MR. CHAIRMAN: Welcome to our meeting. We have a large booklet in front of us right now and there are a few last-minute changes which I am just catching myself up on. There is a name in your booklet that has been withdrawn and so that is not for consideration, Mr. Hutton for the Nova Scotia Film Board. Then I notice there is a name that was not in that should be in, or two names. Mora, I am just asking for clarification on this one.
MS. MORA STEVENS (Legislative Committee Clerk): This was a memo I sent out the day after the package went out. A name was inadvertently not typed onto the front page of the agenda. Under Keith Anderson there should have been Elizabeth Nearing's name. You had all the documents on her and I just put it there to remind you that there was a fresh copy of the front page sent out.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Under Residential Tenancies.
MS. STEVENS: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So it is Elizabeth Nearing. Did everyone get that correction? Is everyone clear on that? One name has been withdrawn so it is not for consideration at this particular time. The other name, Elizabeth Nearing, was supposed to be on the front page. You have her in your documentation anyway. She appeared in the book, but she just did not appear in the index at the front. Is everyone clear on that? Any questions on those two changes? So everyone is clear?
Let's proceed then and it is up to you whether you want to consider them. I have not counted them, but someone told me there are 81 names.
MR. DAVID HENDSBEE: Can I make a motion to accept them all? (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be lovely. All accepted, David.
MR. TIMOTHY OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, could we do them by department?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that is about the only way we can do them and get out of here on time. You are being facetious, David, or were you serious?
MR. HENDSBEE: I was being hopeful.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: I would assume we do it en bloc, Mr. Chairman, I do not have a problem with that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You do not have a problem with that, but you do not want to do them all and let's go home? I am just teasing, just wishful thinking. Let's do them en bloc then. Is there any other agenda item? I am sorry I am confused here, but we do not have a report from the subcommittee yet, do we?
MS. STEVENS: No, we do not have the transcript yet. The Liberals just handed me some caucus items that they would like to have added to the agenda and then we had to decide whether the committee wanted to continue with the Sable offshore. That was the only other thing that we had on for the next set of meetings.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And those will come up at the end of the meeting then?
MS. STEVENS: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to refresh my memory, did we decide anything about the offshore or we just left it for this meeting to decide?
MS. STEVENS: We left it for this meeting to decide.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So let's make sure we leave some time to look at that and to look at the agenda items that the Liberal caucus has brought forward. Let's proceed into this thick package. Does anyone want to move, with the addition of Elizabeth Nearing and she was in the packet so you have had a chance to look at her documentation, . . .
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, in a spirit of cooperation I will certainly move the Residential Tenancies Board for Cape Breton and Victoria, Mr. Keith Anderson and Elizabeth Nearing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions or discussion on these two names? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
Do you want me to call for abstentions? Do you want to have that noted on the record when you abstain?
MR. MACKINNON: Sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any abstentions?
[The motion is carried.]
Then the next block is the Department of Community Services.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the Social Assistance Appeal Board, Department of Community Services, Digby-Annapolis, Pamela Bishop, Chair; Darrell Hannam; John Carlo Ivens; Ellen M. Simpson; James M. Wheelhouse; Kenneth F. Woodman.
MR. HENDSBEE: Seconded.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make some observations here if I could.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure, please feel free.
MR. MACKINNON: Forgive me for being somewhat suspect and I am just wondering if this is becoming the who's who of the Tory Party. I do not mean that to be political, of course, but I notice a number of distinguished individuals from the Digby area. I guess there is no secret the close affiliation to the Minister of Economic Development. One only has to review the support that the minister has received from several of those individuals, Mr. Wheelhouse actually being the official agent for the minister and the other individual being a very generous financial contributor. I am just wondering if it really truly reflects the intent of this particular board by having people who can contribute such great wealth of money to the Tory coffers and actually reflect the views of those who are coming before the board, i.e. those who generally would be in a state of poverty. That is the long and the short of it, but having said that, I guess it is a little bit like that coffee cup there, roll up the rim to win, you know, the more you contribute to the Tory coffers the greater your chances are of getting on a board.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, if I can very briefly respond, it is almost not worth responding to, but it is interesting. If we are going to talk about who is donating to who, our research indicates that Pamela Bishop and her husband were quite generous with the Annapolis candidate down there. We are trying to be as fair as we can in board appointments.
