HANSARD
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
SELECT COMMITTEE ON PARTICIPATION
IN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
Committee Membership
Mr. Michel Samson (Chairman)
Hon. Mark Parent (Vice-Chairman)
Mr. Patrick Dunn
Mr. Keith Bain
Ms. Maureen MacDonald (Vice-Chairman)
Mr. Graham Steele
Mr. Charles Parker
Mr. David Wilson (Glace Bay)
Mr. Harold Theriault
Staff Attendance
Mr. Roderick MacArthur, Q.C. - Chief Clerk of the Legislature
Mr. Gordon Johnson, Q.C. - Legislative Counsel
Ms. Margaret Murphy - Legislative Librarian
Mr. Robert Kinsman - Hansard Reporting Services
Mr. James MacInnes - Legislative Television and Recording Services
Ms. Carla Burns - Communications Nova Scotia
Mr. David Whynacht - Communications Nova Scotia
Mrs. Darlene Henry - Legislative Committee Clerk
Ms. Charlene Rice - Legislative Committee Clerk
Ms. Kim Leadley - Select Committee Clerk
Mrs. Sherri Mitchell, Select Committee Clerk
[Page 1]
HALIFAX, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2007
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
PARTICIPATION IN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
1:00 P.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. Michel Samson
MR. CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining us here at our organizational meeting of the Select Committee on Participation in the Democratic Process. I assume everyone knows each other sitting around the table, but we do have a number of support departments that are represented here. I'm wondering, before we start, if we could just get everyone to identify themselves and tell us which department they're with.
[The select committee support staff introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll have a test afterwards to see if you remember everyone's names - I'll be asking, not answering.
As you can see, you have what has been handed out to you, our committee membership. It is my understanding that Mr. Parker will not be joining us today and I know that Mr. Theriault is unavailable as well for today.
We held a meeting about two weeks ago, myself as Chair, with all of the support staff who are here today, in order to just discuss some preliminary issues prior to our organizational meeting today. The first thing that we need to clearly define - and I'm not sure if you've had an opportunity to read the resolution which is the basis for this committee - one of the essential things is that we need to clearly decide exactly what the mandate of this committee is going to be. The reason I point that out is that if we don't limit ourselves, obviously we could be entering into a discussion on the whole British parliamentary system, which I'm not sure if that's what the committee wants or not.
[Page 2]
If you look at the fourth point of the resolution, that seems to specify what the mandate is. I'm wondering, my interpretation of that is that our mandate is to consider measures designed to increase the percentage of Nova Scotia's voting in an election, which I believe is why we're all here, to try to see if there are new ways that we can look at how we do voting in this province and how we can encourage more people to vote.
I'm just curious if there's any discussion from committee members as far as the mandate issue goes and whether we, at this point, want to limit what our discussion is going to be or where the committee members see some of the discussion and the mandate of this committee. So I'm curious if there's any input from the membership at this point on the issue of the mandate. Mr. Steele.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that what you've outlined is sensible because the mandate as outlined in Paragraph 4 of the resolution really has two parts: increasing the percentage of Nova Scotians voting and to enhance the effectiveness of the representative form of government.
The second part of that is so broad it can include just about anything and it seems to me that the only sensible way for this committee to do its work is to focus on the first part, but if anything obvious comes to our attention along the way we shouldn't feel constrained about whether to deal with it or not. To me the most sensible way to deal with it is for us always to ask ourselves when we're dealing with these issues, is this likely to increase the number of Nova Scotians who are voting? So I basically would support what you've put forward as a way to deal with the mandate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Steele. In fact I almost think, in reading the clause you're referring to, if one were to strike out the "and", I think that might have been the intention when it was written, but when the "and" is put in there, that was the issue I raised when we had our meeting two weeks ago - are those two parts or are they the same part that should go together rather than be two separate ones? That was my concern, that if one just looks at that second part, you open it up pretty much to an examination of our entire system. So if that's the case, then I think it would be agreed that our mandate is certainly looking at the first part of that clause and it's to increase the percentage of Nova Scotians voting in an election, and look at the means by which we do elections in this province.
We have Budget Requirements here on our agenda, but I think before we get into that we have some other issues that I think we should probably discuss first. One of the big issues that we need to make a decision on is how we're going to get input from Nova Scotians. Committees of this nature have generally gone around the province, held meetings at a public venue and have sought input in that fashion.
