HANSARD

and

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Hon. Ronald Chisholm (Chairman)

Hon. Brooke Taylor

Hon. Judy Streatch

Mr. Frank Corbett

Mr. Howard Epstein

Ms. Joan Massey

Mr. Keith Colwell

Mr. Leo Glavine

Ms. Diana Whalen

[Hon. Judy Streatch was replaced by Mr. Gary Hines.]

In Attendance:

Mrs. Darlene Henry

Legislative Committee Clerk

Mr. Gordon Hebb

Legislative Counsel

WITNESSES

Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage - Heritage Division

Mr. Bill Greenlaw

Executive Director

Ms. Jessica Kerrin

Director of Heritage Promotion and Development

Mr. Marven Moore

Director of Site Operations

HALIFAX, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2006

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

9:00 A.M.

CHAIRMAN

Hon. Ronald Chisholm

MS. DIANA WHALEN (Chairman): I'd like to call the meeting to order. I'd like to have everyone introduce themselves for the record.

[The committee members introduced themselves.]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: For our first order of business today, we have received a letter of resignation from a committee member. I wonder if everybody has had a chance to review that. A copy has been put in front of us. I thought we might deal with that right away. This resignation relates to the Advisory Committee on the Children and Family Services Act. We've had a lot of discussion here about the composition of that committee, the membership and the relative qualifications of each member or category that they represent. I just wanted members to be aware of this, and if there is any discussion, I'd like to hear it.

Mr. Glavine.

MR. LEO GLAVINE: I guess the point that I want to make here is really centred around a process. Perhaps I am not so much wanting to discuss at all Mr. Van Zoost, who of course is the centre of this particular letter. There are appointments in this committee, especially ones like we have gone through regarding the Advisory Committee on the Children and Family Services Act, which require people from different backgrounds and so forth who will fit the criteria that have been set down for that committee. However, there are circumstances of a very sensitive nature that can be, and in this case were, brought forward about Mr. Van Zoost, which we as a committee, I think, need to be addressing in camera, and perhaps some of such a sensitive nature that I wonder about it being recorded in Hansard, personally.

Mr. Van Zoost went through the ropes, of course, a little bit, because in his initial appointment, or the initial time he came before this committee, perhaps he was not in the appropriate category required for the Advisory Committee on the Children and Family Services Act. That being said, when he did come forward there was quite a bit of debate around the appropriateness of his serving on the committee. In that context, of course, some very private information came forward.

I think there is the possibility of that happening further at this level of appointments to provincial agencies, boards and commissions. For that reason, I think we as a committee need to address the very idea of some of our discussions being held in camera, if it is a critical matter to one's appointment. For private matters to have become public, I think, certainly the onus is upon us now to do some review of procedures at this committee. I just kind of open this up.

I have to be a bit careful here. Mr. Van Zoost is a constituent of mine. He came to discuss this matter with me, in terms of how best to have it addressed. I know at one point he was perhaps looking at an appearance before this committee to present, in fact, the whole implication of what happened to him and the potential for a very upsetting family matter to have been addressed, if you wish, in the public domain.

I guess perhaps now he is not going to appear before the committee. I don't think there is such a letter, or perhaps there is. I haven't spoken with him in recent weeks. I do think that we as a committee need to set something in motion here, so that this kind of circumstance doesn't come upon us again.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Chisholm.

HON. RONALD CHISHOLM: Madam Chairman, I was the chairman of the committee when those discussions took place. I did get a letter, as chairman of the committee, from Mr. Van Zoost, requesting a meeting, to appear before the committee, to explain his side of what he thought went wrong. Subsequent to that, I sent him an e-mail and said that we would discuss it at our meeting here today. I think each and every member of the committee should have received a copy of that letter and my response to him.

As Mr. Glavine has said, Mr. Van Zoost did have some concerns, major concerns, as to a pretty delicate situation for him. Anyway, I guess we can discuss that as part of our discussion here this morning. I haven't heard that Mr. Van Zoost doesn't want to appear before the committee now. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe Mr. Glavine has more information on that than I do.

MR. GLAVINE: He had presented me with the idea that, in fact, he would write you, Mr. Chisholm, and present that to you as chairman of the committee at that time, and put forward that request. Perhaps if he hasn't followed up, then it means that he's just going to

go quietly with a letter of resignation and would just like for us to address the circumstances that propelled his decision to resign.

MR. CHISHOLM: There were a couple of things in his letter that he referred to. One was that he would like to have the removal of any private information from Hansard. Now, I'm not sure how that can happen. It's on the public record now, and I'm not sure that can happen. Anyway, I guess it's open for discussion.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Epstein.

MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: The question of occasionally going in camera is well worth our attention. I don't think we really turned our minds to it when we were dealing with this particular nomination. It's good that we remind ourselves that this is an option available to us from time to time. I can't think that it will come up very often. I think that it's really the particular structuring of this committee that might call for it.

You'll recall that one of the designated positions is for someone whose parenting skills have been called into question, although those exact words aren't used in that subsection of the legislation, but that's really what it amounts to. Where that comes up, indeed, it may well be that when someone is applying for the position or is being nominated for the position and sets out the way in which they meet the section of the Act, indeed they might not be all that happy to have the full details set out in Hansard. We could consider going in camera if that ever happens again.

I guess we should remind ourselves that we didn't have a request that the material be treated as confidential, either from the nominee or from the department, at the time. As a committee, I guess we just didn't turn our minds to it at that time. I take it from our experience with this particular applicant and for this particular position that we'll be alert to this the next time it comes up. I guess it will come up, because if Mr. Van Zoost has resigned from the committee, there will be a vacancy. So sooner or later the department will have to turn its mind to coming up with another person to fit the category. I think that's really where we stand at this point, we'll just take it, I hope, as a reminder to ourselves to think about this the next time it comes up.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.

HON. BROOKE TAYLOR: Madam Chairman, I think we have to be very careful here, from my observations, in camera is something that we should try to avoid if at all possible. We established, many years ago, as a subcommittee of this committee, some guidelines. I think, although I don't know the exact terminology - perhaps Gordon could help us - that when a person went through the so-called screening process, then it was agreed that their name and, of course, resumé and references, et cetera, would become public. There may be times that we would want to go back and look at that, but, essentially, I think that's a

guideline we have in place here. I don't know Mr. Van Zoost at all, but did I hear this morning that he may still want to come in and speak to the committee, or did I misunderstand that? I can't understand the value of that at this particular time.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Glavine.

MR. GLAVINE: He had spoken to me about that possibility, just to alert this committee and possibly put before it the standing idea that there may be times in which personal and very private information could become public, as it did in this case. Because of the nature of this committee going forward, it became the subject of an article in The Daily News. It was with great consternation that the family discovered, when they checked on a family Web site, that now this information had been moved in there, because when the name Van Zoost was "Googled" in, if you wish, this came in conjunction with a Web site that they had created.

Certainly as an educator, I know that even at the high school level there are children who do not know that they are adopted children, while it is a much more widespread practice that children know earlier on. So can you imagine, a family and children discovering, if it happened to go public, as it did in this case, then it does present some very serious consequences. As Mr. Epstein said, it is just a reminder that if such sensitive information comes forward, we need to be cognizant of that and we need to act on it appropriately in this committee.

[9:15 a.m.]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hebb.

MR. GORDON HEBB: I was just going to respond to Mr. Taylor. What he's referring to is the policy as set out on the first page of your binder.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: If I could, I recall reading the letter. I'm sorry it isn't before us today so that we could see it, because it was quite lengthy. I know you have a copy. Perhaps members of the committee would like to review the letter that came from Mr. Van Zoost. I do remember that he wanted the courtesy, the opportunity, really, to come before us and maybe explain why he was offended and so on, and perhaps that will be done in camera. We can decide that. I was just looking at the rules for meetings. If a majority of the committee votes, we can hold a portion of our meeting in camera. So that's something we could look at. I think, because he has been upset by this, it would be good to offer him the opportunity to come. That's what I feel as a citizen, that if he wants to come and address us, he should be allowed to.

Mr. Colwell.

MR. KEITH COLWELL: I agree. I think that where he did send a letter in, even though he has been talking to Mr. Glavine about this, I think we should give him the courtesy of responding to the letter, and in a positive manner indicate that he could come to the committee. If, indeed, it is his wish to come, I would like to see, at least initially when he comes in to discuss this very delicate situation, that it be in camera, at least that part of it. Then maybe after that we could go out of camera and have a discussion with him on less-sensitive issues, maybe just around the topic of this. I think that would be a very good idea. I can't imagine what it would be like for him if that happened, or for anyone that would happen to. Maybe we could make sure to send him a very nice letter from the committee indicating that he has the opportunity to come, if he so wishes.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corbett, did you have a comment?

MR. FRANK CORBETT: A couple of things. One that jumps out at me here, I guess, is the fact that these come to us as items to vote on, from Executive Council, with no direction as far as the propriety of saying anything in public, outside of the fact that these books are to be treated as confidential. When we get into this arena, there's nothing in there. There is a whole body that vetted this, that did not see any reason to hold back any information. The other fact of this is that this was a committee - and again I have all kinds of sympathy for Mr. Van Zoost - that basically government was being forced to strike because it abdicated its role for many years. So one would realize, I would have thought, at some point, the sensitivity that should have been exercised around this.

I want to lend my voice to those who say that if we're at any point going to go in camera, we better be darn sure that we're going there for a good reason and that the utmost of prudence be exercised when we go in camera. I think part of our job and part of what we're vetting here today is for all Nova Scotians to see. Indeed, I think that if there were something to be learned from this, it's that maybe when this information is coming back from Executive Council that there be addenda at that point to tell us what's going on, to give us some more direction on it.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Madam Chairman, do you know - or perhaps, Gordon - whether or not when an applicant applies for one of these ABCs if in fact it's explicit or understood that if they are appointed to the agency, board or commission that remunerates its members at the rate of $100 or more per day that in fact the information can be made public? Do we know if in fact Mr. Van Zoost would have been aware of that? If he wasn't, that may be the crux of the problem. It goes on to say, "Requests for this information from the press or public will be referred to the Executive Council Office."

