MR. CHAIRMAN: Welcome. I hope I didn't keep everybody waiting. A few meetings ago, I used a quote which I didn't really follow through on in terms of the lesson I was trying to get out of it. I really left the lesson implicit, and I want to make it explicit now, basically that we move beyond the religious and ethnic tensions in Nova Scotia, but not move behind the sort of political tensions. I know we will have differences, but the sort of attitude that we often have towards each other, it hasn't been evidenced in this committee and I hope that won't be. As long as I am Chair, that will be my task, to make sure it doesn't. I just want to make explicit the object lesson I was trying to make.
Moving on now, you have the book in front of you, and we have a page that came out as an addition to the book, which we can accept or not accept, it came out on April 24th. That would have been . . .
MS. MORA STEVENS (Human Resources Committee Coordinator): It was faxed Monday.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It was faxed Monday, so it wasn't Friday, as we had asked for.
MS. STEVENS: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If there are no objections, we will just start in with the agenda as it stands, appointments to ABCs. Again, it is your wish whether you want to go through each name, name by name, or whether you would like to go through them by categories. I haven't counted up the number of names, but it is a fairly substantial booklet again. I am willing to entertain a motion on how you want to handle them, whether you want to go name by name or category by category.
MR. TIMOTHY OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I move that we do them by department.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection to that? We will move them by department. Does someone want to start at the top of the page with the Department of Business and Consumer Services. Remember to read out . . .
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If a particular name comes to question within that particular department, is it not reasonable to assume that that question could either be held or tabled, whatever, and all the rest could be approved, and not be caught in a position where a department is prevented from proceeding with appointments? I appreciate my colleague, the member for Dartmouth South on where he is going with that, it is easier to approve them by department, but one name shouldn't preclude us from reviewing each name as the department is called, in case something does come up with one particular individual.
MR. OLIVE: I think if we agree that we want to stand one, we can discuss it at any time. I think we did that before. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that is what Mr. Olive meant, just to expedite the procedure.
MR. WILLIAM DOOKS: I move that the people listed under the Department of Business and Consumer Services be moved to the boards and commissions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have to name each board and the names.
MR. DOOKS: Embalmers and Funeral Directors Board of Registration: Mark Stevens; Residential Tenancies, Western Counties: Diane Fraser and Russell Prime.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions on these names or any concerns, comments that anyone wants to raise at this juncture?
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
Are there any abstentions?
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Next department. Please read out the board and the names.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, I so move for the Department of Community Services, the Social Assistance Appeal Board for Cumberland: Donald J. LeBlanc, Chairman; Walter Maltby, member. Inverness/Victoria/Richmond: Shirley Landry,
Chairman. Yarmouth/ Clare/Argyle/Shelburne: Rudolph Joseph Muise, Chairman. Social Workers Board of Examiners: Elizabeth Whelton, member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have heard the motion. Any discussion, questions?
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, with regard to Mr. LeBlanc's résumé and letters of reference, I notice he used the Speaker of the House of Assembly as a reference. I am not sure what the process is or the protocol, but is it appropriate to have members of the Executive Council or indeed the Speaker of the House for that? Is that going to create an unfair advantage? We are not fully aware of what the vetting process is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are questioning the references under Mr. Donald LeBlanc's résumé.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, he is using the Speaker of the House of Assembly as a reference.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: He was kind enough to describe him as a retired police officer.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you have anything you wanted to say?
MR. DEXTER: No, I had noticed the same thing. What struck me was that we did get a résumé for two of them, but I did not see one for Mr. Maltby.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I did not either, but according to our regulations it has to be $100. We would like a résumé with all of them. There are a few that do not have résumés, but I checked them through and all of them fall below that $100 figure. We have talked about that figure before and we may want to lower that figure, but I think that is the case with Walter Maltby. It is only $29, isn't it?
MR. DEXTER: It depends on how you determine what a hearing is. For example, in the Residential Tenancies Board you could set down several hearings in an evening and, in theory, you could do three or four in an evening.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don't we change that figure then? Why don't we say they all have to have résumés? Is that a major hardship for anybody?
MR. DEXTER: You would think if someone was taking the time to apply for a position, they would take the time to send along at least some kind of a sketch of their experience that is relevant to the job they are requesting.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I, personally, can't see that as a hardship to anybody. As you say, if they are applying for a position, they already have in mind why they want to do it and how they could contribute. Mr. Downe and then Mr. Olive.
MR. DONALD DOWNE: It begs the question we had the other day, the screening committee is screening these applicants to say they are the most qualified person and if they don't even bring in a résumé, how in the name of heavens are they bringing the name forward as a screening committee and saying they are the most qualified people for the job?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Unless they have talked to the people personally which they may have, but we don't know that.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest maybe that is just another issue that we should discuss at our subcommittee. If we are going to make some recommendations to the main committee on some changes to Form "A" and other things, why not include the requirement for a résumé. I don't think it is an unreasonable request.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreed then? I think that seems to be a reasonable suggestion that that be one of the recommendations the subcommittee could come forward with.
MR. DEXTER: Do we know when the subcommittee will actually report back to this committee?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It depends if we can get all the members to agree.
MS. EILEEN O'CONNELL: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, we can still report if we don't agree.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I suspect that we will have some sort of report or interim report after our next meeting at the least. We have had two meetings and I think we were getting closer to agreement at the last meeting, at least we are understanding each other a little better in terms of our different suggestions. Is that acceptable to everybody to leave that to the subcommittee? Mora, do you mind jotting that down so we don't forget. Was that just a question or a statement, Mr. MacKinnon? Were you wanting some sort of policy decision on it?
MR. MACKINNON: It is something that was raised by the government members when they were in Opposition and certainly by the NDP caucus. We readily acknowledged at that point that issue would be addressed and I think the committee went a long way to addressing it on an appointment by appointment basis, whether it was the fact that we were a minority government or whether the reality was that the committee itself was not being provided with sufficient information. Personally, I can't see the value of deferring time and
time again the inevitable and that is having at least some semblance of information to be able to judge whether a candidate has the qualifications.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are back on the résumé. We have already dealt with that and I think we have agreed to that.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, regarding Mr. MacKinnon's comment, I am not sure how many people around this table have written résumés, but I know I have written a fair number of résumés over my career. When I find people who I can use as a reference, and in this case I would suggest that Murray Scott as a reference was when he was a police officer and not when he was a politician. Why would you want to drop him off because he made the unfortunate decision of being a politician? He was probably as good a police officer as he is a politician, maybe even better, and if he considers this gentleman, Mr. LeBlanc, a fine outstanding individual, I would not take him off because he happened to see himself as a politician a few years later.
