MR. CHAIRMAN: I will call the meeting to order and welcome everyone here, including all our visitors at this festive time of year when everyone is in good spirits and good cheer, and we are all going to cooperate together in the spirit of Christmas goodwill, right?
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: I will take your word for it. (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyway, we will start with the agenda. There are three main items that we want to look at: the appointments to ABCs; you asked me about screening panels and if we could have the names, and you have them, as well as a brief bio on each of the persons, and Jim Spurr can speak to that a bit further; then we have what we put off for a couple of meetings, setting agenda items under our other hat, which is looking at issues that relate to labour and education, et cetera. To me, that is the really exciting part of the committee because I think we can do some very productive things there. So hopefully we will get to that this meeting and it won't get knocked off the agenda by the ABCs.
Let's start with the ABCs. You all have the list and we will start with them. So we have, under three departments, Economic Development, Labour, Tourism and Culture, and we will go through them in that order. I will entertain motions. Remember when you make the motion you have to do so verbally, naming the department, the actual agency, board or commission, and the people's names so that we have it on Hansard.
We will start with the Department of Economic Development, we have just two names here. Is there someone willing to move these two names to the Nova Scotia Business Development Corporation?
MR. DONALD DOWNE: Mr. Chairman, I would so move, for the Department of Economic Development, the Nova Scotia Business Development Corporation, Mr. Holland and Mr. MacConnell. They are reappointments, as I understand it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions or comments about these two names?
MR. DEXTER: I have a couple of things I wanted to talk about with respect to these nominees. I think I was more than just a little amused by the appointment of Lonsdale Holland mainly because he serves, as I understand it, on the screening panel. So here we have a person who comes forward for a position who is apparently one of the people on the so-called citizens committee who would have recommended his own name. Now I am not sure if that is a new way of doing business in the province or not. It is certainly a novel idea. I am sure he got a very strong recommendation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are not sure. He may not have recommended himself, Darrell.
MR. DEXTER: Well, since we don't get to see the minutes of those meetings I will just point out to the committee that I think it is an obvious kind of flaw in the process, where a person sits on the screening committee and then makes the nomination. I think there may be other problems as well. As you may know, as the President of Beacon Securities, this is a company that does substantial business with the government. Whenever the government floats a debenture, they get part of that business that floats out there and I guess there is a question about his impartiality in that regard as well, but what I want to point to overall is the process.
The other name, I guess as we all know, Mr. MacConnell, certainly a well-known person in the business community, is also one of the co-owners of the fishing lodge with Premier Hamm. I understood that this process was set up in order to try to take away some of the stigma that people were kind of holding hands in the back rooms and then getting appointed to these boards and commissions. Here we have, literally, the first test of these so-called citizens screening committees and what do we see? We see two people who come forward, one who is recommended by himself, the other one who is a partner in a fishing lodge with the Premier. If you want to destroy the process right off the bat, this is the way to do it, I can tell you. I can't help but think back to a few meetings ago when my colleague, Mr. Olive, the member for Dartmouth South, said the proof of this will be in the appointments. If this is what he is talking about, then this process is in a whole lot of trouble right off the bat.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I respond just with a little information which may be of help, because obviously there is an interesting discrepancy there when Mr. Holland is on the screening committee and nominated here. My understanding is, and Mr. Carey may have more information because he has investigated this, that these appointments are just interim appointments for the short term, just to keep quorum on that particular board and that they
are not long-term appointments at all. Mr. Carey had some concerns about the appointments to this particular board, too, and you may have some information that may be helpful.
MR. JON CAREY: I did have some concern and I investigated as best I could in a short term. I didn't have particular problems with the individuals because I couldn't find enough information to know one way or the other and they had been previously on the board. However, I am certainly glad that this department is under review. I have a problem with some of its past history and that is where, I guess, as it is reviewed, I would hope, maybe it is fine but we need the information. What the press seems to print are the times when things don't go well so there have been some success stories that I found out about from this and some positive things by investigating it. I also found out that there were some failures. As it is a high risk enterprise, I am just interested in the process that it is being reviewed from the standpoint that we aren't overly flush with money, so it would have to be used wisely. As for the individuals, they were there previously and I would support them for the three month term and then we would have a chance to look at it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But that is really the point, that there is a three month term.
