where do you send that?

MR. NURSE: Let me be sure that I understand. An employee approaches you and says, I'm concerned, help me. Again it depends on who and it depends on the details, you know that, but if it were you approaching someone at the Public Service Commission saying, I've got an employee with a concern, I honestly believe that our response would be, then can you talk to the employee and allow us to . . .

MR. MACKINNON: But they don't want their name out.

MR. NURSE: Well, that's okay, too, because these regs address that and do allow us to do the investigation with a commitment to that individual, for part of it, that it remains private and confidential. I think we would deal with it. The short answer is, we would hear you. We would encourage the employee, through you, to find the most appropriate door and with their help, and helping them, move them through that door to get it reviewed.

MR. MACKINNON: Just a quick comment on that because you indicated before that an employee may go to the Ombudsman. But if you look at the investigation criteria, the Ombudsman must investigate disclosure of a wrongdoing if all other procedures available to the employee have been exhausted. You're spinning them around in circles.

MR. NURSE: No, no, the Ombudsman makes the judgment around whether it would have been appropriate to go there and the Ombudsman says, no, you're right, this is the first and best place to bring it, let's do our best to deal with it. I know we're going to move on. I can only tell the committee and you'll hear it with whatever ear you're listening with, but I understand this reg and policy to be a response to employees' expression of concern. I understand this reg and policy to be one other effort by those responsible, that is, the management group, to demonstrate a commitment to good, ethical, smart management of resources. When we're not doing it, we share the desire to get to the bottom of it, root it out and deal with it. That's a legitimate wrongdoing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Whalen, do you have a short one?

MS. WHALEN: I do, actually, really short. On the second page you referred to who it is applicable to, in the first slide it says, ". . . to a person appointed to the civil service in accordance with the Civil Service Act." What I would like to suggest is that we have a lot of term, contract and casual employees, are they not in any way covered?

MR. NURSE: The reason they are regs and policy is that the regs allowed us to have the approach applied to core civil servants under the Civil Service Act. The policy then includes highway workers, casuals, contract, anyone else paid directly by government. So that was a concern and that is one of the reasons why there is a policy as well as a reg. The policies go on for everybody to give a bit more information on the how with those forms at the back, a bit more information on the process.

MS. WHALEN: I'm glad they haven't been left out entirely. What do we do with groups like the people who work for group homes, small options homes, the VON, those are all paid by public monies but we contract out and say, we like to say, or I would say, hide behind the idea we have an arm's-length relationship with those organizations.

MR. NURSE: The instructions for government are for us to implement this in the core and within the next six to seven months to consult with the ABCs around what approaches they're taking to create the same opportunity for disclosure for their employees. Our task is to look for and report back on the availability of similar mechanisms and to encourage the ABCs that don't have them to look at our experience and learn with us from that. So the hope is that in the fullness of time, this opportunity will be available to all employees paid by government directly or indirectly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. MacDonald, a quick one.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Well, I'm wondering whether or not you would consider an additional amendment to this that would essentially say that management aren't going to be the ones that will determine whether or not a whistle-blower has acted in bad faith or whatever, that there be an independent? If we can't have an independent, stand-alone piece of legislation with some independent oversight, then at the very least perhaps we should provide some independent protection for people who do have the courage to come forward and express their concerns. That is a hole in these regulations that you could drive a truck through.

MR. NURSE: If the determination is made early, the Ombudsman can say otherwise. So there is a place in the regulations where the Ombudsman could say manager, you're wrong, this is not frivolous, this is serious, and there is a place in the regulations that says, all of this notwithstanding, the employee has the access here she always had to the collective agreement, where if I feel aggrieved, I can take it there. There really are parallel courses that are better known than this.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: You see those better than I, I think, but I'm not going to be argumentative about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That concludes our discussion on the disclosure. Do you have a presentation on occupational health and safety?

MR. NURSE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we can be briefer with this and, again, cover it in five or six minutes, maybe, and then open to questions. I'll say at the outset that one of our worries was that we weren't as focused coming to speak to this topic, we were trying to anticipate what the committee might be able to hear about from us as opposed to other departments. So I'll speak to it as we tried to anticipate your issues, and we'll change the cast while we do that.

Again, you have a handout. What we would like to do, with respect to the OH&S presentation, is talk about three things: the relationship between the Act and regulations, which is a public and private workplace guide; the corporate OH&S policy, which the Public Service Commission and all departments are expected to comply with; and then, very quickly, what the Public Service Commission's role is within government in the area of OH&S. Let me do that with moving the slides and things pretty quickly through. I'll just try to name those three topics, and give you some data at the end that gives us a sense of where we are and what work remains to be done.