I think that is almost a non argument, and if anyone has written résumés, you know, lots of times, somebody that you refer to gets promoted or moves to something else. They are still your friend, they are still a reference, it doesn't matter what political faith they have. I think that is sort of a red herring.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dexter, do you want to say anything?
MR. DEXTER: I don't know what Russell said directly but I thought, at least what I heard from him, or the question being posed, was whether or not this was an attempt to influence the process. I think that was the intent of Russell's questions, and I thought it was more to bring it to people's attention. I don't want to speak for you, Russell, but it was just (Interruption)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it would be highly inappropriate for Murray Scott to speak for the House.
MR. OLIVE: If that was your question, I wish I hadn't answered it.
MR. MACKINNON: I guess the question that comes up for the member for Dartmouth South is, how long has this application been in if he was doing it when he was a police officer? He certainly hasn't been a police officer for some time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, but I think Mr. Olive's comment is fair that it could have been on. We have no way of knowing. Anyway, is there any further discussion on that? Have the questions raised been discussed? I don't want to take too much more time on that unless there is some action.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, if Mr. MacKinnon wants to talk about that, we could look at the résumé for the other people on here. Shirley Landry who is certainly qualified and is seen to be qualified by the department, happens to be a friend of Russell MacLellan and worked as his secretary back from 1969 or so. I don't have a problem with that if she is qualified. She certainly must be, so we are going back to the nit-picking part again.
MR. MACKINNON: I don't see a letter of reference from Russell MacLellan in there.
MR. OLIVE: Well, you talk about trying to influence people. If you are going to stick Russell's name on there and if there is any influence at the committee . . .
MR. MACKINNON: That's part of her work career.
MR. OLIVE: Well, you know, it is just amazing how you can do that, Russell, must have taken years of experience to be able to look at it in two different ways, the same issue. It is amazing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further comments on this issue?
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
Are there any abstentions? Three abstentions.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: On to the next department, and please read the names and the actual agency, board or commission.
MR. JON CAREY: I move the appointments for the Department of Education. Mount Saint Vincent University Board of Governors: Theresa Laffin and Mary Martin; the Teachers College Foundation Board of Governors: David T. White, Dr. John Grant, Donna D. MacDonald and J. David Pottie; University College of Cape Breton Board of Governors: Rick Cecchetto, Robert P. Hannigan, Marilyn Harrison, Jason Kassouf, Jack MacLeod, David Samson and Yvonne Williams.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion or questions on these? Most of these, I notice, are sort of put forward by the respective institutions that they are asked to be members on, but are there any questions or comments?
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, how many vacancies are on the Board of Governors?
MR. CHAIRMAN: For the University College of Cape Breton or for Mount Saint Vincent?
MR. MACKINNON: UCCB.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know. I noticed that 40 applications came in, and you have that many members, at least half of whom were recommended by the board itself. Do we have that information? I think it is a fairly large board, from what I remember.
MS. STEVENS: It says here that four persons are appointed by the faculty of the college for students, two persons appointed by CBDC and 10 persons appointed by the members. Now, if you look at the board membership chart, there are five people on that board that this process appoints, and I guess in May 2000 they will be finished.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But that isn't really your question, is it Mr. MacKinnon?
MR. MACKINNON: No it isn't, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Board composition, 36 members. That is on the board information chart.
MR. MACKINNON: I guess my question on that point would be Mr. David Samson from Louisdale, I am just wondering who recommended Mr. Samson? (Interruption) I know it wouldn't be because he was a Party president for the Tories in Richmond County at one time or the fact that he made serious financial contributions to the Tory Party in Richmond County, but I am just curious, on a serious note, who . . .
MR. CAREY: Is $50 serious money?
MR. MACKINNON: No, it is a lot more than $50; check the public records.
MR. CHAIRMAN: He was nominated by the nominating committee of the UCCB board. (Interruption) That is what it says if you had read your packet properly. Does that answer your question, Mr. MacKinnon?
MR. MACKINNON: No, it doesn't.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If the UCCB board recommends - do you want to overrule the UCCB board?
MR. MACKINNON: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question, I thought, was how many members are on the board and who nominated them?
MR. MACKINNON: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There are 36 members and he is nominated by the UCCB board. Both questions have been answered.
MR. MACKINNON: I guess my question is, how many members does the Governor-in-Council . . .
MS. STEVENS: It says here 12 persons are appointed by the Minister of Education, eight of those have to be from Cape Breton Island.
MR. MACKINNON: So, Mr. Samson doesn't fall within those.
MS. STEVENS: He would be, if he is recommended by their committee, he would be out of the university college, they are allowed to nominate four people.
MR. MACKINNON: Is he one of the four that was nominated . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: If you read your packet, as I have said.
MR. MACKINNON: That is not entirely what it says.
MR. OLIVE: It says he has been nominated by the nominating committee of the UCCB board, unless this is inaccurate, which we can check out.
MR. MACKINNON: I know what it says.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to know whether or not Mr. MacKinnon has a problem with his qualifications. I presume that is what we are talking about, obviously, whether the man is qualified to be on the board. Is that the question?
MR. MACKINNON: No, the question is, how many people have applied. I know what is recommended, but we will not know who is the best candidate because we don't know the number of people who applied. I know a number of individuals who have applied that I would suggest have far superior qualifications for this board than Mr. Samson and that is the flaw in the process. If tacit direction has been given from the minister or the Governor-in-Council that, okay, we think x, y and z are reasonable candidates, it would be very imprudent for the board of governors to take issue with that, particularly when they have to
depend on the Minister of Education for funding arrangements for the next fiscal year. We know of some of the complications that have arisen just in the last number of months with the recent strike; we are not naive as to how the process works.
MR. OLIVE: Are you suggesting that there is a conspiracy between the UCCB board and the Minister of Education? That is what you are saying.
MR. MACKINNON: No, I am saying that . . .
MR. OLIVE: Well, sure it is.
MR. MACKINNON: There is complicity; there is a possibility of complicity.