MR. CAREY: It is short term to keep things moving.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Eileen.
MS. EILEEN O'CONNELL: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that that alters the difficulties with the fundamentals of this process. You know we worked really hard last year on this committee - when it was more balanced politically - to try to put some guidelines in place for the nominees and the committee worked hard and everybody worked hard, Mora worked hard. Now we find that we have this other layer, this intervening layer, which has all the same problems. We have no rules, no guidelines, for the screening committee. We don't know who picks the screeners, whether or not it is acceptable for them to name themselves, what the qualifications are. So what we have done, we have added another whole layer that has all the problems, I think, or most of the problems that we started with a year ago, or a year and one-half ago.
I don't see that we have accomplished much here and, in fact, we don't even know, we have to take it on faith that the name of every screening committee member is here. I understand there is somebody missing from one of the screening committees. So how do we know? There is somebody who says he is on one but his name isn't here. How do we know that these people are being chosen by the names that are on the list that we have been given? I think we have a huge process problem here and I don't think that this concoction is going to solve it at all.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Chairman, the issue of the screening panels, I guess, is the same as the citizenship committee. There is some clarification I wanted with regard to that. I assumed it was the same body and I believe I brought up at the last couple of meetings the structure of how that was to be set up and, in fact, whether or not that group was just a group of individual friends or how that panel was determined. I must admit that . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are going to vote.
MR. DOWNE: I know. I was just reading over your November 3rd letter here and I just, for the very first time, saw the screening panels or the citizenship panel agency boards, who the representatives are. Now, obviously, Darrell, my colleague, must have seen that. I hadn't seen that so I wasn't aware that we have an individual, and randomly going through it, I see other names that are on this list of appointees that are also on this citizenship committee. I guess it begs to ask the question whether we put the cart before the horse or the horse at the front end here, and that is clarifying this whole citizenship committee issue because I think that is the point we made last time, Darrell, and Mr. Chairman, is to get that to the point where we feel that it is legitimate and that it is perceived legitimate and that it has the essence of putting the best persons forward.
Now, you know, with all due respect, this might have been sent out. I just checked with, I hadn't seen this . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: It was sent out to each of the committee members.
MR. DOWNE: I apologize, I had not received this list. I was away last week, I did not see this list. So I think the question really is if we are going to go through this list of names, and all of this is contingent upon the essence of the citizens committee and/or steering committee, whatever we decide to call it, I think there are some fundamental questions that we need to have clarified. I wonder if we could, in fact, deal with that part.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you prefer us to change the agenda then and deal with the response from Ms. Scott to my letter. I think you asked at the last meeting, Don, if the names would be made public. We have made the names public, along with biographies. This has been sent out to every member. So, I am quite willing to deal with that if the rest of the committee wants to jump to agenda item II and then come back to the appointments to the ABCs and hold the motion; we would have to table it, for the time being and then come back to the appointments, if this is what the committee wants, I am willing to change the order. Any other thoughts on it?
Do you want to deal with the screening panels first and the response from Alison Scott to the letter I sent out at your behest and we have some more information about that from Mr. Spurr or do you want to continue with the appointments with the ABCs? Any thoughts on that?
The order doesn't matter at all to me. It is up to you as a committee.
MR. CAREY: I would recommend the correspondence, to deal with it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is agreed that we will change the order then, we will just table the motion. Did anyone make a motion for these names?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, Don made a motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Don made a motion.
MR. DOWNE: I would move, Mr. Chairman, that I would table that at this point until we clarify the process.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's move on to agenda item II then and we will come back.
At the last meeting there was some concern about these screening committees as Don indicated, who are they, we don't know their names, we don't know their background. So we worked very hard and the Premier's office worked very hard, the Clerk, Alison Scott, to get these names out. If there is a name missing, I apologize for that but I think rather than one missing name we need to concentrate on the list of names that are here. You also have biographies with them. So we have tried to honour your request.