First, from the point of view of occupational health and safety legislation and regulations generally, responsibility resides with the Department of Environment and Labour, that has an advisory council that then influences the addition of or alterations to regulations. Those Acts and regulations apply, as I said, to public/private, and in that context the commission has a monitoring role, as an employer, around applicable policies and objectives.

Inside now, the corporate OH&S policy, effective July 1, 1997, you all know that our world changed post-Westray, and I would submit that some of the changes reflected in government's response to OH&S and in particular in this policy. Policy objectives: to ensure that government workplaces are compliant with the Act and regulations, to be sure that we're taking preventive measures in our behaviours; and then to be sure that all levels of management are held accountable for compliance with policies and regulations. The commission's role is to develop and implement policies, guidelines that help departments and employees pay attention to this important issue, and within the commission, of course, to implement, as a department, the same policies and procedures.

To fast-forward, through 2001-03, the Public Service Commission not only went through its own overall review and role change, but also looked at its role in the area of occupational health and safety. So we did a review, we had a report submitted, there were 19 recommendations, and I can report to the committee that of those recommendations

submitted in 2003, some 60 per cent have been acted on fully and the other 40 per cent are being pursued as we speak.

Just to give you a few quick examples, the report spoke to the need for us to raise awareness on OH&S; to re-establish the audit practices that were in place some years back; to address and add resources in this area, where needed; and for the commission to provide strategic leadership on the issues. So there were three - under 19 recommendations - broad categories that we were able to break them down.

[10:15 a.m.]

Let me quickly say the progress that we believe we've made in those three headings. First on leadership, we've created a senior OH&S position within the commission that looks out to support the field, and Joel is the person with a deep OH&S experience that supports his colleagues and employees in the field. OH&S targets are part of the performance management process for all managers, deputy ministers included. So in my mandate letter, in my performance review, annually, I'm required to report to my boss on what I've done in my department to be sure we're compliant and beyond. That's expected of every other manager and deputy.

The OH&S issue is a specific bullet in the Public Service Commission's business plan, which you can find in a number of places. Strategic planning day, the Master OH&S Committee - which, as you know, is made up of senior labour leaders and managers from within the Public Service - oversees, from a monitoring point of view and an advisory point of view, how we're doing. I had the privilege of meeting with them at their planning day. Again, talked to them about the Public Service Commission's role, worked a little - I won't say that I was there for the full session - to talk about setting some real measurable progress objectives and being sure that those committee structures are working. I was very impressed with the background and skills and commitment of the folks at that Master OH&S Committee table in general, and in particular in the NSGEU commitment to occupational health and safety.

We also have, in our management orientation program, now included, a section on OH&S, so that managers are reminded, as they take up leadership roles, that this is a key aspect of their lives. We have a planning day for OH&S specialists, which Joel is very much involved in, and more than once a month at the HR executive forum, which is the senior human resource leaders in government, Joel is a standing item on the agenda, to report progress and issues. So we certainly have raised the profile, from a leadership point of view.

From a program and information point of view, as I said, we were advised, it was recommended, that we renew the audit process. I'm pleased to report that at least two have been done, and in fact the commission asked to be first, to learn by the audit. So, in a way,

we did a second look at whether we were compliant, and we're following up on that audit, but mostly making sure that those audits now continue to be done throughout government.

We are in the process, as we speak, of causing the annual review of the corporate HR policy, where all departments, through their committees, are asked to look at it, confirm that they've reviewed it, that they understand it, and that they have or haven't got suggestions on how it might be improved and, I use the following word cautiously, improving the delivery of statistical reporting. We know that we need to improve the gathering of data and reporting of data to show how we're actually doing on OH&S issues. That will be something the commission will be paying close attention to in the 2004-05 year.

Finally, on resources, I want to report that currently there are actually 28 individuals providing professional OH&S service across government departments, four of those are positions that were created as a follow-up to the OH&S review of the Public Service Commission that I just mentioned. There are some 120 joint occupational health and safety committees in place, as per the legislation. You might be interested to know that more than 1,000 people, therefore, are, in one way or another, regularly thinking about and focused on safety in the workplace.