I just think that it may be a case of Mr. Van Zoost not being aware of the information. Again, I support my colleague across the way and want to repeat, I really don't think that this

committee should be going in camera. When it gets to this stage, our job is to approve or disapprove. It should have been vetted and screened by the committee previous to coming here, I really believe. It's unfortunate that this happened, I feel for Mr. Van Zoost, but for this committee to go in camera, it really has to be based on strong rationale, and this time I think we unwittingly found ourselves in the situation we're in.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Ms. Massey.

MS. JOAN MASSEY: I'd just like to note that there are indeed people who put their names forward as applicants for these committees. In fact, there are people who have put their name forward and have become the successful applicant, as far as the minister's concerned, who do not know it is voted on at this committee. They believe that when the phone call comes from the department that they in fact are on this committee.

I think there is a breakdown, maybe, in communications between when people apply and the process they follow. I agree with my colleague beside me that, indeed, I think that whole process needs to be looked into and maybe some education for the people who are involved in putting their names forward. So this may be something that's a lesson for everybody and we can learn from it and maybe improve the way we're doing things.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Exactly. I think there are lessons to be learned just in what has unfolded, but I'd like to go back to the gentleman's request to come before the committee. If it's the agreement of the committee, I feel we should write him a letter and give him that opportunity. I guess it remains, perhaps in discussion with him, whether or not he's willing to speak in camera or out of camera. I think we would have no objection if he is speaking about personal details and wants to explain things to us that we could go in camera at that point.

Anyway, I'd like us to be able to agree to move forward and invite him to come. So is that the wish of the committee?

MR. GLAVINE: I so move that Mr. Van Zoost, if he so wishes, appear before the Standing Committee on Human Resources.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: So we'll move forward and invite him, then, if there are no objections. Thank you very much.

The time is getting later and we do have guests this morning, so I'd like to move to the appointments of agencies, boards and commissions.

Mr. Chisholm.

MR. CHISHOLM: Madam Chairman, under the Department of Community Services, to the Children and Family Services Act Advisory Committee, I so move Frederick Francis Benson as a member.

MADAM 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. Taylor

MR. TAYLOR: Madam Chairman, to the Round Table on Early Childhood Development, I so move Ronda Bagnell, Angela Bishop, Jane Cawley, Lila Hope-Simpson, LeeAnne Marchand, Anne Moses, Polly Ring, Cheryl Taylor and Denise Vacon as members.

MADAM 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. GARY HINES: Madam Chairman, under the Department of Economic Development, to the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation, I so move Gregory Barro and Helen Millington as members.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corbett.

MR. CORBETT: I'll be voting against these two nominees, Madam Chairman, because of the fact that when I look at the makeup of the board there are so very few people on that board who have strong industry relevance. I realize in the standing committee that out of the qualifications in Guidelines 3 and 4 for Mr. Barro, they assume he hits two aspects and I believe the other applicant, Ms. Millington, hits three of the four, but with very little relevance to the film industry. I believe this is an industry that's an important piece of our economic engine and I really feel that these names should not go forward and they should come back with people with more relevant industry-related experience.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Epstein.

MR. EPSTEIN: I agree, and here's the problem. The problem is that, of course, this committee doesn't get to know the details of all the people who might have applied, so we can only judge on the basis of what comes forward by way of descriptors for the individuals who actually are nominated to us by the ministers involved.

When you look at the qualifications of the two here, it's not at all clear that they have a link to this particular industry. I think what we need is more convincing that these people are good people and a good fit. I'm not even saying that we need to be convinced that they're absolutely the best of the individuals who applied, although one would hope that's who we're being offered. But at the same time, we're not seeing enough that really says, here are people who have a good connection with this industry, who have the knowledge and background that would really make it clear that they would be good people on this committee.

I don't know that we necessarily have to reject them, but we could certainly seek more information. I suppose if the only way to deal with that is a motion here to turn them down, it wouldn't be turning them down for all time, but I think it should certainly be interpreted as a question of seeking more information that would try to let us know why these people would be a good fit.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Ms. Massey.

MS. MASSEY: Actually, Madam Chairman, when I look at my notes on that one, Ms. Millington, if you look at her cover letter, she doesn't even mention that board at all. There's nothing in there for you to know what one she's applying for, which sort of struck me as odd. I find that in some of the resumés. It's sort of like people sending in a blanket resumé, I have this background, but they don't really talk about what they see as the future for that ABC that they want to get on, they talk about it as if they don't really know anything about it. So I just wanted to make that comment. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Madam Chairman, I would just question, I'm not clear on what qualifications the three previous members are actually looking for for these two candidates. If you read their resumés, I think the member for Halifax Chebucto said - maybe inadvertently - that he's not sure they're even good people.

MR. EPSTEIN: No, that they would be a good fit for this particular committee. I wasn't making a wholesale condemnation of the individuals at all. I want to be clear about that, absolutely not. I'm sorry if I misspoke.

MR. TAYLOR: But I do think it's fair that you generally pointed out why you won't be supporting them and that's fine, that's your prerogative to approve or disapprove, but I haven't heard one reason why - like, what qualifications are you actually looking for? If you could tell us, perhaps, maybe, we all might agree.

MR. CORBETT: If I may, Madam Chairman, a connection to the film industry. There's absolutely no connection. One is a former civil servant and one is a lawyer. If you look at Ms. Millington, per se, the page headlined Standing Committee on Human

Resources, Guideline 3 gives you a list of guidelines, and then Guideline 4 tells you what they believe they have: administration, government and human resources. And when you look through their CV, there's nothing that connects that back to the film industry or finding locations for the film industry.

The same, again, with Mr. Barro: legal and administration support. Someone could be a very good administrator in a legal office and if someone comes in and says, look, we need to hire a best boy, we need to hire a couple of cameramen, we need a couple of stuntmen, they all of sudden have this idea of administration around the film industry? I would contend not.

MR. TAYLOR: Madam Chairman, if I could just counter - and I won't belabour it any longer than this - if the member or members have concerns about the qualifications, then they should point that out to Executive Council because clearly, under the qualifications that are required to be on an ABC, they do in fact meet the qualifications. So you're not questioning that they don't meet the qualifications in the guidelines that we established as a committee in concert, you're pointing something out that you want some more direct involvement with whatever ABC. It doesn't ask for that though, so these folks are in compliance, and in full compliance as far as I'm concerned, with legal, financial, administration, creative, marketing, government, technology.

MR. CORBETT: But relevant industry, if I may. One would have hoped that our bright people in Executive Council would have picked up on that, but they didn't.

MR. TAYLOR: Well, I point out that only five applied, Madam Chairman, and one is female - they meet gender and affirmative action, which is also part of the criteria. So I feel you're splitting hairs, but I'll concede.

MR. EPSTEIN: I'll add a small point about the lawyer. The lawyer seems to be from the same firm where his senior partner chaired that board for quite a number of years. I think the point is that, at least superficially, it gives the impression that the position is just kind of being passed around amongst the partners of the firm. That doesn't seem to me to kind of bear the hallmark of an open process in which all Nova Scotians are able to be equally considered for this. Now I know the positions were advertised, and I take the point that there were only about five people who applied, but surely we could try to spread the opportunities around a little bit. I think this is another part of it.

[9:30 a.m.]

MR. TAYLOR: Again, there were only two females. One of them, her name is here today, and we're going to disqualify her. (Interruptions)

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order. Are you ready for the question? Is there any further discussion?

MR. COLWELL: Can we vote on the two of them separately?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: That's fine. Maybe Mr. Hines would just read one of the names.

MR. HINES: Madam Chairman, to the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation, I so move Gregory Barro as a member.

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

Can we have a show of hands, please?

Would all those in favour of the motion please raise your hands. Contrary minded, please raise your hands.

The motion is defeated.

MR. HINES: Madam Chairman, to the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation, I so move Helen Millington as a member.

MADAM 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. Chisholm.

MR. CHISHOLM: Madam Chairman, under the Department of Economic Development, the Waterfront Development Corporation Limited, I so move George Archibald, William Gates and Donald McIver as directors.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Ms. Massy.

MS. MASSEY: I'd like to make a few comments on that one before we vote. As everyone may recall, at the last Human Resources Committee meeting I sent around some notes I had compiled, comparing what has been going on with the board. I'm going to be voting against all three of these upcoming applicants, based on the fact that right now the Waterfront Development Corporation Limited had seven people apply, four of them were

men, three were female, and the board, right now, is comprised of six males and one female. If these three people are put on that board, the board will be nine men and one female.

I'm going to be voting against all three, and I would like to actually request that we see the resumés for these females. I would like to know why they were not sufficient applicants to have their names go forward.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Epstein.

MR. EPSTEIN: A perfectly good point. I had noticed the same thing about the composition of this board. It's doing important work right now in metro, it always has. I think we want to make sure that it's as open and widely representative as possible. This particular organization, I think we have to be concerned about this. There's not a really narrow focus for this. The Waterfront Development Corporation Limited controls a lot of land and the decisions that it makes with respect to its land use in metro is an extremely important public policy issue. So you want to make sure that the people who are on the board, making these decisions, are fairly widely representative. I just don't see that emerging from the nominations that we have so far.

Again, I want to be clear, this is not a critique of the ability of any of the individuals whose names are coming forward, it's a desire to see a differently structured board. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Colwell.

MR. COLWELL: I'm going to make a sort of unusual request. As my honourable colleague, Mr. Epstein, has said, it's a very important board for Nova Scotia. Is it possible to sort of stand these names? We have no idea what the qualifications are of the ladies who applied. If they have very good qualifications, I would totally agree. We should have a good gender mix, as well as a good racial mix on all these committees. But without having the resumés here, we may send this back, and they could come back and say, well, we can't recommend anyone else because they don't have the criteria or the qualifications they need. We wouldn't want to see these people turned down, if, indeed, it's the best group of people for the board that the department could come up with. I don't want to see it just because someone - and there is a gender inequity here. It's just to make sure we're getting the best person for the job.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any more comments on that?

Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: We have a motion on the floor now from my colleague to the right to nominate these people. I think, first, Madam Chairman, we have to have the mover agree to - I don't think it's in our mandate, but we have, as a committee, stood names in the past. It does seem to make some accommodation that would perhaps address concerns that members have. I would be in agreement with that, although I would support them going through. I guess you can pretty well assume from where we sit where this is going. I would just point that out.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: So the suggestion, then, is that we stand these appointments, and ask for more information on the resumés of the three women who have applied.