MR. OLIVE: That is different from conspiracy, I guess.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The nominating committee put his name forward, I don't feel qualified to overrule the nominating committee of the University College of Cape Breton, but if anyone wants to vote against it, they are free to do so. (Interruption)
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
Are there any abstentions?
[The motion is carried.]
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move for the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture Loan Board: Martin Cottreau, Chairman; Edmond Aucoin, Vice-Chairman; Peter J. Goth, member; Harald A. Norve, member; Eric M. Nowe, member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we go to the question, when I went through the book I noticed that according to our policy recommendations, there was a missing résumé for Mr. Cottreau. Any agency, board or commission that is over $100 has to have a résumé and so I alerted Mora to that, thinking that perhaps the résumé was sitting in the Legislative Committee's Office here and it wasn't so she contacted the department and we were supposed to get a résumé by Friday, but we didn't. All we got was this letter by Monday, so before we go for a vote on this, I am quite happy to entertain a motion to stand the name until we get the proper résumé, unless this letter is acceptable to all of you. If this is acceptable, then we go forward with it. I am sure it was an oversight, but it is an oversight that contradicts our policies.
MR. DEXTER: I think it also contradicts what we were just talking about, exactly, these résumés. Certainly I would move to stand that particular nomination until we have the . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Proper résumé.
MR. DEXTER: . . . and an opportunity to have a look at it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I really think we have no other option, because our policy is that it has to be there.
MR. OLIVE: Our policy isn't that it has to be there, is it?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. OLIVE: On this particular one?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is $300, because it is the Chair; over $100, it has to be there according to our policy. If you are willing to make an exception of the policy, I will certainly entertain it but, according to the policy, it has to be there. The department knew that, whoever did the oversight.
MR. DEXTER: I made the motion. I guess so . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on the motion?
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure. I understand that it would be prudent to have the résumé in front of us. According to this letter, he makes it pretty clear what his qualifications are, in the Reader's Digest format. I am not sure what else he can add that is going to make that big a difference. Somebody obviously - not me - knows something about this individual that qualifies him to be chairman of this board. I am not sure that I would be, either today or next month, second-guessing the recommendation from the screening panel. I, for one, would speak against the motion. I would be voting in favour of continuing with the appointments, including Mr. Cottreau.
MR. DEXTER: I wonder if that is the case, if Mr. Olive could just explain what it is that we are doing here. If we can't even raise simple procedural issues that have been agreed to, then what the heck is the purpose of even having these . . .
MR. OLIVE: It is just an opinion, it is not a majority opinion. I am entitled to one opinion, aren't I?
MR. DEXTER: I am just trying to understand your point of view, Mr. Olive, that is all I am trying to do.
MR. OLIVE: My point of view is that we are going through this process, and how many times are we going to go over the same person?
MR. DEXTER: Just as long as they fail to meet the most basic guidelines.
MR. OLIVE: Well, that is fine.
MR. DEXTER: I think it is our job; that is why we are here.
MR. OLIVE: Okay.
MR. MACKINNON: I probably have a proposal that may help to resolve Mr. Olive's dilemma here. Perhaps if he were to get a letter of reference from one of the Cabinet Ministers, that may help.
MR. OLIVE: Are you suggesting we stand Mr. Cottreau, is that your motion?
MR. MACKINNON: That is what I propose, yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion on this?
MR. DOWNE: No, I think we have a procedural issue here that we have agreed to; we are trying to bring credibility to the process. It is not speaking against the individual in any way, shape or form, it is the process that we have established. I agree with my colleagues, and they know that. The Department of Fisheries knows that; that is what I find so frustrating. All they had to do is pick up the phone and say, listen, here is what the requirements are, please do that, or the minister's EA or whoever is doing it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I noticed it right away and alerted Mora, thinking it was maybe our office that made the mistake and it wasn't. Obviously from this Reader's Digest, he is qualified, but I do think we have a procedural problem, personally. We all have a vote here, so we have a question.
Would all those in favour of Mr. Dexter's motion, please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
Are there any abstentions?
[The motion is carried.]
MR. DEXTER: This is more to make a point than anything else. Mr. Norve, he is a high-profile member of the Conservative executive, is he not?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
MR. DEXTER: That is my recollection; I think I have seen him quoted many times in the paper. That is my point.
MR. OLIVE: Your point is what?
MR. DEXTER: Just that he is a high-profile member of the Conservative Party, for the record.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, let's play the who's who. Mr. Aucoin, appointed to the Atlantic Fisheries Licence Appeal Board by Liberal Fisheries Minister Brian Tobin in 1993. Do we make some assumptions from this, as we have with Mr. Dexter's comment? I don't know.
MR. DEXTER: It is not an assumption, it is a statement.
MR. OLIVE: You are making some assumptions based on the statement, I believe.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the point that Mr. Olive is making is valid one. The question is the qualification.
MR. OLIVE: It doesn't make him any less qualified.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I could make the same point about the College of Surgeons of Nova Scotia, Mr. Regan, who I am very happy to see on the board, was an NDP candidate. I think the point is qualifications. I think we have to try to stick to that as much as possible. Let's stick to qualifications as much as possible.
MR. DOWNE: I find it so interesting every time I come here. Obviously everybody has done a little bit of homework on every name. It would be interesting if we just kind of put our guns at the table when we walk in so that everybody has all this information and we can simply do the count here and find out. In all reality, it is pretty obvious that everybody is trying to throw in a token NDP and a token Liberal and we will be able to justify the five other names we are going to be putting on there that are diehard Party faithfuls.
[10:00 a.m.]
MR. CAREY: I really think that is wrong, Don. I think if you go back over the appointments that have been made, since I have been here anyway, it is pretty balanced in Liberal, Conservative, NDP. If that is the factor, which I understood we were trying to get out of it, we were trying to get qualifications. Being a novice at politics, most of these people, I don't know what their politics are until somebody tells me. I really thought we came here to either say yes or no regarding the qualifications of these people. If the process prior to getting here is wrong, well then that is where the correction maybe needs to be made.
MR. DOWNE: You are absolutely correct on that. Herein lies the argument that the internal committee or the executive committee has been grappling with and the basis for why these names come forward or how they come forward. So I am in total agreement with you in that process. That is the dilemma we are all under here. Hopefully we are going to come to a conclusion on that very shortly, or what is the point?
MR. CAREY: I don't think a person should be disqualified because of their politics, they may still be qualified even though they may happen to be whatever.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion on the rest of the names? We have stood the one name to get the proper résumé?