We don't believe, at the commission, that it should just be, we're compliant and so the job is done. The world of occupational health and safety is changing, so from a beyond-compliance goal, we are soon to announce a Workplace Wellness Strategy that has a much broader focus, three elements, including our personal lifestyle and work habits, psychosocial issues. We know that the profile of what causes illness and injury in the workplace has changed. We used to be tracking, almost exclusively, accidental injury. Issues of stress, violence, worrying about bullying in the workplace, those are the concerns that are on the horizon today and changing the shape of what people are reporting in that setting. So psychosocial issues and physical work environment, kind of the bare minimum pieces of the puzzle or the starters.

After the Workplace Wellness Strategy, we're also required to review key policies. I want to draw at least one of them in particular to your attention, I mentioned the corporate OH&S policy. You mentioned the sexual harassment or harassment policy, you might be interested to look, when you have time, at the personal protection policy as well. It was introduced in 2000, it is designed to speak to issues of violence that may be a concern to employees, either because of the challenging work that they do in social services or health or wherever that might be or violence in the workplace itself. That policy, I know, is in response to the need for a clear statement around some of those issues. I also know, as you asked about harassment as the policy that employees call upon from time to time, necessarily but sadly.

Beyond compliance, the employees' survey asked a good number of questions about how people feel about safety in the workplace. Again, I'm not saying that this is where it needs to be but these are generally positive comments from a large majority of staff from the employees' survey, 69 per cent reporting that the department has created a safe workplace, 71 per cent reporting that they feel safe and I have in brackets the alternative, 23 per cent saying that they don't feel safe. That's important and we need to catch up to why people feel that way and what should we in addition be doing about it.

I want to show, just for context, there was a Gallup poll that we became aware of that was released in fact just in the last week and this is not to make excuses for any of the countries or us represented, but let me just explain it. In the Gallup poll, they surveyed people in Canada, Great Britain and the U.S. and asked them if their workplace was safe. Not exactly the same question but a question similar to do you feel safe in the workplace? In Canada, the number was 57 per cent saying I feel safe; in Great Britain, the number was 58 per cent of the people saying, I feel safe; in our survey, 69.1 per cent saying I feel safe; and in the U.S., 73 per cent. So it's one of those we know that we want to do better, but if you want to know the context and compare it to other environments, this is the most recent information from a Gallup poll that we understand was pretty extensive. So we take some information from it but don't slack on our wish to do better with our own employees.

From the point of view of so what? What's all that frenetic behaviour and policy and regs doing? We have just some information to report. Lost time injuries over the past five years have gone through the pattern that you see there from 745 lost time injuries at the start of that five-year period to some 558 lost time injuries in 2003-04. Not at all where we would want to be but certainly in the right direction and we will continue to track and try to understand those results.

From the workers' compensation point of view, days lost, the days lost reported here over five years range from 11,107 five years ago through a period where in, 2001-02, there were very significant increases in the experience; and then 2003-04 returning, at least in the right direction; and again in 2004-05, we need to be sure that that continues to be tracked and we look to understand how to improve that. We've watched with interest some of the WCB commitments to a more aggressive approach to education and to prevention. So, we look forward to continuing to work with them.

On the most troubling information around our occupational health and safety experience, what debts have there been in the last five years? If we looked back over 15 years, I think the number would be in the range of 10 or 12, I would have to check (Interruptions) Eight, thank you. In the last five years, there have been two deaths: one in Hants County, I believe, and that was Transportation and Public Works and some trenching; and then another in Englishtown, a Mr. LeBlanc operating a plow, clearing some snow on a wharf and by accident winding up in the water and not being able to escape. So very, very

tragic experiences that are, for sure, well studied, so that we understand if anything might have been done and if we need to do things in those areas to prevent similar outcomes.

Just a last comment on other evidence. We know that 100 per cent of government departments have occupational health and safety programs in place. You know now that we will continue to audit to be sure that while they are in place we have evidence at the commission that they're working and compliant with regs and beyond that. From an employee awareness point of view, it's still not where we would like it to be but when asked, in a large survey, 70 per cent of staff, 7 out of 10 said they knew who their OH&S representative was in the department. If you look to the other side, 23 per cent didn't. So, again, there is still some work to do in that area.

Where to from here? We will continue the audits. As I said, we know we need to improve our data gathering and reporting because that's where the best learning comes from. We intend to grow the wellness focus that I just mentioned through the program that will be announced shortly. We intend to support the Department of Environment and Labour and the advisory council that is currently looking at revision to regulations to the Act, that are the purview of that advisory council. As an employer, we would have comments about some of those changes, but the decision for making those changes resides there.