If you want to talk about who is giving to who, let's talk about all of them, who is giving to who, and Pamela Bishop is no different and certainly did not donate to any Party that I support. So it is kind of a new point because it is across the board if you look at the names down there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If I could just interrupt you, sorry to be rude, the question is not who contributed to who I guess although I had the same sort of questions as you did, Russell, but the question is are they qualified for the positions. So perhaps we could focus in on that. This is for the Annapolis-Digby Social Assistance Appeal Board.
MR. MACKINNON: Again, Mr. Chairman, my point is to try to have people who understand and reflect the dynamics of what this particular board is for. You are dealing essentially with individuals who have concerns with the Department of Community Services. They come in. They appeal because they feel that they have not received the proper funding or, you know, just funding and it would be nice to have people who kind of understand the dynamics of poverty a little more so than those who have a great deal of wealth. That is essentially the point I am making.
MR. JON CAREY: Mr. Chairman, I had experience dealing with Mr. Wheelhouse when he was in Digby as the Town Clerk and I am sure he is familiar with poverty and worked with all levels of people at that time. I wouldn't think that he would be unaware of these things.
MR. MACKINNON: Being aware and living it are two different things.
MR. CAREY: I would suggest that there probably isn't any of these appointments, Liberal or Conservative or NDP, who are living it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am just looking for the geographic breakdown, which I haven't done and I am quickly doing now. Has anyone done that, in terms of Annapolis versus Digby? Any other comments or questions about these appointments? Do you want to go ahead with them or do you want to just wait and come back to them at the end of the meeting?
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, just going back to Pamela Bishop, qualification-wise if one looks at her resume, she has been a member of the Social Assistance Appeal Board since 1995 and served as Acting Chairperson for the past four months. I would say that she certainly has the experience and she is going to be, if I read this correctly, the Chair. I would say that it is probably a good appointment. I fail to see the connection between her qualifications and her political donations. (Interruptions) Well, if you want to talk about one, you have to talk about them all. It is very nice to pick out the ones you don't like and leave the ones you do, but in fairness to Pamela Bishop, she is certainly qualified to be on the board so any inference that she is not is hardly fair to her.
MR. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, for your information, you were inquiring about the dispersal between Digby and Annapolis, they are evenly split three apiece.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is what I just came up with. Pamela Bishop is Annapolis, Darryl Hannam is Annapolis, and Ellen Simpson is Annapolis. The rest are Digby, right?
MR. HENDSBEE: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What is your wish as a committee? (Interruptions) There is a motion on the floor. Would all those in favour of the motion, please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions?
The motion is carried
Onto the next block. At what stage would you need to declare a conflict of interest?
MR. JAMES SPURR: They have been recommended to this committee by the Executive Council.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I really had nothing to do with the recommendations.
MR. SPURR: You have nothing to do with that. If at this point someone wants to make a motion to consider them as a block, as we seem to be doing, we can engage in discussion, but when it comes to the vote if you feel that you have a conflict, you should declare it in respect of one or more of the individuals and withdraw. In a case like that, it may mean you should go through them individually rather than as a block, if there is one or more.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's get to the discussion on these, and maybe I won't. The conflict of interest I would have is with Mr. Sarsfield, who is a neighbour and a friend, although I suspect he is a Liberal rather than a PC. (Laughter)
MR. SPURR: Being a neighbour and a friend is not a conflict.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But he may have donated to my campaign for all I know. Everyone did in Kings County, Kings North. (Interruption) No conflict, okay. I just wanted to be up front there. Do we have a motion for these?
MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, could I just raise a question? Mr. Barry Bartlett, I understand, from the Truro area, has a number of companies and has received money from the Department of Economic Development. I am just wondering if there is a conflict.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you rule on that, Jim?
