MR. CHAIRMAN: Welcome to our meeting. I hope you had a good Christmas and a good new years. After the last meeting, I somehow appeared on the front page of the Chronicle-Herald in a pose where people in my riding said, were you asleep or were you praying? I was doing neither of them but the majority thought I was praying. So I brought you my favourite prayer to share with you this morning to start our meeting. This comes out of a book by John Homer Miller. It is a prayer by a Canadian-Scot. This is his prayer:
"Oh Lord, we approach Thee this morning in an attitude of prayer and likewise of complaint. When we came to Canada we expected to find a land flowing with milk and honey but instead we find a land peopled with the ungodly Irish. Oh Lord, in Thy mercy drive them to the uttermost parts of Canada, make them hewers of wood and drawers of water, give them no places as magistrates, policemen, or rulers among Thy people. But if Ye have any favors to bestow or any good land to give away, give it to Thine own peculiar people, the Scots. Make them members of Parliament, rulers among Thy people, but as for the ungodly Irish, take them by the heels and shake them over the mouth of hell, but Lord, don't let them fall in, and the glory shall be Thine forever. Amen."
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Robbie Burns thanks you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyway, supposedly it is a real prayer that comes out the Canadian archives. My wife was Irish so I used to quote her that one.
Anyway, welcome. We have quite a few people sitting in for others but everybody knows each other after our session in the House. We are all friends and acquaintances so we shall proceed without introductions.
MS. EILEEN O'CONNELL: Except for the ungodly Irish. (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am going to change the agenda just a little bit and move correspondence on the screening panels up to I and then we will deal with the appointments, II. So you all received from Mora copies of the correspondence. Does everybody have the copies and you were able to look through them? Basically, at the behest of the committee, I sent two letters asking about the mandate of the screening panels. You can see the six things that were asked: the mandate, criteria, description of roles, terms of appointment, et cetera. Then the second letter was asking really about a conflict of interest policy. Then you can see the response from Alison in terms of the mandate and the terms of reference to my first letter and then there was another letter sent out by me asking for further clarification about the conflict of interest and the role of ministers and Cabinet in the screening process and you see Alison's responses.
So you have had those. Those were sent out with . . .
MS. MORA STEVENS (Legislative Committee Coordinator): A couple of days before the package.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Those were sent out so you had a chance to look through those. Are there any questions or comments for clarification that you want from those letters? There were quite a few but they came basically out of the request of this committee and I was just following up because we hadn't got a response to the second letter on conflict of interest and then we got the response. There is the letter there that it was the determination of the Executive Council that departmental screening panels should not be eligible for appointment to agencies, boards or commissions in that particular department. That was their determination. We, as a committee, can make our own decisions on how we want to handle that but we did get an answer on the conflict-of-interest policy. So that is the conflict-of-interest policy that the screening panels are adopting. Darrell.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Yes, I just have a couple of questions around it and I am not trying to beat a dead horse on this. I am going to ask the questions because I just want to be clear on it. My understanding always of the screening panel process, and certainly as it was set out in various communications by the government over at least the lead-up to the actual institution of the process, was that it was to provide the Human Resources Committee with the best possible candidates for the position and yet in the process that is set out here, they have a series, which they appear to refer to as rules, because they say, "Subject to Rule 5 and 6 below . . .", and they set out a series of rules with respect to the screening panels and it says specifically, "Screening panels screen for qualifications only and do not rank candidates relative to each other.".
I guess what I want to know is whether or not this would have been approved by the Minister of Human Resources and I guess, ultimately if necessary, by the Executive Council and if this is now the policy of the government, that it is not in the business of finding the best available candidates for the position but simply to screen out those who are unqualified?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Your first question, perhaps Mr. Spurr could answer, whether this is the policy of the Executive Council. I assume that it is with the answer I got from the Clerk, Alison Scott.
Your second question, though, my understanding always was that the screening panels, their task was to make sure that only qualified people were eligible for appointment by the minister but that the minister's power to determine the ranking was always supposed to be there. The screening panels, I don't think, were supposed to take that away. So I don't think there is any change. I think, from what I can see, only qualified candidates would go on to round two but the minister and the Executive Council still make their decision and we still, then, as a Human Resources Committee, have our decision. Is there anything you want to add to this, Jim, to clarify things?
MR. JAMES SPURR: Maybe just for clarification on the second part of the question, which really goes to the purpose of the screening panels and Mr. Dexter used the term ranking and raised it as a question. It is my understanding that the screening panels read and review all of the applications that come to a particular department and their only function is to review all of those applications for the purpose of generating a pool of candidates unranked which it then refers to the minister, advising that of all the applications received, here is a pool of candidates which we feel meet the criteria for appointment to the particular ABC and that it is contemplated that thereafter the minister would make his or her selection from that pool, but to that point, it is my understanding that there is no ranking of candidates.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That has always been my understanding too. There may have been some confusion but I have always understood that the purpose of the screening committees was to weed out any people who weren't qualified to make sure that the ones who were left were all qualified for the position but not to take away the decision making from the minister, the Executive Council and then ultimately ourselves.
MR. DEXTER: Well, with all respect, I don't think it takes away the minister's responsibility or authority to make the decisions. As I understood the screening panels, at least from the information that we could glean from media outlets over the lead-up to the appointment was that they wanted to ensure that we got the best available candidates for the individual positions. The panels could rank them, the minister could disagree, but at least he would have received guidance on the basis of the ranking from panels that are set up, as I understand it, with a range of expertise to provide the minister with exactly the advice that he is now not getting because these people are not ranked.
MR. CHAIRMAN: He may be getting it verbally, but they are not ranked on paper from my understanding, according to what Alison said, and that was always my understanding that they were not to do the ranking but just to weed out and to make sure that only qualified candidates went on.
MR. DEXTER: As I said, I am not going to pursue this any further than this, except to say that I guess people will have to draw their own conclusions from what was said, at least in the lead-up through the campaign and into the first meetings of this committee, and then what we ultimately get, which really is different than . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would have to check back (Interruption) I have always been very clear there would be no ranking in the screening committee from what I knew, but anyway.
MR. JON CAREY: Mr. Chairman, my understanding was that it was never going to rank the individuals, it was simply a screening body that would make sure that people who were not qualified and therefore from a political standpoint, no one could be appointed just because they were of a political stripe. I never understood it intended to rank them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I never did either.