I can tell you because I think it was one of the things that you had in mind when inviting us, I did check with the deputy there, he was quite candid in saying that the advisory council asked in the Summer for a decision on whether some regs that had been in front of that committee for some time will be acted on or not in the immediate future and there is a commitment from that department to make a determination on those in the immediate future.

Obviously, work still to reduce the injury and illness incidents that we reported to you and then, again, to re-survey staff on their sense of this employer's responsiveness to occupational health and safety issues and do they feel safe in the workplace.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr. MacKinnon.

MR. MACKINNON: Just more of a comment, Mr. Chairman. I would like to compliment the commission on this point because I think the issue of occupational health and safety is near and dear to my heart and having gone through the Westray - not personally, but having watched that and then post-that when the inquiry and the recommendations were done, I think that we have one of the best safety records in the country. I wanted to compliment all the appropriate stakeholders.

MR. NURSE: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Ms. MacDonald.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I want to ask you a few questions about the workplace wellness campaign. I am kind of interested because now there is more of a discussion around bullying in the workplace. There is a growing awareness of this problem of bullying in the workplace. Although I haven't read any research, for example, and I am sure there is research on this, my impression is that people who are bullies are bullies because they can get away with this. It's about power. It's about being able to behave in these ways with impunity. So I would like to know if there is any appetite in government to put some teeth behind a program of eliminating bullying within the public sector so that workers aren't subjected to ridicule or name-calling or swearing or things that we do hear, from time to time, occur. Could you elaborate on that?

[10:30 a.m.]

MR. NURSE: I can say yes.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: You can say yes, there will be teeth? What will the teeth be?

MR. NURSE: I mentioned the personal protection policy. First, the Public Service Commission has responsibility for reviewing all policy in the so-called Manual 500. The key policy, for me, that answers your question or begins to, the two, are the harassment policy and the personal protection policy. The personal protection policy, as I said, speaks to violence or a sense of behaviour that makes me feel threatened, remember the exact language. It is the commission's intent, in its review, to look for the application of that policy, to ensure, again, that people are supported.

We hear the same thing from staff. It's amazing that this starts to sound like the behaviour we worry about in schoolyards. So I would say that as we apply those policies, the tolerance for violence among co-workers - there's the other issue of violence because of the kind of work we do and suffer, but violence among co-workers or behaviours that make any of us feel threatened, we would have a zero tolerance for and would apply that policy in that way. The policy says, totally unacceptable. So it's there, and it's a communication issue again, Ms. MacDonald, I think, of saying, if you feel threatened, there is a vehicle that dates back to the year 2000. We need to underline it.

I just sent it to one department where I became aware of a concern, saying because the concern was raised among two employees - and yes, you're right, we usually kind of look at it that it must be people in power, but it turns out, like the schoolyard, it isn't just people in power. It is people who work side by side with one another, and sometimes threaten one another. It's just not acceptable, and the policy will allow us to support staff who are feeling threatened.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I have one more question. Does the commission track absenteeism and try to analyze if there seems to be an unusual degree of absenteeism, perhaps in a particular office or unit or department, and look at what the underlying features of that are, whether or not it is issues of bullying? Is that something that you do?

MR. NURSE: Yes, and I'll just ask Joel to . . .

MR. JOEL MARSMAN: We track absenteeism, but I would say that we're probably not great yet at identifying those specific issues. That is a concern that we want to zero in on, revising our stats gathering and reporting, and breaking down categories where issues of health-related incidents, for example, bullying can be better identified. They're somewhere in there now, but they're typically lumped in with other types of information. So we need to break those out and become more specific in gathering them, too.

MR. NURSE: Can I just ask Patti to add to that?

MS. PATTI PIKE: As well, the Public Service Commission has the EAP group, the Employee Assistance Program, within their responsibility. Oftentimes they will go to the particular human resource division, if they see an increase in a particular area, to express the concerns there on a confidential basis.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No further questions? Hearing none, we thank you, Mr. Nurse, and your staff, for coming in and presenting before us today and answering our questions. It was very informative.

MR. NURSE: Thank you for your interest, folks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll just recess for a minute or two while our guests leave.

[10:34 a.m. The committee recessed.]

[10:37 a.m. The committee reconvened.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll call the meeting back to order. The next item on the agenda is appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. Mr. O'Donnell.

MR. O'DONNELL: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Community Services, to the Cape Breton Island Housing Authority, I so move Frank Sutherland as a member; and to the South Shore Housing Authority, I so move Andrew Gow as a member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question?