MR. DEXTER: That could also be true of Mr. Black. Hasn't TRACC received . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be true of almost all of them, I would imagine, if we started digging.
MR. MACKINNON: It raises the question of how effective the screening process is, or is it just a rubber stamp for the government.
MR. DEXTER: TRACC has a controversial track record too, I guess.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There are a few errors in here too I noticed. There are some where it says they are not reappointments and they are reappointments. (Interruptions)
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, as my colleague has suggested, Mr. Bartlett, under the auspices of a number of different companies, has received funding through this particular corporation. I am not sure if a lot of the complexities of his business dealings have been sorted out to date. You had the company Canadian Automotive Radiators, Scott Premium Stamping, Bartlett Plastic and Precision Machinery.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any ruling on this at all?
MR. SPURR: Only to say that as far as I can tell from looking at the documents before the committee, there doesn't appear to be any evidence on the record before the committee of financial assistance to these individuals or their companies from business development, but some members are raising it as secondhand information or speculation, I guess we can categorize it, as if it is not here. If you have personal knowledge then perhaps you should enlighten the committee, but there is no evidence here. Remember that in a conflict of interest situation, it is not up to this committee to judge whether there is, it is up to individuals to declare a conflict if they feel they have one. We should be careful about imputing conflict where it may or may not exist.
MR. DEXTER: With respect, the question that is being asked is whether or not the individuals who are being appointed still have some outstanding relationship with the board or with the commission that they are being appointed to. I think that is a fair question for members of the committee to ask because the other side of this is that we appoint somebody to the board or commission, the loan that was given to them has some problems and then the question becomes, why did the Human Resources Committee appoint them in the first place if they still had this outstanding relationship with the Business Development Corporation. Especially in the case of a company like TRACC where the relationship with the government was highly publicized, there were numerous articles with respect to their dealings with government in the press, there should be some information about whether or not there is still an outstanding relationship between the nominee and the commission.
MR. CHAIRMAN: David, do you want to comment?
MR. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering, when an application is made for various committee appointments or requests for committee appointments, is there a requirement of the disclosure if they had any outstanding commitments from their participation with the department, be it a loan of any sort . . .
MR. SPURR: No, there is not.
MR. HENDSBEE: There is no requirement?
MS. STEVENS: There would be no such requirement, but it would be up to the people who are going through on the screening panels and the people within the departments to determine if these candidates are qualified.
MR. HENDSBEE: Is there a criterion in regard to that screening panel, if there is any outstanding business relationship with the corporation?
MS. STEVENS: No.
MR. SPURR: Their obligation is only to make a determination of the individual, based on qualifications, whether they are qualified to serve. The screening committee has no mandate to investigate someone's background, if you will, as to their business dealings.
MR. HENDSBEE: If it was the wish of the committee, would it be possible for the department to advise this committee if any of these individuals have any outstanding financial arrangements with the province, or as stated earlier if their situation should come to the forefront they would have to declare a conflict and remove themselves from the committee during the proceedings of whatever that nature may be.
MR. SPURR: Well I think the latter point you raised, in my view, is the proper one. Any individual who is prepared to allow their name to stand for appointment to any committee has the obligation to advise whether or not they feel they are in a conflict if they allow their name to stand, as opposed to putting the obligation on the departmental staff, screening committees or this committee to conduct some kind of background check to make sure they are suitable. The obligation, in my view, is on the applicant.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, I have raised a number of those issues because I think they are legitimate and fair. As you can appreciate, Mr. Chairman, when you are provided with over 80-some names and you have to try and ensure that you are getting the best representation you can possibly get on these committees, I am not naive to the reality of politics; that's fair, we didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I mean, to the victor goes the spoils so the government has the final say, they have the majority on the committee, but, fair
is fair. If you are going to appoint somebody to a committee that has a number of outstanding issues or possible outstanding issues, I certainly hope it is not because of his generous contributions to the Conservative campaigns in the last three elections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are talking about Mr. Bartlett now?
