HANSARD

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Mr. Ronald Chisholm (Chairman)

Mr. Brooke Taylor

Ms. Judy Streatch

Mr. Frank Corbett

Mr. Howard Epstein

Ms. Joan Massey

Mr. Keith Colwell

Mr. Leo Glavine

Ms. Diana Whalen

In Attendance:

Mrs. Darlene Henry

Legislative Committee Clerk

Mr. Neil Ferguson

Legislative Counsel

HALIFAX, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2005

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

9:00 A.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Ronald Chisholm

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will call the meeting of the Human Resources Committee to order. We will start by going around the table for introductions.

[The committee members introduced themselves.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first thing we have are the appointments to the ABCs.

Ms. Streatch.

MS. JUDY STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Farm Loan Board of Nova Scotia, I so move Hank Bosveld 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.

MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Community Services, the Children and Family Services Act Advisory Committee, I so move Tim Van Zoost as a member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Epstein.

MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to this. Members of the committee will recall that when we last met, the composition of this committee was actively discussed and at the time we put aside a number of the nominees. Mr. Van Zoost was one of the nominees we put aside at the time. You will recall that he was put forward in the category of a person whose children have been or are in the care of the department, or at risk of being in the care of the department.

At the time there was nothing in the documentation to indicate that he would fit the category and indeed reading his CV it seemed, on the face of it at least, highly unlikely that he was likely to be in that category. He has since supplied the committee with an additional letter in which he explains that he has two adopted children. One child, he says, was a private adoption, and although the department does home scrutiny, that really doesn't enter into the category of the Statute as we're looking at it. The second child, he says, however, he adopted after the child had been placed in the care of the Department of Community Services. What he's suggesting is that this, therefore, makes him fit the category.

I have to say I don't think it does. I don't intend to vote in favour of Mr. Van Zoost for membership on the committee. I want to make it clear that in wanting to do that I'm not suggesting that the man is not intelligent or likely to be thoughtful or likely to have, as he says about himself, insights about how the department is likely to work. The problem is that I think it really doesn't fit what the section contemplates. What the section contemplates is that the committee should include in it people who are likely, themselves, to have been the subject of scrutiny, as to their parenting skills by the department in the context of considering whether their children should be apprehended. It's deliberately designed in order to take on to the committee people who have been critical of the department, or at least have certainly experienced, first-hand, that kind of scrutiny, where their parenting skills are being examined in a way that puts the apprehension of their children in question.

The department will know that they actually do have applications from people who clearly do fit that category and what it is that's implied by the Statute. I have to say that not only doesn't Mr. Van Zoost meet the spirit, really, of what the section is all about, I think it would be a stretch to say he fits the letter of what that section is all about. I can't really see that there's any point in putting him on the committee, certainly not in that category. If the minister wants him in one of the other categories, he has a category of other, which is a free-floating section, then he can put that man forward and say he ought to be there. But in putting him forward in the category of a parent of someone whose children are at risk because of the faults of their parenting, or the alleged faults of their parenting, which is really what that section is about, I just don't think he fits the category. I think we have to say, again, to the department, they've ignored what the Statute says. So I intend to vote against it. I don't know if there are comments from anyone else, but that's certainly my view.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Massey.

MS. JOAN MASSEY: Certainly I agree with everything that my colleague has spoken about this morning. I would just like to add on that in order to make positive changes, you have to be willing to hear the negative things that happen in the department, too. I think that's one of the things we're looking for, somebody who has had maybe not a rosy time of it with that department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just wonder how difficult it would be for someone to want to do that.

MR. EPSTEIN: I have to say that the reason we're thinking about the composition of this committee so much, in our caucus, is because we've been approached by a number of people from different parts of the province who have come to us with their complaints about how the system works. I really want to emphasize that it's from all around the province. It's in Cape Breton; it's in Pictou County; it's in HRM. A number of people have come to us and said, I, or my adult children, have had problems with the system. The problems range from what triggers an investigation by the department, to what criteria are used by the department to decide on apprehension, to the experience of children once they're taken into custody, to access to legal services, to how the court proceedings go ahead.

We've had a number of instances of people coming to tell their stories. Many of these people are in very difficult circumstances and, one can see, are probably not ideal parents. On the other hand, when we talk to them, it's clear that there's something at the heart of almost each of the stories that makes you worry and has aroused our concern, in our caucus, over how the system works as a whole.

Now I want to be very clear to everyone here, we're getting a lot of suggestions from the parents that there should be a public inquiry about how the system works throughout the province. We haven't started to advocate for that, we've instead looked at the Statute, and we saw that there was this advisory committee that was supposed to be in place and hasn't been in place for the last few years. So we said to the minister, isn't it about time you appointed this committee because it hasn't been in place.