MR. CAREY: It was just to keep out political patronage.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But these are the rules that they have set down and they are there for our information. On the basis of these rules we can decide our own activity as a Human Resources Committee but I think they have been fairly clear. Alison did respond in length to the first letter; to the second letter she responded on January 17th and she was fairly clear on that, although I had to send out another letter to get the response on the conflict-of-interest policy and what that is. Russell.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, as a follow-up to what my colleague has just raised, if that is the process that we now have in place, should we not amend the certification that the minister of the Crown issues when he does make an appointment. In the final paragraph, "It is my opinion as the Minister responsible for the ABC that from the candidates that applied to the position that this is the best qualified person to carry out the duties of this position.". Shouldn't that be somehow amended to attach it to the screening process of this screening committee, this panel that is now in place? The minister is in effect relying on somebody else's opinion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But that was the very reason why they weren't supposed to rank the screening panels, because if they did rank then we would fall into the problem that you mentioned, that the minister really wasn't making the decision, that they were relying on someone else and it was a rubber stamp. So that is why this balance was found, in my understanding, that the screening panels would weed out any unqualified candidates, make
sure that you couldn't be appointed simply on the basis of political party affiliation, that you had to be qualified for the position, but that the minister would still retain the authority to determine who the best candidate was. Then it would come to us finally and we would decide whether we agreed or disagreed with that.
Nonetheless you do raise an important point, that with the screening panels in place there will have to be some amendments to the Form "A". My understanding is that the guidelines which we have, which are not part of Form "A", not part of the standing rules of the Legislature, that those were put into place two years ago, in 1998, because at that time they thought they didn't have time to actually incorporate them into the standing rules of the Legislature. It may be time at this stage with the screening panels in place, we have the rules, they are fairly clear how they operate, I think we understand how it all operates now, it may be time for us to take a look at amalgamating those guidelines with the Form "A" and including some sort of box to make sure that each candidate has gone through the screening panel process. That is something under future agenda that I was going to bring up for us to look at.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, just as a supplemental, I guess I was looking for some clarification, not only on that issue but clarifying in my mind, is the screening panel providing one name or the list . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, they provide a group of names . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Ultimately the minister picks out . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ultimately the minister makes the final decision. Are we clear then about how the screening panels work and the correspondence that has flowed back and forth between myself and Alison Scott on your behalf? We have nailed that one down. We have to decide how we want to deal with it as a committee, but at least we understand that process better. I want to thank Mora for writing the letters and Alison Scott for responding. She was teasing me the other day, she said, you are not going to write me any more letters demanding I do some work, Mark, are you? I said, I can't promise that, if the committee asks we will write the letters.
Let's go on to the appointments to the ABCs. You have your booklet in front of you. We have a fair group of them. The Department of Business and Consumer Services and the Department of Labour are the two main groups, and the Department of Health, I guess. Under the Department of Business and Consumer Services, we have three groupings, right? Or just two, Real Estate Appraisers Association and Residential Tenancies Board.
I will remind you then that when you make nominations, to state what agency, board or commission you are nominating them to and to read out their names so that it is in the record. We will just start at the top and go through it, if you don't mind, unless there is some reason to change the order.
MS. MARY ANN MCGRATH: Just a question, do we do these individually or do them according to the grouping or is there a set . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is the choice of the committee, whatever you want to do.
MS. MCGRATH: Is there any benefit to doing them en bloc, because there are so many of them?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to get through to the future agenda, in terms of other items that we keep putting off, but it is really the committee's decision.
MR. TIMOTHY OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to start off by moving the appointment under the Real Estate Appraisers Association, Board of Directors, Valerie Folk, member, and A. Martin Smith, member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It has been moved, are there any questions? We don't have seconders on the vote.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Our next one, Residential Tenancies Board.
MR. DEXTER: May I ask a question?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. DEXTER: I notice that in many cases when these nominations come forward résumés are attached but with respect to the Residential Tenancies Board, there are no résumés, at least none that I could find, attached for any of them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The reason why there are no résumés with some of them is because the honorarium is below the $100 mark. The guidelines of the committee are that a CV or a résumé only has to be attached if it is above $100. We encourage everyone to put in a résumé, but . . .
MR. DEXTER: There is none for any of them here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The other reason why some don't have them is reappointments. I noticed that as well.
MR. DEXTER: It is not . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: But that is the reason why, because according to our guidelines they don't have to.
MR. DEXTER: This is $60 per session. You could have three sessions if you wanted in a day.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am just looking at our guideline that we made that CVs must be attached for positions that pay $100 or more per day. So that was what we set out in our guidelines a couple of years ago.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I hope we are not suggesting that there is a price attached to that as to whether people are qualified or not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no. I guess the guidelines, maybe, Mora, you could tell us why they set that $100 figure a couple of years ago.
MS. STEVENS: There was a lot of discussion because some of the very high profile boards, such as the regional health boards, were volunteer at the point when they were setting out the guidelines. It was just decided because of the bulk of it, people applying to things like our favourite board, the Apple Maggot Board, if they have résumés or CVs, great, but they did not want to force people to have to do that because sometimes it is hard enough to get them to even apply for these boards. So it was encouraged that if they were more than willing to send a résumé, we would love to have it, but it was not going to be a forced issue unless it was $100 or over, but that is always something that can be changed through the guidelines and through the committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would they have numerous hearings on one day?
MR. DEXTER: As it happens, I used to serve on the Residential Tenancies Board and you can have more than one session in a day.
MR. CHAIRMAN: More than one hearing in one day.
MR. DEXTER: You certainly have more than one hearing, but hearings are different than sessions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But you could have more than one session?
MR. DEXTER: Sure, you could. I guess the other question I had, you know, I know some of these people. I know Jean Webb. Certainly I am sure members of the government know Jean well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know her.
MR. DEXTER: She is, at least in our area, a high profile Progressive Conservative and very involved in the Porters Lake area, so certainly would be one of the Party faithful. That does not make her unqualified. She is a lawyer, she works in Bedford. I think she does, in fact, some practice in this area. (Interruption)
I am just saying I would like to see her résumé, that is all. I don't know Elaine White at all. Some of the others are reappointments. I know Gloria McCluskey.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is she a high profile Tory too? (Interruptions) She ran for the Liberals but as a high profile Tory. (Interruption) I am sorry to tease you, Darrell, but, no, the point you make is a valid point.
