MR. CHAIRMAN: I call the meeting of the Human Resources Committee to order this morning. We can start perhaps by going around the table and introducing ourselves and we can start with Mr. Hurlburt.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming this morning. Our weather isn't the best so we are glad that you all made it and had no difficulties.
There is one piece of correspondence I would like to bring to your attention before we begin. It is a letter from the Executive Council Office addressed to me from Alison Scott. It is withdrawing Ms. Zena Foster's name as a person to be considered. You probably noticed in your package that Zena Foster's name was there and had been stood on November 27th. So that name has currently been withdrawn and we won't be dealing with that name today.
DR. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that I am pleased to see that and I hope it is for the reason that she was working in an MLA's constituency office. We have consistently opposed that as being a potential conflict of interest and I think it is the proper thing to do. I am pleased to see that you were informed of that, although we did note, at the time, the person's qualifications seemed to be excellent for the position.
MR. CHAIRMAN: With that, I guess we can start the order of business for the day which is some appointments to agencies, boards and commissions.
MR. RICHARD HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, I move to the Department of Community Services, Children and Family Services Act Advisory Committee, Paula Altenburg as a member. I so move. (Interruption)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. MacDonald.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I have some questions and I have a concern about this appointment. First of all, I note that under the Act, the board is composed of representatives from various groups; representatives from the agency, from the minister, a legal aid lawyer, persons of cultural and linguistic backgrounds and persons whose children have been in care or in need of protective services. This applicant indicates that - or at least the guidelines that were given from the Department of Community Services indicate - this person will sit as a parent. However, nowhere in the resumé of the applicant does it indicate what her background is with respect to being a parent with respect to the composition of the board, two persons whose children have been or may be in need of protective services. So I think we have incomplete information here with respect to whether or not this person is just a parent or if, in fact, this person has been a foster parent, an adoptive parent or a person whose children have been in care. So this is the first point I would like to make. I think the information is incomplete.
Secondly, I had opportunity to speak with this applicant some time ago on a separate matter when she was serving on the board. At that time, she disclosed to me that she had worked for Brooke Taylor in his office and is an active member of the Progressive Conservative Party. I know that we will be looking at a whole barrage of appointments today that appear as much politically motivated as anything and for that reason I want to raise my objection to this particular appointment.
MR. TIMOTHY OLIVE: Just on a point, Mr. Chairman, the honourable member did mention it in her comment that, in fact, this lady was on the board before, so it is a reappointment and not a new appointment. Obviously the work on the board that she did before had some merit and the screening committee and government saw fit to reappoint her to this board for a new mandate. I think that should be noted.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Olive. Any other discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Education, College of Art and Design, Nova Scotia, Board of Governors, I so move Victor Syperek as a member; the Student Assistance Higher Appeal Board, I so move Michelle Fougere as a member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it the committee's wish that the appointments go together or do they need to go separately?
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: The motion was for them together.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Normally it would be separately, but I don't think . . .
MR. CHISHOLM: They are NDP.
MR. STEELE: . . . we need to address these individually, they could go together.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Then we will address these both together. Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. CECIL CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Environment and Labour, there are a number and I would just seek how you would like to address those, either individually or as they fall under the department. Does the Opposition have a problem with . . .
MR. STEELE: Speaking for us, we weren't intending to address these, so it's fine with us if we do them together.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, can I just go through the slate, is that okay?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it appears that that would be very acceptable.
MR. CLARKE: For the record, under the Department of Environment and Labour, Coal Mines Regulation Act, Board of Examiners, I so move John T. Ling as a member; the Crane Operators Appeal Board, I so move Cameron McIntyre as chairman and member, Carson R. Dares and Bruce Smith as members; the Labour Standards Tribunal, Nova Scotia, I so move Tony Mozvik as vice-chairman and alternate member; Power Engineers and Operators Board, I so move Ross E. Farrant, Barrie W. Fiolek, Gordon D. MacNeil, John D. MacNeil and Curtis L. Purdy as members; and Power Engineers and Operators Appeal Committee, I so move Mark W. Savory as chairman and member, Derek (Todd) Nickerson and Charles Pearce as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It has been moved. Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, Department of Finance, Gaming Corporation of Nova Scotia, I so move C. Sean O'Connor as chairman and member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, Department of Health, AIDS Advisory Commission, I so move Thelma Coward-Ince, Julianne R. MacKinnon and Dorothy Malcom as members; Dental Board, Provincial . . .
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to do these separately.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will do each individual, so we will just be doing the AIDS Advisory Commission currently. I believe Mr. Hurlburt has covered those three names, so that's the motion that is before the floor. Any discussion?
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, Dental Board, Provincial, I so move Yvette d'Entremont, Dr. John W. Miller, Dr. Andrew Nette and Dwight Rudderham as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Discussion? Mr. Steele.
[9:15 a.m.]
MR. STEELE: I had a question about Dr. Nette. I'm sure he is perfectly qualified, but as I was going through the book it was curious, his application for this job was submitted on May 20, 1998. He applied for this position three and a half years ago, and in fact his letter is addressed to Dr. Jim Smith, who was then the Minister of Health. I'm just wondering . . .
MR. HURLBURT: You must have held that one back.
DR. SMITH: There seemed to be a whole box of stuff missing when I left. (Laughter)
MR. STEELE: I'm just wondering what kind of standards the government is applying when they haul out an application that is three and a half years old. Is this acceptable to the committee, to have an application that is three and a half years old, addressed to a different minister, referencing a different vacancy?
MR. OLIVE: His qualifications haven't changed.
MR. STEELE: If this is the standard the government is applying, that's fine. I am just asking the question, is that something that the government members on the committee find acceptable?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody? This would certainly be something that has gone through the review panel, the screening panels, as well as the minister responsible. They certainly have seen fit to review qualifications and determine that the date of the application was not a reason for any disqualification of any kind, and therefore could be put forward. I personally don't see any problem with it being here if it's gone through those levels of scrutiny. Any other discussion?
DR. SMITH: He is a reappointment. That's correct, is it, as far as we know?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have to flip through my book.
DR. SMITH: I have met with that person. I know the gentleman is a very well qualified person. I don't think that's the issue here.
MR. CLARKE: That would explain it, it expired September 7th.
MR. OLIVE: It's a reappointment.
MR. STEELE: On the form, it says reappointment. I do note it says previous appointment expired September 7, 2001.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, Health Authorities, District 6, Pictou County, I so move Craig Clarke as a member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's moved. Is there any discussion?
DR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, one applicant, is that correct, that there was only one and that was the person, Question 10 on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Guidelines? I'm just wondering, for information, is there a lack of applicants for these positions?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It would appear those are the only applicants that we have, yes. The question has been called for. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, Pharmaceutical Society, Council of Nova Scotia, I so move Franklyn Burgoyne and Jean Mary McDougall as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Discussion? Mr. Steele, then Dr. Smith.
MR. STEELE: I have a comment about each one of these. Mr. Burgoyne says in his cover letter, "As you can see from the attached resume, my education and 13 years experience in the pharmaceutical field make me a perfect candidate for this position." But when you actually look at his resumé his 13 years of experience in the pharmaceutical business ended in 1972, so he's 30 years out of the business, yet he's citing that as a reason to be appointed. I am just wondering what standards the government is applying here, whether, to the government members, that's acceptable.
The other one is Jean Mary McDougall, in the Form "A" it says, Qualifications, "CV attached - lawyer with dedication to personal injury law". The problem is, of course, she is not a lawyer dedicated to anything. I'm just wondering where the error is here, whether the government members are willing to consider deferring this until we can clarify whether she is being appointed on a basis that doesn't in fact exist, or whether the Form "A" is in error. I would like to clarify that, please.
My suspicion is that the Form "A" is incorrect, but I would like somebody official from the government to actually confirm that, and to indicate that she's being appointed for other reasons, other than the one actually cited, which is that she is a lawyer. (Interruption) Jean Mary McDougall, under the Pharmaceutical Society.
MR. OLIVE: Question.
MR. STEELE: Sorry, do the government members feel that is acceptable to have that information? I mean if the question has been called for, does that mean that we just shouldn't bother when there are these kinds of discrepancies?
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, if I may, this has been vetted by the screening committee. I'm not in a position to dispute whether or not they have done their homework. I presume it has reached the Human Resources Committee based on a thorough review of this individual's qualifications and application. Therefore, I call the question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we did have one other speaker. Dr. Smith had indicated he was wishing to speak.
DR. SMITH: This being the Senate and the sober second thought (Laughter) They could be making a mistake, Mr. Chairman. My point was the same as Mr. Steele that on the Form "A", "CV attached - lawyer with dedication to personal injury law", and there is no evidence of that. So I think there is some misunderstanding there or just a typing error on Form "A".
The issue I had with these was something similar to what Mr. Steele was saying, I wasn't clear whether these are to be laypeople and if so, are they hooked into the pharmaceutical industry too tight or are they to be, as Mr. Steele has said, having pharmaceutical experience or that type of thing. Can you clarify that, Mr. Chairman? Are these the lay representatives? Because if so, then these people would sit on committees such as investigative and discipline committees possibly as lay members or are they to be from the pharmaceutical industry. In reading what was before us, I couldn't determine that. I think it makes a difference.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Based on the comments of the member for Dartmouth East, perhaps in hindsight, and taking his points quite seriously, perhaps we should stay this one particular appointment until we get a clarification on that. Not to question the screening panel, but it may well be that, given the comments by the member for Dartmouth East, there may be reason to stand this until the next meeting, until we can get a clarification.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that acceptable to the committee?