[Page 3]
I'm curious as to what the committee's desire is in this case and before opening it up to discussion, let me share some of the discussions that we did have when we met two weeks ago. My belief, as Chair and as a member, is that we need to find more creative ways of getting input on this issue. Some committees in the past have drawn significant public interest but I've also sat on committees with one presenter, two presenters, and in some cases no presenters. I think that would be a failure on our part if we are to get those same results. Maybe there's no way to prevent that, but I think we need to look at ways of avoiding that happening.
One of the particular issues regarding voting, I think it's all agreed, is that the numbers for anyone 25 and under are particularly dismal. As a result of that, one of my suggestions for the committee to consider is that if we're going to be in an area where there's a university that we would try to have our hearings at a university, which will hopefully attract members of the university community to come and to present us with some of their ideas.
I also suggested that we should try to contact the school boards. Whenever we're in one school board district that if there was even a means, depending on what the committee feels, that we would write to the principals of the high schools in that school board district and even ask if they could send two or three students to our meetings and maybe we could even have a bit of a round table in the afternoon, if we're in a particular location with young people.
I think we need to look at a different format than what we traditionally have here, because I don't think we can sit there and wait for them to speak to us. I think we need to speak to them and we need to elicit some of their comments.
So those are some of the ideas I've thrown out but again, I want to hear from the members on that. I have Ms. MacDonald and Mr. Parent afterwards. Go ahead.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: First of all, I'd like to start by saying that here we are meeting the day after the Ontario election, a lengthy process they went through that culminated in a referendum yesterday. It's interesting that you talk about involving young people. One of the things that they did was they had a parallel citizens' group of students, young people, made up to engage young people. I heard an interview this morning on the CBC, I don't know if anybody else did, one of the young members of their panel who got involved and had some really great things to say about what's required.
So I guess my point would be, we're not the first committee to embark on a process to look at this problem. This problem is not isolated to Nova Scotia, it indeed is a problem that exists in all of the other provinces and outside of the country. So I'm wondering if perhaps the first thing we could do is gather up some information on what has been done elsewhere to engage people in a more robust process than just scheduling public meetings
[Page 4]
and going out and doing it - not that your idea isn't a great idea of going to colleges and engaging young people but I'm wondering if we had some idea, is it possible to set up a Web site, sort of an interactive? Young people are really into technology and that kind of stuff. Maybe the committee could have some kind of a blog or something like that that would engage people.
It would be good if we knew what has been done in B.C. and Ontario, in other jurisdictions that have embarked on a similar process. So that would be one of my suggestions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I probably should have added that before starting the discussion, but the Legislative Library has already been putting together documents which will be available to all the committee members that we'll have a chance to review and discuss prior to starting our meeting process, for exactly the reasons you've outlined.
This has been done in other jurisdictions, they have attempted it and I think it is important that we learn from what they've tried, what has worked, what has failed and see if we can come up with new ideas as well. Obviously there's going to be a significant amount of research for us to review, as a committee, prior to embarking on that. So that information - I've already received a portion of it - will all be put together and provided to the committee shortly so that we can start reviewing the process both here in Canada and in other jurisdictions, such as the United States and even over in Europe and other areas, to see what they've been doing and if there are any marked differences.
As far as the Web site, that's something we discussed, but I wanted to hear from the committee. I fully agree, I think we have to do that and whether it's a Facebook site or whether it's a blog, we can certainly get some input from Communications Nova Scotia on that as to what the belief is on the best system to use.
I think that for today we'll be taking all of these ideas in and then we'll meet again to receive more information on the different suggestions we've made and make some final decisions. I think today is more an opportunity to just discuss the issue and get a sense of where members want to see the committee go, but I certainly appreciate those comments. Mr. Minister.
HON. MARK PARENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was just going to make the same comment that Maureen made, that it would be good to see not only what other jurisdictions have done, but also how they went about getting their information.
I like the idea of going on university campuses and community college campuses, I assume you were meaning. We need to, I think, with our Web site - we certainly need a Web site, but we need it to be a Web 2.0, and that means interactive, not just a passive Web site, because that's where the young people are right now.