MR. DEXTER: I would just like to know something about these people, that is all.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Under the qualifications, I was just looking at Jean since you mention it, there is a former chair of the Residential Tenancies Board. There is a little byline for each one of them under qualifications I guess, but perhaps we should get stricter on these résumés. Technically they did not have to supply one. Maybe we should ask for résumés for all applications and make that a guideline, but we cannot do that for this meeting. We would have to do that when we look at it, as I said, when we review with the screening panels and with our guidelines and we take a look at that under setting the future agenda. Perhaps maybe that is one of the things we want to look at and say that $100 is . . .
MR. DEXTER: What are the total number of positions on the Residential Tenancies Board?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is in Form "A".
MR. DEXTER: There are 12, right, okay. So are there some that have not expired?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Some have not expired and these ones that have, then there are five positions to be filled. There is the listing of the ones that have not expired and the people who are still on, I assume.
MS. STEVENS: Yes, the board membership chart.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the board membership chart. It is at the very start of the Form "A" for that particular board after the legislation. It is cited and those are the lists of those who are still on whose terms have not expired and actually the time when their term will come to an end.
MR. DEXTER: Just for example, I see that Wynne Slawter and Phyllis Thompson's terms are supposed to expire at the same time; in fact, I guess many of these, Michael Owen; and what I guess I would wonder is did these people not apply for reappointment?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have no idea.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, are you entertaining any motions?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, yes.
MR. TAYLOR: I would like to make a motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we have one on the floor? No, we don't. Yes, please, make the motion.
[9:00 a.m.]
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion that we approve the names as submitted to the Residential Tenancies Board, Jennifer Bankier, Moira Ducharme, Matthew Kerrigan, Peter MacKeigan, Gloria McCluskey, Phyllis Thompson, Jean Webb and Elaine White.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. We now have a motion on the floor. I should have called for that first. We can have questions at this point. Darrell.
MR. DEXTER: Again, I think this points out the problem with this process when we have no idea why it is that some of these people apparently who are coming off at the same time are not being reappointed, others are. Clearly it cannot be a question of their qualifications, I assume. If they have been a former serving member, they would have the qualification of having been a former serving member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Which ones are coming off that haven't been . . .
MR. DEXTER: Lena Diab, Wynne Slawter, Michael Owen, all of these people's terms are coming up on February 19th, the same as Phyllis Thompson.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The same as Moira Ducharme.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment on Mr. Dexter's comment?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, please.
MR. TAYLOR: I don't think it should be an automatic given because one has served on an agency, board and commission that they automatically are reappointed. I understand and appreciate the member's comment about, you know, some members being reappointed and some not being appointed, but I don't think members around this table should think that because a member served that they automatically should be reappointed. I expressed concern about that in the past. I just don't think it should be an automatic. I am not saying the honourable member is suggesting that, but I don't think you can automatically turn them over and just reappoint them time and time again. I think you have to bring new members in to bring new blood into the system.
MR. DEXTER: The problem in as succinct a way as I can put it is that we have no way of determining why it is that these come forward and others do not. We don't see the list. They apparently aren't ranked in any fashion by the selection panel, you know, we are just handed these. Now we are handed them without résumés and we are asked to approve them. I think that is unreasonable.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, as we discerned earlier, the names that are advanced by the screening committee are all qualified and not ranked. So any name that appears before this committee, as I understand it, is supposedly screened and vetted and qualified.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The other thing, Darrell, the mandate of this committee is not to review the process of selection, but simply to decide on the names that are given to us. That has always been the way this committee has operated since it was instituted in 1993. That is what the standing Rules of the House, of the Legislature say. So we may have this discussion, I think it is helpful and good to discuss, but basically according to our mandate we decide on the names that get here - for all we know they may not have reapplied. They may have reapplied and they didn't do a good job. We have no idea and we really cannot spend too much time on that because that is not in our mandate. Russell.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is refreshing to see some new talent. I mean there has to be a certain degree of turnover. I don't see this as a bad thing at all.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions before we call for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Department of Health.
MS. O'CONNELL: Mr. Chairman, before you go to that, I am just wondering if I could go back and ask Mora a question about the remuneration. That sort of got past me before I spoke up. I was on this committee, it seems to me for two years, where every time we talked about remuneration the statement was made remuneration was under review and it is written still on some of these.
What is the status of that? I remember we wrote to the Law Reform Commission and they said, well, we are not doing it. So do you know anything about that because that would certainly, it might shift the percentages of ones that need résumés?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I respond to that. Personally, and I didn't do this on behalf of the committee, but personally when I looked at the number of agencies, boards and commissions and when I looked at the remuneration, I thought what is the rationale for this large number and what is the rationale for the different remunerations. The Department of Health, for example, they were to sit on there as volunteers with expenses while other boards were getting what I thought were very healthy honorariums. So I wrote, as a personal MLA, not as chairman of the committee, suggesting that they should be reviewed not only in terms of the number, but also of remuneration. My understanding is that that suggestion was warmly received. I don't know if it is going to be acted upon but I think that will dovetail with what was happening in the past. I think we may see something in that regard. Now, Mora, you can give us some more information.
MS. STEVENS: They wanted to look at as many as they could and the minister would set them. They were trying to get, as far as I remember in 1993, as many down to volunteers and they wanted to see what the rationale was behind all of the payments.
MS. O'CONNELL: Who is they, Mora?
MS. STEVENS: The government, per se. Each department was looking at each one of the boards that they were responsible for but, again, the Law Reform Commission didn't want to have anything to do with the remuneration and they gave it back to the government and P & P sort of said, well, we are going to make the ministers look at these as they come forward. But you are right, that has never changed on the form, and when they say "under review" we still don't know after they are passed what these people do get. Once a number has been set then it would change, but . . .
MS. O'CONNELL: Some of them are marked "under review" and some of them are marked "not under review". Can we inquire about that, Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. Is everyone in agreement that we inquire about the remuneration given to the various committees and what review is being done on that?
DR. JAMES SMITH: The status of that review?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The status of the review. Does everyone agree?
DR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, would there be a guarantee that we would know if the change had taken place?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It would have to be on the form.
MS. O'CONNELL: Well, we would have to see an old form and a new form to know . . .
DR. SMITH: Well, that's my point, if there would be some changes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, if it is agreed, we will write that letter and inquire about that. Any other questions?