DR. SMITH: My concern about both regarding whether they should be lay or representing the industry but certainly the Form "A" needs clarification on the second appointment, Ms. McDougall.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Olive, would you clarify what it is or who it is you would like to stay?
MR. OLIVE: Well, pre-empting it with a comment, the comment was made by the member opposite regarding Mr. Burgoyne's 30 years out of the business. There are many people of senior status over 50 years old who still have a lot left to give to this province and I would hate to think that this man's age is a detriment to his ability. So having said that, no, I would like us to move Franklyn Burgoyne through as a member and stay the second appointment until we get a clarification.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So we have a motion on the table for Frank Burgoyne.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, if the member for Dartmouth East is going to make stupid comments, I feel bound to . . .
MR. OLIVE: Dartmouth East?
MR. STEELE: Dartmouth South is going to make stupid comments, I feel bound, just because we are on the record, to respond to it. The member knows very well that it's not because of Mr. Burgoyne's age that I objected to this, it wasn't anything . . .
MR. OLIVE: You made that point.
MR. STEELE: . . . of the sort. No, I didn't make that point. Let me make it very clear right now (Interruptions) On the record, don't you dare misquote me, don't you dare misquote me on the record. (Interruptions)
MR. OLIVE: We'll go back to the record. (Interruptions)
MR. STEELE: Don't you dare misquote me on the record. What I said was that he cited his experience in the industry and he's 30 years out of the business. That's what I said.
MR. OLIVE: Which implies what? Which implies what? Explain that.
MR. STEELE: Which implies that he's 30 years out of the business is what it implies.
MR. OLIVE: And that he's not qualified.
MR. CHAIRMAN: For the record, gentlemen, I think we certainly have what you said recorded so it will be there for everyone to take a look at and determine what was said. Ms. Maureen MacDonald.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I think, though, in the interest of having this board function in the best way possible, it is important to understand whether or not these persons, these particular appointments are for lay positions on the board or whether in fact they are for industry representation on the board. I think that is the important point to have clarification around, both of these individuals have a history of involvement, participation in the pharmaceutical industry with a particular set of understandings and interests that go along with that. This board is a board that is very important in terms of protecting the public interest. We amended the Pharmaceutical Act not so long ago for persons in this particular profession. These people will have a role to play in determining whether or not individuals are maintaining ethical codes of behaviour and standards and that kind of stuff.
It's very important that we know if these are lay representatives to that group, or if in fact they come from a particular set of interests around the pharmaceutical industry. I would submit that both of these appointments can be set aside until we get clarification. We're not saying that they shouldn't be appointed, but at least set them aside until we have that information. This is in the public interest.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just for some clarification, if we look at the Standing Committee on Human Resources Guidelines, Question 3 for Franklyn Burgoyne, it talks about the qualifications. One of the qualification is a request for laypersons in the non-health profession, therefore it would appear that Franklyn Burgoyne, having been out of the business for 30 years, with no particular affiliation, would be considered a lay appointment. That's just reviewing some of the information that's here. For that reason, I would suggest that we put Mr. Burgoyne forward on the floor, to look at approving his application.
Any other discussion on Mr. Burgoyne?
DR. SMITH: It looks like the Governor in Council process for Mr. Burgoyne is appointing him as a layperson, that's what you can get from here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
DR. SMITH: If he's been out of the industry for 30 years, I think he's a layperson with experience. I personally don't have a problem with that. The other person is a Governor in Council process as well. There are three of those on the board. I have more problem with her appointment, not only with the Form "A" inaccuracies, perhaps, but also she doesn't seem to be like a lay member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could deal with Mr. Burgoyne and then we could move on, we are not going to move these together. I think we may be doing something that will satisfy your concerns.
This vote would be for Mr. Franklyn Burgoyne, Pharmaceutical Society, Council of Nova Scotia. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Two abstentions are noted.
Mr. Olive, I believe the next individual was someone you had been discussing, so perhaps you would like to deal with that again.
MR. OLIVE: Do you mean Jean Mary McDougall?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. OLIVE: I would recommend to the board that we stand that until we get a clarification as per Dr. Smith's inquiry.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So stood.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, Council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia, I so move Douglas Lloy as a member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Discussion? Mr. Steele.
[9:30 a.m.]
MR. STEELE: Mr. Lloy is a law school classmate of mine, a fine fellow and part of that rare species, the Cape Breton Tory. I think if you look at Mr. Lloy's CV you will notice that his appointment to federal and provincial tribunals pretty much coincides exactly with periods when Tories were in power. I noted to some surprise, and some jealousy I have to admit, the amount of money that's paid for this particular position on the College of Physicians and Surgeons, I think this is quite possibly the richest tribunal around. It is $500 a day for the day of orientation, $100 an hour for the committee meetings, and $1,000 a day for the investigation committee, plus expenses for out-of-town members. No doubt those numbers were put together for doctors, but there is no indication here that it would be any different for lawyers or anybody else. I would just say that Mr. Lloy is a fine fellow who's doing very well for himself here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for those comments. Any others? Hearing none, we will call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, the Review Board under the Hospitals Act, I so move Richard W. Cregan, Q.C. as a member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: This is one that I want to spend a little bit of time on, because this is one - we'll get into the Liquor Corporation stuff later - I have to tell you, that disturbs me the most of all the stuff that is going to come before us today. Let me tell you why. Those of you who have been to these committee meetings before will know that there's a small list of quasi-judicial tribunals that I've always said have to be absolutely above politics, and this is one of the most important ones. Every time this one comes up I say the same thing. This
is one of the few tribunals - in fact as far as I know the only non-criminal tribunal - that has the power to detain a person against their will, the most precious and valuable right we have as a citizen, to be free.
This tribunal has the power to order that somebody be held against their will. What is not apparent from the book, in Mr. Cregan's appointment, is that the current chairman of this tribunal is not being reappointed. You wouldn't know that until you read between the lines or unless you know a little bit about this tribunal, like I do. The current chairman is Elaine Gibson. She is a professor at the Dalhousie Law School, she is the associate director of the Health Law Institute and she has served on this tribunal for a number of years. She served with distinction, she served well, and she has earned the respect of every stakeholder in this very difficult business of deciding who should be detained in psychiatric facilities.
Now Professor Gibson, who I will say, while I'm talking about her background, was first appointed by the Liberals, a most excellent appointment. I think, in fact, it was under Dr. Smith that she was first appointed. It is my understanding that Professor Gibson is willing to be reappointed, would like to be reappointed, but she is not going to be. Whose going to be appointed instead? It's Richard W. Cregan, Q.C., somebody who I don't really know. He has just recently retired from a practice of corporate law.
Let me read to you what he says about his qualifications for this position. This is in his cover letter, "I do not have direct experience in the administration of the Hospitals' Act, but have dealt with competency issues in my estate planning practice. I have practiced law for thirty years. I have a good academic record. I have always welcomed the opportunity of getting up to speed on a new area of the law."
So instead of a very capable, very respected, very experienced chair, we are getting a corporate lawyer who according to his cover letter is looking for something to do with his spare time. Now, not all lawyers are interchangeable, there are specialties. If you want to build a bridge you don't ask an electrical engineer, even though they are also an engineer, you don't ask a software engineer. If you want to have a liver transplanted you don't ask a heart surgeon and if you want to decide who should and should not be detained against their will in psychiatric facilities, you sure as hell don't pick a corporate lawyer. Do you all understand that? Do you all understand the importance of this? This is the wrong person for the job and the right person is being let go. If you vote to support this today, the right person for the job is being let go. Thank you.
MR. OLIVE: Question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the intervention. If there is no other discussion, we will call for the question. Would all those in favour of motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, you should all be ashamed of yourselves. You go home today and you look your families in the eye and you tell them what you did for Nova Scotia today. You put a corporate lawyer in charge of deciding who gets detained against their will. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it's time to move along. Thank you.
MR. STEELE: You should be embarrassed and if you're not embarrassed, I'm embarrassed for you.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: We're embarrassed for you.
MR. OLIVE: Oh, put a sock in it.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Justice, the Human Rights Commission of Nova Scotia, Karen Durnford and Delbert Muise as commissioners. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
MR. STEELE: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I meant to vote yes for those as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you.
The motion is carried.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Judicial Appointments Review Committee, Gwen Haliburton as a member. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Dr. Smith.
DR. SMITH: What we are seeing here now, Mr. Chairman, and this is one of our concerns we bring today to the committee, is the adding on of members on one committee such as the Judicial Appointments Review Committee and also a person being a member of a substantive committee such as the College of Physicians and Surgeons and this is what we have in this situation. Ms. Haliburton is not a member of the investigative committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons so she doesn't qualify for the $1,000 per day type of thing but she is, as was mentioned by Mr. Steele, a member of probably one of the highest paying committees.
When we took over governing in 1993, one thing that we noticed was that there were several people who were on several committees and they had grown over the years. I think that is what we are seeing here today, we are seeing layering. There were people, good Tories who supported the Buchanan Government throughout all those years, who were members of committees who were actually getting upwards of $75,000 a year from government committees. So, don't for one minute think this is just chicken feed. We may look and say, oh, it is only $100 a day or something like that but this adds up. Although I wouldn't quite agree with what Mr. Steele said about Mr. Cregan earlier with some of his comments, but there was an element of truth to what he was saying - probably everything he said was truthful - but I would support that he is someone who is retired and now looking for something to do. Being an official Tory committee member can be a full-time job for some of these people if you get on two or three of these committees. This, I think, is what is happening here.