MR. COLWELL: Maybe everyone who has applied.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Is that the request of the committee, everyone? We can certainly request it. I don't know if we'll get it, but we'll request it.

MR. CHISHOLM: I will agree to stand the motion for those three candidates.

MR. TAYLOR: I think we would have to deal with that, the motion to stand.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: First?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I think you would, Madam Chairman. Then you would have to deal with the request.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: There's a motion on the floor to stand these appointments. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

That is now stood.

The second part of the question is, do we, as a committee, request the other CVs be made available.

Mr. Colwell.

MR. COLWELL: So moved.

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

The motion is carried.

We will make that request.

We will move to the next committee.

Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Madam Chairman, under the Department of Education, to the Council on African-Canadian Education, I so move Patricia Barton, Kim Cain, Tracey Dorrington-Skinner, Jacquie Farrow-Lawrence, Karen Hudson, Brian Johnston, Kathy Rhodes-Langille, Charles Sheppard and Tracey Thomas as members; and Dr. Felicia Eghan and Edward Simmons as members at large.

MADAM 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. HINES: Madam Chairman, under the Department of Education, to the Université Sainte-Anne Board of Governors, I so move Greta Murtagh as a member.

MADAM 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. Chisholm.

MR. CHISHOLM: Madam Chairman, under the Department of Health, to Health Authority District 9, the Capital Region, I so move Robert Fougere as a member.

MADAM 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. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Madam Chairman, under the Department of Health, to the Nova Scotia College of Physiotherapy Board of Directors, I so move Janice Atkins and Robert Cowan as members.

MADAM 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. HINES: Madam Chairman, under the Department of Health, to the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, I so move Robert Fougere as a member.

MADAM 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. Chisholm.

MR. CHISHOLM: Madam Chairman, under the Office of Health Promotion, to the Nova Scotia Gaming Foundation, I so move Russell Oehmen as chairman and a member, and Kevin Christmas and Hubert Devine as members.

MADAM 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. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: Madam Chairman, under the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, to the Board of Registration of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, I so move Mark Stevens as a member.

MADAM 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. HINES: Madam Chairman, under the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, to the Real Estate Commission of Nova Scotia, I so move David Melvin as a member.

MADAM 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 the appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. We do have guests with us today, and we have cut into their time quite a bit, by our discussion. So I would suggest we give them an hour and a half. We have extra time today. We can sort of see how it goes. Maybe we'll aim for 11:00 a.m. and allow a little extra time, if necessary. We do also have agenda setting that we had planned to do for the last half-hour of the meeting this morning, just to remind members.

Mr. Corbett.

MR. CORBETT: Madam Chairman, if I might just say, while we're getting ready, we do have two guests here today who may not be with us, and it may be a little bit harder to do some agenda setting without the other two involved. I'm not one for putting things off, but we know that these two fine gentlemen will not be joining us anytime soon. Also, from our Party, I'd like to congratulate the two members on their appointments to Cabinet. I also wonder if we're not better off waiting to see who the new chairman will be and the members who will be appointed by their caucuses. If not, that is no big deal to me, I'll go either way. I'm not much for delaying, but if that's the will, I just wanted to put it out there.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion on that suggestion? I might suggest that if we're going to postpone the larger agenda setting that we at least choose some witnesses for our next meeting, just so that we keep the ball rolling. There are quite a number of items that have already been agreed upon in our list of potential witnesses. We'll do that, at the end of the meeting we'll select for our next meeting.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses here with us today. I'm Diana Whalen, chairman of the committee for this morning. I'm going to ask our members to introduce themselves, again. Perhaps I should have waited the first time, but I'd like you to introduce yourselves to the witnesses here today.

[The committee members introduced themselves.]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I wonder if you could, as well, introduce yourselves, and then begin your presentation.

MR. BILL GREENLAW: First of all, let me thank you very much for the invitation to speak here today, Madam Chairman. To my left is Jessica Kerrin, Director of Heritage Promotion and Development; to my right is Marven Moore, Director of Site Operations. I'm

Bill Greenlaw, the Executive Director of Heritage for the Province of Nova Scotia. I have prepared opening remarks. I'll work through those, and then afterwards, we'll see.

I appreciate the chance to be here to talk with you about museum funding. After some opening comments, I will be happy to entertain any questions that you might have. I hope we can clarify for you the province's mandate regarding Heritage, its current investment in museum funding and the optimism we hold for the future of heritage in Nova Scotia. Before I talk about the specific question of museum funding, I would like to talk briefly about the province's Heritage mandate.

The Heritage Division is part of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage. A key role played by the department for the province is in the stewardship and development of Nova Scotia's heritage resources. The department has a responsibility to continue to protect, develop and manage wisely Nova Scotia's rich natural and cultural heritage. To do this, we work with communities, with organizations and with all levels of government.

Stewardship and development programs of the Heritage Division include: the Special Places Program, the Heritage Property Program, the Community Museum Assistance Program, and the Strategic Development Initiative. Our mandate is tied to five Acts. Some of the actions we take in key areas of our mandate are dictated by what is stated in these laws. They are: the Special Places Protection Act, the Cemeteries Protection Act, the Heritage Property Act, the Nova Scotia Museum Act, and the Sherbrooke Restoration Commission Act. We have a budget of approximately $10.6 million annually, from the province, to carry out our mandate.

[9:45 a.m.]

Now to museums. There is no question that museums in Nova Scotia are well used and contribute to the economies and well-being of our communities. In 2005-06, visitor numbers to the Nova Scotia Museum and community museum sites totalled almost 727,000; Web visits for our community museum sites were more than 465,000, and the Nova Scotia Museum Web site had just over 2.3 million hits. The community commitment to museums is evident also in the 93,759 volunteer hours contributed to activities, programs and museum operations at these sites.

The Heritage Division provides or supports the employment of over 650 individuals in the heritage sector in over 90 communities. In some rural areas, museums are a major employer and economic driver.

When we talk about museums in Nova Scotia, it is important to understand the structure. First, let me clarify that some museums, 27 in fact, are part of the Nova Scotia Museum family of provincial museums. Another 66 sites that we call community museums

receive an investment of operational funds from the province through the Community Museum Assistance Program, administered through the Heritage Division.

When we speak of the Nova Scotia Museum family, we can divide the 27 museums into two categories: directly-managed sites and locally-managed sites. Directly-managed sites are those 10 provincial museums whose day-to-day operation is a direct responsibility of Civil Service staff. Directly-managed museums include the Museum of Natural History and the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic, as well as the Museum of Industry in Stellarton. In addition, seven small historic houses and mills fall into this category.

The second category, locally-managed museums are managed day to day by local community groups. The Nova Scotia Museum works with 15 societies that manage 17 sites. Local management boards play an important role in heritage stewardship. The close partnership with local management groups ensures high standards of museum practice are maintained. In most cases, these local managers are community heritage societies that are governed by volunteer boards.

The Nova Scotia Museum, the largest decentralized museum in Canada, manages and maintains a collection of over 1 million artifacts and specimens. The collection is never stagnant, it grows as Nova Scotians continue to donate valuable pieces of our rich and valued heritage. This means researching, documenting and preserving, while fulfilling an interpretive role as well. Among the 240 buildings we own are large museum sites, such as the Museum of Natural History, to historic buildings found in Sherbrooke Village, to barns and equipment sheds. Both the Nova Scotia Museum and, indeed, the Heritage Division, rely on the work of dedicated staff to carry out the wide range of work in our file.

Approximately $9.6 million from the Heritage Division budget is allocated to Nova Scotia Museum sites. Revenues raised by the Nova Scotia Museum are generally directed back into the 27 provincial museums. Museums in Nova Scotia face exactly the same issues that you've heard voiced by community museums, and these same issues are being faced by museums nationally.

Now let's look at community museums. As I stated earlier, besides the Nova Scotia Museum family of 27 provincial sites, another 66 museums receive an investment from the province through the Community Museum Assistance Program, CMAP. CMAP provides grants to eligible museums. To be eligible, participating museums must apply and self-evaluate their museum practices. Then the museums undergo a peer review process, managed through the Heritage Division, in which the museum is evaluated on the same museum practices. Only then is the museum recommended to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Heritage for inclusion in the CMAP program.

In 2005, the department invested $856,000 in the operation of 66 community museums through CMAP. It is heartening to see that the number of museums participating

in the CMAP program has grown steadily. For example, in 1995, when the peer review process began, 50 museums were funded through the program. Today, there are 66 participants. This increase shows that Nova Scotians and communities are very dedicated to preserving their heritage, and they are keen to protect their history to the standards promoted by the CMAP program. This becomes even more obvious when one considers that these museum operations rely heavily on volunteer boards and staff from the community.

In 2005-06, the province provided a $50,000 increase in the program's overall budget over the previous year in an effort to meet the growing demand of museums for inclusion in the CMAP program. Nova Scotia is one of only four provinces which directly support community museum operations, and it offers a comparatively high level of support. It is interesting to note that the CMAP program model is envied in other jurisdictions.

In addition, $200,000 is available for innovative heritage projects through the Strategic Development Initiative, what we call SDI. SDI encourages projects that promote partnerships and good business practices in heritage organizations. SDI is an application-driven program, with peer-review evaluation. An example is the Federation of Nova Scotian Heritage's funding for the third phase of the Passage program. The Passage has, over several years, provided computer equipment and compatible museum management software to link 59 museums across the province. This year's project will continue the technical training community museums require, and enhance the quality and depth of information about Made in Nova Scotia artifacts in museum collections.

So far, I've explained to you the province's mandate for Heritage and placed the Nova Scotia Museum and the community museums in context. I've told you about the CMAP program, through which 66 community museums receive partial operational funding, and described to you the Strategic Development Initiative that supports heritage projects across the province.

Now I'd like to break down our budget for you. The division receives approximately $10.6 million from the province. Our budget also includes another $1.5 million in revenue generated by the provincial museum system. The largest percentage of our budget is allocated to the support of museums. A significant amount is channelled to investment programs including CMAP, the Strategic Development Initiative, and the Heritage Property Program. The funding of museums is one important facet of a much larger picture of challenges related to the management of Nova Scotia's precious heritage resources.