Then there is also a letter from Alison responding to how the screening panels or citizens review committees were put into place and how they will function. Mr. Spurr, do you have any further information you want to deal with, an update on this process? My understanding is that most of the names were chosen through the government bureaucracy. They are not political appointments but they are appointments based on qualification for that specific department that they are put on and that that was the process that was followed.
MR. JAMES SPURR: No, I don't really have anything to add. I am not really involved in this particular aspect of the process. It is done through the Secretary's office.
DR. JAMES SMITH: I am pinch-hitting for Wayne Gaudet as you know, Mr. Chairman. The questions we had - and some had already been brought forward - were referring to the November 3rd letter from Alison Scott. Our questions would be the naming of them and I guess we were talking the panel, whether this is the equivalent of the citizens group?
MR. CHAIRMAN: They are the same body.
DR. SMITH: Interchangeable, we can do that. Whether they are consistent. I noticed in the second page of that letter she has said that ". . . will vary by department.". We would like to have a little more information on how they will vary and if there is a standard process and if we have a copy of that process, if that is written down. So if we could have a copy of that process, whether it is a standardized process and what does ". . . vary by department." mean?
The reason why I qualified that I am pinch-hitting is because maybe that is why I didn't see the November 3rd letter. But I must say that I want to thank you, that I have received all the other information that Mr. Downe seems to be missing. But those are some of the questions. I don't think it is adequate to say that someone within the bureaucracy will be doing this. Who's doing it? Is it transparent? So we may as well start in our opening meetings to do it that way. That's my opinion as an interloper on this committee.
MR. DEXTER: I must say that the first thing I tried to figure out was where these people came from. I have to say it is a mystery as to the process by which the panels actually get appointed. Do these people apply? Did somebody phone up the office of the Provincial Secretary and say, I want to be on a committee? As I was going through, the one that stood out in my mind was the Hayley Clarke appointment to the Department of Justice. I don't know Hayley Clarke at all, but I think it is interesting now when you see . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: What page is that on?
MR. DEXTER: It's on Page 13, and it has a little blurb here about her biography and it says, "She is a lawyer who brings knowledge of the legal system and its issues to the panel.". Well, that's good. I would hope that all lawyers would bring some knowledge of the legal system to the job that they are called upon to do. "Has first hand knowledge of the court process . . .". Well, I think that goes hand in hand with being a practising lawyer. " . . . and, an understanding of the legal qualifications that may be needed to fulfill positions put forward by the Justice Department.". Essentially this doesn't tell us anything about her at all, other than the fact that she's a lawyer which, in my opinion is a good thing; others may have other opinions on that. (Laughter)
So you see, it is a mystery to me how this person came to be on this committee. What we know, what I surmise, is that they review a list of qualifications of people who are going to be recommended.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Basically what they do, Darrell, is that they simply knock off those who are not qualified.
MR. DEXTER: Right, which is my next point.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would be quite happy on behalf of the committee to write a follow-up letter to the initial letter I wrote on your behalf, asking for the names and procedure, asking what is the process for the selection of these committees and for their rejuvenation. Would you like me to do that?
MR. DEXTER: I certainly would like to have more information on how these committees were selected, certainly. I think that was part of the point that my friend was making.
MR. DOWNE: Exactly, and we had asked the question how those names were going to be chosen at the last meeting. I understood that one of the clarifications would be that point. If it is going to be advertised, individuals that would be prepared to work on a citizenship committee or a steering committee, or whatever screening committee name that we appoint to this, that process needs to be clarified because there is the concern as to the legitimacy of the names that go forward on that committee. That's the question we posed at the last meeting, as I recall. I guess that's the point. Once we have that established, then I think we can move forward to the point where we know that is a legitimate process.
I think really, as Tim said earlier, at one of the first meetings, I think what he was referring to was that the government does want this to be as transparent and as open as can be, and to be a legitimate process. I have taken him at his word on that, absolutely. So when we clarify the point of how this screening committee is actually put in process, then we can see if it is a legitimate process. That is the question that really is the essence when names come forward.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other thoughts on this? I am quite happy to write a letter on your behalf asking for follow-up. We have given the names and that's been a lot of work on Alison's part, I am sure. We can ask a follow-up question, what exactly is the process and the process for rejuvenation of these committees, too. Are they one-year, two-year or three-year appointments. How are they rejuvenated? Let's just stick to that and then I have another question, Darrell, whether you want to follow up on another matter related to that. Don, you had a further comment?