Ms. Haliburton is a well-qualified person. She has been very active in the community. She is certainly a strong identified Tory. She ran in 1993 for the PCs in Dartmouth East and she was a good person who presented herself well. I don't have a problem - I want to make that perfectly clear - with Ms. Haliburton as a person but I think what we are seeing today, and as we get to the rest of this book, we are really seeing a dropping back.
It is sort of Tory times again and while I kept silent a bit on some of Mr. Steele's comments, I have to agree. Mr. Cregan, for instance, is a Tory. He didn't mention that he is a Tory contributor, as was Mr. Lloy. Both Mr. Lloy and his wife are Tory contributors as well but I didn't want to comment on that because I think just because somebody is a government supporter, that doesn't mean they are disqualified. That is obvious. I could go on a little bit more here but I will conclude my comments. I just wanted to point this out to the committee. Are there not qualified Nova Scotians around that we have to appoint multiple persons to multiple boards? That's my question here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your comments. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: I agree with everything that Dr. Smith just said, and I would like to add a few things as well. Let me start with the pretense again that I spoke about on a previous date, Ms. Haliburton, who was a Cabinet Minister, she was a Cabinet Minister but it's not on her resumé anywhere. If I was a Cabinet Minister - maybe I will be one day, maybe I won't be - it would be on my resumé. The whole resume here never (Interruptions) There is no indication anywhere on the resumé of something that's obviously been a very important part of her life, namely her devotion to the Progressive Conservative Party. It's just the pretense, that she's been a Cabinet Minister but she doesn't even say it, as if we don't know. Anyway.
Then you get to what this committee is for, this is to appoint judges, this is to appoint Family Court judges, Provincial Court judges, the real workhorses of the judicial and legal system. These are the people who are dealing with the heavy caseloads every day, doing difficult work. They have to be just absolutely the best people available. The people appointing them also have to be above the slightest reproach or suspicion of partisan involvement. Maybe she was the best person from among the people who applied, maybe she was the best person the government could find, but I know that for a committee like this I would just like to see a little bit more proof of it. Do you know what? This kind of appointment gives a bad name to the justice system. If she's the best person available, prove it. Prove it.
There are only six applicants. Why don't we have an in camera meeting of this committee. We can review the other six applicants. Nobody else in the world needs to know, but at least the committee members will be able to reassure themselves that Gwen Haliburton was the very best person available to serve in this role.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that this particular appointment be deferred until the committee can review the names of the other applicants for the position.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I second that motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe we already have a motion on the floor for the appointment of Gwen Haliburton to this board.
MR. STEELE: I know, and I'm amending that so that it's now a deferral. I am moving that it be tabled. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point in time we will deal with the first motion. The first motion is to appoint Gwen Haliburton. If there is no further discussion, we'll call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, the Nova Scotia Legal Aid Commission, I so move M. Joseph Rizzetto as a director.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is moved. Is there discussion? Hearing none, we'll call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
One abstention from Ms. Maureen MacDonald.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, the Nova Scotia Police Commission, I so move Nadine Cooper Mont as chair and member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is moved. Is there discussion? Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: I would just note for the record that Ms. Cooper Mont was a person who fairly or unfairly was widely perceived to be a Tory who was elevated to the position of deputy minister under the Buchanan Government. Rightly or wrongly, she was one - I think it was - nine deputy ministers who were dismissed by the incoming Liberals in 1993. She certainly has a good Tory pedigree and has had absolutely no connection with the law or the police business since she was dismissed by the Liberals in 1993. In fact, I believe she has been running a pottery firm.
[9:45 a.m.]
The Police Commission is a commission to whom citizens turn when they have a problem with the police. If a police officer is disciplined, they also go to the Police Commission to have their case heard. It's important that the people on this commission be absolutely above reproach, without the slightest hint of partisan involvement.
Maybe she's the best person for the job, but I sure would like to see more proof than I have available to me here that among all the available Nova Scotians, among all the people who applied that Nadine Cooper Mont is in fact the best qualified person. As with every appointment here, the minister has certified here, it says that in his opinion she's the best qualified person from among the applicants. If the minister is that confident, let's see the proof. What are you all so afraid of over there? What are you all so afraid of? Let's see the proof before you ask us to appoint these Tories to important positions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? Mr. Gaudet.
MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for you. Could you inform the committee if the Premier is aware of all these political appointments coming before the committee this morning? When John Hamm was running for public office back on July 24, 1999, John Hamm basically talked about reducing patronage. I am just wondering if, prior to the election, he was trying to persuade the people of Nova Scotia to vote for him, if this was one of his promises that he made at the time, that he would certainly be looking at reducing patronage, and here this morning we have a former federal Tory Cabinet Minister, a former provincial Tory Cabinet Minister, we have a former provincial Tory candidate, we have numerous donors to the Tory Party - we have approximately 10 people - plus we have many who are connected with the provincial Tory Party.
I am just curious, maybe in time for Christmas it's Christmastime for the Tories in Nova Scotia. I am just wondering if the Premier is aware of all these political appointments this morning, someone who told Nova Scotians back in 1999 that he would certainly be reducing patronage appointments. Here we are, maybe in light of Christmas, let's forget about what we promised Nova Scotians two years ago, we are now elected, let's do as we choose.
Mr. Chairman, I'm just curious could you, for my information, maybe for everyone around this committee meeting, tell us if the Premier is aware of these appointments that are coming before this committee?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It certainly wouldn't be appropriate for me to speak on behalf of the Premier, however I am sure you're aware that all the names before us have gone through the screening panels, have gone through the ministers responsible and have gone through Cabinet for their approval prior to coming here. So with that information, I guess we have to draw our own conclusions, but that, perhaps, is something that you would be better off to ask our Premier.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, maybe, for the record, the fact that these appointments have gone through Cabinet, the Premier was made aware of these appointments appearing before the committee this morning. So our Premier, who basically promised Nova Scotians in 1999 less patronage, is aware that all these Tory supporters of his are before the committee this morning.
MR. OLIVE: I can't let that go. It's very interesting, when some names come up the honourable members opposite pass them by. Just in responding to the Leader of the Liberal Party, I didn't hear a lot of comment when Dr. Kinley, a former Liberal MLA, was appointed to the district health authority by this government, by our Premier; that Hubert d'Entremont, who actually was quite a substantial financial contributor to the honourable member who just spoke, in his riding, was appointed to the Shelburne District Health Authority No. 2; or George Cook, who is a financial contributor to the Queens Liberal candidate, was appointed to the District Health Authority No. 1.
I am not quite sure why you didn't mention those, why you seem to think that just a couple of appointments today malign the whole system. Wendy Purdy donated to the Cumberland South Liberal candidate in 1998; Pamela Bishop donated to Annapolis Liberal MLA, Laurie Montgomery's campaign. We could go on and on and on, and since this government came to power that's what has happened.
I could go through another list. I could get all kinds for the NDP as well. For the socialist hordes who say we are not looking after their interests, we are in fact looking after them. Prior to 1999, and the honourable member does know because he was very much involved, that wasn't the case. You only had to look at the board appointments prior to 1999,
through from 1993 to 1999, to know that you could not have sat here at a Human Resources meeting and listed Tory appointments to ABCs. You would have had a great deal of difficulty pulling out three or four. I haven't seen you do that, and I haven't seen the honourable member for Dartmouth East do that either.
I would suggest that you use some caution when you attempt to malign the Premier and our government in its board appointments, when in fact there are a number of very high-profile Liberals and socialists being appointed to boards because they are good people and because they are the best people to put on the board given the applicants that are there. That's been the philosophy of the government, that's been our practice, as has been shown by the few that I did mention. I think you should be somewhat cautious when you start throwing aspersions at the Premier about his commitment to open up the system, because I think as a government we've certainly proven that, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: Thanks very much for that. In fact there has been a study of patronage during the Liberal years, and in fact the only quantitative study ever done of patronage in Nova Scotia was done by me as part of my Master's work for my LL.M. degree. Of course . . .
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Well, what are you doing here then? (Laughter)
MR. STEELE: I'm sorry I didn't hear that, it's probably just as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It probably is, yes.
MR. STEELE: In fact, I do have the numbers if the member wants the hard numbers about how many New Democrats and Tory donors and Liberals were appointed, I have the numbers and I would be glad to share them with all the members of the committee. Liberal patronage practices are going to come under the microscope in January at the Archie Kaiser Human Rights hearing, which is finally coming on for a hearing in January. This was the gentleman who applied for positions on the Psychiatric Facilities Review Board and the Criminal Code Review Board, and was denied. The person who was appointed was a Liberal who had no previous experience in the mental health business of any kind, in fact very similar to what we just saw earlier this morning. We'll worry about the Liberals in January, because they didn't listen to the Tories, they didn't listen to the NDP, now they are going to have to answer to the Human Rights Commission.
The point that the member for Dartmouth South missed again this morning, and he always does, is that the answer to allegations of Tory patronage isn't, well we appoint Liberals and New Democrats too, all governments did that, even in their worst days the Liberals appointed people from other Parties. The real issue here is about who is the best
qualified person. This is the only area of endeavour in Nova Scotia where the principle of appointing the best qualified person isn't just accepted without question.