MS. O'CONNELL: I think just to reinforce that point, I was exceedingly struck when I first came on this committee by how those remunerations reflect what governments consider important and unimportant and I remember being absolutely horrified by the notion that the Day Care Advisory Council got basically a cup of coffee and on other boards people got $150 a day. I think it really does reflect an imbalance and maybe a review would correct that. Maybe it would take the others down instead of putting those up, but it might make for a fairer reflection of what is important to Nova Scotians.
DR. SMITH: There is a great discrepancy. I think I mentioned it at the last committee meeting that when we took over government in 1993, there was one gentleman who was on two or three committees and his total income and take was around $70,000 a year. I don't think committee members really have a full understanding of what some of these committees . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: There used to be wharf walkers, didn't there? Who was telling us about the wharf walkers? They were paid a good deal to walk the wharves to make sure they were up to par, I guess. Anyway, we will write that letter and ask about the status of that.
The Department of Health, Nova Scotia Hospital. Is someone prepared to move these names?
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. On the previous Residential Tenancies Board, there was a list of all of the members of the board . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: That we are still on.
MR. OLIVE: Yes, but under the Nova Scotia Hospital - I don't know how many pages in from the tag, about four or five, three pages in - there are five people listed there. That's not the complete list of the board, I understand, is it?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, and the other page wasn't a complete list of the board either, was it? Was this a complete list of the Residential Tenancies Board?
MS. STEVENS: What happens is once the person's term has actually expired, it goes off the computer, so sometimes there might be five people whose terms just expired, that when that list is printed out, their names don't appear. So these are all ones who are on now, that are about to expire. So you just count how many members are supposed to be on and how many members are on now and then you know the vacancy rate. That's how it is programmed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that clear, Tim? About as clear as mud?
MR. OLIVE: Well, it just seems to me that it would have been helpful to have the list, even of the expired members when you are looking at new appointments to a board. Just to follow up on Russell's comment, it is good to get new people on the board, but how do we determine whether or not they are new people if we don't know whether they were on there before? I don't see the problem in having that list there.
MS. STEVENS: The only problem right now is that that is how the computer is programmed but on the form, under the name and telephone number, it says whether or not the person is a reappointment. It should say if this is a reappointment and then the number of terms served and the number of years the person has served.
MR. OLIVE: I understand that, but you would have to go through every page to do that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is rather cumbersome.
MR. OLIVE: Yes, and I don't think it is necessary. I think it is just as easy for staff, before it gets here, to have those listed and then maybe a reappointment form enclosed, whatever.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Good point. Is that possible to do, Mora? Could you look into that for us?
MS. STEVENS: I will look into that and find out because I am not sure how they have programmed the computer and whether they can spit that out, but we will check.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Jon, did you have a question?
MR. CAREY: I just wondered, there were 29 applications, there are basically 11 vacancies, as of February, and we did eight appointments. I know we don't have the information but I wonder why the panel, unless they didn't approve, didn't pass on any more than eight names?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't answer that question.
DR. SMITH: I must say, in all fairness, these appointments take an awful lot of work of staff and it is very difficult. One of my concerns I will mention on the Nova Scotia Hospital is the lack of geographical representation. If you look at your old list on the one that we are discussing, the Nova Scotia Hospital, you will see that there is somebody from Cape Breton currently on and that would be two from Cape Breton, which is good, but there is a real lack of around the province. It is very difficult and people insist they want to be on boards and then when you contact them, I have had some experience with this, and it is very frustrating, I must say, so I think the people deserve credit.
It is important that the system is good and it works and it is open and that we are all politically sensitive, but there are a lot of other issues here to ensure that there is good geographic representation on the board, like the Nova Scotia Hospital. It is a provincial institution. That is the problem here today with their appointments.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I noticed that as well.
DR. SMITH: There are none for the Valley, there are none for Yarmouth.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I noticed that as well, that there are none for the Valley or for Yarmouth.
DR. SMITH: It is difficult and I am sure the people are working on it. There is a lot of interest until the crunch comes of agreeing to serve and attend.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions? I will entertain a motion then, for the Department of Health, Nova Scotia Hospital. Is someone willing to move those names? Please make sure you read the names out and the position.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I move Mary Jane Andrews, Anne M. Cogdon, James Michael Murphy, Alf F. Nielsen, Dr. Eugene Nurse and Lucy M. Reid to be appointed as members of the Nova Scotia Hospital Board under the Department of Health.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Department of Labour, we have the Blasters Board of Examiners for Certification. Here is a fun one.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I move the names of Paul Caza, Sid McConnell and Alan Miller to be approved for the Blasters Board of Examiners for Certification.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion on these three names or this board? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The next board, Construction Industry Panel, the Labour Relations Board of Nova Scotia. We just have the one name.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I so move David E. Reid as an alternate member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The next one, turning the page over, you have again just one for the Labour Relations Board. Is someone prepared to make that motion?
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I so move the appointment of Gary W. Dean as an alternate member to the Labour Relations Board of Nova Scotia under the Department of Labour.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The next one, Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council. Is someone prepared to move that slate of names?
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, can we raise issues on it before or after the motion?
MS. STEVENS: It should be after the motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It should be after the motion. Let's have a motion and then we will have some discussion on it. You are not going to nominate Rick Clarke, Brooke?
MR. TAYLOR: No, I have some serious concerns, too, about these quotas.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am just teasing you. You have got a good NDPer there. Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council, is someone willing to move this slate of names? Then we will have discussion. (Interruption) We will discuss after the motion.
MR. MACKINNON: Either way, Mr. Chairman, I have some serious concerns on at least two.
MR. CAREY: Maybe they should be done individually.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to do them individually?
MR. MACKINNON: Sure.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I move that we go through an individual process on the appointments to the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council under the Department of Labour, one name at a time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we have a motion to consider this slate of names individually.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, let's go through them one by one, then. If someone could move the first name.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I so move the name of Christine Birchall as an alternate member under the employers section for the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion?