Now, instead of bringing into the committee the range of people who ought to be there to reflect the knowledge and opinion and experience of dealing with processes under this Statute, we see something different happening. The answer to your question is there are people out there, and some of these parents who have come to talk with us did apply in response to the ad, did apply to be on the committee. It's not impossible to find parents who are prepared to serve on this committee. They're out there. If the minister doesn't like the particular ones who have come forward, he can target, as he clearly did with the composition of the committee from the names we saw before, he can go around and target agencies and say, look for parents who have experienced the system and who are likely to do a good job on this committee. The answer, so far as I can see, is, indeed, there are parents out there who are prepared to do this job.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further comments?

Ms. Streatch.

MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, I wonder, though I don't have the same concerns as my colleague across the way, I do believe that Mr. Van Zoost certainly indicated and articulated clearly here his two children, he views that as qualifying him. The fact that he served quite a bit of time with the Shelburne Youth Centre, I find particularly encouraging. Even though it doesn't go to his being a parent, I find that his role on the Shelburne Youth Centre to be quite encouraging.

I guess my concern is if we do not approve Mr. Van Zoost, does that slow down our committee, does that slow down this important process that we all agreed last time we met was important to get this moving? I guess that would be my concern, Mr. Chairman. If we don't get this committee moving, does it indeed slow down our entire process by not accepting this name?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Glavine.

MR. LEO GLAVINE: Well, with all due respect to what Mr. Epstein has said here, I know that probably most committees do make some internal kinds of changes as they go along. It just so happens in this case that I know Mr. Van Zoost from the community, from his professional involvements, his volunteerism at schools. Gee, people have the ability to empathize. I don't have to be lined up in a certain category to be able to understand and to put forward strong positions. I think this is a committee that needs to get up and running, and simply get moving. I certainly endorse Mr. Van Zoost's appointment to this committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Massey.

MS. MASSEY: I can see this could be debated probably all morning. I'd like to say two things. The committee hasn't been in place, so I think that if we're going to put it in place let's get it right from the get-go. It's very important, we're talking about the lives of children here and, of course, their parents. Although I agree, I can empathize and I empathize on a daily basis in this job, but I've never ever had my child taken away from me, and I do not know what that feels like. I don't know what that feels like. I think we need somebody on this committee who has had first-hand knowledge in that area. I don't think this applicant fits that description.

[9:15 a.m.]

MR. EPSTEIN: I'd like to say again that I have no personal criticism to make of Mr. Van Zoost. I think if he gets appointed either in this category or any other category, I hope he does a good job, there's every reason to think he would. The committee is deliberately

structured to involve people whose own parenting is called into question, that's really what the committee has two positions out of 10 designated as. That is why I have doubts about Mr. Van Zoost being appointed in this category.

We all agree the committee should be up and running, that's why we appointed six of the people the last time, so that they could begin to turn their minds to the work of the committee. If Mr. Van Zoost is appointed today, I'll note that the second position of a parent is still vacant and I hope the department will move properly and quickly to bring a name that really does fit the intended category here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But I think even with the composition of the board that there's probably still room for two on that committee, if I'm reading it right here.

MR. EPSTEIN: We must be missing someone else because I think we appointed six the last time and if Mr. Van Zoost goes on that's seven, and it's a 10-person committee. So one is a parent and there must be two others. I think we asked them to look at the minority group representation, yes, that's right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So it can be 10, so there's still . . .

MR. GLAVINE: So in fact we can still have two parents who meet the actual qualifications the committee is desiring, or has mandated I should say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee can be up to 10 people and Mr. Van Zoost will be seven. Anyway, we do have a motion on the floor. We have discussed it enough.

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

The motion is carried.

MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, continuing on in the Department of Community

Services to the Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers Board of Examiners, I so move Edward MacMaster 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.

MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, continuing on, under the Department of Education, the Cape Breton University Foundation, I so move John Harker and Gordon MacInnis 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.

MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, for Mount Saint Vincent University Board of Governors, I so move Karen Hatcher 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.

MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Health, the Board of the College of Chiropractors, I so move John Doyle 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.

MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Health, the Denturist Licensing Board, I so move Diane Carrigan-Weir, William MacDonald, Robert MacKean, Frank Marshall, and Robin Paris Adams as board 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.

MS. STREATCH: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage, the Advisory Council on Heritage Property, I so move Avis Chapman, Einar Christensen, Robert Cullen, Dr. Paul Erickson, and Olive Pastor as board 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.

MS. STREATCH: Finally, Mr. Chairman, to the Nova Scotia Museum Board of Governors, I so move Daniel Haughn 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.

Some of the other business that we have. The annual report is available, I think we have all had a copy of it. Are we ready to sign?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That can be done then. Our next meeting date will be December 13^th at 9:00 a.m. At that time we will deal with the appointments to ABCs. From our last meeting some of the members asked what we had on the agenda for the new year. We do have a witness list that we've had for quite a while. Maybe we could ask each caucus to send over another list to the clerk, if they have anything else they want to add, and we will deal with that in our meeting in January, if that's fair to everyone? Okay. Very good.

We have the annual report, so we'll get everybody to sign that and give it to the Speaker of the Legislature. That concludes our business.

We are adjourned to meet again on December 13^th.

[The committee adjourned at 9:22 a.m.]