If the member for Dartmouth South was running a business, as he did once, or me, in government agencies, when you have a job competition, you pick the best qualified person. It kind of goes without saying. Everybody says, well, yeah of course. Then you get into serving the public on these ABCs and suddenly that's not the principle that's applicable. Suddenly it's well, they're good enough. Just imagine anybody running a business in the private sector and hiring people on the basis of well, they're good enough, they might not be the best but they are good enough.
MR. OLIVE: So says you.
MR. STEELE: All I'm saying to the member for Dartmouth South and to everybody is that if Nadine Cooper Mont is the best qualified person from among the 20 applicants, as certified by the minister, then prove it. Don't just ask us to take your word for it, prove it. I'm ready to work as hard as I need to to verify that she's the best qualified person, and if she is I will stand first in line to approve her appointment. What I say today is what I've always said, this committee doesn't have the information before it that would justify making that decision. That's why I'm opposed to this particular appointment.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be in the room when the honourable member who just spoke speaks to Leo McKay, who we appointed to the Construction Industry Panel of the Labour Relations Board, who is the former Secretary of the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour; or Wendy Panagopoulos, former NDP candidate in Guysborough-Port Hawkesbury; or Rick Clarke, who is an ex-officio member of the NDP caucus and is President of the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour, or was - I don't know if he still is or maybe he has a full-time job in the caucus now - or Rob Wells, regular NDP financial contributor, including the campaigns of Kevin Deveaux.
I guess these people are just good enough. In his opinion they are just good enough because if they were Tories they would only be just good enough. Does that mean that NDP representatives and people we have seen to be the best qualified and have appointed to these boards, that they go beyond being just good enough? Now they are the best because they are of your persuasion, shall we say? You know, you can't have it both ways. You can't dump on the government for finding people who are best qualified and then saying, okay, well, yeah, but they are Tories, they can't be any good, they can only be just good enough and then you don't talk about the NDP, about well, they are not good enough, they are the best people qualified.
You don't say that. The honourable member should, Mr. Chairman, clarify this issue. Let's talk about are they all just good enough? Because if they are, I would like to know what Rick Clarke would think of the honourable member saying that he probably isn't the best qualified but he is good enough so let's appoint him. Thank you.
MR. STEELE: I have a question for the member for Dartmouth South. Is Nadine Cooper Mont the best qualified person from among the 20 applicants?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it might be time for us to move along to another question.
MR. STEELE: No, no. I really want to hear the answer to that question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But I don't believe this is the forum for questions between members across the floor.
MR. OLIVE: Right.
MR. STEELE: It's not? There is no opportunity for discussion here?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We certainly have in camera meetings or other meetings where - I think you are fully aware that the information is not available to the members of this committee so it is very difficult for anyone to answer that question and I believe you are aware of that.
MR. STEELE: I am aware of that. That is my point exactly. We don't know whether these are the best qualified people or not. We have no idea because we're not told. The only people with the information is the government and they're not telling anybody. That's the problem.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And with that, I believe it's time to go to the question.
MR. GAUDET: One quick comment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. GAUDET: I understand Nadine Cooper Mont had applied February 6th. This is well ahead before the advertisement came up. Is that standard procedure?
MR. OLIVE: It's in the ongoing ad in the paper, I believe.
MR. GAUDET: It is an ongoing ad.
MR. OLIVE: Like they are repeated. If you look at the ads every six months, you will see a number of these boards are in every ad and when you apply - if I may, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, go ahead.
MR. OLIVE: When you apply, the application is kept. If you recall, we agreed here to take away the cut-off time so that if people were on vacation, if people were otherwise employed or busy and didn't see the ad and it came to their attention either through your caucus, our caucus or somebody in the street that they had an opportunity to go back and look at that list. Many of these appointments are duplicated on all of the ads because there are appointments ongoing in them. I hope that clarifies the issue, but that is the main reason; they are kept on file.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, that is very helpful because we did have a suspicion that this could have been that she had a heads-up, that she would be replacing Jean Bealer as chairman. It's nice to be assured that that wasn't the case, the fact that she didn't have a heads-up and that's why her letter arrived in February. I think for the information the committee has now, shame on us for having those thoughts. (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for those kind words, Dr. Smith.
Let's go to the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye.
Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, the Review Board under the Criminal Code, Honourable William J. Grant, chairman and member, and Dr. Richard Howard as a member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion?
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, this is another one of those boards. This is the criminal sister - if I could put it that way - to the Review Board under the Hospitals Act, also known as the Psychiatric Facilities Review Board and the quality of appointments to this one are equally as important as to the other one and I am pleased that two very capable people are being reappointed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your comments.
MR. OLIVE: Question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question has been called. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, I guess at this juncture, maybe we will probably go individually. Is that the wish of the Opposition?
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Do you know something we don't know?
MR. CLARKE: Well, no, I just figure you're on a roll now.
[10:00 a.m.]
MR. STEELE: Just to make a suggestion, perhaps subject to what the others think, we could do the CGA Association separately and perhaps we could do all of the Regional Assessment Appeal Courts together. I don't see any need to separate those out.
MR. CLARKE: So, Mr. Chairman, with that said, for the Nova Scotia Certified General Accountants Association, I move the names of Gabrielle Morrison and Karen K. Stone as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, I call for the question.
MR. OLIVE: Question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, for the Regional Assessment Appeal Courts, I am going to move en bloc: for the Central Region, Jean V. Webb as member; for the Eastern Region, William Burke and William F. Meehan as members; for the Northern Region, Charles F. Cox and Jeffrey R. Hunt as members; for the Southern Region, J.C. Reddy and J.D.F. Theakston as members; and for the Western Region, Ronald B. Twohig as member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion? Mr. Steele and then Dr. Smith.
DR. SMITH: I have comments on several members here, although they have been moved en bloc. This is where it starts, what we labelled over in our caucus in the last couple of days, Christmas in Tory land. Those who have read the book learned that Joe Clark had a bunch of patronage appointments on his desk when he lost the government before Christmas and that was not to be repeated with this government, although a simple Cabinet shuffle shouldn't really threaten the government, I don't think. I don't think it could be that bad even with this group today, so I don't think the government is going to fall. There seems to be a real push to get the patronage appointments so from here on to the end of today's appointments, I just want to be clear that we have grave difficulties, in spite of the comments made by the member for Dartmouth South, because this is now riddled with patronage appointments.
The first person is, again, my concerns about appointing Jean Webb, who is an identified Tory but we will just leave that in passing, but she is also chairman of the Residential Tenancies Board; again, a dual appointment. Maybe I could make my comments as we go and deal with them.
Mr. Meehan is a lawyer but he has no resumé attached. I thought that was something that we had addressed before as a committee.
Charles F. Cox, it is my understanding that he is a town councillor. In fact his name is here. The fact that he gave $400 to Jamie Muir probably has nothing to do with it so shame on me for thinking about that.
The next person, Jeffrey Hunt, is a Tory donor, for money. Mr. Reddy is an identified Tory.
It's funny but it got us a little suspicious. It shows you how paranoid you get in this business but the fact that he is J.C. Reddy, his middle name is Cyril and he did work for Sobeys at one time - you can get this from the resumé - but I don't imagine he is any relative of this Cyril Reddy who we know is associated with the caucus and the Premier's Office.
Mr. Theakston is an identified Tory. I could go on.
My only comment on the final appointment with Ronald Twohig would be does he have any connection at this juncture with the Canaan Properties? I wonder if I could have a response on that. He seems to be saying that in the year 2000 he discontinued his association because that would be a clear conflict of interest if he was.
Mr. Meehan has no resumé. Town councillor; I continually oppose a councillor being on this type of a committee. I don't see how this gets by the screening committee, Mr. Chairman. I will have to vote against the bloc here. There might be a few who I would vote
for if they were individual but en bloc, I certainly will oppose the bloc appointments of these people on the basis of what I . . .
MR. STEELE: Dr. Smith asked a question and I just wondered, were you expecting an answer or was that a rhetorical question?
DR. SMITH: I was expecting an answer on Mr. Meehan and I didn't expect an answer on Mr. Reddy, whether he would happen to be the son of Cyril Reddy. No, I didn't expect that answer, that is rhetorical perhaps. But Twohig, I would like to know as well, if he has any connection with the company that he had worked for and Mr. Meehan with no resumé.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is certainly a question if it is not included in the information before us that the committee is not capable of answering. So I will leave that. The member realized that when he asked. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: I would like to talk about these Regional Assessment Appeal Courts because what their job is, of course, is to be the final level of appeal if someone is unhappy with their assessment. Now, as everybody knows, the property assessments are a hot political topic these days. I think the NDP, in particular the member for Timberlea-Prospect, has done a very good job of raising that to, at or near the top of the political agenda. I saw something about it in the paper again today. Just at the time when it becomes an issue, the government is seizing control of these appeal courts by appointing their faithful followers to these courts. Now the word court should be, perhaps, the first clue that some kind of impartiality is called for, that there should be no hint of people having any partisan consideration in the decisions that they make.
Now starting with Jean V. Webb who is another law school classmate of mine - they are doing very well today, I have to say - she is also a long-time supporter of Tom McInnis and of the Tory Party in the Eastern Shore, where she is from. I have eaten dinner in her parents' home - she and I, I would say, are friends - but it doesn't change the fact, of course, that she is a Tory and that her service to the province coincides very nicely with periods of Tory Governments. A very bright, capable person.
Then you go down the list and, like Dr. Smith, I am concerned about the ones who are town councillors. Town councillors set the tax rate. They don't set the value but, as everybody knows, the property tax you pay is the function of two things, the tax rate multiplied by the assessment. These people are the people who are setting the rate and then they are hearing appeals. It just seems wrong. It sounds wrong. It is wrong. It just doesn't seem like an appropriate criterion.