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Bartlett. It seems like the closer you get to the Cabinet Minister with your contributions, the easier it is to get on these boards. That seems to be the profile that is developing. Maybe that is not the reality of what is happening here. I don't know Mr. Bartlett any more than anyone from Timbuctoo, but these are legitimate questions and I think if we are going to maintain the integrity of this board then certainly I think it is fair for this committee to review.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, if I could just comment briefly. We all received this book over a week ago. It seems to me in following up with what our solicitor has indicated, that if in fact there is information that you have or any member of this committee has, then I think for the benefit of all who are on the committee, you are almost obligated to produce it. Let's have a look at it, and if we as a committee determine that there is conflict or there is reason to question the appointment, then I think we can act on that. Just to sit here and say I think this or I think that when you have had a week to present the information - I would have no problem if you sat here and produced some information that said this man is in a conflict or whatever. That is the information I would want to know, quite frankly, because what Darrell said is absolutely right.
I don't want somebody two weeks down the road to say, well this guy is in a conflict because. So if there is information available from any member of this board that could have been produced today to help us make a decision, then I think you are obligated and we are obligated to place it on the table. If not, then the screening committee, as far as I am concerned, have done their job. If, in fact, there is information out there that they didn't have, and you have and you haven't produced it, well that is unfortunate. It is not a perfect system, but in all fairness to the people who have been recommended, if there is information that indicates they are in a conflict, and you know that, then you should produce it and we can make a decision based on that. If not, then I think we should proceed with the appointments on this particular board.
MR. DEXTER: I think it is worth putting on the record one more time that this is part of the ongoing problem that we have with the way in which these nominations come forward. The reality is that we don't get to see all the information that the screening committees get. We don't know what questions they ask. We don't know what their procedure is, we don't know what the vetting formula is and therefore these problems arise. They continue to arise and I don't see this problem being resolved for this committee at any time in the future unless the subcommittee on the mandate is able to engineer what I would think would be a minor miracle. But I think it is just worth us again noting that this is a problem for this committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am glad to see that on the record. I agree with you. We need to change the process but with the process we have right now, that is what we are faced with. Does anyone have any information? You raised it, Wayne, do you have any concrete information because I don't want to appoint somebody who two weeks later it comes out in the press that he is in the middle of getting a loan from the Business Development Corporation.
MR. GAUDET: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am just raising this because I know in the past that Mr. Bartlett did receive some funding from the province. I don't have the facts and figures before me. I am just raising, is there a conflict between his appointment to this board representing the department? I don't know, I am just raising that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is a legitimate question, but what do we do when we don't have anything before us, which is also a legitimate issue. Yes, Jon and then David.
MR. CAREY: Mr. Chairman, from past business experience, I know several of these names and I am pretty sure that most or all of them have had dealings with the Business Development Corporation. If you were a director of a bank, you still might get a loan from the bank. I don't see where this would prevent them from dealing with it as long as everything is on a business relationship which I would assume they are. I know at least two or three of these people. They are excellent business people. I am sure they can add to this. When you look at people, like the two that I am familiar with, John Risley and Leonard Sarsfield, even though I see that they were a little misguided and donated to the Liberals, other than that . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Where does it say that? (Laughter)
MR. CAREY: These are two that I personally have had dealings with, excellent business people, but I am sure they have had dealings with the business.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, I guess, Mr. Chairman, in fairness to Mr. Bartlett, he does have a letter of reference from the former President of the Tory Party of Nova Scotia, if that is any consolation. It is in there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But that would be just coincidence. (Interruptions)
Yes, David, you were going to make a comment.
MR. HENDSBEE: I was just prepared to make a motion that the appointments to the Business Development Corporation, John Risley for Chair, Ken Anderson for Director, Barry Bartlett for Director, Myra Batalion for Director, Michael Black for Director, Leonard Sarsfield for Director, James Snell as Director, and Yvonne Thyssen-Post, Director, be appointed as recommended.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I accept that motion, we have a whole bunch of names to get through. I have to get out of here. I know the rest of you have to get out of here. Do you want to leave this to the end? (Interruptions) You are willing to go ahead? (Interruptions) I haven't accepted the motion yet so it is not made. There is nobody who wants to wait? Okay, is the motion made? Okay, the motion is made.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
MS. STEVENS: Four, four.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So what is it, four against four? Well, I am not voting on this.
