MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the agenda in front of you and I want to get started. I doubt if we will have a long meeting today, hopefully not. I would like to move correspondence up before appointments because one of the letters from Jim Spurr deals with the conflict of interest question that we were asking, and we have the name of Mr. Wells back in front of us. It is probably better to look at the correspondence before we proceed to the appointments.
You have four items of correspondence in front of you. One from Jim Spurr regarding the conflict of interest and indicating that in his opinion there is no conflict of interest. Any questions that you want to address to Jim or is it fairly clear? Anything you want to say further, Jim?
MR. JAMES SPURR: No, not unless anybody has any questions or wants to talk further about the issue. I have attached the applicable statutory provisions to the letter.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So, if we are all content, we have our answer to the question, that there is no conflict of interest. The next letter, there is a problem just in the pagination. This is from Mr. Kevin McNamara regarding two questions that Brooke Taylor put forward. His pagination is off, isn't it? It should be Page 22 and Page 24, if you are trying to find the right page numbers.
MS. MORA STEVENS (Human Resources Committee Coordinator): I think they downloaded it off the Net. It is different page numbers there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Different pages. Well it is different from the printed copy of Hansard that we have, if you want to go and find the references. If there is a conflict between the mandates of the advisory council and the Occupational Health and Safety Appeal Panel in the number of employee representatives and those have been recommended by the Federation of Labour. Any questions about that letter, or any comments anyone wants to make?
Our next letter is simply a question that was put forward about remuneration for ABCs, and there is a committee struck, chaired by Jim Spurr, and to date they haven't reported any findings to the Executive Council. Anything further on that letter? Yes, Don.
MR. DONALD DOWNE: Mr. Chairman, the letter states very clearly that at this point in time there has been no information coming forward. This was dated February 7th, we are now close to March 1st, the last day of February today. I was wondering if Mr. Spurr would be able to enlighten us on any remuneration for agencies, boards and commissions at this point.
MR. SPURR: I can tell you, actually the first meeting we had, I believe, was on February 7th and our second meeting is tomorrow. The gap between the two meetings is simply a function of trying to get four deputy ministers together at a common time. Everybody is so busy at this time, particularly with program review and budget exercises that to get four people in a room at a table to talk about this is difficult. We are going to go back at it tomorrow. Between the two meetings, what I had undertaken to do on behalf of the committee was to actually go through the 316 or however many ABCs there are and try to do some preliminary categorization of the various types of ABCs to try to make our function a little easier going forward. For this reason, creating two or three categories, I think was what I came up with, in looking at remuneration within those groups to see if a pattern develops.
It will make it a little easier for us to see whether there is any pattern to remuneration for this type of a committee versus that type of a committee. We will get into that when we meet tomorrow. Hopefully, we can meet a little more frequently going forward. We are under a time line as well, we are under pressure from the people we report to to produce some results.
MR. DOWNE: I understand you will be reporting back, probably, to Cabinet itself. Would there be any opportunity to inform this committee, when you have gone through the Cabinet process, to at least enlighten us as to what the criteria was in establishing your remuneration and the break-out of the remuneration aspect?
MR. SPURR: I see no reason why, after we have informed Cabinet or Executive Council, this committee couldn't be informed because of the role it plays in appointments to ABCs. Remuneration has been an issue before this committee; at almost every meeting I have
attended someone has brought it up in some context or another. I would see no reason why we wouldn't share our findings with this group.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a time line on that?
MR. SPURR: No. To be honest, I am behind schedule already. We have to report very soon.
MR. TIMOTHY OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask Mr. Spurr a question. We have had a number of situations where the question has come up about the need to have as many agencies, boards and commissions, and at some point I think we agreed that that process would be started and that there would be a review of the agencies, boards and commissions and what legislative requirement there was, if there wasn't any was there any need for it, et cetera. I am wondering, is there a parallel going on with your review? You said about categorizing into three categories, it may well be that after a review there is not enough left to have three categories, there may only be two or one. I wonder if there is a parallel process going on?
MR. SPURR: Actually the process of categorization that I referred to which was something that I had taken on myself because of my familiarity with the ABCs and the processes of this committee, part of that process was me expressing a personal view, I suppose, of categorizing a number of ABCs which I am not even sure are agencies, boards or commissions as contemplated by the Rules of the House, the appointments for which need to come here. There is a fairly large group of them. It may be obvious to you when we finally disclose them to you, that they are not groups that are functioning for the purpose of being an arm of government, if you will, implementing public policy. They exist for other reasons.