Then let's go beyond that and let's look at the fact that according to the information the committee is given, a number of appointments run out at the end of this month. How many? Thirty-two appointments run out at the end of December. Now you look down the list of these 32 people and there are some very prominent Liberals. I don't doubt these people started under the Liberal Government, including, for example, the official agent of the Liberal who ran against me in the by-election and a number of others. Be that as it may, there are some very prominent and capable people. Like Mark McCrae, Q.C., who is the President of the Barristers' Society this year, a person for whom I have the greatest respect, but he is not being reappointed. Instead of these 32 people whose appointments are running out, this government is proposing eight people to replace them, almost all of whom are quite readily identifiable Tories.
Then, in addition to that, the material that we have before us refers to the fact that 12 people are being appointed. If you look in the material - I think it's when it talks about gender balance, yes, No. 5 - "Does the ABC currently meet the affirmative action and gender equality policies of the government? It says, in each case, "Three of the twelve Appeal Members recommended for reappointment are female.", but the problem is there are only eight, not 12. So I'm wondering, what happened to the other four? What slipped through here? There are just all these inconsistencies - 32 people being dismissed in favour of eight Tories. There were supposed to be 12, according to the material, but there are not 12. It says three of them are supposed to be female but if you actually look at the book, 1out of 8 is female.
There are all kinds of questions being raised here on what, today, is a very important political issue. So I really think these ought to be deferred until we can get some of these questions answered, not the least of which the question is are these truly the very best people from among the - I believe it was - 50 applicants. It's funny how all the Tories floated to the top. It is coincidence, I'm sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gaudet and then Ms. MacDonald.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, I just have one comment and it is regarding Mr. Charles F. Cox. As I understand from his resumé, he is town councillor for the Town of Truro. I think there should probably be a motion made to defer Mr. Cox's appointment here. I personally believe there is definitely a conflict of interest as a town councillor. If Mr. Cox is approached by some individual from within his district looking at appealing their assessment on any given property, at the same time Mr. Cox sits on that appeal board, I would like to move that we defer Mr. Charles Cox's appointment until we get some direction from the minister whether or not there is a potential conflict between Mr. Cox's appointment to this Assessment Appeal Board before his appointment goes through.
I have nothing personally against Mr. Cox, I'm just looking for some clarification. If there is no conflict of interest, then I have no problem supporting Mr. Cox's appointment but I think, just to be on the cautious side, Mr. Chairman, if we could defer Mr. Cox's appointment until we get some clarification from the minister. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a previous motion on the floor that I would like to deal with, we really can't deal with two at a time. So we currently have the motion on the floor for these en bloc. I think we have had discussion, unless anyone has any other comments. If not, we will go for the question.
MR. OLIVE: Question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, I believe I overlooked someone who had something. Ms. MacDonald, I'm sorry about that.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I am wondering why we don't have a resumé for Bill Meehan from Antigonish. I know we have a covering letter that has a little succinct sort of outline of Mr. Meehan's experience with respect to the practice of real estate law. However, is it our practice as a committee? I don't recall ever appointing any person to a board or a commission where there hasn't been an attached resumé.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to deal with the motion and we will endeavour to get a resumé through to the committee afterwards.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: The problem is, as we all know, the motion is to either accept or reject these candidates en bloc. What has been occurring here today, indeed every day we sit, is that members of the government use their majority on this committee to pass these applications without the comprehensive process that is required. Before you, Mr. Chairman, you have two very valid concerns being expressed. One, conflict of interest with respect to Mr. Cox from Truro and in the past when your predecessor sat in that chair, he did make the decision to defer when those kinds of objections, serious objections were raised. We did, in fact, defer the passing of appointments to boards that will result in problems down the road and could, in fact, cost taxpayers in this province money.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to use your authority, as chairman, to remove from the table these two applicants, the person for which we have no resumé and the person for whom there are grave concerns that there is a potential conflict of interest in appointing this person to the board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would answer, due to the fact that all these names have gone through the screening panels, been approved by the ministers responsible, also been approved by Cabinet and put before us, I am comfortable that with regard to conflict of interest, those issues have been taken care of and also that adequate information has been presented to us
to make a decision and either vote yes or no on these appointments put before us today. So with that, I will put the question.
[10:15 a.m.]
MR. STEELE: I would like to pose a question to you, Mr. Chairman. If we have adequate information, I am wondering if you could show me where in the book I would look to see whether - let's just take the first one as an example - Jean V. Webb is the very best-qualified from among the 50 applicants for this position. Where would I look to find that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe we've rather covered that topic with regard to . . .
MR. STEELE: No, no. You just said it was here, that we have the material before us. I am just asking you to tell me where it is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The information is before us, that has been sent through by way of the screening committees and the Cabinet. We are aware, with regard to this committee, that not all applicants' information is before us. The decision has been made. Ours is the job to either approve or not approve the names that are put before us, not to determine who is the best candidate out of the applicants that are put here.
MR. STEELE: It's not our job to determine who is the best candidate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Our job according to the committee rules is to approve or not approve the names that are put before us, and that's the business that's before us today.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: But surely, Mr. Chairman, the role of this committee is to, as Dr. Smith said earlier, give a second look and reflect on whether or not there are any potential problems in these appointments. If a potential conflict of interest is not a problem in an appointment I don't know what is. It's a very valid concern. It's been valid at this committee in the past. People who served as municipal councillors have, in fact, had their applications tabled for further reflection and a legal opinion. That's all that's being asked here, is that that kind of scrutiny be brought to bear on that particular appointment before it's made. That is the role of this committee, with all due respect. This committee should not be functioning as a rubber stamp.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the comments. With that, we'll call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, Department of Tourism and Culture, the Liquor Corporation of Nova Scotia, I so move Peter McCreath as chairman; Brian Butler, Robert Curley, Barry J. Eisenhauer, James G. MacLean, Paula Minnikin and William Pyle as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. I expect there will be some discussion. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: My colleague, the member for Halifax Needham, is saying under her breath what I'm going to say out loud and that is that this is disgraceful. When this new Liquor Corporation was created we said in the Legislature this was about appointing loyal Tories. The government said no, no, this is about accountability. I am sorry to say that with this list in front of us we have been proven right. These people are not the kind of people that anyone would expect to be running the government's major retail operation. This is a retail liquor operation of $374 million per year. There is not one single, solitary person on this list who has any experience in retail. There is one person who has some experience in one aspect of the liquor business, and that's the person, namely Brian Butler, who spent 20 years as a supplier.
Now let's talk about Mr. Butler then. If we're going to have somebody with experience on the supply side, what about people on the other side? The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association has asked, has pleaded with the government to have representation on this corporation. No, sorry, they're not going to get anything. The NSGEU has said it would be a really good idea to put employees on the board, because many very progressive boards in the private sector do this. They will appoint an employee because the employees have a lot of insight into how the corporation is run, but they're out of luck as well.
Let me go down the list here, there are seven people, for the record I will read their names: Peter McCreath, Brian Butler, Robert Curley, Barry J. Eisenhauer, James G. MacLean, Paula Minnikin and William Pyle. Let's look at what we have for the government's major, hundreds of millions of dollars, retail operation.
Peter McCreath, a well-known Tory, a man with a number of accomplishments in his life, is he the very best-qualified person in Nova Scotia to run a retail liquor operation? He's a lobbyist right now, and he's never done anything in retail and he's never done anything in liquor, but he's going to be in charge.
Brian Butler, as well as having some experience in the supply side, is also a Tory donor. Robert Curley - I'm not sure if he goes by Bob or Robert - he's also a Tory donor. In fact if you look up the list of donors to the Premier's last election campaign, you'll find his name. Barry J. Eisenhauer isn't a Tory donor, but he is the minister's bank manager. Mr. Eisenhauer is in Mabou and he runs the credit union up there. He's Rodney MacDonald's bank manager, that's why he's there.
Jim MacLean is, by Nova Scotia standards, a huge donor to the Tory Party. I believe he's currently serving on the provincial executive; he served on the candidate search committee for the Tories in the last provincial election. Bill Pyle, also a very prominent donor, again by Nova Scotia standards - somebody who donates $500 or $600 a year is a large donor, and that's certainly what Mr. Pyle has been doing - again, absolutely no experience in liquor, absolutely no experience in retail.
Then Paula Minnikin. She's not a donor, but the name sounded familiar, and I just thought, why do I know that name? I did a little bit of checking, and I realized that this was the Paula Minnikin who's written a number of things in the paper on the education business. I just want to read a couple of short quotes from an item she wrote in the Chronicle-Herald on April 30, 2000, for anybody who wants to read it. As I'm reading this I want you to think, this is the person who on this board of directors is going to be responsible for labour relations with the employees of the board.
Here's what she says about the education system. Remember all those big street demonstrations in front of the Legislature in the year 2000? I'm sure all the government members remember those. The streets were full of people, really upset about what the government was doing with the Education budget. Here's what Paula Minnikin says about that.
"Public enemy No. 1 here is the NSTU, with the school boards coming in a close second. They are polluting the minds of children in the classroom and their parents through the media . . . It is the NSTU that is decimating the classrooms. The 'cuts' are occurring because the government (that is you and I) funds teachers' ill-deserved raises. If we performed as miserably at our jobs as teachers do at theirs . . . would we have the audacity to demand such a raise? Would our employers be so compliant?"