MR. DOWNE: The other one is somewhat clarified here in regard to the role of the minister in this exercise. Specifically, as the names either go out to the steering committee or come back from the steering committee, is there a roster of names whereby the minister has some input into this process, and defining exactly the role of the minister prior to it going to an OIC . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you sharpen that up? Which committee are you talking about?
MR. DOWNE: This whole discussion here is really dealing with this screening panel, or citizenship committee - you can call it both - I guess we will pick another name . . .
MS. O'CONNELL: The sieve.
MR. DOWNE: The sieve, the screen, but in this screening exercise I would like to know specifically where the minister fits into this particular role.
MR. CHAIRMAN: In picking the names for those committees.
MR. DOWNE: Exactly, because when he signs off or she signs off for the OIC, the condition is that they feel they are the most appropriate people qualified for the job. So they are putting their name on a document saying we believe they are the most qualified persons for that position. My question then goes back, what role does the minister play prior to or during or after the process to sign that name to it? Is it merely a rubber stamp on his behalf by the screening committee's recommendation and/or his or her personal point of view of a roster of names that would go forward? This screening committee would obviously have a fairly significant number of names going in, depending on the committee and the department, and if they are rolling through those names and vetting that process, then where does the minister fit in? That is a clarification I would really like to see.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We can deal with that. You need to remember these committees were set in place to make sure that only qualified people are appointed. So the only mandate of the citizen review committee or the screening panel committee is to make sure that non-qualified people don't go forward, but after that the former process takes over. We will send a letter, if everyone is in agreement, following up with Alison saying can you give us some further information about process and for the selection of these committees. Tim.
MR. TIMOTHY OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond to a couple of things. Don quite appropriately mentioned my statements of a few weeks ago regarding the transparency of this subcommittee or this screening panel. I will deal with the other issue of my opinion on the names, but these names went out over a week ago. I think all three Parties, us included, certainly had an opportunity. I didn't see these names, I saw them the same time you did, and I can say that without any hesitation.
MR. DOWNE: I wasn't here last week, it is probably because I was out of the city and nothing had been sent out, so I apologize for that.
MR. OLIVE: No, that is fine. The fact is that members on this side of the table saw these the same day you saw them. I think it is very important to remember that one of the things we campaigned for and have subsequently tried to live by is that people cannot be discriminated against, for all kinds of reasons, and one of them certainly is their political affiliation. Now I can't tell you what the political affiliation is of the people in this list. I don't
care what it is. I am told that there are political affiliations from all three Parties on this list, and that . . .
MR. DEXTER: Are you telling me that you can't tell me what the political affiliation of Jim White is? Are you seriously trying to tell me that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are not . . .
MR. OLIVE: I am talking about the screening panel here, am I not? Excuse me, Mr. Chairman . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are not talking about that, we are talking about the screening panels, Darrell.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, thank you . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.
MR. OLIVE: The member for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour, anyway I will get there in a minute. On these screening panels, I am told, as I said before I was interrupted, there are representatives from across the political system, and I think that is great. That is exactly what I wanted and that is what I see. Where did they come from? I am told that the names came from questions asked from the minister down through the department, down through the deputy and senior bureaucrats. Who is eligible? Who out there could sit on these committees? I don't know about Mr. Dexter, whether he knows this lawyer personally and thinks she is not qualified or that she has no business making a decision or being judgemental on who is qualified for Department of Justice boards. I have no idea.
[10:30 a.m.]
I am quite satisfied that what we have here, if people who are applying for boards and commissions can get through these committees with the people who are on them today, I believe that we are meeting our requirement to get the best qualified people. That would be my comment on that.
I guess the other comment I would like to make is, and when we started off this meeting, Mr. Chairman, we were on another issue and it just brings back the depth and the sleaze that can come out if you really want to do it. I thought we were going to try to do this thing above board with some degree of decorum and the honourable member for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour brings up an issue that was slanderous in the House and is slanderous in this room to make any reference to a member for a board . . .