When you consider the mandate of this committee to oversee the appointment to bodies that are out there implementing public policy, you are left with a group that perhaps doesn't have that type of function and perhaps don't need to come here. There is a fair number of those. That is one of the categories that I have created.
MR. OLIVE: Are they included in what we perceive to be the overall list of agencies, boards and commissions, that particular group?
MR. SPURR: Yes.
MR. OLIVE: If I read what you are saying, this committee would not be mandated in any way, shape or form to pass judgement as to whether or not they should be here or not here because the appointments to those boards don't have to come here. Is that what you are saying?
MR. SPURR: My view is that they may not have to come here. Now, that is just my view at the moment but I would, obviously, want the views of the other people on the committee and ministers as well. When you look at certain ABCs, the purpose they have, the mandate they have in comparison to the rules that require appointments to come here, some of them may not necessarily have to come here and you may be pleased not to have to deal with them, I don't know.
MR. OLIVE: One final question, Mr. Chairman, then if that is the case, are the same prerequisites going to be used to determine the requirement or need for those groups of ABCs or quasi-ABCs as may be developed for the ones that do come here?
MR. SPURR: I would say yes because the determination, in my view, on whether or not they are in a category that should come here or a category that doesn't have to come here is based on the Rules of the House which effectively set out the mandate for this committee. So that was my benchmark.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions on this issue? Moving on to the next letter and I did not respond to this and this is where I need some guidance from the committee as to how you want me to respond. I was going to initially respond on my own and then I thought since really it dealt with what happened at the committee, I should respond on the committee's behalf. So the letter I am referring to is from Mr. Rick Clarke, dated February 10th. The second letter is really addressed personally to Russell and is sort of included here because it was copied to us I imagine - yes, copied to me - but it is really the letter from Rick Clarke that I need to respond to. I would just like some guidance as to how you want me to respond to that letter.
Mr. Dexter.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Obviously, what Rick Clarke was trying to do was just to respond to some of the allegations that were made by Mr. MacKinnon during the course of our last meeting and, you know, Rick makes his point throughout this letter about the reasons why unionized labour is the legitimate voice of working people in the province. I am not sure that it requires much more than . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter.
MR. DEXTER: . . . thank you for your letter and acknowledge what it is he said and thank him for the information. Obviously some of it was directly related to, I guess, allegations that Mr. MacKinnon was making and he is just trying to provide the committee with that information. I don't think it is any more than that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Downe.
MR. DOWNE: I would concur; two individuals with two different points of view and obviously they are wanting to make their points stated. So I think I would just simply acknowledge the letter, thank him very much and leave it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. That is what I was going to do, but I didn't want to do it without your permission or without any input from you. That is the end of the correspondence.
Moving on now to appointments to ABCs, we have not very many before us today which is nice, the Departments of Agriculture and Marketing, Health, Municipal Affairs and then Labour. So we will take them by sections if someone would move or do you want to handle them individually or do you want to handle them as a group? Would you prefer to handle them individually, Don?
MR. DOWNE: Individually, Mr. Chairman, there are not that many.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any objection to that? Would someone then move the first name and, please, tell us the department, the board or agency, and the name for the record.
MR. WILLIAM DOOKS: Mr. Chairman, I will move the Department of Agriculture and Marketing, the Farm Loan Board of Nova Scotia, Leo Cox.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have the nomination of Leo Cox. Is there any discussion?
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Chairman, I certainly am not critical of Leo at all, a former Agriculture representative, but what I find very frustrating, I understood this process was going to be open, transparent, non-political to the best of our abilities. I understood that we were going to try to get the best people for the job. I understand that the last chair of the committee that was appointed was Mr. Ted Ueffing.
Mr. Ueffing was the Past President of the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture. He has run his own family operations for a number of years and is very successful, highly regarded and highly respected in the farm community. He is not politically aligned to my knowledge whatsoever and I understood he applied for this position. This is an individual who brought the Farm Loan Board, over the last number of years that it was going through some rough times, to the point where last year I understand they made over $1 million. In fact, I understand they are using the Farm Loan Board as an example of how loan structures could actually work.