MR. MACKINNON: I have a little question, just a small, innocuous question. Is this the same Frank Sutherland who ran for the Tories in the last election?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that it is, yes.

MR. GORDON HEBB: He sat on the council here, the Halifax County Council. (Interruptions) He was an employee of the City of Halifax when I worked there a long time ago, over 25 years ago.

MR. MACKINNON: Point taken.

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

We better have a recorded vote on this one.

YEAS NAYS

Mr. David Wilson (Sackville-Cobequid) Ms. Maureen MacDonald

Mr. Hines Mr. MacKinnon

Mr. O'Donnell Mr. Glavine

Mr. Chisholm Ms. Whalen

MR. HEBB: For, four. Against, four. You get another vote, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I get another vote. I vote yes.

[The motion is carried.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hines.

MR. HINES: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Education, to the Acadia University Foundation, I so move George Bishop and John B. Carter as members; and to the St. Francis Xavier University Foundation, I so move Iain Daniel Boyd and Mary J. Coyle 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: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Environment and Labour, to the Minimum Wage Review Committee, I so move Rick Clarke and Thomas Patterson as employee representatives, and Steven MacPherson and Sandra Rodd as employer representatives.

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. HINES: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Health, to the Advisory Commission on AIDS, I so move Larry Baxter as a member and chair, and Terry Goodwin as a member; and to the Council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia, I so move Douglas Lloy as a member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question?

MR. MACKINNON: I just wanted to make a comment on the appointment of Mr. Doug Lloy. Although he's a big Progressive Conservative, I do want to comment he is a very credible individual. I've seen him in action in quasi-judicial and judicial forums. He's a top-quality candidate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: An unusual vote of confidence, but maybe we'll take it.

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: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Justice, to the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, I so move David Samson as a commissioner.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment on that. Is this the same David Samson who ran active political campaigns in Richmond County?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have no idea.

MR. MACKINNON: For the Progressive Conservative Party?

MR. CHAIRMAN: All I know is what I've read in the book here, about Mr. Samson. He seems to have a very good resumé, and he's quite qualified, I feel. I have no idea what his political affiliation is.

MS. WHALEN: Mr. Chairman, in addition to that, there are 22 applicants for this position and only one name coming forward at this time. I don't think it's an urgency to pass this one at this moment. I notice the composition of the committee is between three and 12 members. There are eight current members, so they're currently meeting, there's no urgency. I know a couple of the other ones said that they aren't able to meet because they're lacking members. Again, I question, where we have so many applicants and only one name coming forward.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The way I understand it, the name is coming forward because the guy is qualified to be on that board. As I said before, his resumé is there. In my opinion he's very well qualified. Mr. Hines.

MR. HINES: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand the member's suggestion that we defer, because, why are we deferring? It's obviously been brought forward, and it's obviously been reviewed and the name put forward. I don't know what the deferral is going to do in terms of changing anything.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I think the member for Halifax Clayton Park makes a good point, though. We don't really know who the other applicants are. There are a number of other applicants. This has always been a bone of contention for us, in the NDP, that it's really hard to make a decision. We're not saying that this individual isn't qualified to do the job, but we don't know. We have no information in front of us that tells us that this is the most qualified person to do the job. Since the commission can function, they have a number of members - this isn't going to create a problem for the commission being able to do its business - perhaps we should ask for additional information from the selection committee about who else in the 22 would be able to fulfill this role. I have no difficulty with the recommendation from the member for Halifax Clayton Park that we defer.

[10:45 a.m.]

MR. MACKINNON: Perhaps we could just stay this one, Mr. Chairman. I would certainly make that motion, if it's in order . . .

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I would second that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And the reason being? (Interruptions)

MR. MACKINNON: Points have already been made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because he's a Progressive Conservative, apparently, or . . .

MR. MACKINNON: No, I just raised the question. (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: As a committee, we've never seen all the applicants.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Perhaps we should look at this as an opportunity to address what has been a bit of a problem with the appointments process, for some of us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine, if we want to pursue this. Stay this.

MR. MACKINNON: I would move that we stay this one.

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

The motion is carried.