[Page 5]
Maureen mentioned the Ontario election and it was saddening to me that they have done quite a few steps, in terms of fixed elections and others, to extending the hours of voting and their voter turnout was about 50 per cent (Interruption) Oh, 52 per cent. So clearly there's a challenge that we have ahead of us that's not unique to Nova Scotia. So any creative ways that we can find, I think, will be warmly welcomed by our citizens.
[1:15 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's exactly what I'm looking for from the committee members and when we last met with all the support groups.
MR. PARENT: I was joking, Mr. Chairman, that we might just want to put out that we want to adopt the Australian model. That would get some turnout at our meetings.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, again, it's the whole idea and that's why I think on this issue and the numbers you've quoted from Ontario are startling and quite disappointing, especially in light of the effort, a concerted effort I think there was from all Parties in that province, to try to increase the turnout, it just didn't seem to work.
Again, as to any ideas that you have - I know, Mr. Dunn, you're very experienced in the school system and what works and what doesn't work with engaging our young people. My goal, and I think this committee's goal, is to try to get that input and find some way of getting Nova Scotians to tell us why they're not voting and what we could do differently to get them to vote.
MR. PARENT: Could I just add one thing, Mr. Chairman. I had the privilege of being on Crossing Boundaries for a while and I didn't really represent anybody, it was sort of an interesting committee that way, but they did a lot of work on democratic participation. So I hope that not only the provinces but the Crossing Boundaries - they have a Web site and everything and they've done quite an amount of work - is consulted.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, in fact I noticed in the Ontario election they actually had a voter apathy site - if I'm not mistaken, I think "voter apathy sucks" was the site. It was a tongue-in-cheek name to a Web site that was actually designed to try to basically tell people that it wasn't cool to not vote. There's quite a bit of information on that as well.
Before going any further, I guess one of my concerns, as Chair, prior to accepting the position was exactly what time frame we were going to be given to carry out this work. At first it had been suggested that we have a report ready for the Fall sitting and I would not be your Chair if that was the case. My suggestion, and again I look for input from the committee members, but in light of the research that needs to be done, in light of the fact that we need to educate ourselves on this and in light of the fact that the House will be sitting, which will consume a great deal of our time, I'm looking for input from the committee as to when you
[Page 6]
see a possible time frame for us to be holding these public hearings and when you would expect that we would be looking at completing a report to at least set out a bit of a time frame.
I don't think we need to be specific today but my suggestion, if it helps, is that I don't see us being ready, with the House sitting and everything else, to take this around the province before January. At that, January is not always the greatest time to be doing this, to start off with, but I'm looking for the committee members' input on that as to what sort of time frame the membership sees for us to be able to do our job properly. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: Before we start talking about when any particular piece of the job should be done, I think we should come to some agreement about when we anticipate that we would be issuing our final report, and then work backwards from there.
Just to start off the discussion, it seems to me that to do what you've suggested, Mr. Chairman - and when we come to budget I have some other suggestions - but it seems to me that an absolute, rock-bottom minimum would be six months for the committee to do its work - no more than a year, but certainly no less than six months.
If we try to do it in less than six months, it's just not going to get done, it's going to be a half job.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate those comments, Mr. Steele. I was certainly looking into the Spring as a minimum, but I believe that six months certainly is something that we could probably work in, knowing that you're going to probably have at least a month with the House sitting, and then with your holidays and everything else.
MR. PARENT: I agree with you that we start in January. So taking Graham's suggestion, aiming for September next year for the final report, everything wrapped up.
MR. STEELE: Actually September seems very sensible to me because when all the work is done and what's left is report writing, that can be done during the quiet time in the summer. That seems pretty sensible to me. Then once we have that fixed, then we back things up to public hearings, which obviously can't conflict with the Spring sitting of the House and so on. So the January to March time frame seems a logical place if we're going to go out and do the formal, nine-member, front of the room public hearing, you know the January to March time frame seems to be the time to do it.
MR. PARENT: That seems like a good timeline to me.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So if that's the case, can we agree then that the committee will have a report prepared for September 1, 2008? Is that agreed?
[Page 7]
I think it's sensible to say if for some reason we finish our work earlier, there's nothing preventing us from tabling the report quicker than that but I think as a target, we can set September 1, 2008, as having the report prepared and possibly even some legislative changes for the Fall sitting of 2008.