MS. STEVENS: Are you abstaining?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I already worry about a conflict of interest on it.
MR. OLIVE: But you have been told there isn't one, Mr. Chairman. (Interruptions)
MR. JERRY PYE: He hasn't been told there isn't one. (Interruptions)
MR. OLIVE: Well, the opinion was, I think, wasn't it?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone know if this board will fail to operate if we stand these names? Is there a time limit on them?
MR. SPURR: There are no members on the board at the moment, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So the board would not exist?
MS. STEVENS: No, it does not exist.
MR. OLIVE: It is holding up the business of the corporation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I am going to register my objection to this process and I think that the subcommittee really needs to look at the process of conflict of interest on sensitive boards like this. I want that on the record very clearly and I will vote for the block of names. (Interruption) I am registering my objection to the process that does not allow us to know whether these people are actually in the middle of getting grants from the Business Development Corporation. I am hopeful that the subcommittee on April 11th deals with that issue, but so that the board will continue, I have voted in favour of this block of names.
[The motion is carried.]
[9:00 a.m.]
MR. MACKINNON: You are even voting for the one that you declared yourself in a conflict of interest with?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have been told I don't have a conflict of interest on it. I don't know how to deal with that one. I worry about that, that is a conflict of interest if the person donated to my campaign, and I have no idea whether he did or not. (Interruptions) Let's go forward. I voted for all of them.
MS. STEVENS: If I may, we have had the Minister of Agriculture vote for his own appointments within this committee. I don't think yours would be a major conflict of interest compared to what we have had in the past.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If there is, there is such a thing as forgiveness in the Christian church. On to the next, Film Development Corporation Board. Mr. Hutton's name is struck from this list.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, for the Film Development Corporation Board, Bonita Kirby for Chair, Michael H. Conde for Director, Owen Ferguson, Vanessa B. Morrison, David Pember, and Martin J. Pink. I would so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions about any of these appointments? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions?
[The motion is carried.]
Department of Education, Cosmetology. That should be pretty easy.
MR. CAREY: I move for the Department of Education, Cosmetology, Jocelyn McCormack.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any question or discussion on Jocelyn McCormack? (Interruptions) Has someone made the motion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions?
[The motion is carried.]
Mi'kmaq Education Council.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I would move, for the Mi'kmaq Education Council, Valerie Marshall Bowers as Member, Jeanette Gloude as Member, Lorraine Smith-Collins as Member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on any of these names? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions?
[The motion is carried.]
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, for the Provincial Apprenticeship Board, Thomas Brown, Peter Greer, Leonard La Rusic, Marilyn Morrison and Don Zwicker. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions about any of these names or this committee? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions?
Student Aid Higher Appeal Board.
MR. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, I took the motion to accept the recommendations for appointment to the Student Aid Higher Appeal Board: Meegan Dowe as the Student Representative Member and Mark Galley, also a Student Representative Member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: These are just nominees from the respective universities aren't they?
MR. HENDSBEE: I know Mr. Galley has been a representative of the Dalhousie University Student Union and is recommended by them. I am not familiar with Ms. Dowe's recommendation background. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions?
[The motion is carried.]
The Department of the Environment, Well Construction Advisory Board, member at large here.
MR. CAREY: Mr. Chairman, I would move to the Department of the Environment, Well Construction Advisory Board, Heather J. Cross, member at large.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions?
[The motion is carried.]
Department of Health.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Health, Provincial Health Council, I move the following names: Tom Bird, Leona Brown, Beverley Ruth Colson, Vivian Farrell, John Hussey, and Catherine Randall, all as members of the Provincial Health Council.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have heard the motion, is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions?
There is one abstention.
[The motion is carried.]