In the whole Education debate Paula Minnikin's contribution was to attack the Teachers Union and to call them "public enemy No. 1. That was her contribution to public policy debate in Nova Scotia. She's the one who's going to have to work with the NSGEU, the union of this Liquor Corporation. It's just a little embarrassing, I think. Does anybody think, does anybody in this room, do even the members on that side of the table believe that in an objective process for finding the best qualified Nova Scotians that of the seven names picked five would be Tory donors, one can be characterized politely as anti-union and the other one would be the liquor minister's bank manager? Do you really think those are the people who would come to the top in an open competition? (Interruptions)
Let me tell you, because the member is saying oh, what's that got to do with anything? I will tell you what it has to do with anything. Anybody who talks about corporate governance will tell you that it is fundamental that the board of directors be able to exercise independent judgement. They must not be in the pockets of management, and they must not
be in the pockets of the shareholders. I wonder if anybody in this room, even the members on that side, seriously believes that five Tory donors, Rodney MacDonald's bank manager and Paula Minnikin are going to exercise the kind of sound, independent, thoughtful, experienced judgement that we demand of the government's $374 million-a-year retail liquor operation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Smith.
DR. SMITH: This group before us now, I think, just demonstrates my earlier concerns, that as we head toward the last group for appointment today it has deteriorated beyond belief, really. We've established this morning that the Premier is aware of these appointments. I would say to him now that I don't think the announcement of a Cabinet shuffle today, if he thinks that's going to take the news and cover up this appointment, this is something that Nova Scotians will be aware of for a long period of time.
We have a chairman whose main claim to fame is that he's written a book about a beer baron, Alexander Keith. It goes on and on. Somebody is applying here, and I think Mr. Steele just mentioned Ms. Minnikin, " . . . I have no direct experience with the alcoholic beverage industry." Maybe it is getting into an alcoholic stupor with these appointments. We know from the past Tory Government, the previous government, that this was a major area, and it has a long history in Nova Scotia, that governments such as John Savage tried to clear up and move in a positive direction (Interruptions) We made good headway at that, and he probably paid with his political life, if you will, in all fairness. He stood strong and tall on those matters.
Now today we are just going further behind, right back to the early days. I too have some concern about the lack of industry appointments. I have a letter here that I will just pass to you, Mr. Chairman, a letter to Alison Scott from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, containing letters of interest to serve on this, and none were accepted. One could go on, and I don't know if there are other members who want to speak, but I think Mr. Steele has given a resumé review of these people.
It's a black day for this committee, that these would even come forward, to think that perhaps they'll just get shuffled at the end of the committee meeting and that Nova Scotians won't notice this. I think they will, and the results of these types of appointments will reflect, again, with another black eye for Nova Scotia. I'll not be supporting these appointments.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? Mr. Gaudet.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, again, earlier I asked if the Premier was aware of all these political appointments coming forward this morning. Again, maybe they were certainly in store for Christmas, as payback time for all these Tory members. I have just general questions here. There are 84 people who have applied, there's only one lady who has been
appointed to this liquor board. I am just wondering, how many women applied out of those 84 applicants, Mr. Chairman? Is there a reason why there's only one woman who has been appointed to this board?
Then I'm looking at some regional representation. There's no one there from the Annapolis Valley, there's no one there from Cumberland County, no one there from Colchester County, and we could certainly travel around the province. These are concerns that I'm sure people will be asking themselves. At the same time, some of these appointments that are before us today, I don't see any who have been recommended by the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, people who have a lot of interest in this field.
Again, these are concerns that I have. I'm disappointed that they were not addressed by the minister. Maybe you had to be directly connected to the minister in order to make the final list. Anyway, I can't support these appointments either, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. MacDonald.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Well, like a previous speaker, I'm increasingly disappointed with the way this committee operates. I think to say that the process that we go through here is a farce is very clear. This has become a farce. I just want the record to reflect
how extremely unfair this is to the good citizens of this province who read the advertisements looking for persons to serve on boards and commissions, and who sit down and thoughtfully construct letters of application and resumés, which they submit to those areas that they have a concern and an interest in, in good faith.
[10:30 a.m.]
For those people, this process and the hijacking of this process for political means is really a betrayal. It is the reason why, in my view, people in this province are increasingly disillusioned with the political process. The behaviour of members of this committee and the behaviour of government with respect to appointments directly contributes to an undermining of our democratic process, which we hold dear. I think that at this time of the year members of this committee should really be reflecting on what they're going to take into the new year, in terms of the way this committee functions. It's time this committee makes some fundamental changes. It's not good enough to come here and say we trust the screening process, because the screening process has been demonstrated to be a farce. It's a complete and absolute farce.
I think that we need to discuss this in the new year and make some changes. I would ask the government members to make some resolutions that you're going to do something for Nova Scotians, for the good Nova Scotians who believe that this is a process where they
can have access to participating in this province and making a contribution, regardless of what their politics has been.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for those comments. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: It would be very easy for people to dismiss what the Opposition is saying, ah well, they would do the same, they are just objecting because these are Tories, but the fundamental thing that the government is overlooking here is that we all pay for patronage, it costs us. Every time you throw your money into the toll booth on one of the Halifax-Dartmouth bridges you are paying for patronage. People were appointed to the Bridge Commission at one time who did not know what they were doing, they converted the debt into foreign currencies, and we are still paying for that and we'll pay for it for years and years.
I worked at the Workers' Compensation Board, so I've seen it up front. The whole time I was there we were trying to dig out from a hole created by incompetent political management. I'm talking specifically about John Buchanan's campaign manager, who was appointed to head up a $100 million-a-year insurance company, and he didn't have a clue what he was doing. We are all paying for that. Every employer in Nova Scotia is still paying to try to dig out of the hole that was created in the 1980's at the Workers' Compensation Board.
Here it is in a nutshell, bad appointments lead to bad decisions, and bad decisions mean bad government. We all pay for bad government. That is why we are supposed to be aiming on this committee to be appointing the very best people available, and if they are Tories that's great, if they are New Democrats or Liberals or have no political affiliation at all that's fine too, but I don't know why it is that this is the only place in Nova Scotia that appoints people without paying attention to the principle of appointing the very best people who are qualified.
Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I'm very disturbed by something that we understand to be true. It's certainly worth looking into. We have been told by people in a position to know that in fact the recommendations of the screening committee were rejected, that Cabinet did not accept the names that were first put forward to it. In fact, it rejected them not once but twice, until they got the names they wanted.
Mr. Chairman, I don't know if those allegations are true, but they are certainly worth looking into. I would like to move that these appointments be deferred until the minister can be asked to appear before this committee to explain the process by which these particular names were put forward as the best-qualified candidates for the positions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That would make a second motion on the floor. We are prepared to deal with the first one.
MR. STEELE: You will be the first chairman that I'm aware of on the committee ruling that a motion to defer is out of order. They have always, in previous committee meetings, been in order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I stand corrected. The motion is in order.
MR. STEELE: I think it is very important that the minister be summoned to appear to explain the process by which these names were brought forward because if the screening committee process has been undermined, it is certainly something the committee ought to inquire into.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess we will deal with the motion or discussion on the motion to defer.
DR. SMITH: Discussion on the motion. This is a very serious allegation that this member of the committee has made, Mr. Chairman, that you - and I compliment you for recognizing that the motion to defer is in order and this should be supported because if, in fact, he said not once but twice rejected by the minister or the Cabinet or someone at some level and the very process that particularly the government ministers hold up as being an ideal process and you, as chairman, are responsible for administering, has been violated here if these allegations of this member are true. This is not even a question about patronage.
We have supported many appointments here today, Mr. Chairman. This book is filled with appointments that, as well as we could determine, were worthy nominees and we supported that. I would hate to leave unrecognized that we are against everything for the sake of being negative and that is not true. When we are able to determine, from the information that we have, that they are competent people, then we will support them regardless of their political stripe. What we have seen here is deterioration beyond all belief as to patronage appointments for that. Surely to goodness, Nova Scotians have received enough black eyes regarding the performance relative to liquor and we are doing it again.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Remember the trust fund?
DR. SMITH: A long time, that's right. I can only speak for the time that I have been in government and was from 1993. I know the stands that John Savage took personally but I'm not going to wear the guilt of our ancestors. We can't do that. We have to move on but the Premier has said he is doing away with patronage. That was his election promise. You are government now, I would say to the government members. You are government, you are responsible now. Although some of you were in the previous Buchanan Government, most of you were not there so we forgive you for your ways of falling into that Tory trap. (Interruptions)
MR. HURLBURT: Who was in the Savage . . .
DR. SMITH: I was there and I'm very proud that I was there in the Savage Government because it takes a long time to turn these ships around, Mr. Chairman, when patronage is so integrated, appointments to boards and commissions or appointments to the boys' school in Shelburne is one I always think of, those types of things. That was how we did business in Nova Scotia. That's why when you got on an airplane and somebody asked you where you were from, some people said they were embarrassed to say they were from Nova Scotia.
MR. OLIVE: Not any more.
DR. SMITH: A lot of that has gone behind us now and that started to improve in the last decade or two. Why this government has consciously, if Mr. Steele's allegations are true, sent back until they got the people they wanted, not once but twice, then that ship is really turning back again and it is heading for dangerous ground. It will crash and I will tell you, it will bring down your government but it will also give Nova Scotia a very black eye. This is beyond anything that we have seen here in the committee since I have been a member of this committee, this Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation. I am speaking in support of Mr. Steele's motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I think we should step back and have a look at the statement that Mr. Steele has made on which he is basing his deferral. He is making it based on an unfounded allegation. He has had this book for a week plus. He has had every opportunity to - if in fact there was any substance to the allegation, which I suggest there is not, only in his mind and for political mischief and whatever other political gains he thinks he's going to get out of it, but to sit here at a committee without any information to substantiate it, I mean he is a lawyer. He should certainly know better but maybe that's why he's in politics.