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I am not arguing with the qualifications of Ms. Birchall or perhaps any other members who have been nominated here, however, my understanding is that the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council is supposed to reflect an equal number, or the composition at least is supposed to reflect an equal number,
of employers and employees. I think when we look at the appointments and the composition of the board, that pretty much has been done. However, I do have concerns that we don't have enough, quite frankly, non-unionized members on that Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council. If you look at the employees who have been nominated today, you will find out, once again, that they come from the unionized sector, which is fine, they are qualified but I would think - and the former Labour Minister can correct me if I am wrong - whereas our workforce is 75 per cent or 80 per cent non-unionized, that that committee should reflect that in its composition. It presently does not.
I have a further concern, Mr. Chairman, that one of the biggest employers in this province, the trucking sector is not represented on the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council. So perhaps I should take my cause up with the screening committee but it is a concern that I have and I trust that some of that is shared by members around this table.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the point that is raised by my colleague, the member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley. However, Christine Birchall is with the employer section as an alternate member and I can certainly attest to the fact that there were some vacancies with both slates. Just to recap, and I stand to be corrected on the exact numbers, I believe it is 12 and 12 - 12 employers and 12 employees plus their alternates.
MR. TAYLOR: It is six and six, plus the alternates.
MR. MACKINNON: Is it six and six or 12 and 12 plus the alternates? No, it is 12 and 12 plus the alternates. Christine Birchall is essentially filling an alternate vacancy there so I think we can deal with that and then perhaps we could deal with my colleague's concerns as we get into the employees.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, with all respect, as I indicated, I didn't have a particular concern about her appointment representing an employer but I think in general this committee should reflect the different working sectors that we have across this province, whether it is union or non-unionized. Right now, there is a big imbalance in favour of - if you want to look at it in that context, and I do and quite frankly in favour of - the union sector.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion on Christine Birchall?
MR. MACKINNON: Question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The next name. Is someone prepared to move the next candidate?
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I move the appointment of Rick Clarke as a member of the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council under the Department of Labour.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Now we will have some discussion, any discussion? Russell.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I have concerns about this particular individual for several reasons. Number one, because this particular individual holds a dual role as both an employee representative within the Federation of Labour and also holds an employer position with the Federation of Labour. That has been a bone of contention with the Department of Labour in the past. Just to clarify for those who aren't familiar, as President of the Federation of Labour Rick Clarke represents the employees in the organized labour community, however Rick Clarke also holds the position of Executive Director within the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour, which puts him clearly under the definition of employer, in the Occupational Health and Safety Act as an employer.
One of the major problems that I can attest to, that came from organized labour, from the rank and file within the organized labour community across this province, is that many individuals who wanted to apply on their own were either intimidated or were advised not to apply unless they received the rubber stamp from the executive body under the authority of Mr. Clarke and his executive committee. That, in my view, excluded a tremendous amount of talent, rank and file organized labourers across this province.
In some measure, it goes hand in hand with the points that were raised by my colleague, the member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, and I believe there has to be some clarification as to which interest Mr. Clarke in fact represents. Clearly the perception, and one would argue that as President of the Federation of Labour, he represents the labour community. You go into any corporate structure, whether it be labour, management or whatever, any executive director is defined under the Act as an employer. He has staff under his authority and he is in a management position.
We do have some potential conflict of interest. Notwithstanding the fact that I am sure my socialist colleagues here would be glad to support this particular cause, it is refreshing that the government is open-minded to welcome a member of the NDP caucus on one of these advisory panels, but the reality is there is a conflict there and there is a process that prohibits the rank and file from applying individually. It doesn't matter if it is in the nursing union, the labourers, the electricians, you name it, we have tested it.
When I was Minister of Labour, and the staff at the Department of Labour will support me on this, the screening process through this organized body is so rigid that it precludes honest, hard-working, capable, well-qualified individuals from applying on their own initiative and being successful as the labour representative.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification to the honourable member, you are speaking within the unionized workforce.
MR. MACKINNON: Yes.
MR. DEXTER: I just wanted to go back to point out to the members that we don't know who applied, we have a certification from the minister that says that this person is the best qualified person for the job, and as I understood from what I just went through a few minutes ago, our job is not to review the process of selection but to decide whether or not to accept these names. (Interruptions) I have to tell you, this is what we are left with. I don't know if Mr. MacKinnon's argument has any merit or not, I can't tell. I don't know. I can tell, but.
What we have here is the senior elected member of the labour movement in this province who is being recommended as the best candidate for this position by the minister. I think that speaks for itself. Just call for a vote.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, just to follow on some of the comments of the honourable member for Cape Breton West. This appointment, as you can tell by the Form "A", the candidate was nominated by the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour. That becomes somewhat restrictive, in any further process I think that has to be understood. I find it quite interesting with the previous comments that the screening process, for what it is worth, within the Federation of Labour put this gentleman forward, and if I can believe what Russell says, then it does in fact eliminate a lot of probably very well-qualified labour people, but that is the process that they went through.
It is interesting that it is okay for the perception of that to be all right, where the perception of the screening process that allows it to be carried through, where he is considered qualified by a screening panel, I am not quite sure how you can make an argument against the screening panel after Mr. Clarke's name is put forward. I just put that comment out there. I am somewhat baffled by the member for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour's argument, now it is okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am conscious of the time, so very quickly, Russell and then Darrell, and then we will go to the question if there is no more discussion. Russell.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I won't be redundant, so I will focus on a slightly different point. It goes to the essence of where we are going with this particular committee as well. I noticed that three of these reappointments, Mr. Clarke, Mr. MacKeigan and one other, it escapes me right now, but they are only for a four month period, which would essentially bring us to the end of the fiscal year, into the next.
It seems to spell out some indication that this committee is not going to be in its present form after four months, so perhaps we could seek some clarification from the minister. If we are going through this rather elaborate exercise for four months, it begs another question. Be that as it may because of my knowledge of this process, I certainly can't support this particular individual as an employee representative.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Darrell.