Department of Housing and Municipal Affairs, Building Advisory Committee.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Housing and Municipal Affairs, Building Advisory Committee, Peter Greer, Chair; Richard Lind, Vice-Chair; Ken Anderson, David Bateman, Robert Cormier, Heather Robertson Corrigan, David Ewart, Ralph Ferguson, Robert McLaren, Dermit Mulrooney, Leo Rovers, Ed Thornhill, Paula Webber, and Ozzie Wile as members. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on these names or on this committee?
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, I just have a question. Ken Anderson from Port Hawkesbury, just appointed to the Business Development Corporation. Is it the intention that a member can be appointed to more than one ABC.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, if I might, Mr. Anderson's name has come forward from the UNSM for this appointment, according to the information in the package.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That wasn't really the question, although it is interesting information. Mora or Jim, do you have . . .
MS. STEVENS: You can be appointed to many different boards, there is no limit, as many boards as you have applied for and that you have been approved for.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there precedent though, is there any sort of precedent that this committee has followed in the past?
MS. STEVENS: There have been a number of double, triple appointees to different boards that I know of personally.
MR. CAREY: We appointed the same person to two boards the last time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wells, yes, you are right.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions?
[The motion is carried.]
How do we want to handle the next . . .
MR. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a motion that we vote en bloc for the Housing Authority appointments for the various regions: Cobequid, Frederick Smith; as a member for the Eastern mainland area, Diane Hayman, as a member for the Metropolitan area, Matthew Kerrigan and Armand Pinard as a member; and for the Tri-County region, Frank Marshall as a member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on any of these names or any of these committees? What is the tri-county one, just for information, is that the Yarmouth area? (Interruptions)
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions?
[The motion is carried.]
Department of Labour, that always gets us in trouble, doesn't it. Who wants to go on the Department of Labour, Fuel Safety Board.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I so move (Laughter) C. Barry Alexander as Chair and member; Keith Marsh, David A. Muise, Robert Redmond and John Spencer as members of the Fuel Safety Board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Russell, I will say many prayers for you.
MR. HENDSBEE: More fuel for the fire.
MR. MACKINNON: In the spirit of cooperation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on it before the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions?
[The motion is carried.]
Labour Standards Tribunal.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I so move E.A. Nelson Blackburn and Christopher M. Scott as members of the Labour Standards Tribunal.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion?
MR. MACKINNON: Even if they are Tory.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are they? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Absentions?
[The motion is carried.]
Didn't we do Occupational Health and Safety last time?
MS. STEVENS: Yes, we did certain members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyway, Occupational Health and Safety Appeal Panel and in the spirit of cooperation is there anybody who wants to move it.
MR. MACKINNON: My conscience will not allow me. (Laughter) Let's not push the envelope.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Darrell, how about you on this one?
MR. DEXTER: I think its the government's appointment, you guys go right ahead.
MR. CHAIRMAN: They are actually employer representatives I notice so this one is not controversial at all really, is it?
MR. CAREY: Mr. Chairman, I move the appointment to the Occupational Health and Safety Appeal Panel, of Jim Furlong, John R. Kennedy, Michael MacKinnon, Robert McArel, Deborah Ryan and Betty Jean Sutherland.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions?
[The motion is carried.]
Department of Natural Resources.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Natural Resources Primary Forest Products Marketing Board of Nova Scotia, I recommend the following names: Walter MacAlpine, Chair; A. Murray Anderson, member; Lawrence K. Evans, Q.C., alternate
member; Jonathan Porter, alternate member; Stephen Read, alternate member; John W. Roblee, alternate member; and Russ Waycott, member; to the Primary Forest Products Marketing Board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on this particular board? Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions?
[The motion is carried.]
Department of Transportation and Public Works.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I so move James Powell as member of the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Development Commission.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions?
[The motion is carried.]
Thank you very much for your cooperation on that large booklet. We need to discuss what we want to do with the offshore safety hearings. We have had a couple of witnesses before us. There was some feeling I think at the last meeting that people felt that we discussed the issue thoroughly and raised the awareness on offshore safety and that there was some movement on it that perhaps was not as fast as some members like, but was in the positive direction that everyone could agree with. So there was a suggestion that we move on to something else, but we saved that decision for this particular meeting.