MS. O'CONNELL: Just for the record, I have been a member of my Party for 22 years and to my almost certain knowledge, there has been no Tom Regan who has been a candidate for us. So again, just for the record.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will clarify that. He is actually a good friend of mine, but he is very active in the NDP. I am very happy to see him on. I think he is an excellent, qualified person of the utmost integrity.
MR. DEXTER: There are a number of Tom Regans around, that's all.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Basically, the point is we should try to stick to qualifications. Anyway, the question has been called.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
Are there any abstentions?
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Since we passed them, one quick question which I would like the committee to grapple with, and I have the same problem with the Farm Loan Board in a sense and with the Business Development Corporation, and that is the question of conflict of interest. Maybe the subcommittee can look at those questions, as well. In a small province it is hard to avoid that, but maybe we need some sort of guideline as to if there is a conflict of interest with any names when they are giving out loans of that amount.
On to the next one. The Department of Health.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, if I may, wouldn't it be of some value if we had an opinion from Legislative Council on that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It probably would be. When people are giving out massive sums of money, what constitutes a conflict of interest? We have the same with the labour appeal board and we discussed that with Mr. Wells as to whether there is a conflict of interest. Do you want me to ask Mr. Spurr?
MR. MACKINNON: No, Mr. Spurr doesn't represent Legislative Council. That is the problem. You have been receiving legal opinion that represents the executive committee, not all members of the House of Assembly. In fact, it is an independent legal opinion, and that is what Legislative Council is for.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like me, on behalf of the committee, to check on what the Conflict of Interest Commissioner says about various things? The one with Mr. Wells?
MR. MACKINNON: It may save a lot of unnecessary argument.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just in general. We are not talking about any specific names.
MR. CAREY: I think the loan boards are even more important.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I think you would have to be reasonably specific if you are going to make a request to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We couldn't ask a general question?
MR. OLIVE: Well, no, but the general question I don't think can be, can you give me a general opinion on conflict of interest from the point of a, b, c. I think you have to be very specific because it relates to loan boards or something else. I don't think you can ask it just on anything. You might get a . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: It was really the loan board . . .
MR. OLIVE: . . . reply in 10 years, if you are really lucky.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It was really the loan boards I was more concerned about, that we know that we are on firm . . .
MR. OLIVE: Then I think that should be the question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But that was just a personal question.
MR. DOWNE: There is always the ability for an individual to leave a meeting, to withdraw from the discussion in the event of that. It is complicated when you get into Farm Loan Boards or other boards because if you have agricultural people, invariably they are going to know them, or if you have fisheries people, they are going to know them.
The issue really would be if this person would materially gain from an appointment or a loan or not a loan. Materially, personally, then I guess that is the issue that we have to deal with and I understood there is a process that would follow if in fact they would disqualify themselves from it, but anyway we will see what . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: So, in a sense, you are saying that the process is already in place.
MR. DOWNE: I could be wrong, but that is what I understood the process was, but we can find out.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don't I just ask for clarification of the process as regards loan boards?
MR. CAREY: If the process is in place, it is not being followed, so . . .
MR. DOWNE: If it isn't, it should be.
MR. CAREY: I would like to know what the process is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that okay, that I ask on behalf of the committee what the process is for loan boards specifically? That is what we are concerned about.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Health, the Registered Nurses Association of Nova Scotia Board of Directors: Dolores J. Porter, member; Brenda Sabo, member; Brenda Thibedeau, member. Optometry Board of Examiners: Dr. Michael H. Baird, member; Dr. Judy Martin, member; Dr. Timothy C. Winslade, member. Council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia: Dorothy A. Grant, member; Allan Green, QC, member; Gwen Haliburton, member; Suzanne I. Jensen, member; Dr. Thomas G. Regan, member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussions?
MR. DOWNE: All right, I think . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: I thought these ones were just going to fly through, they are all by the respective institutions. Anyway, let's listen to the questions. Are they not?
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your naivety here, but Gwen Haliburton, I understood was an appointed Cabinet Minister quite some time ago, in 1992, and she was with Debi Forsyth-Smith. Those are two appointed Cabinet Ministers by the then Premier, Donnie Cameron.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Which two are you talking about? There is just the one.
MR. DOWNE: I am talking about Gwen Haliburton.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. DOWNE: She was a Cabinet Minister, I don't know what her portfolio was.
MS. STEVENS: Community Services, I think.
MR. DOWNE: She was appointed just before an election, exactly before an election. She was a Cabinet Minister.
MR. OLIVE: And?
MR. DOWNE: And?
MR. OLIVE: Yeah, and? It doesn't mean she is not qualified for anything, right?
MR. DOWNE: Well, she was an appointed Cabinet Minister, she didn't even run in an election, you know. (Interruption)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, in a minute, Mr. MacKinnon. We have Ms. O'Connell, Mr. Dexter, and then we will come back to you, if that is okay.
MS. O'CONNELL: I have a question, Mr. Chairman, about Dorothy Grant. I can't tell - and maybe I just missed it in the book - under which of the designations she was appointed to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Was she appointed as one of the eight members elected in the manner provided by the Act; was she appointed by the Dean of the Medical School; was she appointed by the society at a general meeting; or was she one of five people appointed by the Governor in Council, all of whom are not members of the College and have shown an interest in serving? I would assume it would be (d), but I don't know that. I would assume those would be the only ones that come through us? Not necessarily?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we know the answer to that question, Mora?
MS. STEVENS: We don't know the answer to that because in some of the boards where the minister has the discretion, say if they present five candidates and the minister can choose three out of the ones they have nominated, they would come here as well. So it could either be a minister's or it could be one that has been recommended and that is not outlined, as far as I can see, on either the guidelines or the Form "A".
MS. O'CONNELL: My only concern is if she is representing the general public so to speak, if she is a consumer representative of some kind. She worked for the Medical Society for years, I don't know if that would qualify her as a general consumer representative or what.
MS. STEVENS: She would be a consumer representative I would think because under number three in the guidelines, it says must not be a member of the college, but has shown an interest in serving on the council. So that is what the department is showing, that that is the category she would fall under.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does that answer your question, Ms. O'Connell?
MS. O'CONNELL: It answers my question. I am not sure it answers my concern. If she was employed by the Medical Society from 1989 to 1998, if the concerns of physicians and consumers diverge, one might have some concern about which interests would have pride of place, if you like.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dexter, you had a comment you wanted to make?