To have a chair who applied for the position back, who obviously did an excellent job and is extremely respected in the farm community, to be just put out without anything, I find that absolutely frustrating. It is just like the minister is a shareholder in this company and the chairman of the board reports to him. Normally if the chairman is doing a good job and the CEO of a corporation is doing an excellent job, showing a profit in the system, I would have thought that they would normally try to reward that, but instead we have now gone and taken him out.
I have nothing critical to say about Mr. Cox, who was a former Agriculture representative. I don't know if he ever ran his own business. He understands agriculture. Mr. Ueffing ran his own farm businesses for a number of years and was very successful and understands farmers very well himself, and is a highly respected individual. A Federation of Agriculture president for all farmers in this province, he has always been acclaimed as being somebody very honest, very straightforward, very representative of the farm community and highly regarded. I find that this process through all the maze that we run through here, that that individual, if I had not checked it out, I would not even have known that he had applied. I would have assumed that maybe he just simply didn't apply and I understand that in fact he did apply.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If you had not checked it out through other sources?
MR. DOWNE: He did apply.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It states it right here.
MR. DOWNE: But I just find, Mr. Chairman, I don't know who is making the decision as to who should chair this committee, if this screening group is doing the review or if, in fact, the minister and Cabinet, but clearly I find this very frustrating. I thought we were trying to run a process here that is legitimate, straightforward and above board and trying to being some integrity back and here is an individual in my view who is not politically aligned, is highly regarded and respected, has done an excellent job and we reward him by kicking him off. So I cannot support because of that reason. I have nothing against Mr. Cox. He is a very capable person. I am not disputing anything toward Mr. Cox. I just cannot understand why, when you have a successful track record, then you get axed.
You can check Mr. Ueffing's records in the Valley. You are from there, you understand and so does Jon, all too well, how well he is respected, personally, as a man of integrity and honesty. You know that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I do know that. Any other questions or comments on this?
Just to clarify, the screening panels which Mr. Clarke and Mr. Wells praise in their letters to our committee, what they do is, they make sure that no one who is not qualified moves on to the next process. They do not take away the power of the minister or the Cabinet to make decisions.
What they do is make sure that only qualified people go ahead. As you have mentioned, obviously, Mr. Cox is very qualified. That was stated at the last meeting and restated here. They make sure that there is no who goes through the process who is not qualified to serve. They do not take away the authority of the Cabinet or of the minister.
MR. DOWNE: So you are telling me that the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Fage, has made that decision, himself, to say, no, to Mr. Ueffing and, yes, to someone else?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that every name that appears before us, if the screening panels do their job properly, should be well qualified to do the job that they have applied for. That is what I am saying.
Any other questions or comments on this name? Yes, Wayne.
MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, my question is, as it was indicated earlier at previous meetings, the goal of this or the main objective of this Human Resources Committee is, certainly, to appoint the best candidates, or to bring the best candidates forward to be appointed on these boards.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not our goal, if I could just interrupt. I am sorry. Our mandate is the mandate that is outlined in the Rules and Forms of Procedure for the House. Do you want to reiterate our mandate for us, Mr. Spurr, since you have done it so well in the past? I just want to clarify this point and we will come back to you, Wayne. Sorry to interrupt but I just want to clarify it.
MR. SPURR: Simply put, it is to approve or not approve the name that is before you for appointment as a member to the particular ABC and, really, nothing more than that.
MR. GAUDET: So, Mr. Chairman, in regard to that, I am looking at - there are 27 applications in receipt. Not knowing who these individuals were - I am just looking at the two individuals, Leo Cox and Victor Moses - yes, they are certainly qualified. Are they better qualified than the other remaining applicants? I don't know. So if, basically, our job is just to rubber stamp the appointments that are being recommended by the different departments, then I don't really see much use for this committee.
I know Mr. Ueffing personally, and I have to agree with my colleague's comments; Ted, certainly, is highly respected by the agricultural community. I guess I was, at the time, involved with his appointment. Far more important, certainly, at the time - I am going back
five or six years ago, 1995, 1996, thereabouts - when Mr. Ueffing was appointed. I can honestly say from all the feedback that I have received over the years, Mr. Ueffing certainly accepted his responsibility as the Chair of the Farm Loan Board, certainly brought this committee together, has been doing an exceptionally good job.
Again, I know Leo very well, as well, being a former Minister of Agriculture. He certainly is qualified. But, again, I have a hard time to understand how come Mr. Ueffing is being bumped out and being replaced by another individual. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Darrell.