So that being the case, we have a sense now of the time frame that we're working with. I guess the question today is, are we prepared to make final decisions today as far as how we're going to do this in reaching out and how that process is going to work? Or do you wish to simply discuss it today and we'll come back with a final decision when we next meet?
MR. PARENT: I like Maureen's suggestion, as she said, let's see what others have done, not just in their findings but in the process of getting that information.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I don't know if this is a practical idea or not, if we could do it, but I know that Elections Canada in the last election, they've done a fair amount of research on young voters in particular and their participation rates. They ran a campaign in the last election which I think was predicated on the idea that maybe they could get the vote up.
I don't know if they would be prepared to come, if it would be possible to get a presentation. My guess is they would have a lot of statistical information from across the country, they would have the broad spectrum and be able to break it down. Maybe as a suggestion, we could have a meeting with them as a committee, to hear what they have to say and it would give us all a base of information. We would have other material from the Legislative Library and it might be something that we could do relatively early in the process.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a very good suggestion and I'm sure, Darlene, that we can contact Elections Canada to see whether they have materials they can make available or whether they would be interested in making a formal presentation to us, as we go along the way on this. Mr. Dunn.
MR. PATRICK DUNN: Referring back to one of your earlier comments about the university students, high school students, I like that idea. I think we will have to be very, very creative to get to the point where we can engage students. My experience in high school settings, going to their turf, I think, is a good thing as opposed to asking them to come to us. I think we have to get by the stigma of, well, here comes another committee, they already have their mandate set, they know what they want but they have to go through the process.
We have to get beyond that, we have to let them know that there's a plea for their assistance, their help, we need their input. I think that going on-site to some of these facilities
[Page 8]
is a really good idea. The people you contact is extremely important in the schools. Sometimes they're not exactly the principals that you would contact, although you have to go through the formality of going through them, but maybe a political science instructor at these facilities who is interested in the process can be a very valuable addition to what we're trying to do.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate your comments and I think maybe, from Ms. MacDonald's suggestion, once we have a chance to see exactly what has been done in other jurisdictions as far as reaching out and how they receive their input, that way we might find some creative ideas there as well.
There are some logistical issues as well. When I made the suggestion that possibly if we are in Sydney, for example, then in the afternoon we would be able to meet with high school students and then in the evening get formal presentations. There was the logistical issue of Hansard and Leg.TV and everything else. I think that's something we need to focus on. If we're going to go into a school and sit behind microphones, we're wasting our time and I think there's general agreement on that.
So I think there are parts of this committee's work that we won't necessarily need to record. If we're going to do a focus session or a round table, sitting around with students, I don't think we need mics and I don't think we need to get every word that's said, but if we have someone taking down notes of what we're hearing, I think that would do the trick. So I think that meets that logistical nightmare for both Hansard and for Leg. TV, to be able to do that. So I encourage you, once we get more information about what has been done in other jurisdictions, to turn your minds to how we can do some creative things while, at the same time, realizing that there are some logistical issues that go with that, unless we're willing to do it a little differently. Mr. Parent.
MR. PARENT: Just following up on your suggestion, if we're going to do it slightly differently, we might want to look at instead of having all nine, have teams of three, one from each Party so that if, say, you're in Sydney you have one at the community college, one at a high school, one somewhere else. What we're going to be doing besides getting information is, hopefully, by our very activity encouraging voter participation. So if we had that flexibility, I think it would be . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I appreciate that suggestion and that's what I was hoping to hear today, those types of suggestions from the members. I think when we meet we'll each have an opportunity to reflect on that. I think we need to do those kinds of creative things, to go out there.
MR. PARENT: Then you could have an official meeting in the evening where you have the bank of mics and that sort of stuff.
[Page 9]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other suggestions? Again, I think when we meet next, these are all issues that we can further discuss and make some final decisions on that.
One of the issues that I wanted to talk about as well, as you see on the agenda, before we get to budget, is the whole communications strategy. The strategy has been put together by Dave Whynacht. One of my suggestions when we first met, and I looked for the committee's input on this, is that I think if we're going to talk about voting that we need to hear from the people who are involved in it on a regular basis, which is why I suggested that we send out an invitation about the committee and when we're going to be meeting, to all the returning officers here in the province. At the time I think I just mentioned provincial but I think we could also notify the federal returning officers as well, to let them know.