MR. DEXTER: I think that my concern is the same which is that . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Regarding the same name?
MR. DEXTER: Yes. If a person who has been in the employ of a particular interest for a number of years and then goes onto the board, I think it is a natural thing to expect that they are going to continue to represent the interests that they have always represented. That may not be fair in this case and I don't know Ms. Grant, but I think it is a reasonable expectation. My question was, if it was clearly a nominee that came forward from the college, that is one thing, but if it is a consumer representative, then it seems to me to be quite a different situation.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I am going to cut right through all the fancy talk. I think this clearly demonstrates that patronage is alive and well with the Progressive Conservative Government.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you explain to me why, because I don't know this person at all.
MR. MACKINNON: I would suggest that if Ms. Haliburton does as well on this board as she did as a Cabinet Minister, then I think . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are talking about Ms. Grant right now, aren't we?
MR. MACKINNON: No, I am talking about Ms. Haliburton.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, you have confused me. So we are finished with Dorothy A. Grant and we are back to the discussion on Gwen Haliburton.
MR. MACKINNON: Yes. I think Premier Hamm at the outset of taking over government indicated that this would be an independent, transparent, open forum for all members of the committee to be able to review this process thoroughly and this is clearly not the case. It is designed in a rather convoluted fashion to compel members to say yes or no to what is before them and not find out who is the most qualified for the job. I am given to understand that the pay for this particular board could be upwards of $500 per diem. Am I correct on that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is a question I had. Why do we not have a remuneration? They just say as determined by the board. Is that . . .
MR. MACKINNON: That is right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: To me, that is not really adequate information. We should know what the remuneration . . .
MR. MACKINNON: My understanding is similar, it is in the vicinity of $500 per diem plus expenses. I really question the value for dollar, if this is the process we are going to use.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have two things confused here. Could we deal with the second one first. I have raised the question about the remuneration, picking up on your second one, and can we clarify that because how would we know whether the résumé needs to be attached if we don't know - every board can say that to itself, remuneration is determined by the board and we need to know the figures, or is there some explanation for it that I am missing?
MS. STEVENS: It says here that, if you look in the guidelines, no résumé is required, so they are saying in number eight of the guidelines that it would be under $100 per day.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So these résumés are all courtesy of the individuals and not required in this instance.
MS. STEVENS: Correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But still, can they not give us a figure? Is that that difficult? They, obviously, must know it if they say no résumé is required, but it wouldn't be $500 then, it would be less than $100.
MS. STEVENS: It might be if they lose wages, say if they were off for a day to deal with this board, it might be wage compensation as well.
MR. MACKINNON: If they had a job.
MS. STEVENS: Yes, I know some . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: But that is considered an honorarium. That is a different category.
MS. STEVENS: That is a different category and when they say determined by the board, I know that does happen in some instances. It is determined what that person's wage loss would be and then they are compensated for that, so they don't lose it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: For the record, is everyone clear what we are discussing right now? Under item 7, my question is why don't we know the remuneration? Under item 8, it is clear that it is less than $100 a day.
MR. CAREY: I would like to add, it says there are presently no members on this board. Obviously it is not a functioning board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It will be once we are finished with it.
MR. CAREY: Are we creating a new board?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it's an ongoing board, isn't it?
MS. STEVENS: It just has run out. All the appointments have run out.
MR. DOWNE: I understand it is $500 a day. If we can check that out, but it is the information I have. That could be wrong as well, Mr. Chairman, but I understand it is $500 plus expenses.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's check. There is a question whether item 8 is right then.
MR. DOWNE: The other one is, there are people here applying that maybe have a legal background for example, and if there is compensation for salaries, or any other profession, it would only be appropriate for this board to have the actual dollars we are talking about here for the board. Also, I understood from Tim, the member for Dartmouth South, that the review of all these different boards, ABCs, part of that review, not only who
will be left, but also the remuneration process was reviewed. We should be able to clarify that point fairly quickly as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No problem on that. Sorry, Mr. MacKinnon, to raise the second issue, but that is what I had myself.
MR. MACKINNON: They are all interrelated.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The first issue, did you have anything more you wanted say about that?
MR. MACKINNON: All that has been said has been said.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, if I may indulge the committee for a minute. Notwithstanding the comment regarding Gwen Haliburton and her unfortunate situation of actually being so qualified and so community minded that she wanted to run for politics, I don't know what she was thinking, but she did back in 1993.
Other than that, if you look at her work experience and volunteer experience: United Way of Canada; Metro United Way; Mount Saint Vincent University Board of Governors; The Arthritis Society; Alderney Landing Corporation; Brain Injury Association of Nova Scotia; Provincial Health Council, Chair; Dartmouth General Hospital Board of Commissioners, Chair for four years, Treasurer for preceding four; Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations, Chair; Canadian Association of Health Care Auxiliaries; Nova Scotia Association of Health Auxiliaries; Dartmouth Chamber of Commerce; Healthy Dartmouth Committee; Dartmouth General Hospital Auxiliary; Natal Day Committee; Oakwood Terrace Auxiliary.
Mr. Chairman, to even bring up anything other than this lady's qualifications is a travesty as far as I am concerned. This lady is certainly more than qualified to sit on this board, and I think it would not be fair to her or to the screening committee if that information, I just indicated, was not put on the record.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Olive. Any further comments?
MR. MACKINNON: One final observation. I think Mr. Olive should add to her curriculum vitae as being a member and overseer of one of the single largest deficit operations in the history of the Province of Nova Scotia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think I will thank you for that comment, but the comments has been made.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
Are there any abstentions?
What was the vote on that?
MS. STEVENS: Three to one and four abstentions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Three, one against, four abstentions.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. WILLIAM DOOKS: I move for the Department of Labour, Labour Relations Board: Gregory North, Sylvester Atkinson and Gunnar Jennegren.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, a couple of observations. Number one, with regard to Mr. North - and I am not questioning any of his qualifications or anything to that effect, or political affiliation, and that may make the member for Dartmouth South a little happier - my concern is about the fact that we are appointing an additional vice-chairman. My understanding is there are a number of vice-chairmen at present and the advice that I received at that particular point in time, which was less than one year ago, the senior administration within the Department of Labour, there was no need for any additional appointment in that position. Now I stand to be corrected on that.