There are many challenges faced by both the province and communities in managing these sites, especially in ensuring the long-term preservation of heritage buildings, coordinating and managing the day-to-day operational concerns, such as rising energy costs. The heritage sector grapples with financial sustainability, preservation of heritage collections, its ability to present relevant exhibits, its ability to market and promote, its support of

professional development for staff and volunteers, and its retention of volunteers. The number of museums continue to grow while funding levels remain the same.

As a comprehensive response to these challenges, the province and the sector are working together to develop a heritage strategy for Nova Scotia. This strategy would provide a tool for decision makers in the heritage sector and give government vital information about what Nova Scotians want. It became evident in 2004 that the first step in addressing these challenges in a long-term and strategic way was to find out the true state of heritage affairs in Nova Scotia. Both government and the heritage sector had to understand what Nova Scotians need and want in terms of their history. We need to evaluate what we do in heritage, challenge how resources are allocated, and guide preservation of Nova Scotia's history through the filter of what is determined to be most important to the people of the province.

In 2005, we provided $80,000 to the Federation of Nova Scotian Heritage toward a Voluntary Planning project to engage Nova Scotians in a public consultation process to gather information on the current state of heritage. Voluntary Planning will make recommendations to government and the heritage sector based on those findings. Their report, a draft of which will be released in April 2006, will form the basis of a heritage strategy for Nova Scotia.

The recommendations of the Heritage Strategy Task Force will reflect what Nova Scotians think about this issue in a way that has never been available to us before. The heritage strategy will be a "road map" that will help the province determine how best to allocate its resources to contribute to the preservation and promotion of heritage in Nova Scotia. Through its recommendations, government will have a better understanding of what direction it should take toward heritage resource management, including how best to address community needs.

This is an exciting process, and one which may have an impact beyond Nova Scotia. As I stated earlier, these challenges are faced across Canada. If you will note, in your binders, I was part of a round-table meeting of heritage sector leaders held in Ottawa last June. I encourage you to review the report on those discussions.

In summary, I've talked about the province's mandate for Heritage, clarified the structure of the museum community, and told you about the Heritage Division's budget and the province's financial investment in museums. I've also pointed out the challenges faced by both provincial and community museums, and described the process we have embarked upon together to meet these challenges by developing a heritage strategy for Nova Scotia.

In conclusion, let me say that the outlook for heritage in Nova Scotia is positive. Nova Scotians are deeply committed to the preservation of their heritage. There is evidence of a growing enthusiasm about heritage as people become engaged in the Heritage Strategy Task Force public consultations. We see enormous opportunity existing as task force

recommendations lead government and the sector to the development of the heritage strategy for Nova Scotia.

Voluntary Planning's public consultations in the Fall of 2005 showed Nova Scotians' pride, interest, deep enthusiasm and concern for their heritage. The recommendations forthcoming from that process will provide a huge opportunity for successful resolution of the challenges we all face. Their recommendations will be the basis for the heritage sector and the province to work together toward a long-term heritage strategy for Nova Scotia. Now is a time of increasing awareness of heritage, and we have every hope that new directions will emerge through the strategy development process.

This is the end of my presentation on the question of museum funding in Nova Scotia. I'll be happy, along with my colleague, to answer any of your questions.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Greenlaw, that was a good introduction to the work we're here to discuss today. Questions from the committee? Who's first?

Ms. Massey.

MS. MASSEY: I have an awful lot of questions, actually, but where to start? Let's start with the Community Museum Assistance Program. You said it went from 50 to 66 participants, and of course that's something everybody's keen to get in on. You mentioned there was a budget increase in 2005-06. The question is, then, I understand that in fact that program underwent a review recently, is there actually a report on the status of that review? Also, is the funding for that program secure? Is there going to be any more funding added to it? Some funding questions, as far as that program.

The Cole Harbour Heritage Farm Museum is not in my constituency, but my house is almost in its backyard, and of course the Dartmouth Heritage Museum is something - well, I know when I was a child we went there on school trips. Right now, they're in a temporary, as I understand it, facility. Just some questions around that program.

MR. GREENLAW: To answer your first question, there was indeed a review of the Community Museum Assistance Program, and staff are developing recommendations for presentation to our new minister when we get to meet and brief her. We've conducted the review, and staff are developing and putting forth recommendations. You'll see that outlined in our 2006-07 business plan.

With regard to funding of community museums, really, the essence of the heritage strategy is to address what Nova Scotians value and what the priorities are, given scarce resources. It wouldn't be fair to comment, or speculate, at this point on what the

recommendations would be forthcoming from Voluntary Planning with regard to museum funding.

MS. MASSEY: So the Voluntary Planning process that you're in right now, the report coming forward in April, that will have recommendations for this program, you assume?

MR. GREENLAW: No, what Voluntary Planning has done is conducted a series of 27 or 28 public consultations across the province. Over 1,000 Nova Scotians came out to participate and voice their concerns about heritage issues in the province, mainly voice their concerns and their deep passion for the sector and what they do in it. The Heritage Strategy Task Force is to listen to those concerns and then come up with a series of recommendations which would be considered in the development of a strategic plan.

[10:00 a.m.]

We're at the very essence of public policy development. The first step of that is finding out what Nova Scotians want and value with regard to their heritage and, specifically, this has never been done in this province before, so this is very innovative for the province to embark upon this course, because the government realizes that heritage is a vital resource and very important to Nova Scotians. This is all part and parcel of, if you will, an incremental process that will lead to, hopefully, the announcement in a year's time of a heritage strategy for Nova Scotia.

MS. MASSEY: I was at one of those community meetings, in fact, on November 21^st, and certainly there was a wide range of people who did come out and express their concerns and views. It was quite an interesting public discussion. People really feel strongly about the human heritage for Nova Scotia, and they want that protected.

One of the things that came up in the evening that I was there was how to get our youth interested in heritage as a career. I know right now you're undergoing, I believe, a reorganization. It's been reorganized in the past few years, and this Voluntary Planning process is part of your reorganization. So that reorganization, I would assume, is going to have budgetary implications. I'm not sure if you've been sort of downsizing the division or adding people on or what exactly has been happening with that division.

Are you actually going to be losing some of our aging workers in this sector? If so, how would they be replaced? Is the government, through the Department of Education, looking at bringing youth on board and getting youth to look at our heritage as careers in the future?

MR. GREENLAW: Well, what a great question. If we could only solve that, we'd solve all of our succession planning management issues across government and most sectors.

It's a very challenging question. First of all, the Heritage Division was restructured in 2003. As a result of the restructure, the senior management team was in discussions about what direction do we have from the people of Nova Scotia, and what can we advise to government as public servants on our main mandate of stewardship and conservation.

It became evident at that point that we didn't have a full understanding of what the people of Nova Scotia wanted, and what they thought was provincially significant, where they wanted us to redirect our scarce resources. Let's be direct, we have gone through a series where government was balancing its budget and money was tight. I think that the division and the Nova Scotia Museum managed itself extremely well, given the times of constraint.

Last year the government had some money, and we had $50,000 given incrementally to the CMAP budget, and $100,000 was allocated to the 17 locally-managed museums. So I think, given the competing interests and demands across government, that was a fairly good indication of the importance of heritage for the government.

With regard to the training issue, it's really a far more complex issue than just in the Nova Scotia Museum sector. Government as a whole has been addressing succession planning with succession planning policies, et cetera. This would be no different than keeping it at that level. With regard to engaging the Department of Education, we are just working currently with the Department of Education. As you may know, the department is renewing its social studies curriculum. Just like you, I grew up in Nova Scotia, and I'm very proud of our museum system. As a kid, I went to the museums and experienced them to their fullest. It's obviously an honour for me to actually get to lead something I enjoyed so much as a child.

The issue of engaging youth, one of the ways we're trying to do that, in partnership with our colleagues in the Department of Education, is looking at examining the social studies/history curriculum for junior high schools, Grades 7, 8 and 9, and to try to line up our, if you will, assets along with what is being taught in the social studies curriculum and make better use of our assets and make history come alive for the youth of Nova Scotia. As you know, heritage is in our backyard, not necessarily always fully appreciated, but it is there to be appreciated, and we as Nova Scotians are very lucky to have that asset in our backyard. I have been told that constantly in this job, just look around you, look in your backyard, look up the hill, it's in our face. It's there. We should be proud of it. I think that we are doing a good job to connect with the youth of today given, again, all the competing demands of government.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We have other speakers on the list. Mr. Epstein, if you would begin.

MR. EPSTEIN: Mr. Greenlaw, thank you. You mentioned responsibility for the Heritage Property Act as being part of your division. Did I understand that correctly? I

wonder if you could bring me up to date a little bit with respect to that particular function. I understand that the function at the provincial level is to consider, through an advisory committee, the designation of built heritage, buildings, structures for designation of a heritage site or heritage building, and that has certain consequences for the owners of the building. That's the function, isn't it?

MR. GREENLAW: Essentially, yes.

MR. EPSTEIN: It can also be carried on at the municipal level but with slightly different consequences. So I'm wondering what the current state of play is with respect to designation of heritage buildings at the provincial level. When is the last time buildings were designated at the provincial level?

MS. JESSICA KERRIN: The advisory council for this particular Act meets probably three, perhaps four times a year. At the last meeting I attended, which was in January of this year, I believe two properties were recommended for designation to the minister.

MR. EPSTEIN: That was in January?

MS. KERRIN: Yes.

MR. EPSTEIN: Okay. What is the state of those building? We're waiting to hear from the minister, are we?

MS. KERRIN: Yes.

MR. EPSTEIN: Who has been busy.

MS. KERRIN: Yes.

MR. EPSTEIN: Before that, during the previous year - if this committee was meeting three or four times a year - have they been recommending buildings for designation, or structures for designation?

MS. KERRIN: Yes, primarily the focus of those meetings is that properties come before them, research is done in advance to ensure that the properties are provincially significant, it comes to the advisory council for review and a recommendation is made to the minister to designate it. We have about 250 provincially-designated properties that are situated throughout the entire province.

MR. EPSTEIN: That have already been designated by the minister, they have completed the process?

MS. KERRIN: That's right.

MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, okay. I think what I was asking was, in the previous year, in the 12 months before the January that you just mentioned, did the committee recommend buildings or structures for designation?

MS. KERRIN: Yes.