As well, I made the suggestion that we make sure that the Party presidents of each recognized Party in all of the ridings, be given information as well about our committee's work. At the end of it, these are the people who have great knowledge about elections and can tell us some of the frustrations they've faced and hopefully some suggestions they might have as well. So those are some of the external groups that I suggested that we want to make sure are aware, but I'm certainly open to suggestions about any other organizations that the committee might feel would be productive to communicate with to let them know of our activities.
MR. STEELE: Personally, I think there are lots of groups that aren't necessarily geographically based, like Fair Vote Nova Scotia, Elections Canada, Elections Nova Scotia, the Federation Acadienne, the representatives of other minority groups, aboriginal groups, African-Nova Scotian groups. One of the pieces of research that I would be very interested in is voting patterns to be broken down as much as we possibly can, to say where are the problems.
Really the returns we get on election night don't tell us much more than poll by poll. For example, I don't know, do we have a tremendously low percentage of voters among Aboriginals? I don't actually know that. We should be talking, I would suggest, to representative groups of anybody who might have some insight into how particular communities vote or don't vote.
As Maureen pointed out, there are lots of people who have previous experience with this and we should be eager to reach out and say, well, what do you know? What has been your experience? What have you tried? What has worked, what hasn't worked? There are a lot of civil society organizations that I think have a lot to contribute on this.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I fully agree. I'm just curious, is there a way for us to identify those because the lists would be endless, I guess, and just for the communications side they're going to need some - we're going to have to break it down a bit more specific as to which ones. I think you've identified some important ones there that can easily be contacted
[Page 10]
but whether we want to do that today or come back when we meet the next time, with a bit more specifics as to which organizations we feel need to be contacted on this.
[1:30 p.m.]
MR. PARENT: I'm just wondering, Mr. Chairman, following up on Graham's suggestion - the Fair Vote, on the personal voting we need to hear from them. The two organizations that immediately leap to mind that are community organizations that I think are a good fit in terms of civic engagement - in rural areas at least - the Women's Institute and the 4-H groups. Both of them have sort of a mandate in terms of engaging people in civic involvement. I'm just wondering if we want to make any linkages that way. I mean if the Women's Institute in rural areas took this up as a cause or something, that would extend our reach.
Now they wouldn't have much impact in the city, I know that, and different organizations would be appropriate in the city, but I know that in rural areas they do see that as part of their mandate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so maybe at our next meeting we'll try to identify some specific organizations. In the meantime, maybe Communications Nova Scotia can give us some suggestions there as well.
MR. STEELE: Just along the same lines as Mark is talking on, you know, the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. In my own constituency, the areas that have the lowest voter turnout are the poorest areas. It won't be a surprise that if you're poor and transient, you're less likely to be engaged in the political process. So perhaps we should talk to representatives of people, social groups, about the link between poverty and not voting.
MR. PARENT: There's a very good segment in Sicko on that, the interview on the Labour Leader out of England.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so we'll continue to work on that. I can advise the committee that while they weren't here the last meeting, we did invite Elections Nova Scotia to be here today and to be part of our support as well, because obviously they have a lot to provide us, both in information and in experience. So Ms. McCulloch couldn't be here today, but hopefully they will be at our next meeting and they will be part of this process as well.
You have the Nova Scotia Youth Advisory Council as well; we'd certainly want to make sure that they're engaged in the process as well.
We do have budget here as an item and at this point, in light of the fact that we haven't really reached any final decisions, I think we've agreed to come back to be able to
[Page 11]
make more specific recommendations. At this point in time, I think it's too preliminary to even look at the budget, but if the committee members have suggestions - Mr. Parent.
MR. PARENT: Well, this is just a question, and you would know far better than I where you and maybe - I don't know if any others have been on IEB, I haven't. IEB allotted, what, $100,000 with the door open to come back for more? Was there an initial budget set up for the committee?
MR. RODERICK MACARTHUR, Q.C.: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, Mr. MacArthur - unfortunately, I don't think any of us around the table sit on IEB for any of the Parties, so none of us have . . .