MR. DEXTER: Just for the sake of clarification, I didn't say, and the member for Dartmouth South knows this and he is just trying to be contentious, but the reality is I didn't say that the screening process was right, I just said it is the one that exists, and it existed for all of these other nominees and in fact to reject a nominee, and you will note that we didn't vote against any of them, we abstained from the last number of appointments, so our point is not to obstruct the work of the committee but to point out that there is a problem. We see a problem with the selection process and with screening panels who don't apparently do the job that we understood they were set up to do. That was my point. That hasn't changed.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, just before we vote, I want to reiterate that I am not questioning the qualifications of any of these nominees to this particular board, however, I am a little bit perplexed because my general recollection is that when the honourable member for Cape Breton West was the Minister of Labour, when we are talking about ministers signing names off, that it was him and his department that advanced Mr. Clarke's name at that particular time. I could stand to be corrected. So now is the member telling us he has new information that leads him to believe that somehow Mr. Clarke is not qualified? I find it very confusing at best.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to answer that Russell? I am conscious of the time and I want to move on.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I think that is an excellent point. I believe that all honourable colleagues will find that initially Mr. Clarke was recommended for a three or four year period. I totally and categorically rejected that. In fact, initially it was my recommendation that Mr. Clarke not go back as an employee representative on that particular panel, but after extensive discussion with the Director of Occupational Health and Safety for the Department of Labour because, again going back to my point earlier about bringing in some new talent, we wanted some of the new talent to acquire the benefit of the experience of some of the senior members and that he was only reappointed for a one year period. At that juncture the intent was to remove him as an employee representative because clearly he was in a management position and not an employee as he held out. So perhaps my NDP colleagues are supporting him as a member of their caucus and not as a member of the labour community, I don't know.
[9:30 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the nomination of Rick Clarke to the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council, say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Do you want me to call for abstentions each time or I will just leave it that if you want your name to stand as having abstained, that you will speak out and say please put me down as having abstained.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to move the name of Charles Keddy for approval to the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council. Mr. Keddy is a representative of the agriculture sector and we certainly need that particular element represented.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The next name, is someone willing to make that a motion.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I so move the name of Archie MacKeigan as an employer member on the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council for the period of four months as noted.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The next name.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I so move the name of Phil Veinotte as an alternate member for the employer's position on the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Then the final name in this category.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I move the appointment of Rob Wells to the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council in the Department of Labour as a member employee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion?
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, just a quick question, Mr. Chairman. I take it that this is the same Robert Wells who is also appointed to the Occupational Health and Safety Appeal Panel, the only name that has come forward out of 103 applications, and I am just wondering perhaps, to Mr. Spurr, as to whether or not these particular mandates, the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council and the Appeal Panel, if there is any conflict there in terms of their mandate? From looking at it I don't particularly see one, but . . .
MR. SPURR: It is not apparent to me that there is, but we can check the Statute in a little more detail for you if you wish and report back.
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the general observation would lead one to believe that there are four members who are presently on the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council who are also on that Appeal Panel and perhaps it is done for some type of continuity or the incumbent knowledge. I am just not . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you going to check into that for us?
MR. SPURR: Yes.
MR. TAYLOR: Again, just to point out there was talk here about remuneration and one pays up to $175 a day and the other pays $150. So I guess my concern is that (Interruption) It can be up to $175.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Russell.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I believe my colleague, the honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, makes an excellent point. When Mr. Wells, it might have been a little more than a year ago, had applied as a member of the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council, he was rejected because he was a member of the Occupational Health and Safety Appeal Panel, even though he was applying for a renewal. Prior to my entering into the department, there was the question of potential conflicts because it was a new Act and the system was really not tested, they were trying to rely on those individuals who were actively involved in articulating the new Act and the process for the advisory councils and so on and the question of this potential conflict had not arisen.
That is why he was removed from the advisory council knowing full well because of his experience he was still on the appeal panel, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Wells, when he was co-chairman on the advisory council, went outside the committee on at least one occasion unbeknownst to the committee and discussed a number of things with the media that were generally considered within the department not to be accurate and I must say that Mr. Wells has exemplary expertise in this field, but that was not the consideration. It was a question of confidence in the process and there is a certain degree of professional responsibility that goes with this job and full courtesy and respect to be afforded to all members of the panel and the consideration of what the particular advisory panel and what the function and the responsibilities were for.
I believe Mr. Wells, when he was advised that he would be removed from that particular committee, went even to the point of contacting several ministers and insisting that his position be renewed. I think that was highly inappropriate and unprofessional. So I just thought I would raise that for the approbation of the committee. I do see a very strong potential for conflict of interest here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just for clarification, we are looking at the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council right now per se, not at the Occupational Health and Safety Appeal Panel, although obviously his name will come up again.
MR. MACKINNON: I realize, but I have made my point.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you. Are you ready for the question? Eileen.
MS. O'CONNELL: I just wanted to make a comment, and I know you are looking into it, Jim, but I looked at that too and it does appear that there is a somewhat mitigating factor in the sense that that second one is a pool, right, and you draw from the pool. I would assume that the only thing you would need is some kind of a protection in one or the other that the person in the pool would not be called if there was any kind of a close relationship or a conflict of interest. It is a huge pool, isn't it?
MR. SPURR: Yes, it is.
MS. O'CONNELL: Yes, and you only need one or three people to hear these tribunal appeals.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question or any more discussion? Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Just very quickly, she does make a good point, but I think upon close examination you will find that different ones were appointed because of different areas of expertise and if a particular issue went before the appeal panel, you would have almost no alternative but to go with that person with a certain degree of expertise to be able to
understand and analyze. I do recognize what my colleague is saying, but that consideration was taken into account.
MS. O'CONNELL: My comment would be there is something wrong with the construction of the pool then if you cannot have the best expertise and people who are fair and impartial.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have asked Jim to look into this for us and he is going to look into it and bring it back to our next meeting. Any more discussion on Rob Wells for Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council?
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
[The motion is defeated.]
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, in fairness to the honourable minister, Mr. MacIsaac I guess at this point, I would certainly submit that it would be a good idea to send it back to the minister with his senior staff to get some further clarification so that certainly his caucus colleagues are not left in a position where they don't feel like they have all the details and are not comfortable making a decision, but at the same time putting the minister in the position where he is saying this is the best person and perhaps relying on a flow of information and advice that probably has not been given a thorough examination because . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: But it goes back to the minister anyway, my understanding is, whether we stand it over or whether we turn it down and the minister can bring it back regardless.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay, we will turn it down then.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But I just want to get a count on this.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, just as a sidebar to my honourable colleague's concern, I am wondering for the benefit of this committee if we could be supplied with information regarding the number of employee representatives on the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council who have been recommended by the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour, especially where as we once again have renewed the president's term, representing the employers. I certainly agree with that particular segment being represented but I do have a little concern about overkill and balance on this Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council. I think that would be helpful information for all committee members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will try to get that information for you. We have Mr. Spurr looking into the issue of Mr. Wells being on these two. But we did have a vote and I didn't quite get the count. Did you, Mora?