MR. EPSTEIN: What happened to those? Were they accepted by the minister, or rejected?

MS. KERRIN: Yes, they were.

MR. EPSTEIN: Okay. About how many were designated during the last 12 months, do you remember?

MS. KERRIN: I hate to guess. I could get back to you with the actual number, less than 10, more than three. Somewhere around there.

MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, and does the committee have staff available to them to do the research? Who does the research? How does the research get done?

MS. KERRIN: Yes, we have a full-time manager for the Heritage Property Program. He serves the committee itself, and we also have an administrative support person to that committee as well.

MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, so the process is working as it should?

MS. KERRIN: There is always room for improvement, but I think the committee has served well.

MR. EPSTEIN: Is there a backlog of nominated buildings?

MS. KERRIN: No, we're currently up to date.

MR. EPSTEIN: You're up to date, okay, that's fine. Good. That's what I wanted to know.

Can I just move over, Mr. Greenlaw, to this question of Voluntary Planning's task force on heritage policy for the province. It wasn't clear to me why this task was given to Voluntary Planning in the first place. I don't mean why it went to Voluntary Planning, because Voluntary Planning, of course, is a respected organization, but I think the real

question is why this topic was generated as something needing public canvassing in this way, outside the department. Was there something in particular that prompted it?

MR. GREENLAW: The issue was, we knew we needed to, with the sector, engage the public of Nova Scotia, so how best to approach that? So we went to Voluntary Planning with a presentation on why we thought that they would be the best tool, if you will, best vehicle, to conduct public consultations with regard to do this. So we went before their board, and they debated and agreed that this would be something that they would like to take on.

MR. EPSTEIN: I'm sorry, your section or your department felt that there was a gap in the policy framework with respect to heritage, is that it?

MR. GREENLAW: Right, exactly.

MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, and had there been a previous framework policy for heritage or is this the first time we're going to be developing one?

MR. GREENLAW: This is the first time that the Nova Scotia Museum or the Heritage Division has gone to the public to discover and seek out their advice on what they value with regard to their heritage - what's provincially significant, what stories they think we need to tell, et cetera.

MR. EPSTEIN: And you said it was going to be a draft report that comes out?

MR. GREENLAW: There are two stages, so it can be confusing. What Voluntary Planning will do is they will provide a set of recommendations, so they're only providing recommendations to government with regard to potential directions that a heritage strategy might take.

MR. EPSTEIN: Right.

MR. GREENLAW: Those recommendations will be taken and, with our partners in the sector, looked at and we will develop a heritage sector strategy together along with our partners in government as well.

MR. EPSTEIN: So will the document that Voluntary Planning generates - and I think you said it was targeted for April - be a public document?

MR. GREENLAW: Yes, as all Voluntary Planning documents will be - well, the first one is a draft report, so you'll get the draft recommendations in April. Then there will be three months for the public to respond to the draft recommendations to make sure that Voluntary Planning has heard the people of Nova Scotia correctly. Then, hopefully in late

June, there will be final recommendations to government presented and, as you know, the Voluntary Planning process, they present what they have. It's a volunteer-based task force that has been hearing and spending countless hours of volunteer time which we certainly appreciate them doing.

MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, I think there has been an active response to it.

Do I still have a minute or two to ask questions?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Yes, you do.

MR. EPSTEIN: Can I move to another topic which has to do with archeological investigations, and I'm wondering what the current state of play is with respect to that, especially interaction between the officials who would be responsible to you, I assume through the Nova Scotia Museum, and representatives of the Mi'kmaq community. I'm aware that various persons in the Mi'kmaq community have turned their minds now to the issue of their archeological artifacts and they have some concern about finds not necessarily being protected, and items finding their way into the hands of the private marketplace and perhaps leaving the province. I know that they're thinking about the possibility of establishing a centre, perhaps a museum of some kind, of their own and I believe have even retained a consultant archeologist to talk with them about this, so I'm wondering what the lines of communication are between your department or agencies of your department and the Mi'kmaq community. Can you tell us the current state of play?

MR. GREENLAW: We're very active with the Mi'kmaq community in Nova Scotia. We sit on the tripartite forum. We also have representatives on the Debert management site which I think you're making reference to, which will be perhaps an interpretative centre for the Mi'kmaq story related to the 11,000-year-old paleontological Indian artifacts that were found there in the 1960s. We have been doing extensive consultations over the last - well, I've been on the file for three years, and my second day on the job I was in Debert and at the confederacy discussing these issues, so we've been in active consultation with that. So we work very closely with Aboriginal Affairs with regard to this issue.

MR. EPSTEIN: Is Nova Scotia losing physical control over some archeological artifacts? Are things finding their way into the private marketplace and out of the province?

MR. GREENLAW: There are none that I'm aware of, and then we have, of course, the Special Places Protection Act which would stop that.

MR. EPSTEIN: Well, I'm aware of the legislative framework, the question really is whether it is followed or whether people sometimes are either not aware of it or simply ignore it, that would be the worry.

MR. GREENLAW: We would never ignore that Act.

MR. EPSTEIN: No, no, I didn't mean you, I meant any private owners or anyone who happens upon items.

MR. GREENLAW: I guess my comment is that there are no artifacts leaving the province that we are aware of - otherwise we would be acting.

MR. EPSTEIN: So no one has really reported to you any examples of items showing up on eBay or any other kind of Internet sites, or offered for sale in any other way? That just hasn't come that way, no complaints at all?

MR. GREENLAW: No.

MR. EPSTEIN: All right, thanks very much.

MS. KERRIN: May I say on a point, the commission has been asked how many properties were registered last year and I do have the figure here, it was five.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Our next speaker on the list is Keith Colwell, followed by Leo Glavine.

MR. COLWELL: Yes, first of all I want to say that the people who are operating the museums are doing a fantastic job with the small amount of money they get, and when you visit these facilities, they're indeed very professional and it's a pleasure to go there. I have a bit of a different question to ask and you may or may not be able to answer this question.

In my riding I have the Black Cultural Centre which, in my opinion, should be definitely a museum. It's the only such structure in Canada and the board isn't a local board, it's a provincial board. It's from the Black community all over Nova Scotia. Yet their funding isn't very stable on a regular basis, and maybe the first question I would like to ask is, how would the Black Cultural Centre become a museum?

[10:15 a.m.]

MR. GREENLAW: Another good question. It depends on what kind of museum. Would it be a provincial museum that you're speaking about, or a community museum?

MR. COLWELL: It would probably be a provincial museum because it, indeed, represents the Black community in Nova Scotia.

MR. GREENLAW: One of the reasons we conducted the heritage strategy was to get direction on specific sites like the Black Cultural Centre, and there's also the Black Loyalists

in Birchtown who are interested in having a site developed as well. So there are many, many stories that are in play with regard to the development of a heritage strategy that we are trying to get input on with regard to what Nova Scotians want told with regard to their stories and how they want, basically, our scarce resources, for example people and money, to invest in some of these wonderful resources that we have in the province.

MR. COLWELL: Well, the issue is the Black Cultural Centre is existing and it's facing a really serious financial crunch right now because it doesn't have stable funding from the province. They've tried all kinds of things, and they need some major repairs to the building. They have some artifacts that now are stored in other places, which is really appreciated by the community. There is a tremendous amount of heritage and a lot of history that is housed in that building. When you go through the list - and all these organizations and museums are very important to us in Nova Scotia, don't get me wrong, that's not what I'm saying. I believe that someday, hopefully, the province will have the money to put into this important part of our history, and a very important part of our tourism.

Again, how can we ensure that the Black Cultural Centre gets stable funding? I mean this is very, very important to Nova Scotia as a whole, to the Black community.

MR. GREENLAW: Sure. I believe the Black Cultural Centre receives funding from our Culture file in the department. That would be perhaps a better question to ask for the Culture file. I don't know directly, or off the top of my head what exactly their funding has been from the Culture Division with regard to the question that you asked.

MR. COLWELL: Okay, back to my original question. What qualifies any of these organizations, or would qualify the Black Cultural Centre to be classified as a museum in the province? There have to be some criteria. What are the criteria?

MR. GREENLAW: The criteria for becoming a provincial museum in Nova Scotia - the Nova Scotia Museum has been around in one form or another since 1837. The criteria and what people have deemed to be provincially significant at any given point in time change over time. To say what was the real rationale for a museum brought in the system in the 1950s or the 1960s, or perhaps 1920, would differ from the rationale today. Really, essentially what happens is these are looked at individually with regard to provincial significance. Is it actually a proper museum? Do they store and collect and maintain artifacts with regard to current day curatorial standards? Those would all be questions that we would look at.

Questions we are engaged in with other groups that are trying to establish new museums are with regard to business plan, business plan viability and offsetting that against the social policy and public needs of having that history maintained and preserved for years to come. It is clear that the Heritage file is not a four-year or five-year file. What we do today, our great-grandchildren will celebrate. You're right, the Black Cultural Centre is an

important cultural asset for Nova Scotia. The first step would be to approach the Nova Scotia Museum about becoming inclusive, or another avenue would be to do the self-evaluation on CMAP to see where they were with relation to community museum funding, and move forward from there.

MR. COLWELL: Yes, could I get a commitment from you and your staff that we would work jointly to see if we can review that and see what can be done to assist the Black Cultural Centre, because this is a very important part of our history. Some of the artifacts they have now - for instance they have the first Victoria Cross that was ever won - by a Black gentleman - and it can't be stored at the Black Cultural Centre for security reasons. Evidently, this thing is worth over $1 million. There is a picture of him and sort of a mock-up of the Victoria Cross. It's very important for people who come to visit from outside of Nova Scotia, and from within Nova Scotia, to see these artifacts on-site. They just don't have the resources to do what they need to do.

MR. GREENLAW: There are many challenges faced by cultural organizations and museums across the province. I am sympathetic to the issue of operational funding with regard to any public or not-for-profit organizations in the province. The reality is that government has priorities, and part of getting and helping government prioritize and to list, if you will, or structure in a strategic way, is the competing demands and that is why we are conducting the province-wide heritage strategy through the public consultation process. So what I can commit to you is, when we get the final draft recommendations from Voluntary Planning, hopefully in June, if that is a recommendation, the division will obviously seriously consider all the recommendations with regard to a heritage strategy for the province.