MR. PARENT: For some reason I thought they set up a budget of $100,000. There was no budget set?
MR. MACARTHUR: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There was no budget set, no.
MR. PARENT: So they're waiting for us to give them back what we need. Okay, just a point of clarification, I didn't know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it's possible that they may have discussed it. I haven't been given any specific instructions. Rod, you don't remember any specific instructions?
MR. PARENT: I mean supposedly they set a budget of $100,000 in April 2007, so we need to check on that and then get back . . .
MR. MACARTHUR: Read the resolution, the bottom part of the resolution.
MR. STEELE: My reading of the resolution is that we ask for our budget and they formally approve it. We don't accept a budget set by them.
MR. PARENT: No, I'm not saying we accept the budget set by them. I was just wondering if there was some sort of ground budget set and if we felt that was inadequate, we would get back to them as to why it wasn't adequate and needed to be raised. It was a question of clarification.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and I can get those specifics for the membership when we next meet again. My understanding is that we are to give an idea or a proposed budget and that the IEB will look at it at that point. But again, without us having made specific decisions as to how we're going to do this and waiting for the information as to what has been done
[Page 12]
in other jurisdictions, as far as reaching out, I think it's way too early for us to be talking budget at this point.
In light of that, I don't know if there are any other matters that the committee members want to discuss now. My suggestion would be that we set a time for when we will meet again, and at that point we would have information that would have been provided to the members about the issues that have been raised here today and we would potentially have some proposals to present to the committee as to how we might do this.
Again, if you do happen to think of something or have an idea or anything prior to when we do meet, feel free to e-mail me or e-mail Darlene here at the Committees Office and get that to us right away before we meet the next time. So are there any other issues? Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: I know you said it was too early to talk about budget, but I still want to make a comment about the budget. The one item that to me is essential that I don't see any allocation for yet is a researcher - a full-time, professional researcher dedicated to the work of the committee - because so much work has been done in other jurisdictions in Canada and around the world on this precise issue that we're dealing with. It's simply not possible for members of the committee to try to read and digest it all, even if it were gathered for us. We need somebody who will gather the information, analyze it for us and sort of be our on-hand expert.
I really think we need an allocation for that, certainly under the direction of the Legislative Librarian, but it seems to me that it's too much to ask the Legislative Library to sort of dedicate one of their people to this committee. I believe that if we're going to be effective we really need a full-time researcher and the Legislative Library needs an allocation from our budget to pay for one.
Also, as has been pointed out before, the unique challenge of this committee is that we're trying to engage people who, by definition, are disengaged. Therefore, we have to be as innovative as we can possibly be in terms of reaching out to people. We're not trying to reach the people who are already voting and saying, why are you voting? We're trying to reach out to people who don't vote and don't particularly care about the political process.
So we probably should have in mind a budget allocation for new media, for things that perhaps no legislative committee has ever tried before. Otherwise, we're just not going to get to the people who we want to reach.
The final item that I would like to see that I think is important, given that challenge of trying to reach out to people who are disengaged, is to do some professional public opinion research, either opinion polling and/or focus groups, so that we have some good,
[Page 13]
solid, scientific information about what's going on out there. Of course, as we all know, that costs to do that kind of work.
I know that we're not going to make budget decisions today, but I would just like to put those out as things that need to be provided for, in my view, in the budget.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Steele. I think those are great recommendations. I can certainly pass the idea by the IEB and make them aware that that would be something we're going to be requesting from them. I think you're right, and it goes to my opening comments, that this committee needs to do things differently than what has been done by other committees. This is not a new phenomenon to Nova Scotia and it's not only us but I think if we're going to have a reasonable chance of making significant changes here, we need to certainly do things differently than we've done before and I think those suggestions are certainly very valuable.
If there's nothing else, there's a question of when should our committee meet and how often should it meet. Before we have to make those decisions, the first one we need to at least make is when we'll meet next. I want to give Legislative Library the appropriate time to put together a lot of this information and, Margaret, if I can be more specific at this point, I think the committee members are looking to what processes were used in other jurisdictions to come up with the information.
I don't think we need you to have everything that they've done ready for us at this point but I think as part of our preliminary discussions, that would be the type of information we're looking for now. If Elections Canada or Elections Nova Scotia have some information on what they've done, whether they have polling data that's up to date that they can share with us, I think any of that information would be valuable for us for when we meet next.