MS. STEVENS: It was defeated.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Okay, on to the next one then, Occupational Health and Safety Appeal Panel.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we stand the name of Mr. Robert Wells until the information we are seeking as a committee comes back to the committee. I would make a motion that that name be stood.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? Mr. Spurr.
MR. SPURR: Just an advisory note. The committee should approve or not approve the name before it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We can't stand a name?
MS. O'CONNELL: We have stood them . . .
MR. SPURR: I know, I am sure you have, but my view would be you shouldn't.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It doesn't really matter in a sense because it is the same thing. (Laughter)
My only concern with the Occupational Health and Safety Appeal Panel is that I know it is a large pool but we don't want to hold up any appeal processes. That would be my concern.
MS. O'CONNELL: Stand or defeat, it will have the same effect.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it will.
MS. O'CONNELL: So why don't we stand it? It will be less paper work if we stand it. (Laughter)
MR. TAYLOR: Not to take away anything from the nominee but there were 103 individuals who made application for that position and it is a pool. There is a long list of active members so I don't think we will be compromising the ability of the appeal panel to perform. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, any further discussion? We have a motion to stand the name of Robert Wells. Any further discussion on this?
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Does anybody want to go down as abstaining? Darrell and Eileen.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, now we get into setting the future agenda. You remember at our last meeting we had some submissions from the three caucuses about things we should be looking at. We have copies for you in case you didn't bring your copy back and we had some sort of agreement, I guess, that we would try to prioritize these at this particular meeting. One of the items that I think we had some agreement we would look at is health and safety issues in the offshore. If I remember correctly, there was sort of agreement that we would look at this one first, but we didn't really in the end finally vote upon it because the caucuses didn't feel they were ready yet to come up with the topics that they wanted to look at.
You have before you the memo from Tim Olive, chairman of the government caucus and you have a memo from Darrell and Eileen with suggestions from the NDP caucus. Do we have anything from the Liberal caucus? Okay, although we did have three items, I think, Don Downe mentioned three items that are in our minutes. (Interruption) Oh, we are under III, Setting the Future Agenda.
MR. OLIVE: We are talking about the offshore?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we are talking about what, as a committee, we want to do under our other hat besides the agencies, boards and commissions. One of the suggestions was offshore and then there is the whole list of suggestions that you have, Tim. There is also the item of culture and I think Don Downe's suggestions, if I remember, were in the area of education, in particular, the interest that he raised. We felt we had to sort of prioritize them. We couldn't do them all at once, obviously, so we are deciding now what is the priority, what is the issue we want to look at as a committee.
Just for background, the committee, in the past, has met once a month to look at the ABCs, in the middle of the month to look at the other issues. As Chairman, I felt that these other issues are just as important as the ABCs and so I have been pushing this but we have been sidetracked by discussion on ABCs. Yes, Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, a couple of meetings ago, one of the committee members suggested offshore occupational health and safety and with what is happening in the offshore and in that area in general, I think that might not be a bad first interview process for the Human Resources Committee.
MS. O'CONNELL: Mr. Chairman, we have been waiting to hear from the Arts Council. We had hoped to add them to the list and we just heard this morning that they would very much like to appear before the committee. So I was wondering whether we could simply add Russell Kelly from the Arts Council to our list. We would greatly appreciate that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No problem, under the area of culture.
MS. O'CONNELL: Yes.
MR. TAYLOR: What was the first name, Eileen?
MS. O'CONNELL: Russell.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am just looking through our minutes to see the suggestions from the Liberal caucus through Don Downe. I thought I had them marked.
Okay, education and universities and the other is labour. So there seems to be some agreement that labour issues were important and offshore safety was a priority. So are we willing to make that our first priority to tackle and then we can take the list that has been given and we can work on this later as to what our second priority will be?
MS. O'CONNELL: Yes, agreed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The occupational health and safety issues in regard to the offshore, is it agreed that that will be the first one that we will tackle?
It is agreed.
Okay, that doesn't mean we won't tackle the others later but we have to do them one at a time, so please give some thought as to what you want to tackle after the offshore safety issue.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, are you going to be accepting any names for the offshore occupational health and safety committee process?
MR. CHAIRMAN: In terms of witnesses that we call before us?
MR. OLIVE: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the procedure on that?
MS. STEVENS: What happens is usually the caucus will submit not only the title but once that is approved, they will discuss names sometimes or they will just call and say, this is a good person to have. It is up to the committee to decide if they want to have these people all in at once or if they want to split a meeting - we have done that before - just how they would like to have the meetings actually run but names are always welcome.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So, we need some sort of discussion, I guess, at this stage. We have decided on this as the first issue that we are going to tackle under the other mandate that will be, I guess then, at our next meeting which will be the middle of next month, if we follow precedent. We would need to discuss at this stage what names we want and how many we could see.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, therefore, I would like to submit three names to the Chairman under the offshore occupational health and safety: the first one being Kevin McNamara, Deputy Minister of Labour; the second being Jim LeBlanc, the Executive Director, Occupational Health and Safety Division, Department of Labour; and Pierre Guenard from the National Energy Board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other names that would come forward at this time for people we should call before the committee? Russell.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, perhaps with the agreement of my colleague from Dartmouth, if he would consider Mr. David Stuewe from the Workers' Compensation Board who plays an active role in that process as well. Now that we have extended the legislation to cover a lot of the now Nova Scotian firms, almost immediate coverage when they come into the province. Given the fact that in the Progressive Conservative blue book, the announcement, one of the points of the policy platform is to combine or transfer the Occupational Health and Safety Division of the Department of Labour in unison or join it with the Workers' Compensation Board. If that is agreeable, I thought it would be great to get the entire umbrella together and it is an excellent topic.
MR. DEXTER: I didn't quite understand the member for Dartmouth South, was he . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: He is adding on to the list of who we might call as witnesses under that.
MR. DEXTER: A list that we submitted?
MS. O'CONNELL: Yes, that is the question. Is he adding on or is he substituting?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, adding on.
MR. DEXTER: Okay, because Jim LeBlanc was already on the list that we submitted.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we are not substituting, we are just adding on. We can have more additions later as the respective caucuses think about who they would like and who they think would be important, but we have a fair amount right now. Mora suggests to me that it is best for the meeting to work well to have two different people and no more than two, otherwise the time limit becomes prohibitive. You can just decide to have one.