The issue is, he's making a deferral motion based on no fact. There is no foundation of fact. He hasn't presented any foundation of fact. He's maligning the process as set up by our government in 1999 by insinuating that the screening panels don't work and that they're always overridden or whatever, with no basis of fact to make that comment.
He has a deferral motion on the table, which is not worth the paper to write it down on, and I am speaking against it. I think it's indicative of the process and the contempt that he holds this committee in, that he would use this committee for his own political gains, making statements without any basis of fact to malign the government and to advance his own political cause. I think he should be ashamed of himself.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We're ready to vote on the motion to defer. Mr. Steele, on the motion to defer.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to note, there is nobody who takes the process of quality appointments more seriously than I do. The contempt of course is the contempt of the government for the process, for the people of Nova Scotia. Now, we've heard an allegation, clearly by its nature it's coming from somebody who's not prepared to step forward. This is a person from within government . . .
MR. OLIVE: The brown envelope, the grassy knoll.
MR. STEELE: . . . who is not in a position to come forward. What I am saying, therefore, it's within the power of this committee to hold an inquiry. Do you know what, if it turns out to be not true and I am embarrassed by the fact that's it not true, that's the price I'm prepared to pay, but only after an inquiry to show that it's not founded. I am just wondering, if it's not true and the member for Dartmouth South is so confident it's not true, what's he afraid of?
MR. OLIVE: You should be ashamed of yourself.
MR. STEELE: What's the harm in getting the minister to come and prove it? What's the government afraid of?
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Let's vote on it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: With that, I guess we are ready to vote on the motion to defer.
MR. OLIVE: Question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question has been called. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is defeated.
We can move on to the next motion, which is for the appointments to the Liquor Corporation of Nova Scotia. The motion has been discussed. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: I would like to make another motion, please. I would like to make a motion that the members of the screening committee be asked to appear before this committee to explain by what process they arrived at the recommendations, and if in fact their recommendations were accepted by the government.
MR. CHAIRMAN: A motion has been made that the screening committee appear before the committee. If there is no other discussion . . .
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that's a correct motion.
MR. HURLBURT: This motion is out of order. (Interruptions)
MR. OLIVE: It is out of order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this motion out of order?
MR. OLIVE: It is out of order, thank you very much. It is out of order.
MR. STEELE: Why is it out of order?
MR. OLIVE: We don't have anything to do with the screening committees. Our job here, Mr. Chairman, is to approve or reject nominations put before this committee, and that's our function. It is not to interview the screening committee or the ministers or the Premier.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Currently it appears that that motion is not in order at this particular point in time.
MR. STEELE: Because?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Because there is a motion on the floor.
MR. STEELE: But just previously, Mr. Chairman, you accepted a motion to defer, this is a different motion.
MR. HURLBURT: And that was defeated.
MR. STEELE: Yes, it was defeated, and this is a different one. I am just wondering why it is that the first motion to defer is in order, the second motion is out of order. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you repeat the second motion, please?
MR. STEELE: My motion, and perhaps I didn't explain it properly the first time, is that the committee defer consideration of these appointments - perhaps that's not what I said - to give the committee time to request the members of the screening committee to appear to explain the process that was followed in the production of these names for the committee's consideration.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, we just had a motion to defer that was defeated. The only difference is he has tagged on a line that says and bring in somebody else to interview, it's still a motion to defer. We have had a vote not to defer the motion. Could we get a legal opinion, please?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess it would be my decision that that motion is similar to the first motion which was defeated, therefore we won't entertain that. We will move along to . . .
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, of course it's similar but it's different. It's to call different people. (Interruptions) I wonder if you could tell me, try to explain to me how it is that the first one was in order and the second one is out of order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The first motion was in order because the motion to defer was discussed fully and we voted on the motion. The second motion seems to be a bit of a rearrangement of the first motion. It also seems like we could be here for many hours to come if we continue to make motions to defer that are similar to the first one, and it does seem like we should move on to the business of the day.
[10:45 a.m.]
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, if it causes you any concern, this is the second and last motion I intend to make. (Laughter) We won't be here for hours. It is a different motion, Mr. Chairman.
MR. OLIVE: It was ruled out of order. The chairman has ruled.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I still rule that the motion is not in order at this time. We will move along to the original motion to approve the names to the Liquor Corporation. Dr. Smith.
DR. SMITH: In the closing moments of this committee, I just want to again say that this is an important vote. You are facing a corporation that's looking for a new president. There are many industry changes that are happening that will impact every community in Nova Scotia. We're looking at privatization, or they will be or have already started that process. This is a time of change, and we cannot support these appointments because we don't feel these are people to do the job. Besides, the perception is reality in this case, and these are far too many, almost all of these people before us have direct connections with the Tory Government that is in power at this time.
It's an industry in change, it's important, it's a $374 million-a-year business, and I just feel that the questions that have been brought, whether the process has been violated is one issue, but also the appointments. We've supported the good appointments here today that have been before us. I would just say to the other members that in all conscience, can they really support this board and these appointments here today?
MR. CHAIRMAN: With that, I guess we are to the question. Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: On the motion, Mr. Chairman, a number of comments have been made by members opposite regarding this process. The general public isn't privy to all of the information that we have here. They talk about the qualifications of people, and the honourable member for Dartmouth East made a good point just now, that in many ways supports what's happening with these board appointments from the point of view of changing the overall direction of the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation board.
It's not a great point but it's probably a point that should be made prior to me making a couple of other comments, and that is that with the changes to this board and with the remunerations which still haven't been finalized, but if you can look at the numbers that are there now, subject to Cabinet approval, under the old board which the previous government was in charge of: Doug Caldwell, his yearly salary was $31,865 and under this new board, the new chairman's yearly salary is $12,000; Robert Sampson, who was a previous member - I am sure some members opposite know him - was paid as a regular member, $26,157 a year, and the new board appointments as members are going to be paid $7,200 a year. That's a saving in excess of $30,000 a year to the taxpayers of Nova Scotia. I think that's an important point. It's indicative of the new direction.
The honourable member for Halifax Fairview talks about the qualifications of Peter McCreath. He says he wasn't in small business. Well, if he would do a little more homework, he would have found out that the resumé itself indicates that, " . . . as a small business proprietor . . .", so obviously that's not quite true.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Once again the member is misquoting me. I didn't say that, I said he was never in retail. That's different. If you are going to quote me quote me accurately.
MR. OLIVE: He discusses whether the man is qualified, the man being Mr. McCreath. He was five years in Parliament. He served successfully as Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Finance, Industry and International Trade, and he was a Minister of Veterans Affairs in the Cabinet. I don't know what qualifications to be a chairman the honourable member is looking for, or members of the Opposition are looking for, but it is mind-boggling and it seems to me that they're hanging their hats on the fact that the man might have voted Tory. The fact that he was a federal Tory Cabinet Minister should be a pretty clear indication of which way he votes, I would hope anyway.
The other issue - I am just trying to locate it here now, Mr. Chairman - they talked about the fact that there is no union representative here. The member, Mr. Pyle, who is being recommended here, was actually President and Secretary Treasurer of the Nova Scotia Teachers Union. I would say that the Nova Scotia Teachers Union, being the active and vociferous union that it is, and very eager to meet the needs of its membership, if Mr. Pyle was a member of that union and in a position of president, secretary and treasurer, I would
say that he certainly has a clear understanding of union issues. So let's not let that one go by the wayside.
You can go through every one of these, which is what the screening panel has done, Mr. Chairman. They have clearly found, not through Tory lineage but through experience, areas with every one of these individuals who meet the requirements of membership on this board. For example, Mr. Curley - again, you talk about union experience, and I don't disagree that it is important to have some input but the screening committee saw that. Mr. Curley negotiated annual contracts for Nova Scotia Power so I would say he certainly has experience, along with Mr. Pyle, in dealing with issues related to the union membership. You know it just amazes me that members opposite, particularly the socialists, can be so selective in the presentation of the facts that suit their particular biased opinion of who should be on this and not look in more detail to the positive points that are non-political that all of these members bring to this board.
So, Mr. Chairman, with that, and I could go on through all of them and pull out information, but I think it is important, if the Human Resources Committee approves these people, that the press, in particular, not be taken in by the rhetoric and the gobbledegook of the socialists and take a look at these resumés and understand what each person brings other than their perceived Tory lineage.
I will have another issue I want to bring up after the vote regarding a breach of this committee process but on that, I will hand it back to you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe we can - Dr. Smith.
DR. SMITH: I just want to note for the record, very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I know it has been troublesome with this particular group of appointments, but let the record show that the industry itself has asked for an appointment on this board and why that would be ignored in this type of appointment, or could it be that the selection committee did accept some appointments from the industry and it was the Cabinet that would not accept those, if Mr. Steele's allegations are true that they were sent back on two occasions. I think that is significant. That is a question that I haven't heard answered here and perhaps Mr. Olive could do that, as to why there isn't an industry representative on a board such as this that is dealing with communities throughout the province on retail and small businesses, and particularly as we look toward privatization and how it will impact on the industry and the many changes that are taking place within the corporation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. MacDonald.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I just want to register my objection to the kind of bickering that has occurred here today. I think we owe Nova Scotians an apology that they have been subjected to this spectacle, you know, at this time of the year. I guess if we were
still mining coal I would have brought some to hand out to my colleagues on the other side of the table.