So is there a suggestion from the committee as to when we should meet again?
MR. PARENT: How long would it take, Mr. Chairman, for that information to come back? That would determine when we would meet next.
MS. MARGARET MURPHY: Two weeks.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Two weeks? Okay.
MR. STEELE: Could I ask also that perhaps the next meeting we also have a revised budget to consider?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We can. I guess we can add the items that you've mentioned, about a researcher and some money for polling. What's difficult, for example, we have a line here for "hotels, convention rooms, vehicles". We haven't decided yet as to how often we're
[Page 14]
going to have these hearings, how many locations we're going to have them in, if we're going to move to different parts of communities, when we're going to be in them.
So at this point, until we've made those kinds of decisions, I don't see how we could even start considering budget items without knowing that specific information. So that's my only concern there.
MR. STEELE: By the same token, until we get an approved budget and money, we're not in a position to, for example, move ahead and hire a researcher, which to me is the essential first step before the committee does anything, to gather information so we know what the facts are. So the sooner we get a budget finalized, the sooner we can get that process underway.
MR. CHAIRMAN: My understanding from some of the discussions I've had with government representatives is that they fully support what this committee is trying to do, without saying that we have a limitless amount of money to spend, the message pretty much that was given to me, again just at lunchtime, was that they are prepared to give us the money necessary for this committee to meet its objectives. I think the one limitation was that we couldn't travel to foreign jurisdictions to see what they're doing but other than that, that was about the only limit that was put on us.
So I'm not overly concerned about the budget issue, I think it's something that we'll obviously govern ourselves accordingly. But the message that I've been given basically is that they're prepared to support the mandate that we establish around this and provide us the necessary funding to carry it out. Ms. MacDonald.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Maybe we can treat this as a draft budget, add in the additional items, have that as one of our focuses in our next meeting, along with the considerations of whether or not we're going to go around the province and to what extent we'll do that. That, I think, will give us some basis to try to finalize the budget.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, very good.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Mr. Chairman, does that mean we're hiring a researcher?
MR. PARENT: I don't think we've made the final decision, it's a draft.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think at this point, when we meet again those final decisions can be made. I think we'll have the opportunity to sleep on it and consider that, and at the same time we can possibly even get an idea if that has been done for other committees and even the proposed cost of getting someone in to do that research for us.
[Page 15]
MR. PARENT: Would it be possible, Mr. Chairman, to touch base with IEB, unofficially at least, about our thoughts?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh yes, I'm sure that - well, I think you see them more often than I do, the majority anyway on that committee, but certainly . . .
MR. PARENT: I don't even know who's on there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And I know you're being brutally honest when you say that.
MR. PARENT: I am. Michael, I guess, is on it, that's it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will certainly share some of the discussions here that have taken place and the . . .
MR. PARENT: There's all-Party representation on that, isn't there?
MR. CHAIRMAN: There is, so hopefully I'm sure I can say that I'll speak to our House Leader, and hopefully Graham or Maureen can speak to your House Leader, but I don't expect that the budget process is going to be a problem.
MR. PARENT: We'll do the same. No, no, I just want to make sure because we don't want to come back and all of a sudden we've got . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: No problem, I appreciate your concern.
Tuesday, October 30th, is the proposed date, it would be in the afternoon. Is the afternoon fine with the committee members?
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: We have a caucus meeting that afternoon. The NDP caucus meets on Tuesday, October 30th.
MR. PARENT: Is there a Wednesday - oh, we have caucus at 1:30 p.m.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Wednesday tends to be - the Public Accounts Committee is in the morning and then almost every caucus, I think, meets on those days as well. What about Thursday, November 1st at 1:00 p.m., is it agreed?
[1:45 p.m.]
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.
[Page 16]
MR. CHAIRMAN: So at that point we'll have information that will be forwarded to you, some of the research for you to go over and we'll have some updated numbers for the committee's consideration as well.
So if that's it, again thank you to all of our support staff who are here and who will be along with us for this most interesting ride, I'm sure. Again, thank you for all the hard work and there will be much more to come. So with that, thank you, committee members, and I'll see you again on November 1st.
[The committee adjourned at 1:46 p.m.]