MR. DEXTER: Well, I can't resist a comment on this because I raised this very question, as you may recall, at the last meeting. At that time I was interested to hear you, Mr. Chairman, say that you always understood that this was going to be the process and that you always understood that this was the case.
I took the liberty of going back to the Chronicle-Herald and retrieving an article that you wrote on October 8th. I realize at the time, brimming with confidence as a newly appointed chair of this committee some five weeks after the election, the title of the letter was called, Merit key to appointments. Then you said in this article, "The reason merit is so important is not primarily to stamp out political patronage. Rather, it is to ensure that the best possible people are picked to serve on agencies, boards and commissions.". Here we are, eight months after that, and now you are telling us that really that was never the intention of this committee, that you never understood it to be the case that this committee would do it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I respond to that? I don't think that has been entirely fair to me. I said that the best possible people. You obviously have, if we take Mr. Ueffing and Mr. Cox, Mr. Ueffing is a friend of mine and he is very well qualified; so is Mr. Cox. They are both extremely well-qualified people. We can't second-guess. It may well be, for all we know, that they need better geographical representation since Mr. Moses comes from Kings County, as well, and this is part of the rationale behind it. We don't have access to that information. What we have access to are these names and if there is a name here that is not a person who has qualifications to do the job, then I will turn him down. I will vote against him. But if there is a name here where the person obviously has the merit, then I will stand behind that name and I don't think that is inconsistent with what I said.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Chairman, if all those things that you are saying are accurate - and I am not disputing your accuracy - it all boils down to who is a Tory or who is a Grit or who is an NDP. I think if you want to really seriously take a look at the background of both those individuals that we are talking about, check their political backgrounds and find out just what is going on, I think that is the reason the decision is made and not on any other merit but politics. That's what I find absolutely frustrating about what I hear that is going on here today.
MR. DEXTER: I wanted to get an opportunity to say that you put your finger on exactly the problem and I don't want to reduce it to this particular case, but in every case we have no idea and we can't possibly make a decision that is based on merit because we never get to see the candidates. The only thing we get to see is the one name that is put forward. So I am just trying to bring to the attention of yourself, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of this committee that as welcome as your words were back in October, they have in fact been empty and we are not any further down the road towards making merit-based appointments than we were when my friends to my extreme right were in government; nothing has changed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your comments, although Mr. Clarke and Mr. Wells would disagree with you, as if they have in writing. Nonetheless, I do agree that there is a situation where we can only operate under the rules and regulations that we have before us. There is a subcommittee of this committee set up to look at those. We haven't had a chance to have a meeting yet. Don, you are on it, Eileen is on it and Tim is on it. Tim was away and because of that, we haven't had a chance to meet. That may well be one of the things that we want to suggest in the review, that the committee should have more opportunity to look at the names. But as our mandate is now, I don't see any way around that, Darrell, except to ensure that the names that come forward are people who are candidates of quality. Unless those standing rules are changed, and the subcommittee makes that representation, I am not sure what more you can ask from this committee.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Chairman, I look forward to that committee meeting because I think it is going to be very important for us. Before that meeting takes place, we should point out some of the terms of reference, some of the areas that we are going to talk about, so we can come prepared. Back to this appointment. Here we have a former civil servant, double-dipping back into the trough for an additional job with the Farm Loan Board - when you had an individual farmer with a family farm who doesn't have the ability to double-dip to a government pension, being said no to - that created a million dollar surplus in the Farm Loan
Board in the Province of Nova Scotia. This is going to send a signal to the farm community and it is going to send a signal to the board members that are on there that this is just about politics, nothing about merit, nothing about credentials, nothing about doing an excellent job, it is just about politics. I find that absolutely frustrating as a farmer, myself, just exactly what we have done here in bringing this name forward. I just wanted to get that off my chest and express my view. I think a lot of farmers in this province are going to be outraged by that.
[9:00 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your comments, Don. Eileen.
MS. EILEEN O'CONNELL: Well, looking at it more globally, at this point there are only two possible purposes for this committee. The first one is to say yes or no, without the benefit of adequate information, which we have been doing for some time. The only useful reason for our existence, if you ask me, apart from hearing from people and gaining
information in hearings at the committee is to continue to say what we say over and over again. My view of the matter is either it is worth doing that, it is worth saying every time we come together this is a ridiculous process, it is inadequate, or it is not worth doing because of what we do. That frustrates me inordinately, but maybe for my purposes and Darrell's and other people's, perhaps, maybe the only purpose is to come here and keep saying it over and over again, but how many times can you butt your head against a stone wall? It may be worth doing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think those are very pertinent comments, but we have struck this subcommittee to look at those.