At this point, let's decide whether we want two names or one name, and if we want two names, who are the first two? I would assume that Jim LeBlanc, appearing on two lists, would be one of the names. Do we want Jim by himself or do we want someone else as well, at our next meeting?
MR. OLIVE: I think the Deputy Minister of Labour . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so we have a suggestion, Kevin McNamara and Jim LeBlanc for our next meeting, on this particular issue, will be called as witnesses.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
One other item under setting the future agenda that we need to do, and I mentioned it at the beginning. With the screening panels in place and with the rules set out and written down for us, we will need to amend just slightly our Form "A"; I don't know if we need to but I think it probably makes sense to amend Form "A" to at least indicate whether they have gone through the screening panel process.
At the same time, since these guidelines were put in place two years ago as a sort of temporary thing, it might be helpful to review that whole process of whether we want to merge the guidelines into Form "A" and work that through the legislative process, which wasn't done at the time. The guidelines are just committee guidelines, they are not in the standing rules. It may be helpful to have a subcommittee look at all of this and come back with recommendations to the larger committee as to what we want to do. It could be as simple as just adding, on Form "A", a little box - this individual has passed by the screening committee and a checklist. It may be larger than that.
In the past, I understand subcommittees have done this, all-Party subcommittees, and that is certainly one way we can look at it. I think I indicated that in my covering letter. If there are other suggestions on how you want to do this, please feel free to make them at this stage. This is just how it has been done in the past. Russell.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I agree. I would suggest perhaps one representative from the NDP caucus, one from the Liberal caucus, one member from the PC caucus, plus yourself as Chairman, in fairness, proportional representation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is very fair, I was going to suggest myself, one NDP, one PC (Interruptions) Eileen.
MS. O'CONNELL: I will do it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Eileen will be the representative from the NDP caucus. From the Liberal caucus, do we have a name?
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Downe, I guess . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Don Downe. Never miss a meeting, you might get volunteered for something.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, could I get clarification on exactly what the issue is?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Tim, it could be as simple as amending Form "A", which is in the green book, to include just a small line that the appointments have gone through the screening panel process. It could be that, and I think the subcommittee should be free to take a look at what they want to do with those guidelines - the guidelines came in about two years ago, but the guidelines are not in the green book, they are guidelines for the committee - whether they want them to be merged into one document and put into the green book and go through that whole process or not. It could be a very simple task, just add one line. It could be that these guidelines should be incorporated in Form "A". Is that clear?
I forgot the other mandate, inadvertently there was a typo that left off the Status of Women, and we can't just put it back in without working that through the legislative process as well. Is that right, Mora?
MS. STEVENS: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: At least we need to get the Status of Women back in this booklet, and we may only need to add in a little box to Form "A", we may want to incorporate the guidelines of the committee that were set into Form "A". It could be a very small job, it could be a larger job.
MS. STEVENS: If I may, all committees are going to start to look at their mandates, except for Public Accounts which has a clearly spelled out mandate that has passed through the House. They are starting to look at these and a package will eventually be put forward to the Assembly Matters Committee, and it goes through the process of going through the
House. This is all just a step. We have a little more to do to reflect changes to Form "A" and things like that. These would be the committee's recommendations, but that is not saying they will all go through. They might eventually be changed (Interruptions) Precisely. But that is the process that everyone is looking at.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that clear, Tim? Further questions on it?
MR. OLIVE: The establishment of the steering committees is done through Executive Council. Am I to understand that this body does not have the jurisdiction through this rewrite of its procedures to change that process?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Absolutely. The only thing that we would add is if we want, as Eileen mentioned at the last meeting, there could be a little box or something saying that these have all gone through the screening panels. I think that is within our mandate.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would nominate my colleague Mr. Olive to that subcommittee, so to speak, of Human Resources.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Eileen, you had a question.
MS. O'CONNELL: I do, but I just smelled something burning. (Interruptions) I just wanted to say I have been on this committee for three and one-half years almost, I can't believe it, and it seems like all we ever do is reinvent the square wheel. I have to say that this whole business about the green book, we have been waiting two years or more simply to get a typo corrected. As a member of this subcommittee, I want to assure you that my notion would be to stay as far away from that green book as we possibly can, because it will never happen.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But we have to to change that.
MS. O'CONNELL: I am saying the Status of Women thing, I am not holding my breath. Like I said, it has been over two years. If they do it, praise the Goddess, but I have to tell you, I am not holding my breath. This business of going to Assembly Matters and getting a typo through committees, it is just appalling. It is bureaucratic and appalling, and so my recommendation would be that we try to fix whatever we want to fix on our own, otherwise we will all be collecting our real pensions, our 65 year old pensions, before we ever see anything.
MR. CHAIRMAN: As a member of the subcommittee, you can certainly bring that forward.
MS. O'CONNELL: I certainly will.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have three members from each of the Parties plus myself as Chairman.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
The next meeting, before you run.
MS. STEVENS: The last Tuesday of the month is February 29th, for ABCs, first of all, that would be our normal meeting. It would just be a matter of scheduling, it would be February 15th for a middle of the month meeting on the others, if these people are available. (Interruptions) If we are sticking with mornings it would be 8:30 a.m. until 10:00 a.m.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Unless you want to do afternoons?
MS. O'CONNELL: We could do the afternoon, that only gives them an hour and one-half, right?
MS. STEVENS: It would be advisable with witnesses to go for a two hour period, and I know that might be in conflict with the Chairman's schedule. We could go to afternoons. We have done that before.
[10:00 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Tuesday, February 15th at 1:00 p.m. How does that work for your schedules? Is Tuesday at 1:00 p.m. fine, on February 15th, for offshore safety? Okay, and the ABCs we have set already.
MS. STEVENS: Our last Tuesday would be February 29th, if that is acceptable.
MS. O'CONNELL: I smell the burning again.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Before that burning gets too dangerous, maybe someone should call for adjournment, if there are no further issues. It is 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday for offshore.
MS. O'CONNELL: Have we set the other one for the end of the month or not?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MS. STEVENS: That would be February 29th. Did you want to stick with 8:30 a.m.?
MR. CHAIRMAN: For ABCs, yes. Do I have a motion to adjourn?
MR. TAYLOR: I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The meeting is adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 10:02 a.m.]