MR. DEXTER: You could put that to the test if you like, Tim.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, if that is what we are going to be doing, it really doesn't matter who is on this board. This board could be made up of all of one Party or all of two Parties or all of three Parties. If that is the level that we are going to get to in this board, then you have quite a job ahead of you because I don't think we should be there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will leave that one, too, until we come back to agenda item I.
We are on agenda item II, the screening panels. We have decided that we want a little further information about the process of selection and the terms of appointment and the role of the minister in the screening panels. So let's stick to the screening panels right now. There is one other thing that perhaps we should do in terms of the screening panels but I will bring it up later. Eileen wants to speak right now.
MS. O'CONNELL: Yes, and I wanted to speak to that but first I want to say that you know there is a terrible inconsistency here. If the member for Dartmouth South wants civilized conduct, he shouldn't be poking the hot stick at somebody and saying that they said something they didn't. I find that really infuriating.
Anyway, the question of whether the screening panel picks the best qualified person or a qualified person, my understanding, Mr. Chairman, was that you said the screening panel eliminates the unqualified people and therefore leaves perhaps a range of people who are all qualified, which is quite possible. But if you look at the guidelines we slaved over last year, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Guidelines, Number 13, "It is my opinion as the Minister responsible for the ABC that from the candidates that applied to the position that this is the best qualified person to carry out the duties of this position.". Now there is an inconsistency there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are mixing apples and oranges right here. The citizens or peer review committee, whatever, screening panels, were meant to add an extra level to get rid of any possibility of patronage. Their only job is to make sure that names that are not qualified get knocked off so that the minister only looks at names that could possibly be qualified, have qualifications that would fit with that and then we come into the other system. So we can deal with that later, Eileen, but right now we are simply on the peer review committees and that is their only function. If they did more than that, they would be replacing us as a Human Resources Committee, and we wouldn't want them to do that.
MS. O'CONNELL: Well, with all respect, Mr. Chairman, we don't know because there is no written process, how many names these committees actually submit to the minister and if the minister gets one name, then that is a problem.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be a problem. They would be replacing our function. So I think it is a good question of what the process is.
MS. O'CONNELL: There are no rules.
MR. CHAIRMAN: My understanding is they simply eliminate unqualified people but we will ask the question, if everyone is in agreement, I will write a letter on behalf of the committee asking for more information about process. Is everyone agreed? Are there any concerns about that or further discussion?
MR. DOWNE: I think, Mr. Chairman, your wisdom prevails again and we look forward to your leadership in carrying forward with those duties.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am the Nutty Professor, I can't be wise.
MR. DOWNE: It is Christmas, I am trying to get in the mood here. I think it would be important to have those clarifications, and if we have those clarifications, I would also recommend that before we get into starting to appoint people at the session we should have a session to make sure we feel comfortable with it and maybe have a discussion just on that to make sure that everybody - so we don't have to go through this four or five more times because that is what we tried to resolve at the first and second session, when the whole issue of the citizenship committee came up. I think we asked the questions two or three times. It would be nice to have that clarified and established, that we all feel comfortable with it so we can go forward at that point.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is what we are trying to do. There is no nefarious plot to sort of keep the information from you. That is why the names were brought forward.
One other issue that I think perhaps Darrell raised, that we may want to incorporate in this letter or we may want to leave aside, and I think this is probably an indication of how at arm's length these peer review committees are from the process, but certainly it would seem to me that it might be wise for us to query what policy there would be for someone who is appointed or nominated to an agency, board or commission who also sits on the peer review committee, which is the question Darrell raised. Do we want to ask that in a separate letter or just incorporate it into this first letter on process? It would seem to me a fair question.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Dexter on that. I think that is a question that has to be asked. It is certainly a question I had and I think it should be handled as a separate issue.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Separate letter?
MR. OLIVE: Certainly, because I think it almost gets down to policy.