I think we do a great disservice to, again, the men and women of this province who come forward in good faith to serve on boards and commissions and indeed today, those persons who were approved who are fine people to do the work on the boards and commissions, that they will be asked to do, they have a cloud over them now as a result of the very twisted logic of these particular appointments that are going forward around the Liquor Corporation. It's a very sad day for people in this province and I just want my comments reflected on the record.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your comments. I think we are ready for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
With that, that concludes the appointments to agencies, boards and commissions that we have been asked to look at today. Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of personal privilege. I show you, and I don't know if everyone has seen it, the newspaper headline from the member for Halifax Fairview. On a point of personal privilege, it is my understanding that none of these appointments are official appointments until they are brought before this committee, that the books are issued out of courtesy in advance to all three caucus offices for their members on this committee to go through, to do their research, which obviously is done. It's very important to note that none of these appointments become official until this committee votes on them.
I believe that the member for Halifax Fairview is compromising the integrity of the committee by releasing information, particularly on the chairman, and it's in the newspaper article that Mr. Peter McCreath has been nominated as the corporation's new chairman. I am very concerned that if this is the way that the honourable member for Halifax Fairview feels that by compromising the committee, an all-Party committee of this House, that some action or some decision should be made regarding the appropriateness of this.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to review the statements made in the press as a result of what I believe to be a compromise of the integrity of this committee and come back with a decision as to whether or not the honourable member for Halifax Fairview has in fact violated one of the very serious principles involved in this type of process. I think it's absolutely appalling, and I would make a somewhat partisan comment here to say that we can be thankful that if this is the method or the way that this member operates, we can be thankful that he's not in Cabinet, and walking outside the door making comments that could affect so many things in Nova Scotia, if this is his philosophical way of dealing with issues.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ms. MacDonald.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise my objection to the comments that were just made by the member for Dartmouth South. I think that he should be very careful before he makes these kinds of allegations based on something he reads in the newspaper. His assumption is that my colleague, the member for Halifax Fairview, released confidential information to the media. He has no evidence that the member for Halifax Fairview did any such thing beyond what he's reading in this press release or in this media report. There are other members of this committee, there are however many other members of this committee, all of us had this information. I could have released that information, or it could have been colleagues in the Liberal caucus who could have released that information.
I think until he has information on where the information came from to the media, I don't think he should be identifying or throwing allegations at one member of this committee. That's very improper, and I submit not only is it improper it's unfair because I know for a fact, and I think the member for Halifax Fairview and I would be happy to have questions pursued with respect to where the information came from. I can assure you they didn't come from the member for Halifax Fairview, nor did they come from myself.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Clarke.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, while that same media report does indicate that it was a Liberal source that indicated Mr. McCreath's name, I would like to speak to the previous point raised by my colleague. Quite simply I do think that while we may differ in our opinions, seriously, at this table, we are free to voice it as members of this committee and to have that put on the public record. However, the member for Halifax Fairview, in his judgement and maybe wanting to put forward an issue that was totally politicized, to indicate the business coming forward at this meeting, but what I am concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is the workings and protocols and procedures.
[11:00 a.m.]
That member for Halifax Fairview wrote to the Premier, which he quoted in the media, seeking an intervention by the Premier in this matter with regard to the Liquor Corporation. That member did not bring that forward to you as chairman of this committee; that member did not cc you as a member of this committee; that member issued that letter on December 14th to the Premier's office, quoted it for media purposes, and I am sure the Premier, as he does with all correspondence, will respond in due course to that correspondence. However, it did construe, the way the perspective was taken coming into this meeting today.
Quite frankly, that member, in talking about following procedure, should recognize and appreciate your position as chairman of this committee, and if he has any misgivings or disagreements they should be directed to you, at least cc'd to you, not trying to pull a political side run on you and this committee. I think that's despicable. I think that member has double standards. If he wants to sit there today and lecture, may I suggest he go to a university classroom and lecture, because he's not going to do that to me as a member of this committee. I would ask that he respect it, and I do concur with my colleague that you do investigate that because there is more to it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Clarke. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the members on that side dream of the fact that this could somehow become about me rather than about Tory patronage practices. (Interruptions) I do want to say that at no time did I release any names to the media. My news release speaks for itself, from Friday. The article which the member for Dartmouth South is accusing me of selectively quoting, selectively quotes this and conveniently misses the part that says it was the Liberals who released Mr. McCreath's name. That's what the article says, but the member for Dartmouth South chose not to read that.
There is no quotation anywhere in this article where I'm discussing Mr. McCreath or in fact any other name, because I didn't release the name. In fact, if you would also like to quote from my news release, it refers to the confidentiality obligation that I have that I take seriously. I did refer to the fact that this business was coming up, but at no time, ever, did I talk about the particular individuals.
I will accept the member's apology in advance, and say that if he would like to direct his focus on the people who actually released the name he might want to look a couple of chairs down the table. As for the letter that I wrote to the Premier . . .
DR. SMITH: What's that all about, Mr. Chairman? Is he making an allegation there? Would you state that more clearly? (Interruptions)
MR. STEELE: No, no. What I'm saying is, what the article says is the Liberals say (Interruptions) I don't know who that was, and I am certainly not suggesting it was Dr. Smith. I am suggesting he's a Liberal. (Interruptions)
DR. SMITH: No, but I'm in the chair. How many chairs down (Interruptions)
MR. STEELE: At any rate, the article makes it very clear it was the Liberals who released the name. As far as my letter to the Premier, what I was asking for was the Premier's intervention and therefore - when you ask for the Premier's intervention, I would have thought you would write to the Premier. As far as cc'ing you, Mr. Chairman, I think that's a good idea, I should have done that and I'm sorry that I didn't. (Interruptions)
MR. OLIVE: Oh, so there's a flaw.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I guess it is apparent that it appears names have been released from somewhere prior to our meeting. With that, I will see the Speaker along with the article and see what the Speaker has to say with regard to our rules of order, and report back to the committee.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, also, with regard to the conduct of this committee. I guess maybe I would raise a second point to the member, for my colleague on the government side, with regard to, if we are going to have processes in place and we are being asked to account to the Opposition, I think we all share the same common requirement to adhere to the processes, the procedures, and the rules and regulations of the Legislature and of these committees. I do believe that that member strategically went around this process for his own political agenda and gain, and I don't agree with that. I don't care what that member has to say here, that's his prerogative when he comes to this committee and how he chooses to deal with an issue, but if he's going to talk about setting up standards, then I suggest he be held to those same standards that he chooses to hold us to. That's all.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask that the Speaker review the transcript of today's meeting and give us an opinion or suggestion for the future. Dr. Smith.
DR. SMITH: I feel moved to respond because the member for Halifax Fairview and also the article itself does mention what the Liberals say. Personally, I did not speak to Mr. McLaughlin. It is my understanding that when our caucus was contacted, there were at least three media persons who knew of Mr. McCreath. There are no quotes on that attributed to any Liberal here. I can say that I did not speak to Mr. McLaughlin and that the paraphrase here is quoting some Liberals as saying, and I'm not aware of who that would be if, in fact, it did take place. It is my understanding that at least three media persons had the name prior to contacting our caucus. So I think what you have attempted to do in reviewing this would be in order because there has been a breach somewhere. It is certainly pointing to us as well as Mr. Steele and I just want to clarify that it was not myself and I have no knowledge of any of our MLAs releasing any information that would be of a private nature.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dr. Smith. Mr. Olive has a quick point.
MR. OLIVE: Very quickly. I think we should not miss the reason why the system is set up the way it is. This group today, this committee today, could have rejected Mr. McCreath. We could have rejected and have actually stood one appointment. We have had this discussion before about providing all of the information on all of the applicants so that people's expectations can be raised, whether it's Mr. McCreath or anybody else, and the reason why we have the process is that this is the final authority and what happens here will determine the future of the individuals who come before this board.
What has happened here, however, is that that process has been violated. Mr. McCreath in particular, and others who are not named but God knows whether those names are out there or not, but they chose to use Mr. McCreath, the fact is that he, up until this point, until this vote takes place, does not have this job. There has been this whole aura and expectation set up by the NDP for purely political reasons, to malign the man and to malign this process. That is the issue that I want clarified. There is a very strict process here. There is a level of confidentiality here to protect not only the members of the government, the members of the Opposition, but more importantly to ensure some sort of confidentiality for those persons who put their names forward for positions. They have a right not to be spread all over the newspapers prior to the appointment being made. That is the point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. If there is no other discussion on your agenda, there are a couple of other issues of business. The next meeting dates would be one. The Tuesday, January 15th, meeting from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., there has been a conflict noted and we would like to move that to February 12th, if that's all right, and maybe we can just leave that with the people here and you can get back to Darlene to confirm whether that is an okay date for everybody.
The next meeting we have would be January 29th and that would be the regular schedule and that would be the appointments to agencies, boards and commissions, similar to today. Is there anything else we need to bring up?
MRS. DARLENE HENRY(Legislative Committee Clerk): Just the letter from Mr. Muir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, everybody does have a letter from Jamie Muir on clarification.
All the best to everyone, the best of the holidays. Thank you very much.
We are adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 11:09 a.m.]