Also with regard to Mr. Jennegren, my understanding is that his appointment was contingent on the fact that as an employer representative on the board, he was there because Volvo was an active industrial plant here in Nova Scotia, but that has since ceased to exist. There was strong consideration by both labour and management at that particular point in time that a new employer representative should be put on the board.
I would raise that. They are not partisan observations, they are just issues that were raised when I was minister. They were raised by the senior administration within the Department of Labour and I am somewhat surprised, not so much with Mr. North because there could be a very logical reason - maybe one of the vice-chairs stepped down - I believe Susan Ashley was the other vice-chair. Now perhaps her term has expired and the government so chose not to renew it, I am not sure but Mr. Jennegren, I don't think, given the terms of reference for employer-employee representation on the board, would be an accurate reflection of the current market conditions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments that anyone would want to make?
Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
Are there any abstentions?
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: On to the next department.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, I so move for the Department of Tourism and Culture, Public Archives Board of Trustees: Anne M. Crossman, member; Duncan Francis Gould, member; Alexander Herbert MacDonald, member; and Dr. Peter L. Twohig, member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion?
MS. O'CONNELL: I just have a question. I see that on the board sheet there are five members whose terms - the month is the second one, right? - expire or have expired, so four out of five, no, three out of five, oops, sorry, two of them expire very soon if they haven't already. One of them is David Flemming. I don't see his name for reappointment. Does anybody know, was he appointed because of his position before he retired, or was he appointed from an historical preservation group or . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone have any information that would enlighten us on that?
MS. O'CONNELL: When he retired he was the Director of the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The retirement date would be the 30th day of the 5th month, right?
MS. O'CONNELL: According to this, yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So actually he is still on the board.
MS. O'CONNELL: So that would mean that that position would come up next month?
MS. STEVENS: I am not sure if they are replacing that position with these appointments or not. Let's see how many are on the board.
MS. O'CONNELL: Maybe he does not want to serve anymore, but he would be such a huge asset if he had reapplied and if he wanted to stay on. I certainly cannot tell that from this.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I know one of these concerns that the department was working on, it was trying to get some representatives from the Black and Mi'kmaq communities.
MS. O'CONNELL: Right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think Duncan Francis Gould is the representative from the Mi'kmaq community.
MS. O'CONNELL: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I know that was one of the things they were hoping to do to broaden out the representation, but there is no way we can know from the information here.
MS. O'CONNELL: They can only come out of Section 10(l)(g) and (h), "four representatives from archival, records management, historical and genealogical organizations . . . and up to four representatives from the academic and general research communities in the Province interested in furthering the aims . . .".
MR. CHAIRMAN: The other point that may be applicable, has he served more than one term? They are only allowed . . .
MS. O'CONNELL: I don't know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: They are only allowed to serve two terms according to the . . .
MS. O'CONNELL: On this board?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It says, may be reappointed for one consecutive term.
MS. O'CONNELL: He may indeed have served two terms, I don't know that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So that may be the factor there.
MR. DOWNE: But he would not have been brought forward if he has served more . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is what I am saying. If he served more than two terms, his name couldn't be brought forward and I would not be surprised if he had.
MS. O'CONNELL: I am sure he was a huge asset.
MR. DOWNE: I find his background, he has been very involved with the First Nations Mi'kmaq Treaty Days and things of that nature.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So you have no problems with the . . .
MR. DOWNE: I don't have a problem, personally.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's entertain the question then. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
Are there any abstentions?
[The motion is carried.]
MR. DOWNE: Tim almost said Nay. (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: On to setting the committee's future agenda. We have the letter of the witnesses, right?
MS. STEVENS: Yes, on April 7th, I sent out the memo that had the caucus list attached to it and we were supposed to deal with setting the future agenda today.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is under our other hat. We looked at offshore safety and I think we concluded that steps were being taken - that most of us felt happy with - to deal with that and we dealt with that issue satisfactorily. The next issue was, were we going to look at culture or education or labour questions or what would you want to look at under that other mandate? Isn't that what we are looking at right now? The question is now, what do you want to look at next, as a committee, or do you want to look at anything? Perhaps you feel we don't need to bother with that part of our mandate. I think it is an important part of the mandate.
MR. DOWNE: I was just noticing your tie, Mr. Chairman. I don't know what all it says on there, but it is obviously an educational tie. Maybe education would be an appropriate one to bring forward.
MS. STEVENS: If I may, does everybody have a copy of what I passed out. I have extras here. This was what was delivered. These were the original lists.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does everyone have a copy?
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a suggestion if I may for the committee's consideration regarding subject and persons to come before us. It has to do with Section D in our submission, Tourism and Culture. I think with culture being provided with a somewhat higher profile than it had been in the past, through tourism and culture, that it may be appropriate to hear at this point in time from members of the cultural community.
[10:30 a.m.]
I would suggest, for one name, maybe Carmen Moir, who is involved with the Dartmouth Heritage Museum, and is trying to revive the cultural aspect of what used to be the City of Dartmouth and its citizens. I think he may be able to bring some interesting insight into how a government can, through its support - not only financially but through its moral support in other ways - assist communities - and in this case the Dartmouth community - with the heritage aspect of its progress over the last few years. It has been in quite a turmoil, and it may well be that he could give us some insight as to how government may well be able to improve their situation.
I would recommend that for tourism and culture and I am sure there are other areas in the province where honourable members could provide examples of people who could come forth and speak on that very important part of our provincial economy and our culture.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We also have two names that have been put forward by Mr. Dexter and Ms. O'Connell on Culture: Andrew Terris and Russell Kelly.
MS. O'CONNELL: On Mr. Olive's comment, it seems to me that it might be more useful, rather than to have one person from one museum, let's say, if we are going to look at this, to get somebody from an umbrella group, and maybe they could bring along some people. For example, Jim Lauzier from Heritage Trust, which takes in all the historic houses and all the small museums, I think, that aren't government. If we wanted to look at the government side of it, we could always get somebody like Deborah Trask, from the museums, who is in charge of all the buildings for the museums.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we just back up for one second. It was a good suggestion, but let's back up to the actual issue. We have Labour, Education, Tourism and Culture, Status of Women, and we have done things in Justice as well, with the permission of the minister. Can we decide that first, and then we will decide how we want to approach that. We have Education being mentioned, we have Culture being mentioned, are there any other suggestions?