MR. DOWNE: I would go one step further, not only for the individual who is on the screening panel for a specific department that he or she might apply to, but the question is further. Whether you are on a screening committee or a citizenship committee or a screening panel for department x, does that stop that individual from applying to department y? I think those are the kind of fundamental policy questions that we have to ask. If you are going to have a screening committee established, then that stops them from applying or being appointed to other committees. That is really the essence of what I have seen in this discussion as well. That needs to be clarified.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we need to ask that policy question. Tim suggested that these be two separate letters, which I assume is fine with the committee, or do you want them in one? Really, we are asking a question about process and then we are asking a question about what is the policy in terms of people on the steering committee and their eligibility to be put forward as nominees for agencies, boards and commissions either in that department or in other departments, right? These citizens committees and peer review committees are not under our mandate so we can't set the policy, we can only ask what it is.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, just further to what Don mentioned, in the case of the first one that came up, Mr. Holland. I think it is appropriate that we find out whether if, in fact, the government wanted some continuity, that that is the reason he was recommended. Then there should be a process where he can excuse himself and that there would be somebody else on that committee so that they can, in fact, review all of the names and find out whether we even know if the government may wish to have some continuity, maybe he is not the best qualified.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that may well have been what happened.
MR. OLIVE: Continuity may not be the biggest issue in that case, but he could not, in my opinion, could not and should not sit on a committee that reviews whether he is the best qualified. That is like putting a fox into the hen house.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, there is clearly a perceived conflict of interest there and we need to find out about it. So are we agreed that we will have two letters, one on process and one on policy in regard to the issue that Darrell raised? Yes, Eileen.
MS. O'CONNELL: Mr. Chairman, in the light of what the member for Dartmouth South just said, we do have a method on this committee of dealing with that. We could simply reject the name, as a committee, of anybody who nominated himself or herself. So in that sense it wouldn't matter what the policy was, we could make a decision here to simply not accept that particular type of recommendation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We could make our policy that any name that came through but I think it would probably be helpful and fair to find out what the policy of the screening committees is because we don't have all the information we need to make that decision.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, if I could respond to that, the fact is that if we are going to do that, we are rejecting a person who somebody else has determined that they are the best qualified and we are rejecting them for reasons other than their qualifications. I don't think that is proper either, so I think it has to be clarified.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we need more information, really. We need more clarification before we do anything of that nature. Darrell.
MR. DEXTER: What Mr. Olive has just said points to the problem, because he used the words best qualified, which is not what the screening committee does. It simply knocks off those people who simply aren't qualified as opposed to selecting the best qualified.
MR. OLIVE: Semantics.
MR. DEXTER: It is not semantics. That was an important part of what you said the purpose of this committee was and, in fact, the purpose of putting in place the selection committees.
MR. OLIVE: I swear never again to use the word best.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we jump forward, if everyone is happy, because this conversation would happen at the next meeting once we found out more information which we don't really have at this stage. So if everyone feels comfortable, we are agreed that I will write two letters, one about process, one about policy, re this second issue. If there are no other comments on it, I would like to move forward if that is okay. It is not that I want to hurry you up, but I would like to get to the appointments and then onto those other agenda items which is what most excites me. So you have those. There is agreement I will write the two letters. Do I hear agreement? Agreed.
Let's move back to agenda item I. We will lift from the table Mr. Downe's . . .
MS. O'CONNELL: Aren't we waiting on these appointments, Mr. Chairman, until we get the information?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we are waiting on these appointments until we get the information? (Interruptions)
MS. O'CONNELL: I must have misheard you. I thought we were going to hold these appointments until . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I did not say that. What I did say is that we would find out the process and then if we needed to set some policy, we would do that on the basis of the information. If you wanted to do something else, you would have to make a motion that these be put on hold in the meantime, but that is not what I said. Did you want to make that motion, or . . .
MS. O'CONNELL: I am torn, Mr. Chairman, because I know there are some very good people on this list. (Interruption) No, not with these but I mean throughout the list there are some . . .
MR. DEXTER: I think we are only dealing with these two right now.
MS. O'CONNELL: I will make a motion that we do not make any appointments to the Nova Scotia Business Development Corporation until we have more information.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have to deal with Mr. Downe's . . .