There are thousands of competing demands for museums in the province, thousands of competing demands for cultural centres, which is well outside my purview of expertise, and we can ill afford to react incrementally when we need a strategic direction, and we need a strategic focus to which to move this important file forward. So while these are important, I think it's best, and prudent, to wait to see what the Heritage Strategy Task Force recommends, and then wait for government and the sector's response to those recommendations vis-à-vis a heritage strategy.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything further, Mr. Colwell?

MR. COLWELL: Yes, I do.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay, we have just a couple of minutes.

MR. COLWELL: Again, I'm disappointed in your answer, but not surprised, because there hadn't been a priority, really, put on the Black Cultural Centre for some time. This is an establishment. It's there. It's not a matter of building a new establishment and establishing

something new. This is a very important part of Nova Scotia's history, and if the centre doesn't get the proper funding and the proper assistance that it needs, which it simply does not have now, the centre could close, and that would be a real tragedy for Nova Scotia. It's nice to do these studies, and I think it's very important to do these and to set a direction of where you are going to go, but this is a very unique situation. It would be the same as going to one of the other very important facilities, like the Museum of Natural History, and saying, well, we are going to cut your budget by 50 per cent this year, and tough luck, find the money some place. It's of that importance. I would like a little bit more direct answer on this, because this is very important to the culture of Nova Scotia.

MR. GREENLAW: The Black Cultural Centre falls outside the mandate of the Heritage Division, it is funded through the Culture Division. So if you are looking for specific or more direct answers, I cannot answer them. I can tell you that the issues faced by the Black Cultural Centre sounds like they are the same issues faced by the 66 community museums that we help fund and, as I said in my opening remarks, the 27 provincial museums. So there are competing interests, competing demands out there. All of those sites have been deemed to be important to the people of Nova Scotia through a funding application process and provincial designation as a provincial museum. I believe the satisfaction that you would like to get with regard to an answer from me is really outside the scope of my mandate.

MR. COLWELL: Okay, thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Glavine.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you very much for coming in today. Certainly, as a former history teacher, I consider this to be a very important topic, as it's one that will bridge our past with the future, how our museums and the whole area of heritage is actually approached. That's why I look forward to the strategy and to Voluntary Planning and the pieces that they will have.

That being said, we've just gone through what can only be classified as a disastrous year, and perhaps three to five years, in tourism here in Nova Scotia. I want to draw the tie-in here. Do you think our heritage, our museums, our past and that whole piece has been promoted even moderately well, let's say? I personally don't think it has. Where you're full-time in this domain, do you think we've neglected to really present our past to Canadians, Americans and Europeans and garner more from it than we are currently doing?

MR. GREENLAW: That's an interesting question. The reality of my answer is that that's a tourism question, and my mandate is to help operate and preserve and protect and steward Nova Scotia's rich cultural and natural history. I can tell you what we think is important with regard to maintaining our structure, preserving the collection, dealing with

ever-growing amounts of artifacts donated by Nova Scotians. Over the last 10 years, we've had 36,000-plus artifacts donated to the Nova Scotia Museum from Nova Scotians.

We do work with our Tourism colleagues on better positioning the Nova Scotia Museum system and the community museums with regard to that, just like we work with our colleagues across government in trying to champion the file. Just as we work with Transportation and Public Works, Aboriginal Affairs, the Department of Education, African Nova Scotian Affairs, Acadian Affairs, et cetera, we work with our colleagues in Tourism to promote the museum system, in the Doers and Dreamers. But our major focus is really on the stewardship side of the file. If we have assets that are promotable, that's a Tourism file issue.

MR. GLAVINE: That doesn't quite get me to where I wanted to be. Even if you were doing a bit of a rating then, you obviously have the gems of our heritage at your disposal. Surely you must offer Tourism a few of those kinds of elements for them to promote. It's a complementary piece, really. If they're promoting heritage, it advances everything relating to our past, our history, and it's also going to be, I think, strong for tourism. I don't think we've been doing a great job.

When I went to the shores of the Annapolis Basin to celebrate the 400^th Anniversary of Annapolis Royal's birth, it was pretty disappointing. Wouldn't Heritage have really pushed that this is a singular piece that should be part of our tourism year, this year, 2005?

MR. GREENLAW: Again, we can communicate what events and activities are specifically relating to the 27 museum sites. The community museums, of course, are independent, and we help fund their operation. It's their responsibility to communicate to Tourism, the events, et cetera, that they're planning. We do communicate with our Tourism colleagues, the events with regard to the 27 provincial sites, and we do have an events calendar, and we do assist Tourism in providing stories, et cetera, for their Web page.

That's such a small part of our mandate. Our primary concern is we have a huge infrastructure to maintain, we have exhibits to reinvest in, and our focus, primarily, has been trying to get the ship in order, in order to move forward to address some of the issues that you have. Again, without strategic direction, it's hard to plug into a cohesive tourism strategy, et cetera.

[10:30 a.m.]

MR. GLAVINE: Let's take the reality of the past year where I certainly, as one among many MLAs in southwestern Nova Scotia, have been hearing from their spokespeople that, in fact, they are in a real deficit position in terms of the needs of the museums, the heritage sites, and asking us to approach government. I guess in terms of publicly, do you push and say that our museums are in a crying need of some help? Let's take, for example,

the Kings County Museum, closed for the first time during the Winter in its 25-year history. As a Canadian history teacher, and colleagues in the Valley, this year, will not be able to, through the Winter months, take their classes. Especially in a semestering process, it makes it very difficult, and a challenge. So are you calling for more help? Otherwise, we are going to be on an enormous downhill slide. My understanding is that there has been no increase for funding since 1998. We're basically at about the same level if we talk about inflation. How are you pushing to promote this, in the eyes of government, to address this crying need?

MR. GREENLAW: Well, the obvious answer is, the way to get government's attention is to conduct a public consultation process and try to address it through the best vehicle, which the Public Service has through formation of public policy in developing a strategic plan. So, primarily, to all the issues that you highlighted, are the reasons why we need to have a provincial heritage strategy to address those concerns, rather than dealing with them incrementally or in an ad hoc nature. I think that the government has been very progressive in realizing that there is an issue there, it needs to be addressed, and they want to hear from the people of Nova Scotia and get their input through the Voluntary Planning process before we move forward in making a strategic direction, which will be done in consultation with the sector.

It's public policy formulation at its finest and something to celebrate, because these things don't always happen this way. This is a true social policy objective. So the question could also be, is the mandate of museums a tourism product or is a mandate of museums to be there for Nova Scotians to enjoy and to celebrate, and is the tourism industry or visitation a secondary issue? Again, those would be issues perhaps addressed or identified in recommendations from Voluntary Planning.

So it depends on which way you want to look at it. I don't have a definitive opinion on which is the best way to approach the usage of museums, but we do invest $10.6 million, as a province, in museums, for the benefit of Nova Scotians first.

MR. GLAVINE: We probably don't have a lot of time.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: It's just about up.

MR. GLAVINE: In terms of one of the, I think, really exciting proposals, kind of in conjunction a little bit with what my colleague talked about, the Black Cultural Centre, the proposal of an African heritage trail, which I'm sure you probably heard of, is this something that you would be promoting, and working with the African historical society and so forth? Would you have a very close tie-in with them? That is probably what got me on the theme of tourism, because I would see this as real advantages in drawing people to experience the African heritage trail. I'm wondering, would you have a tie-in here?

MR. GREENLAW: I don't have a specific answer with regard to the African Nova Scotian trail, unless it's leading into the Birchtown site. I'm actively aware of the Birchtown site because we have been in negotiations with the Black Loyalist Heritage Society for over three years in helping them with a feasibility study, and the Office of African Nova Scotian Affairs funding a business plan for the site. So we are quite a way down the road in discussion with the Black Loyalist Heritage Society in developing a cultural centre or a museum, the whole experience down in Birchtown. Again, priorities and strategic directions will fall out from the recommendations from Voluntary Planning and, subsequently, the heritage strategy that would be announced maybe this time next year.

MR. GLAVINE: Great. Thank you very much.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Corbett.

MR. CORBETT: Thank you, folks, for coming here. It has been interesting when, as we get a mix of the questions and probably some of the onion begins to be unpeeled. I want to go back to 1999 when Premier Hamm ran on the fact that Tourism would be a stand-alone department. Now we have here today Tourism, Culture and Heritage. I think you folks are doing a great job inasmuch as the breadth you're given to work within. But there have been a couple of themes arising here today. It's almost like you're on it but you're not in it type of thing. When my colleague spoke of the centre in Preston - is it with us, is it under our mandate? No, it's probably under Culture or it may be under Heritage. But the department is the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage. I really don't mean it as an affront to you folks because you only can do what you're told to do in many instances.

It seems to me you're not talking. It seems to me that you trundle along with the museums but don't ever get too far into the cultural stuff and be proactive and say, that centre over in North Preston belongs here and we should be moving it towards it. I suppose I'm asking you to give me an opinion, is there a real political will within your department to make sure you work together cohesively? It seems to me that we don't know whether tourism is heritage driven, culture driven, or are the museums an adjunct to education as you said because they're streamed towards our people. What's going on down there?

MR. GREENLAW: The department is made up of three divisions and the Nova Scotia Archives and Records Management file as well. The reality is that in order to address the issues and questions that you have had in a meaningful and fulfilling way is that the Heritage Division needs to find out from the people of Nova Scotia what they want us to focus on or bridge into, and the direction will come from the heritage strategy with regard to all of your follow-up questions.

It's really quite premature for us to comment on a lot of these questions because really we're waiting for direction from Voluntary Planning with regard to the release of their recommendations and then subsequently developing a strategy to address the complex issues.

You're right - this is an onion. We need to carefully peel the onion because if we don't peel the onion correctly we will not have artifacts or historic buildings for our great-grandchildren to enjoy 150 years from now. What we do now is historic. We will be charting the course for our heritage preservation in the Province of Nova Scotia for years to come. So it's not a little onion, it's a huge onion and that's what we're trying to get at. That is what has become evident, particularly over the last three years with regard to trying to address some of the complex issues you've raised. We need to get a base understanding of where we're going to go with heritage and make sure the people of Nova Scotia are engaged and excited about that direction and that they support it, along with the sector.