MS. O'CONNELL: With all respect, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that anything that the committee does on that is going to have any more effect than here, because what they mean by mandate is what government departments are covered under this committee. We can do it, it is the same as what we do here, we can butt our heads, but I don't believe for a minute that it won't be disallowed. I wouldn't put too much hope in this mandate subcommittee, even though I am on it. I wouldn't say that it is going to be really effective because if we say it again . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are pessimistic today.
MS. O'CONNELL: . . . we are in the same position. It goes back . . .
MR. DOWNE: In all fairness, I think we should have a committee meeting first to see exactly what we are going to do. I am on that committee and if I felt that negative about it, I wouldn't have allowed my name to stand. In all due respect to the Chairman, we should have a meeting and see exactly what comes out of it because I happen to trust the Chairman's point of view and I respect his integrity. He is saying that there is a process that we are going to go through, I have no reason to disqualify that. In all due respect, I think we should at least have a meeting before we blow it up if it doesn't work out, but I think we should at least give it a chance.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Tim.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, just a comment. It is sort of somewhat disturbing; all the comments regarding Mr. Cox clearly indicate that he is qualified to do the job that is being suggested. We are not mandated to do that. We are not passing judgement on the previous chair in any way, shape or form. A process was carried out. This gentleman, Mr. Cox, who again has received plaudits from members opposite is going to do a job as chair; it would be really nice to think that he could do a job equal to the previous chair or better than.
I think it is rather unfortunate that we take the position that nobody else can do the job as well as the previous chair. I think this gentleman has an opportunity to put, perhaps, a different and maybe more positive, if it is possible, even though the other chair was certainly well qualified, this man is qualified to do the job, everyone agrees with that. I think it is rather unfortunate that before he even starts there is an assumption put on the table that he probably can't do as good a job as the chair that is there. I think that is very unfair.
MR. DOWNE: I want to make it very clear that I didn't once indicate anything negative about Mr. Cox. What I am saying is that you have a non-political person that is chairing this committee now and this is not just a simple run-of-the-mill ABC, this is the Farm Loan Board that affects farmers in the Province of Nova Scotia. That committee made over $1 million last year and it has been hailed as a tremendous organization in the farm community. This is a Past President of the Federation of Agriculture in Nova Scotia, highly regarded. For his success you are saying, out the door, and I find that wrong, Tim. I find that wrong. We are imputing that Mr. Cox is incompetent, but this is a great way to treat the farm community . . .
MR. OLIVE: Well, you are, whether you know it or not, you are . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have some order, please.
MR. OLIVE: That is exactly what you are saying. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will recognize Jon, and then we will go to the question.
MR. JON CAREY: Mr. Chairman, first of all I am not well informed on Mr. Cox, I don't know what his politics are; maybe you do, Don, but I don't. The other thing is, all of this committee has had this information for approximately two weeks. I would assume that if you had questions, that you would be able to approach the minister who signed and maybe the information would be made available to you, why he chose this person. Is that not reasonable? (Interruptions) Is there anything to say you can't do it?
MS. O'CONNELL: It is not reasonable, it is not open and transparent.
MR. CAREY: The transparency of it is the way the process has worked apparently, and then when the minister recommends the member to be voted on, if you had questions, could not questions be put to that department or the minister?
MS. O'CONNELL: It would be far more effective if they came from the committee, if the committee wrote a letter saying why did you choose x over y, give us your reasons. This dropping in and finding out for your own personal information, that is not what people want. They want to know that it is fair, open and transparent and not riddled with political cronyism.
MR. CAREY: No, the process that is in place, apparently it is going to be looked at with the committee you are going to be on, but with the system that is there now, we have known who the people are for some time. I don't know what Mr. Cox's political position is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question has been called for. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Four-four. What does that mean?
MS. STEVENS: You have to vote.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Aye.
The motion is carried.
On to the next name, let's go.