MR. HINES: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Justice, to the Advisory Committee on Provincial Judicial Appointments, I so move Gwen Haliburton and Robert S. Wright as members.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I have some comments. I'm looking at Ms. Haliburton's curriculum vitae, and I note conspicuously absent from her resumé is any reference to the fact that she was an appointed Minister of the Crown, even though she wasn't an elected official, during the tenure of Premier Donald Cameron. I'm just wondering why that would have been omitted. If I was a Minister of the Crown, I would be quite proud. Is it because she wasn't elected, or what's the reason? Her CV goes back to the 1950s.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's obviously a question I can't answer.

MR. MACKINNON: It's almost like we're recycling the ghosts of yesterday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think this is a reappointment.

MR. MACKINNON: I couldn't have been sitting on the committee the last time this came up. When was she appointed, in 1992, 1993?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have no idea.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I have no problem with it. The government needs symmetry and support to support the general principles and objectives of a particular government, irrespective of whether it's Liberal, Tory, NDP or whatever. But it seems to be getting a little out of hand here. With all the people in Nova Scotia who are looking for opportunities, we seem to be recycling political junkies. At what point in time do we not bring a breath of fresh air into the process? That's my concern.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I have a different concern. My concern is about the number of ABCs that an individual sits on. I think that Ms. Haliburton, I look at her resumé, she's obviously a very active, capable, competent person who devotes a lot of her time to various good causes. That's apparent. We just had an appointment for the Council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia, and I note that she is appointed to that group, she sits on that particular ABC. Now we're going to be appointing her to the Advisory Committee on Provincial Judicial Appointments, this same individual. I don't know if she sits on other ABCs.

I like the idea of spreading the opportunities around, even among members of the government Party. I think that in light of the fact that there were, again, seven applicants for this particular ABC, perhaps we could have two additional pieces of information before we pass this particular appointment. One, an itemization of the ABCs that this particular nominee actually sits on already, because that would be a good piece of information to have, and the other would be to find out if there were any other qualified applicants for the Provincial Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee. If so, perhaps we should share those opportunities or spread those opportunities around a bit. So I move the deferral of this appointment until we have that information in front of us.

MR. MACKINNON: I second the motion.

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. (Interruptions)

MR. O'DONNELL: Mr. Chairman, I so move the appointment of Robert Wright.

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

The motion is carried.

MR. O'DONNELL: Mr. Chairman, to the Nova Scotia Legal Aid Commission, I so move Shanta Dhir, Frank Gillis and Vincent MacDonald as members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion . . .

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, let's not be impulsive here. Mr. Frank G. Gillis, Q.C., it's pretty much in keeping with the point that was made with the previous speaker with regard to spreading things around. I think it would be interesting to find out how many boards Mr. Gillis does sit on and how many times he has been appointed to different boards or a list of all the boards that he has served on. I recall numerous occasions coming before

this committee only to see his name and it's not because he is a Progressive Conservative that I raise this issue, I can assure you. It's because I do believe that you should, if we're looking for ways to expand the capacity of the ABCs process to reach out from the community level up to government and vice versa, I think we really should consider reviewing this. I would move a deferral on Mr. Gillis' appointment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hines.

MR. HINES: Mr. Chairman, I don't sit on this committee on a regular basis but are we setting a pattern here because there is a political affiliation with the Progressive Conservative Party and now we're going to ask for only those who are affiliated with Progressive Conservatives to have a scrutiny as to the positions they've held and the number of years they've held them? If we're going to do it for one applicant, we should do it for all. We should treat them all the same, would be my suggestion.

MR. MACKINNON: That's why, Mr. Chairman, I asked for a list of the total number, and I stated quite clearly, it's not because he is a Progressive Conservative. Mr. Gillis is a very able lawyer, I've done business with him over the years, but I can attest to the fact that I've sat here and every time I turn around, he seems to be getting appointed to one ABC or the other. We have gone through a very elaborate process because we're concerned that enough Nova Scotians are not participating in the political process. I'm sure that there are more Tories in Nova Scotia than just Frank Gillis. If you want to bring back another Progressive Conservative with the qualifications, if that's your issue, then fine. But look at the other ones who have applied as well and see if at some point in time we're just going to stop being so myopic about the process.

MR. HINES: My suggestion, Mr. Chairman, was that if it's fair for us to question appointments of one or two individuals . . .

MR. MACKINNON: I'm only questioning the ones I know.

MR. HINES: . . . shouldn't we have that same information available for the other applicants? In light of the fact that we may miss it.

MR. MACKINNON: Sure.

MR. HINES: That will mean that we can't pass anything here until we have this additional information.