I know that Mr. Chisholm wanted us to hear two more witnesses and did you want to speak to that now?
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: I guess maybe later down the road, Mr. Chairman, that the committee so desires that we bring in somebody from Sable as well as I think Glen White from Rowan was another witness that we had requested at that time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: That is fine, down the road if there is . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: How does the rest of the committee feel? Darrell.
MR. DEXTER: I wonder if we could perhaps move on to something else, but just to allow us to make a submission to the Chair for a presentation to the committee on additional members or future direction of that examination.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Run that one by me again?
MR. DEXTER: Instead of saying we are not going to continue with it, . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will just table it for the while.
MR. DEXTER: Yes, table it and move on to whatever else and any member can make a submission to the Chair, or a proposal as to who else should be brought before the committee and I guess what the focus of the investigation will be.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any concerns about that? That sounds like a good suggestion.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: I would say.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That would allow us, if we wanted to bring in at a later date, if there were some concerns that came forward.
Would all those in favour of that course of action please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, if I may, at the last meeting the committee had indicated that we should submit any potential lists of the committee at this meeting this morning. So on behalf of our Party, this is the list that we are submitting to the Human Resources Committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions?
MR. SPURR: Just that the committee might want to satisfy itself that what appears to be the subject matter of some of these witnesses is within the jurisdiction of this committee as set out in the Rules, the purpose being to consider matters normally assigned to or within the purview of the Departments and Ministers of Education, Culture, and Labour. On a first read some of these would appear to be outside of that, but I just offer it up for discussion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is an important point. My understanding, and Mora can correct me, is that we have dealt with matters of Justice with the permission of the minister. So if we wanted to deal with the first two names, we would have to ask the minister. Is that true?
MS. STEVENS: No, it is not with the permission of the minister. It was with the permission of the Speaker, because he can make any determination that he would like. It has nothing to do with the minister because that would be a conflict. We have dealt with the Department of Justice before when we were dealing with family violence prevention initiative and Justice is sort of a department that can be called before any committee if it is dealing with specific issues and that is the way the Rules of the House have been set up and that has been my interpretation from Legislative Counsel. So if the Economic Development Standing Committee wanted to call them in, they could, if it dealt with laws they might be looking at forming or dealing with, or problems within a certain purview of another department, but we have dealt with Justice before. If there was want of a clarification it would come from the Speaker.
MR. CHAIRMAN: With that proviso, we will accept the list that has been put forward by the Liberal caucus.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have accepted this list, now the question is what is the next issue that you would like to deal with as a committee?
MR. DEXTER: I believe that lists have been put forward over the last number of meetings, so we have had to deal with the list that is most recent. I am just wondering if the Clerk has a list besides these other people who have been proposed?
MS. STEVENS: The only other one was the Professional Theatre Alliance, Ms. Gay Hauser that Eileen has put on that has been approved to be looked at, but there were past lists. A lot of them dealt with the offshore safety which we have now started to deal with, but if members want, I can certainly get copies of that out to you again.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be helpful to have that so we do not forget who we have looked at. So my understanding is, too, that Eileen will request it, and then there was a favourable response that we look at Culture next.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, just to follow up on the honourable member for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour. In our letter from our caucus dated November 26th there were a number of issues, two of them in Education, Human Resources, Justice, Tourism and Culture, and they were all accepted by the committee as being issues that we could discuss. So having said that, it seems to me that it is sort of out of context to look at this by itself and say what are we going to talk about next? I think what we need is a compilation placed in front of us for the next meeting of all of the suggestions, as the honourable member mentions, and then we pick it from there, because we seem to be looking at the last letter, I agree with you 100 per cent. We had some fairly imposing requests ourselves and all of a sudden we are not talking about those anymore. I would suggest that the Chairman, through Mora, arrange or compile a consolidated list of all the suggestions and let's decide then.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Russell.