MR. CAREY: I move the name of Victor Moses as a member of the Nova Scotia Farm Loan Board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions or is there any discussion on the name of Victor Moses for the Farm Loan Board? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The next department, does someone want to move that name. Please state the department and the position.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Health, Nova Scotia Hospital, I would like to move the appointment of Dr. Harvey Silverstein as a member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Should I be calling for abstentions? Do you want me to call for abstentions? Do you want those recorded or not?
The motion is carried.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, the next appointment is with the Department of Housing and Municipal Affairs, Municipal Finance Corporation, James E. Radford.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on this nomination? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Okay, we come now to a name that was stood and has been resubmitted and this deals with the material you have already received from Mr. Spurr. Could I have this name nominated, please.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Labour, Occupational Health and Safety Appeal Panel, I would move Robert Wells as a member and employee representative.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The next name, please.
MR. DOOKS: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Labour, Regional Health and Safety Advisory Council, I move Robert Wells as a member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on this name? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Next meeting dates. For the offshore safety, we have Mr. Dickey coming and Mr. Parker, as requested by the committee. You have that date before you. The next ABC meeting, you have the date before you.
Before we go, we need to discuss - and this is in response to Don's comment - not only perhaps a time for when the subcommittee can meet, but maybe it would be helpful, and I am quite open to, discussing at this larger meeting what sort of things you would like the subcommittee to look at. So if you, as a full committee, want to spend a few minutes, since we are ahead of time, on what you think this subcommittee should be looking at, I would be very happy to entertain that.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, what is the mandate of this committee? Is there an established mandate? Is there a set of directions related to this committee or the subcommittee?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The only mandate they have was to look at our mandate. So it is fairly broad.
MS. O'CONNELL: The mandate refers to the mandate as defined in the little green book, right?
MS. STEVENS: If I may, it is not only the mandate that is in the Rules and Forms of Procedure of the House to deal with the departments and the witnesses, but it was also to look at the Form "A". We had made up the guidelines until such a time that they could possibly be incorporated into the Form "A". It was also probably looking at getting something in about these new screening panels, if members wanted any information on them. So it is almost like twofold. One is this particular mandate that excludes ABCs and the other is the ABC part of it. So it can be divided into two sections, if that is the wish of the subcommittee to bring forward recommendations, but it would be anything within the Human Resources realm.
MS. O'CONNELL: That is useful.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I was just looking back over Hansard and that is what was said in Hansard. It is a little wider mandate than just looking at . . .
MR. OLIVE: Yes, that was my concern because the original request - I think Eileen talked about it - was pretty focused and what you are telling me now is that it is pretty broad.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is much broader than that. As far as what we agreed on at our last meeting, and Mora has given some of the history that the committee set in these guidelines, they are not really part of the green book. The question is do we want to incorporate them into the book now. We, of course, don't have the power to do that, but we can certainly make those recommendations and pass them on. I would hope that if the process is not working and we, at that subcommittee, feel that it is not working properly and we bring it to you and there is agreement here, that we would pass it on somewhere else. If there are ways to make it better, then let's make it better and I think that was what we said in Hansard, did we not? Is that clear, Eileen? It is broader than what . . .
MS. O'CONNELL: That is useful. I am just going to leave it alone. We will talk about it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We cannot determine what happens after we pass it on.
MS. O'CONNELL: My point exactly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion on what you would like to see this subcommittee discuss beyond that? I think it is a fairly broad sort of discussion that the subcommittee was going to have.
MS. O'CONNELL: Are you on the subcommittee, Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just as Chairman, yes.
MS. O'CONNELL: Do we want to set a meeting time?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Before we set a meeting time, I am just responding to your question, Don, on the mandate of this committee and it is fairly broad, as stated in the last Hansard. Is that enough information to go on?
MR. DOWNE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think that is an excellent way to approach it. I think we have the opportunity to really delve into the specific areas that we want and I look forward to the meeting. I think it should be a worthwhile process.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Eileen, do you feel more comfortable with that now?
MS. O'CONNELL: With what?
MR. CHAIRMAN: With that broader mandate.
MS. O'CONNELL: It doesn't matter. Let's see what happens.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions or discussions on that? Is there a meeting time - and this affects Tim Olive, Don Downe and Eileen - that we could set, or maybe we should just stay after this meeting and we will set a time together. Yes, if the three of you could stay afterwards, we will set a meeting time. Could I have a call for adjournment before you get out of your seats, please?
MR. OLIVE: So moved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The meeting is adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 9:16 a.m.]