MS. O'CONNELL: Mr. Chairman, the Status of Women is not, at the moment, within our mandate.
MS. STEVENS: Actually it is, because the Speaker gave us permission through the whole problem with it being left off by mistake. He said that is no problem - that was a couple of years ago - to deal with those issues, as he did with Justice. If the committee wanted to deal with those issues, they certainly could. It just doesn't show up in our written mandate.
MR. MACKINNON: One thought came to mind. Recently, on the weekend, there is concern, since we are dealing with Human Resources, and I may be wrong on this assumption, but I understand this environmental clinic that was set up four or five years ago, over in the Bedford area, is about the only one of its kind in Canada. It would be interesting to do some type of analysis or to hear from some witnesses on a number of different points of view on this particular issue, because of the impact that it does have on our human resources, both in the public and the private sector.
I know we have gone through the issue at the QE II, with all the nurses and so on. That was part and parcel of the rationale for the clinic. I know that with the amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act, that issue was raised, because everything comes in steps. We were dealing with the issue of chronic pain and the issue of environmental sensitivity. We saw last week where the RCMP were even considering charging a youth for wearing deodorant to school.
I am not sure how much of that can be extrapolated in terms of the market place, but it would be interesting to see what some of the factors are surrounding that particular issue. It is an issue that really hasn't been talked about a lot. Not to try to probe in and kind of beat up on the government for one particular reason or the other, but there are a lot of issues that over a long period of time, if the committee, in its wisdom, started hearing different points of view and probably tabulated some of this information so that on a future day, if it is required, a fairly in-depth policy position could be established, whether a Conservative, Liberal or, heaven forbid, NDP government.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would think we could do that but only out of the very narrow thing of the labour mandate. Am I wrong? If we looked at it as a whole of the Department of Health, we could only effect whether environmental illness is a legitimate illness.
MS. STEVENS: It would probably fall under the Community Services Committee mandate. But that committee hasn't really been meeting.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyway, we can entertain the suggestion and if we choose that route, fine. But I think we want to be careful to stay within our mandate as well. Any other suggestions? We have three out there now, and you had the list before you. We said we would vote and decide what we want to look at next.
MR. DEXTER: I agree with the tourism and culture suggestion. I would like to see us go ahead and have a look at that. I mentioned four to this committee. We often underestimate just what this brings into the province in terms of dollars and jobs created and how it enriches the lives of our citizenry in every little community. The Astor Theatre in Liverpool runs a great festival of plays and attracts people from around the world. But we don't often hear about it. I think it is important.
I guess I would like to hear, though, from my colleague about his suggestions with respect to education. I know privately he has made a couple of suggestions to me, but he hasn't said if he has in mind particular individuals he wanted to call and if so, what order, and why.
MR. DOWNE: I am not used to having my colleague lob a ball across my plate like this.
MR. DEXTER: I'm doing you a favour. (Laughter)
MR. DOWNE: Right. I thought education would be an appropriate one for us to deal with. Education and Culture used to be together, but Tourism and Culture is without question a big issue. I, being Tourism and Culture Critic have no problem with supporting Tourism and Culture, but I just think at this point in time, if you don't have education dealt with, and we don't have a good understanding of what is happening in education, then that is one of the bases for cultural development and tourism. Education is really the foundation of the issues we are talking about from a cultural perspective. My suggestion, or our suggestions - not mine personally, but the Liberal suggestions - were the President of the Teachers Union to talk about the teachers' perspective - what are some of the issues, opportunities and concerns - and/or the President of the School Boards Association to discuss board issues; would it be appropriate if education is the priority we have been talking about?
Certainly it has been written up in a number of government documents about the priority of this government with regard to education, and I would like to support their comments and ask that this committee consider education as a priority for discussion. I think it is an issue that is affecting each and every one of us and will continue to affect each and every one of us. It is better for us to have a better understanding of what is happening.
MS. O'CONNELL: I certainly do not disagree with Mr. Downe, but I am thinking about the current situation. The education situation is so volatile right now, and those people are so taken up with their own cause. On the other side of it, my fear as Tourism and Culture Critic - and it doesn't mean anybody agrees with me - is that given all this attention on these other issues that have come out of the budget, that tourism and culture might very well get the short shrift, say, in budget estimates or in the general run of things, just because we are all so preoccupied.
I think it would be a terrific opportunity for people from that sector to come here, while the other settles down, and I am not suggesting that we shouldn't have the education people in. But maybe while that situation is settling itself down, we could have some discussion with at least some people from the tourism or cultural sectors.
MR. OLIVE: Mark this day down because I cannot believe I agree with what Eileen just said 100 per cent. I think the most important part that I agree with is the fact that she makes a very good point about tourism and culture, particularly about culture getting lost in the mêlée of education at this point in time. It is very volatile out there. I am not sure we would get the information and the approach to the information in a format that would be acceptable to everybody on the committee at this point in time, and I really would be concerned it would get lost in the shuffle. I think Eileen is quite right. If we can concentrate on an area that has in the past, and hopefully will not in the future, been given second or third-class status in a budget process, culture and tourism is one that has to be there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we want an official vote or just agreement, a straw vote? How do we want to handle this? I mentioned we would vote on it. Could we just do a straw vote?
MR. DOWNE: I have no problem with a straw vote, whatever you want to call it. The question is, nobody is going to be able to come here for at least a month, probably two months, or a month and a half anyway. The budget will be long gone, dealt with, voted on, approved or rejected at that point in time. The reality of what we are facing will become even more acute. I agree that the issue today, if you are asking for these people to come in tomorrow in education, I agree with you, Tim. There is a fair amount of hype out there as it is right now. But if we are talking about a month to two months away before these people would even be able to come, by the time you send out notices and find out a time and schedule it and everything else, I am sure you are looking at two months.
We might not even be in the Legislature in two months. Well, we might be in there for another 12 months; probably the latter is closer to reality. But, nevertheless, this is not an issue we are talking about to bring these people in tomorrow, because it isn't going to happen tomorrow. That is why I suggested the issue of education.
If I can make one other observation, I think this is really quite a hallmark meeting. We have Russell voting in favour of Tim and Tim complimenting and agreeing with Eileen.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am getting warm fuzzies.
MR. DOWNE: No, it is not warm fuzzies, I just have to kind of pinch myself to see if I am in the same meeting with everybody here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, any more comments on what they want us to cover?