MR. MACKINNON: I am sorry, I had another point.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Speaking on this point are we agreed that that is a good procedure to follow? For the next meeting we will comb through the minutes and find the list of witnesses and list of topics that we decided on. Then we can make a more informed decision on what we want to tackle next.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Mr. MacKinnon.
MR. MACKINNON: Just on a slightly different topic but all related, it is with regard to this entire process where all members raised various observations, but recently the government has indicated it wants to reduce the size of government. Obviously, I would suspect that would mean reducing the total number of appointments to the agencies, boards and commissions, at least that trial balloon has been put out there whether it is really by the government or not, I don't know, it is perceived to be anyway. Is there some way we could, as a committee - I am not a regular member here but I would think that it would be a good exercise - look at the entire process, all these agencies, boards and commissions. I am not sure whether it would be in the best interests of the committee to wait until after the government's legislative package on reducing the size of government is put before the House or after.
There are a number of boards and commissions that are somewhat obsolete. I don't know if somebody would say the Apple Maggot Board is necessary. We always use that as the whipping agent every time we want to trivialize and say how obsolete some of these processes are. I think it would be a useful exercise to look and have somebody from government come along and say, do we need all of these boards and commissions? Which ones are a really integral part of helping government? Which ones are either redundant or do not really serve a positive function? That came to mind last night when we were dealing with the agricultural bill. Here we are creating another government agency, another board, when the government is talking about reducing the size of government. We are going to create a board that will have seven more appointments. I guess I just throw it out as an observation, perhaps there is somewhere to go with this, maybe it is just . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am just curious where we go with this because I have personally written a letter suggesting that they be looked at and downsized. I know the Shaw report suggested the same thing. We had information at our last committee meeting that that is being
looked at. Maybe if Tim wants to come in or as a committee do we want to make a formal request or what?
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, quite frankly I really don't think it is necessary and I will tell you why. Our caucus, obviously, has the same question; we are all looking at the same things that are happening in government regardless of the Party we are in. We have asked that question and it has been made crystal clear that there is a major reorganization and downsizing of the ABCs going on now by civil servants under the direction of the government and that there will be a substantial reduction in the number of ABCs in Nova Scotia.
You have to understand that with that reduction many of the boards and commissions are associated with Acts of government and the Act requires that there be a board, et cetera. So that is probably the hardest part or the most difficult part of determining which boards, commissions, and agencies the government doesn't need, or are redundant or quite frankly don't perform the function that they were originally set up to do. That is an ongoing exercise and we are hopeful, as a caucus, that at some point in the very near future this committee will, in fact, be presented with a report and some recommendations on the boards, commissions, and agencies that will be eliminated. That is the intent and that process is ongoing as we speak.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that is good news.
MR. MACKINNON: If I could add one note on that, obviously, the honourable member has indicated where the government is going on this. I just somehow wonder about the value of this exercise? You come in here, there are 81 appointments here, these are a lot of appointments. For the member to sit there and say that perhaps in another month's time half of them may not even be sitting on a board . . .
MR. OLIVE: That is a question that has been asked as well. The fact is that these boards have to operate until they are no longer legislated to operate. Many of these boards have to be there under current legislation and therefore they have to be filled, that is why we are going through this exercise. Will some of these boards not exist in six months, whatever? It is very possible. But the fact is they do perform a function now either through legislation or otherwise and we have to fill them. We are really obligated to do it under existing regulations but we have to change the regulations. So that is why we are going through this exercise and certainly, it may seem somewhat redundant but we don't have any choice.
MR. MACKINNON: But only one had to have a quorum out of all of those so that is the question.
MR. OLIVE: It is a legitimate question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are they looking at remuneration too or just the number of ABCs, or can you divulge that information at this time? We have a mandate to look at remuneration because I think that needs to be part of the assessment, not just the number of them but some sort of standardization or justification for remuneration. We have discussed that at the committee before, it seems to be all over the board, the remuneration. Any further discussion on that, then?
MR. HENDSBEE: I move we adjourn, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a motion to adjourn.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
[The committee adjourned at 9:27 a.m.]