MR. MACKINNON: There is a motion on the floor. Mine was to defer Mr. Gillis, I have no problems supporting the other two.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, in that case, we should vote on those individual names for the Legal Aid Commission.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Is there a motion on the floor?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a motion on the floor.

MR. HINES: To defer Mr. Gillis.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Is there a seconder? I'll second that.

MR. HEBB: You don't need a seconder.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That was to defer Mr. Gillis?

MR. MACKINNON: And approve the other two?

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Yes.

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. Glavine.

MR. GLAVINE: If I heard Ms. MacDonald's point correctly earlier, it is that this would become part of our review of the candidates here that the number and nature of boards they're on would be a known fact for anybody who comes up for reappointment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That wasn't part of the motion.

MR. GLAVINE: Wasn't that part of your (Interruptions) That was back under the previous motion. That was referred to a moment ago.

MR. MACKINNON: That was a point that Mr. Hines made.

MR. HINES: Was that part of the motion?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't recall it.

MR. MACKINNON: No, it wasn't part of the motion.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: It was part of the discussion. If this name is to come back, then we need additional information; the information we need . . .

MR. MACKINNON: That was for her's but we could expand the scope of that. Maybe we'll finish this off and we could come back to that. If that's okay, Mr. Chairman.

MR. HINES: Mr. Chairman, to the Nova Scotia Police Commission, I so move Nadine Cooper Mont, Paul Gates, Dr. Daniel Paul, Betty Thomas and Ross Gordon Wagg as members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question?

MR. MACKINNON: Well, Mr. Chairman, again, let's not be too impulsive here. Let's look at Ms. Nadine Cooper Mont. I believe, again, if you're looking to move into the 21^st Century, you have to let go of the past and Ms. Cooper Mont has been very deeply involved in several, going back into the 1980s, Progressive Conservative Administrations - the John Buchanan Administration, Donnie Cameron and so on. She's very well qualified but at some point, it doesn't seem to be like we're opening up the opportunity. I'm sure there are other well-qualified - if Conservative is the issue, I have no problems with that. I mean this is the business of politics and I will be the first to put it on the table, but I do believe at some point in time that we have to open things up and we have to examine, for the reasons pointed out by yourself, Maureen, as to whether we're getting maximum potential opportunity here. So I have no problems with any of the others but I would certainly move to stay her's.

MS. WHALEN: Mr. Chairman, if I could for a moment. I think what's being pointed out too with this particular one, the Police Commission, is that, again, we've got 10 total applicants but out of five appointments, four of them are being reappointed. So we talked earlier and we did talk at some length when we were trying to look for gender parity and visible minority parity and so on. We talked about making more opportunity and recycling again, keeping people on boards again and again. There is a certain value to that, to have some continuity, but this really shows a prevalence of reappointments and I take exception to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. MacDonald.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: While I don't disagree with the points that have been made by the two previous speakers, there is, I think, a problem in not appointing all of the members. The Police Commission, as we know, is a really important ABC and I think it's a shame that only 10 people applied and perhaps people don't realize that the remuneration is quite good for this ABC, by the way. On the Form "A", recommended appointment for Ms. Cooper Mont, it indicates at present that she is the only member of the board, which I don't quite understand because they give us the names of four persons - Jean

Beeler, Betty Thomas who is also being reappointed, and Frances Hinton. Now if, in fact, what they say on that Form "A" is accurate, then to me you would need some continuity on the board, you would need somebody, if you're bringing a group of new people onto the board, it would be good to have some continuity.

Now, Betty Thomas could fulfill that role to some extent, I would say. I know Betty, she's a wonderful person, I'm sure she makes a great contribution to this board, but she's not a lawyer. I think that one of the important roles for this board would be to have somebody with some legal knowledge and where Ms. Cooper Mont has the experience and appears to be the only one who's returning to the board as a lawyer with experience, while I understand the importance of not having the same person appointed over and over to the board, perhaps in this case it's not an unreasonable thing for us to do.

[11:00 a.m.]

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly withdraw my motion. I certainly understand that, but perhaps Ms. Cooper Mont should take this on notice.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I do take the member's point that there are a lot of members of the government Party being appointed to . . .

MR. MACKINNON: I'm just saying I would say the same for the Liberals or NDP, you know that. It's just that if you're looking to broaden the horizons . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think there are quite a few people from all Parties being appointed today.

MR. MACKINNON: Well, let's not get caught up in details. Don't get emotional. (Laughter)

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: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Justice, to the Municipal Board of Police Commissioners, Town of Kentville, I so move George C. Sweet 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.