MR. CORBETT: I appreciate your candour and I realize there has to be that large vision, but what's also frustrating is right now I'm not worried about my great-grandchildren, I'm more worried about even my own children because of some of the operations that are failing. I think there's one in the Valley now that's closed for the Winter. I really don't want to get into community versus community-based museums, who owns them and so on, but at the end of the day, as is often said around these tables, there is only one pocket tax dollars come out of, and a lot of times those are volunteer dollars also.

What I want to get at, I know in North Sydney, in Northside, there is an ongoing feud between the politicos and the people on the street trying to develop the fossil museum. Now, can you explain to me then, around that location, what the three-year plan is for that because if you listen to one side, there is no three-year plan put forward by government and that government agencies are saying, yes, there is a three-year plan? Do you know that three-year plan?

MR. GREENLAW: The museum that you're speaking of is funded through the Community Museum Assistance Program. They're run by a local society and we do not tell local societies how to run their business. We evaluate them every three years on whether they are up to current museum standards and practices through a peer review evaluation process and government does not go in and tell community museums how to manage themselves. If they are, with regard to broader governance issues, what we're concerned about is basic museum standards with regard to the CMAP program.

MR. CORBETT: So you, for instance, do not have a three-year plan for the fossil museum on the Northside?

MR. GREENLAW: It's not within our mandate, it's not one of the 27 provincial museums.

MR. CORBETT: So if the minister said that then, he could possibly be incorrect in saying that?

MR. GREENLAW: Well, it depends. I would have to know the context in which you're making that statement for me to properly answer your question.

MR. CORBETT: So if a minister said that your department has put in three-year funding and has issued that, that is correct?

MR. GREENLAW: What the confusion might be over is that the Community Museum Assistance Program funding happens in three stages. In Phase I they get one-third of their maximum grant to bring them up. Because of the $50,000, the Sydney Mines fossil museum was able to get its second tier of funding and if funding is available, they will get the third level of funding to their maximum allowable grant under the CMAP formula. So that might be the three-year program or the three-year formula that you're making reference to. So with regard to community museums, there is a funding formula that is on a three-year incremental plan depending upon funding.

[10:42 a.m. Hon. Ronald Chisholm took the Chair.]

MR. CORBETT: And this would be communicated to them directly I would assume?

MR. GREENLAW: We have been in active communications with that society with regard to their funding.

MR. CORBETT: I want to change over to a different style of funding and that's funding for those who are looking to expand and renew their facility. There's another Cape Breton museum, the Cape Breton Miners' Museum. Can you bring me up to date on where your department is in support of that expansion and have there been any financial terms put on the table?

MR. GREENLAW: What I can do is I can comment on the Heritage Division and the Heritage Division does not have capital funding for museum expansions. We fund operational expenses only. That's the limit of our funding programs.

MR. CORBETT: So then you have no idea where they can go?

MR. GREENLAW: Well, I assume that they go to ECBC, ACOA, or Economic Development, but that would be purely speculative on my part.

MR. CORBETT: So there's nowhere within your branch?

MR. GREENLAW: Within my branch we have no capital funding programs, it's only for operations.

MR. CORBETT: How well then do you work with the federal agencies looking at museum investment and so on?

MR. GREENLAW: I think we work well with, as I said, the three levels of government with regard to infrastructure proposals. Over the last year and a half or so we've been actively engaged in trying to get a handle on ACOA's funding requests in regard to infrastructure issues so we can better coordinate these requests with regard to funding for expansions, et cetera.

MR. CORBETT: Now, the feds, with their investment in museums and any co-funding they may do, they've got a program that's fairly new or is it outdated, under study?

MR. GREENLAW: The round table that I was at in June was specifically to address museum funding policies. The federal government's policy position is that they do not fund operational costs for museums outside of the Canadian national museums in Ottawa. That is their policy position. So they will have program application, programs if you will. So they have a program called the Museums Assistance Program which year-round museums are eligible to apply to, which some of the museums in the province do apply to, and that is specifically to address either governance issues, collections management issues or preservation issues. The federal government does not fund operations of provincial museum systems nor museums outside the national capital region, as far as I know, at this point in time.

[10:45 a.m.]

MR. CORBETT: One last question. I think my colleague broached the subject before about staffing and training and so on. How involved is your department in bringing in people that you would see working in that industry, if you will, and what type of training is committed in Nova Scotia, or would people more ordinarily have to move outside of Nova Scotia to gain those experiences?

MR. GREENLAW: Well, operating a museum system is really a big business. You need tradespeople, carpenters, people who can make cabinets; artisans who can develop exhibits; you need curatorial expertise, you need assistant curatorial expertise, and presently, just like most government departments, I would speculate that the mean age in our division is right around the norm, 49 years of age and people are looking to retire, if in fact they're going to retire. So these are not uniquely museum issues, they are Nova Scotian issues, they are national issues. They are very complex issues that collectively, not just one single division can answer, we need the collective to help us meet the challenges that are going to face us in the future with regard to the exodus of people with a vast amount of knowledge, and that is not just specific to the Heritage Division. So we do have challenges.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Whalen.

MS. DIANA WHALEN: Thank you very much. I had a few questions, so I stepped out of the Chair so that I can ask those. Just following up briefly on my colleague's discussion about the federal government and their involvement in funding of museums. One of the articles that was in our package was coming from Annapolis Royal. It was during the federal election and they were calling on the candidates to do more with the federal support for museums. It indicates here that there had been a $75 million funding per year, multi-year program, in the works that collapsed when the Liberal Government fell and the election was called. So I'm wondering, as a provincial department, are we now making any lobbying or efforts to see that further, or to influence what the shape of that will be?

MR. GREENLAW: It's interesting because I read that article when it came out. You have to understand that that is a purely speculative article, because the museum funding proposal that was brought forward by Madame Frulla, who was the former Minister of Heritage, it never left Cabinet. So it was confidentiality at Cabinet. So I'm not sure even if that number is true, or where they were with the position on that, and because of my interest in the file I did follow up with my colleague in Ottawa and said, have you released something that I'm not aware of? And she said, no. That is, as you know, an interpretation.

MS. WHALEN: Very good. It is a favourite thing here in this province though to blame Ottawa and to look to Ottawa for some salvation to our financial difficulties, and where we have such a rich heritage in this province and such financial pressures which make it hard to protect that heritage, would we not be lining up and making a strong case to Ottawa before and now, that we really need to protect and preserve what we have here?

MR. GREENLAW: I think if you look at the document that's in there with regard to the round table on the issues that were being discussed nationally and some options for consideration, that would give you some insights into where the federal government will be going with regard to a museum policy and really, given that we have a new government in Ottawa, it now becomes, when does the museum funding policy come back on the table for discussion?

MS. WHALEN: Well, I would like to urge you in your position, to keep pushing in that regard in briefing your new minister to raise that issue as well, because I think that there are funds available and we need the help here. Atlantic Canada has, I think, more than its share of built and other heritage resources, as a result of the age of our communities.

Now, on the heritage strategy, you have gone back to that frequently in your answers today that, hold on, an answer is coming and we want to hear from Nova Scotians. I applaud the process, the work that comes from the Voluntary Planning Board is usually really good and it's very inclusive, so I like that.

But one of my concerns is, we're here talking about museums today and you've been very clear about Heritage being separate from Culture and Tourism. We can look at that more

closely later, but in this heritage strategy, I was surprised at the breadth of issues being covered. It went well beyond what my initial thought of heritage is which is generally buildings and maybe street scapes and museums as well. It talked about language, the natural environment - wilderness, cultural heritage. It did include cultural heritage within that where here we have an overlap of culture. It was very broad and I'm wondering what your view is on that because you're talking about preserving the museums and our collections.

MR. GREENLAW: I think it's wonderful because the public consultation process has now provided you with a greater appreciation of the scope and breadth of heritage in the province and the issues that are being faced and the challenges that volunteers face every day. You know what? I couldn't be more excited because the breadth and the scope of the issue and the challenges that people face across the province need to be understood by people like yourselves, people in government. They do understand and now more broadly defined, the Legislature is being informed about these issues.

That's why I was so excited to come here today - normally people are apprehensive about coming to these things, but it's a chance to communicate to you the breadth and scope of the issues faced in the heritage sector, which is huge. If you happen to run into any task force member, we were supposed to get a draft report in November. Because of the complexity of the issue and how things are intertwined with regard to heritage in the Province of Nova Scotia, they have given themselves some more leeway to come out with draft recommendations and consult with more experts, both provincially and across the country and internationally, to get better information on what heritage issues are not only in Nova Scotia and perhaps it might provide us with some solutions to some of the recommendations.

MS. WHALEN: Then definitely you have no apprehension that museums will get lost in the mix?

MR. GREENLAW: I think by the very nature that we on a $10.6 million authority invest $9.6 million in museums already. I have no fear that museums will be lost in that mix.

MS. WHALEN: On this $9.6 million that we invest, is any of that money federal money that we simply flow through?

MR. GREENLAW: That is my authority so that is provincial money.

MS. WHALEN: All provincial money. In addition to that, do you have any federal money that flows through?

MR. GREENLAW: We have the Historic Places Initiative Program, HPI, which is a very successful program which is basically mandated to develop a conservation culture. We work with our federal-provincial-territorial colleagues across the country. Last year's grant

from the federal government was $587,000. That will be sliding down over the next two years because the initial money was to help us develop - you can go to the historic places Web site. We were given money to develop the infrastructure for that site.

MS. WHALEN: All right. That's good. I wanted to ask you in this breadth of discussion that's going on around the heritage strategy, if view planes will be considered. View planes have come up in my own riding of Clayton Park, along the Bedford Highway - none of those view planes are protected under municipal planning guidelines. There is an indication that there is a protection from Citadel Hill, but we have an application in this evening for a public hearing which kind of makes one wonder if the view plane is protected. Would that be considered part of our natural heritage or your mandate?

MR. GREENLAW: Currently, it's not in my mandate. The view planes is a municipal responsibility. But I am glad to hear that you're concerned about it in my riding - you're my MLA - I'm glad to see you're championing that.

MS. WHALEN: I wasn't aware of that, sorry.

MR. GREENLAW: But, currently, that's not in my scope of responsibilities.

MS. WHALEN: Within the Heritage Property Act, would there be room to add something like a protection of view planes for the province?