MR. OLIVE: I have one other comment. I would not presume that the education issue will not be an education issue two months from now. That is a big assumption.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's have a straw vote then.
Would all those in favour of looking at the cultural sector, please raise your hand.
Would all those in favour of looking at education, please raise your hand.
Clearly we are going to look at culture next, then perhaps education after that.
What aspect of culture now? This is so broad, Mr. Olive has us started. Is it possible to start that way and then broaden out?
MR. OLIVE: I think Eileen again made a good point. If we can have somebody in like Carmen Moir to talk about museums and perhaps somebody from the theatre arts community to talk about their aspect - Darrell mentioned the theatre in Lunenburg - they may be able to enlighten us quite a bit about how we, as a government, could help them. It is probably an ongoing thing. I don't know if you bring them all in at once or separately, I am new to this.
MR. DEXTER: There are two names on our list.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There are two names that I already mentioned, yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, one of the dilemmas we have over at Public Accounts is sometimes when we have a particular ratio and then we expect witnesses to show up at a particular time, it is always a scheduling problem, so what we normally do - and the honourable member for Eastern Shore is on that committee as well, so he will attest to the fact that what we do - is put three or four issues on the agenda at one time and then try to schedule so that we don't lock ourselves in just to education or just to labour or industry or whatever the issue would be. We don't lock ourselves down to a particular time-frame, let's say for the next two months we will deal with education or tourism or whatever, we get at least four or five into the mix approved, and then try to work on scheduling around that. I am not a regular on your committee, but I thought that may be a suggestion you might want to . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is an interesting suggestion and certainly I will entertain it, but I think we have already had the straw vote to deal with culture, right?
MS. O'CONNELL: Well, my suggestion is if we are going to do culture, to invite Andrew Terris who is the Cultural Network President; he might want to bring Keith MacPhail, the executive director. But it would seem that it would be good for us to ask him who the most profitable people would be to bring, if he wanted to bring in a couple of people. He might bring somebody from the Theatre Alliance, he might bring somebody from the museums and that way we get a bigger picture faster. If we are going to do that, I would certainly have a conversation with Andrew, and possibly with Russell Kelly from the Arts Council too, to see what two or three people could come together that would give us a really good overall view.
MR. DEXTER: I think this is an excellent suggestion because I don't think that we truly appreciate how multifaceted tourism and culture is. There are innumerable examples of things that take place in communities right across this province that fall into different categories or have niches of their own that they fill that we are just unaware of. I am always fascinated when I go around the province, during the summer particularly, and you happen upon these things. They are community-driven, volunteer-organized, very high quality, with professional entertainers, and add not only to the life of the community, but economically to the base.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Both large and small. The Annapolis Valley Apple Blossom Festival for the whole Valley, but then to each community in my area it has become very important.
MR. MACKINNON: From my own region - I guess I am speaking locally here - we have entities such as the Fortress of Louisbourg; Carol Whitfield has done a phenomenal job since she has taken over there. That is probably the single largest economic development tool in tourism that we have on Cape Breton Island. I really think with some of the issues mentioned before, that would be one individual you should consider too.
MR. DOWNE: Culture and tourism, as was just indicated, is a fairly broad body. I think it would be appropriate for us to first have a 20,000 foot elevated view of tourism and culture, not only currently but as it is proposed to be within this fiscal year, then take a look at layering off the different aspects of tourism and culture and how they interact. Then we can get into the issues that are on the cultural side specifically, with the barriers to succeed, whether it is the multimedia tax credit provision that was taken away, or whether it is the music industry that needs some sort of opportunities to be the music capital of Canada or whatever we want to do. There are great opportunities there from that cultural side and that arts side and, of course, then we get into the fine arts and others.
I think it would be appropriate first to take a high elevated view and then bring us down so that we have a broad perspective of the complexities and the opportunities of this dynamic industry and sector and department.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further comments from any member on how they want to approach this? Community museums is certainly something we want to look at.
MR. OLIVE: Just for clarification, Mr. Chairman, on Eileen's comment, are you suggesting that this other individual or individuals would go and look for the people to come to the committee? In other words, for example, I mentioned Carmen Moir only because he is pretty active over there. Are you suggesting that unless these other people wanted Carmen here, he would not be here?
MS. O'CONNELL: No, I was suggesting that we take their advice because . . .
MR. OLIVE: No, I don't have a problem with that, but if they don't mention Carmen (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are running out of time. The main cultural groups in the province are the Cultural Network and the Arts Council, right? Are there others? Is there a board of museum directors or . . .
MS. O'CONNELL: The Heritage Trust is very big.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don't we invite the people on these overarching things. Community museums is something that is very close to my heart too, because Canning is working on one for Wilf Carter who lived in the home I now live in. (Interruptions)
Heritage Trust, the Cultural Network, the Arts Council; are there any other overarching organizations? We can invite the head ones and sort of get started on it that way. That is what you are suggesting, I hear. Would those three witnesses from those areas be a good start?
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
MR. OLIVE: The next meeting, Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Our next meeting is May 30th, 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. We can change that to later if you would prefer. Do you want to change that to 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.? (Interruptions) Okay, 9:00 a.m. is better.
MS. STEVENS: Before you leave, usually our ABC meetings are the last Tuesday of each month. At this time I send out our summer schedule so all the Cabinet will know and the deputy ministers and everybody sort of preparing to bring names forward. I have a suggestion. In July, if we could possibly move the meeting to July 18th, and the reason being July 25th is the day after the Tall Ships leave and this town is going to be insane. So if we moved it up to July 18th - and I know it probably might conflict with your leadership, that is that weekend before - because July 25th, this town is going to be crazy and I would have to let people know. (Interruptions) Yes, would that be all right, appropriate if we had that on July 18th?
MR. DEXTER: It doesn't matter to me.
MS. STEVENS: I just wanted to run that by you because I would like to put out that schedule and also, so you are aware, and I had mentioned this to the subcommittee, there will be an ad appearing, hopefully it will be Saturday, for ABCs. It is time for the six month ad,
but (Interruptions) The biannual. There is the process of the whole review going on, but legally this needs to happen so these boards can continue until they are actually reviewed and that there is some kind of bill to replace these boards because they have to run until there is something there. Just so you know and you are aware, that is probably going to happen this Saturday.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Motion to adjourn.
MR. MACKINNON: So moved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We stand adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 10:55 a.m.]