MR. HINES: Mr. Chairman, under the Office of Health Promotion, to the Nova Scotia Boxing Authority, I so move Wayne Reynolds and Walter Stewart 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: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, to the Nova Scotia Municipal Finance Corporation, I so move James E. Radford as a director.

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. HINES: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage, to the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia Board of Governors, I so move Linda Pirard as a governor.

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: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage, to the Nova Scotia Museum Board of Governors, I so move Archie McCulloch, Sandra Nowlan, Rudolph Stea and James St. Clair 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.

That concludes appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. I guess everybody knows that the ad went out in the paper on Saturday, in some of the local papers. Darlene tells me that the 1-800 number is getting some good response. They received about 20 calls yesterday. That was just for information, that it seems like it's picking up some activity.

The other issue we have is the witness list. I guess people wanted to discuss that at this time. (Interruptions) Anyway, there was quite a change to the design of that ad, too.

MR. MACKINNON: Staff should be complimented on that, as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think so, Darlene and company. We have the witness list there. Are there any suggestions?

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, how have we been doing this? Are we going from one caucus list, taking roundabout - I don't remember how we were doing this.

MR. MACKINNON: The last time, what we did, we took two from each caucus, and just put them into the mix and let Darlene . . .

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Let Darlene work them out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is how it's worked out.

MR. MACKINNON: Well, we could go with the education ones, since it's at the top there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Special education?

MR. MACKINNON: Why don't we do the two education ones. Is that okay?

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The special education, the deputy minister.

MR. MACKINNON: Nos. 1 and 3. And the student debt load. (Interruptions)

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Education, the school capital construction. (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Another question, would that be two separate meetings or could we do . . .

MR. MACKINNON: Two separate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first one will be the Department of Education, special education, and the second meeting will be the student debt load. We'll try to set them up whenever we can. What else do we have on our agenda? The December meeting.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, could I speak to the second issue, the subject of student debt load is great. The witnesses identified are department officials and

the Student Aid Program, but I would like to also make a friendly suggestion that the Nova Scotia Council on Education be extended an invite to attend as well, because I believe this is something they've looked at. They are an arm's-length body of government with responsibility for post-secondary education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Should we bring those people in first, and then bring the Department of Education in afterwards, the administrators, two separate meetings?

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: It's a very focused discussion, student debt load. What the Standing Committee on Community Services has been doing is giving the presenters a really short period of time to present, leaving maximum time for the members of the committee to ask questions. The information all comes out that way, rather than having them coming and talking for a long time. If you brought the department in, told them they had 10 minutes to make a presentation on student debt load, the Nova Scotia Council on Education, 10 minutes, and then the rest of the time for questions.

MR. MACKINNON: I agree. What I would like to add as well, if I could, and my colleague, our Education Critic, would probably speak a little more thoroughly on it, and that's with regard to the students themselves, some representation from the students. I would like to hear it from one of the more important stakeholders in the process. They must have a provincial body that could present.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, if we schedule our meeting . . .

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Maybe we could do that as a follow-up.

MR. MACKINNON: Sure, as a follow-up to the other.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We usually schedule our meetings for two hours, and I'm not sure we have time to do all that in two hours.

MR. MACKINNON: No, we would have to have another meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'd have to.

MR. MACKINNON: Sure. We'll have it as a separate meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Even two different items in one day is pushing it, if you want to have a good question-and-answer session and that sort of thing.

MR. GLAVINE: Mr. Chairman, certainly, as far as discussing student debt goes, I feel that to have a group of students would be very enlightening for us, especially in view of

the recent report by the Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission and the conclusions that they've made. I think that's absolutely the direction we need to go in.

MR. MACKINNON: Would you support a separate meeting?

MR. GLAVINE: Yes, I think a separate meeting. Certainly, most of the presidents of the student councils are very informed on this issue. Three or four them, certainly the metro, Acadia, St. F.X. have all been in the gallery this year regarding this issue. I think it's a timely one, personally.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Russell's suggestion is that we bring the students in first, and get that over with. (Interruptions) Darlene and I will work through the scheduling and we'll let each caucus know what the schedule will be.

The December meeting - it's suggested that we hold our meeting on December 14^th, just because of holidays and Christmas shopping and all that sort of thing.

Is it agreed?

It is agreed.

I guess that concludes our business. A motion to adjourn is in order.

MR. MACKINNON: So moved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are adjourned.

[The committee adjourned at 11:10 a.m.]