MR. DEXTER: His is on the table.
MS. O'CONNELL: So I will withdraw mine for the moment then.
MR. DOWNE: I thought I withdrew that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, you tabled it. So let's deal with Mr. Downe's motion first and if that goes through, then your motion is an impossibility.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Chairman, if I can, in light of the information that was sent out and I was not here in Halifax last week so I did not receive it, I was not aware of the situation of a screening individual in a committee structure. I did not realize that. The issue here is there is still a clarification point that I think raises the question, is there a perceived conflict of interest here? I think that is fair and I think it needs to be clarified. I am not saying that there is. I am just saying that it appears that. In going through this list the same thing is true with another name that is on here. That is Paul LeBlanc who is on the list for the Department of Labour but he is also on a screening committee here that I see and has been recommended. Again, it gets back to the question I asked, if he or she is on one screening committee, can they apply for another departmental activity?
I guess those are the points that I am saying need to be clarified and because of that I would have to withdraw until we felt as a committee that there is legitimacy there. I'm not saying that there isn't, but at least the perception that any concern that would be brought forward would have been dealt with properly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I clarify the point you are making? Are you are saying we withdraw all the names and hold them in abeyance or are you just withdrawing your motion now?
MR. DOWNE: Withdrawing the motion at this point.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you then saying that all the names that have come forward should be put on hold until our next meeting, until we get clarification?
MR. DOWNE: I think there are two names here now that are on a citizenship committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So you are just referring to those two names?
MR. DOWNE: I am saying that there is some concern raised as I read the room here about a perception and whether it is legitimate or not, there is a concern about that. I think that has to be discussed among the committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have agreed, just to bring the committee up to date, to write a letter requesting what the policy is and to get further information and at our next meeting discuss that and make some further decisions. It would seem to me that that has been agreed upon and that this is now an extra request and would have to come in the form of an official motion if we want to not let these names or those two names, or whatever names, go through because we haven't got that information yet.
MS. O'CONNELL: I thought I heard Don withdraw his motion for the first two names . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: He withdrew his motion, so your motion comes on the floor then. Could you clarify your motion then for us, please?
MS. O'CONNELL: My motion would be that we do not vote on these two names until we receive the clarification from the letters you have agreed to write on behalf of the committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion on the floor. Any discussion?
MR. CAREY: Which two names are you . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Nova Scotia Business Development Corporation.
MS. O'CONNELL: The Department of Economic Development, Mr. Holland and Mr. MacConnell.
MR. CAREY: Why would you not consider Mr. MacConnell?
MS. O'CONNELL: Well, partly because of the whole process. There was my colleague's reference to a small concern about the fishing lodge.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, since I have already stated my opinion on Mr. Holland, I would like to suggest that we, in fact, do these names one at a time. We will vote on Mr. Holland and vote on Mr. MacConnell. I understand the concerns with Mr. Holland. I do not see any concern with Mr. MacConnell under the insignificant comment made. I really believe that this process can be reviewed as a result of your letters. I don't think the whole process has to be slowed down because of that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have another motion on the floor so we will hold that suggestion until we deal with this first motion. Any more discussion on the motion that Eileen has put forward?
MR. SPURR: Yes, it may be possible to fill in some information for you before you vote on your motion and I hope this will go to clarification. At the present time there are no members on the board of the Business Development Corporation. At the time Mr. Holland's name and Mr. MacConnell's name came forward, they came forward as reappointments and they came forward prior to all of the discussions around screening committees. If you look at the Form "A" in your books you will notice the date on the Form "A", originally, as October 29th, as the date on which their term was to begin and it was to run for three years subsequent to that date. At the time these came through the system and came to Cabinet there was an urgency to constitute a quorum, and as I say, these came forward originally before the screening committees were in place.
You will notice on Form "A"s, my initials are by the date of commencement and by the duration of the term. In an attempt to at least constitute a quorum for this board of directors, without having to go back through the system and through the screening process, it was my recommendation to the Cabinet that the terms be shortened from three years to three months in order to allow the Business Development Corporation to operate, in order to allow the system for the screening of candidates to be commenced again and to allow enough time for that system to work until new names could be brought forward. That's why they are before you, asking for approval for three months. Those two reasons: one, there is nobody on that board at the moment; and two, it is the intention of the department to re-initiate the process and go through it again, including the screening process.