MR. GREENLAW: That would be speculative. I hate to give you a pat answer, but that comes back to what the recommendations are from the heritage strategy.

MS. WHALEN: Well, perhaps we had better just wait for that - at least the draft report. I know I don't have much more time left, I wanted to ask about the music room in Prince's Lodge, which would be one of the provincially-owned buildings. Are there any plans to do more than just preserve the building as it is now?

MR. GREENLAW: Not anything that I'm aware of at this point in time.

MS. WHALEN: It's not open and most of the public don't even know what it's used for. Is it rented?

MR. GREENLAW: I don't have any specific information on that for you.

MS. WHALEN: Okay. I'm concerned about the really little museums in the province. One of them which I visit most Summers is the Age of Sail in Cumberland County. It's a beautiful little museum and I was disappointed because when I looked at the list of grants, it's getting less than $5,000 a year in that pocket of the 66 community museums that you support. The demands must be tremendous in relation to running a facility like that, and it's

similar to so many others. Is there any hope in sight that this heritage strategy may lead to greater funding? What are you telling these small facilities in terms of how they might be able to survive?

MR. GREENLAW: I think that there are challenges faced by all museums in the province and specifically the Age of Sail's funding amount would have been based upon an operational formula when the program was set up. So some of those amounts may look small, but that would actually be based upon their operating needs. There was a formula put in place in the 1990s with regard to that, so there is a funding formula. We do the best we can to manage with our scarce resources now with regard to that funding formula and it is peer reviewed and evaluated every three years. So the community museum system, you know, evaluation and criteria for being members is pretty solid.

MS. WHALEN: Well, I appreciate what you're saying. It's a fair system that's in place even if the resources aren't great enough. A final question because I know our time is short, but I don't think there are any other speakers. I wanted to know within the department, since we talked a little bit about the structure of the department in the three separate divisions, do you have a joint committee which would sit down - you know, the top directors - to really try to work collaboratively on tourism and on the overlap which exists between all three?

MR. GREENLAW: Yes, I mean I sit with my management, my colleagues, once a week and we discuss our issues, but part of the issue again is where we are going with regard to heritage. I cannot provide you with the definitive direction, that will fall out of the strategy. So, yes, we can sit around and problem solve some of the immediacy issues and work with our sister departments in government to solve some of these problems.

[10:57 a.m. Ms. Diana Whalen resumed the Chair.]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Yes, just a comment from Mr. Chisholm.

MR. CHISHOLM: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and just a comment, I guess, on all the work you do in your department on behalf of Sherbrooke Village. Sherbrooke Village, as everyone knows I guess, is one of the largest employers in Guysborough County right now. It employs, I think, 18 full-time people as well as quite a large number of guides during the Summer months. So it has a major impact on the community no doubt.

I guess, you know, we have a village commission there now, pretty well a full complement I understand, and I can recall a few years back where the chairman was the only one who was there. So we do now, I believe, have a full complement of board members - and that's good to see again - who are very committed to Sherbrooke Village as well, I might add, because I get the phone calls from them quite often. So just a little thank you for the work

that you do, as well as on behalf of any other small museums in the Guysborough, Sheet Harbour and Eastern Shore areas.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Greenlaw, and one of the things that we often do here is give you time to have a closing statement, if you would like, and we do have a little extra time. So if you would like to just sum up, you're welcome to do so.

MR. GREENLAW: I just would like to thank you for the time to communicate what we're doing in the Heritage Division with regard to charting a course for the stewardship of Nova Scotia's precious natural and cultural assets that we have. I think our future is extremely positive and I'm heartened by the awareness of the committee members around the table, and hopefully you understand our file a little bit better and we'll be there to help champion the file when it's necessary. Thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming this morning. I think it has been very interesting and we've all learned a lot. Just while our guests are leaving, we are going to stay and discuss who will come for our next meeting. Just before Mr. Chisholm leaves, on behalf of the committee I would like to thank you for your service as the chairman of this committee, your hard work on our behalf, and all the best to you and Mr. Taylor in your new responsibilities.

MR. CHISHOLM: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I have to say the Human Resources Committee is the committee I've been on ever since I was elected in 1999. I think it's a very important committee of the Legislature. It does good work. I didn't always agree with what some of the other members had to say here or what we've done, but I think it's a very important part of the process and I have certainly enjoyed it very much. I hope you continue to do the good work that you do.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much again and I'm just going to wait a moment while, as I say, the people take their leave.

[11:00 a.m. The committee recessed.]

[11:02 a.m. The committee reconvened.]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Originally we had planned to take the next half-hour to set the agenda and get a list of witnesses that we could call on over the next few months, but a good point was raised at the start of the meeting that we don't know who the permanent chairman will be of the committee and we have two new members who will have to be appointed from the Tory caucus. So we would like to wait and put that off . . .

MR. HINES: Three new members, I think.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay, possibly three new members. Anyway, we would like to put off the larger agenda setting until next month, I think would be a good time. We should know by then. In that regard then, we know the next meeting is March 28^th, but I would like for us to select today, a witness that we could call, or a subject that we want to delve into next month, at the end of March, so that we can continue on with our work because this agenda hasn't moved forward too much over a number of months we didn't have witnesses. So there are still quite a few and I'm wondering if people have the list before them, there are still quite a few items that have not yet been dealt with.

Do people have the list, or shall I give you an idea of what is on it? If you bear with me then, I will tell you quickly. We had the lighthouse divestiture, which I think is a very interesting and still very topical issue. Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia. We had asked for Alan Parrish and Peter Delefes to come on the protection of built heritage. Under Education, we had student learning assessments. We also had the Black Educators Association down to discuss the BLAC report, and our NSTU on standardized testing. We asked for department officials and administrators and NSTU to come and talk about standardized testing, which is another big issue.

Under Labour, we had the Labour Standards Tribunal and we had one on Building Trades Council to talk about skill shortages, which is also a very topical issue and remains really important, I think, in everybody's life. Under the Status of Women, we talked about inviting the Transition House Association, Women's Centres CONNECT! and men's treatment programs as one item.

So does that suggest a favourite that we could - I think there are several very worthy ones there. Mr. Epstein, first.

MR. EPSTEIN: Availability of witnesses is going to always be a key factor and to some extent, of course, we can ask staff to find out who is available for the March 28^th date that we are looking at, but within that context we have to give staff some guidance as to two or three items, I guess, to try to explore. In that regard, I would like to suggest we look at skill shortages and built heritage as two of the items that staff be asked to explore as to the availability of witnesses.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hines.

MR. HINES: I may not be at the committee table, but I think one that is important is the one you mentioned with the building trades, skill shortages. I like that one.

MR. COLWELL: I would agree.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay. So the first one is definitely skill shortages. The second one that you preferred, Mr. Epstein, was?

MR. EPSTEIN: I was suggesting the built heritage, because I suspect the witnesses are available.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is everybody comfortable with those two choices? I'm sure that among those two we will have our witness for next month.

MR. GLAVINE: That's fine. That's enough to put on the table until we do set the remainder of the year.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Right, and what I would like to suggest is we do that agenda setting next month and we add another half-hour, if possible, on that March 28^th, unless there are any objections, we will do that. That will be good, so our meeting will be March 28^th. There is one other item I wanted to raise and that was the question of changing anything that is currently in Hansard, which was raised in the early part of the meeting. It has been asked of our Hansard Director whether that can be done, so we can report back to the committee on that. I don't know the answer and I don't know that any of us here definitively know the answer about whether you can change something, on-line is what I'm talking about. So a motion to adjourn.

MR. GLAVINE: So moved.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: We are adjourned. Thank you. (Interruptions)

I do apologize to Hansard and our recording. Mr. Hebb.

MR. HEBB: If I could just explain. (Interruptions)

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Yes, I do apologize. We're just going to wait for Mr. Corbett to come in for one second. Actually Mr. Hebb had an answer about Hansard and the question that was raised earlier and it requires a motion of our committee. So if we could, it will be redundant if we wait until next month I think - or less topical - so, Mr. Hebb.

MR. HEBB: While you were busy wrapping up, I was actually talking to Bob Kinsman and he consulted with the Clerk of the House, Rod MacArthur, and the view is yes, if there was a resolution of the committee then they could remove that part of the transcript from its posting on the Internet.

The other thing Mr. Kinsman said was there also are written copies obviously that have been distributed and it wouldn't be possible to get those back, but they would change the written one as well if that's the wish of the committee, and then if there were further requests for the written transcript that would be changed as well if that's the wish of the committee. So you can do either or both if that's the committee's wish.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Yes, but first I have Mr. Epstein.

MR. EPSTEIN: Well, I have to say it's surprising information that Hansard is prepared to do this. I would object very strongly to any attempt to retroactively change an official record that has already been generated in open committee. It's one thing if the committee had decided to go in camera, it's quite another once proceedings are fully in the open and indeed have been reported in the press. It seems not only redundant but, to me, objectionable in principle to go back to try to alter the record. So I certainly wouldn't support any motion. I'm not making any motion to that effect and would not see it as appropriate.

I've read carefully Mr. Van Zoost's letter. He raises some quite good points. We've offered him the opportunity to come to speak to the committee. If he requests it, we've indicated we're probably open to listening to him in camera, if he wants to go in camera, to have a bit of a chat about what occurred, but I think from his perspective, to the extent that he feels damage has been done, it has been done and I don't know that it really makes sense to try to go and alter the records at this point, I really find that the wrong way to go.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Glavine.

MR. GLAVINE: Well, I just wanted to go on record as saying that perhaps, in fact, we may have a different view after we have Mr.Van Zoost appear before the committee, because I have gone one-on-one with him, and he is certainly very compelling and very articulate and will fully elaborate on the harm that has been done. I certainly will be prepared to make a motion and a resolution after we hear him in person, because I think it is at least a symbolic act from this committee that while we perhaps not in any negligent manner did put forward information that, yes, we should have had some second thought in that regard. So I will wait until we do hear Mr. Van Zoost in person.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: If that's the wish of the committee, then we should wait, I think. I think it's just important that we show that we've read his letter, we understand the request has been made, we've addressed it, and now we want to wait until next month. That's fine and I appreciate that. Thank you.

We are officially adjourned and I won't call you back.

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