A second point of clarification that I want to get on the record is, at the time Mr. Holland's name came forward, there was no screening committee. The fact that his name may have ended up on the list of screening committees is probably not the best judgement on whoever put the list together, but the fact is at the time his name was put forward as a
nominee for approval, there was no screening committee. Those are points of information I want you to have before you proceed to vote on your motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: In light of that information, Eileen, do you want to withdraw your motion or do you want it still to go forward?
MS. O'CONNELL: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think it should go forward because what that suggests to me is that we now don't know how many of these other names didn't go through the screening committee. To me it just raises another problem. How many of these names came forward and never went through the screening committee. It sounds a bit Keystone Kops to me, really, and what we are looking for, at least on our side, is some kind of rational and clear process. The members are welcome to defeat my motion if they so choose, but I certainly am not going to withdraw it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You want your motion to still stand, okay.
Any other discussion? Is someone willing to call for the question on the motion?
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is defeated.
Okay, let's go forward.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee put forward the names of Mr. Lonsdale Holland and Mr. James MacConnell for the Department of Economic Development, Business Development Corporation for a three month period.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, should they be voted on separately?
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Put forward the two names.
MR. CHAIRMAN: These are the two names. Did you want to bring up your suggestion, Tim, or are you leaving that?
MR. OLIVE: No, I will . . .
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: This is for a three month period.
MR. OLIVE: Based on the information provided by Mr. Spurr, it is for a three month period and I don't have a problem with that. The issue is still the same, but given the new information, I don't have a problem with that.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: I do have a problem with that first name, as well, Mr. Holland, because of the process with him being on the screening process, but the information that Mr. Spurr has provided to us, I put forward that motion.
MR. CAREY: Mr. Chairman, do we need two people to have this board function?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: The board has to function.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion on these two names? Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
We are on to the next group, Workers' Compensation Board under the Department of Labour. You have five names. Is someone willing to move these individuals and name the board and the names of the people, please and thank you, those who might be willing to move it.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move under the Department of Labour, the Workers' Compensation Board: Dr. Oscar Wong, Paul LeBlanc, James Melvin, Roberta Morrison and James White.
DR. SMITH: I would like to point out to the committee as well for the record that you have a person here on the Workers' Compensation Board who will receive $150 a day, that is also on the screening committee under the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, Paul LeBlanc.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's just for the record that you wanted to mention that?
DR. SMITH: Yes, prior to the vote.
MR. DEXTER: I was wondering if we could not vote on these separately. All of us may have different concerns about different names that are coming forward. That's my question. But with this list, I want to point out, I guess, and these, so far as I can tell, are not interim appointments, they are appointments for the term from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2003. You have in this, as was pointed out by my colleague, Mr. LeBlanc is in the situation of serving on a screening committee and being appointed or recommended for appointment to another committee in another department. I think it is quite different actually than Mr. Holland, he is not a person who is recommending himself, but he is being recommended by another screening committee. So there is at least some significant difference in Mr. LeBlanc's situation. He is also, might I say, very well known, a former superintendent
of insurance. He certainly has a background in issues that may be very relevant to the Workers' Compensation Board.
The next person on the list is Mr. Melvin. I don't know Mr. Melvin but I did read his résumé. He was the official agent for Mary Ann McGrath during the last election campaign. That seems to be high on his list of qualifications. He is the President of the Halifax West Progressive Conservative Association. I don't see anything. We don't know how many other people came forward and whether he is the best qualified among the list of those who applied.
Roberta Morrison, I didn't see anything significant in terms of what was on her résumé. She seems to be qualified for the position based on what was contained in it. Then you have Jim White, who is well known to people. He ran for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party. His résumé lists among his community involvement, PC candidate, Annapolis Valley-Hants federal election; co-chair public and media relations, Don Cameron's successful leadership campaign. No question, he is a partisan and I think both of those appointments are clearly being made for those reasons.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am not sure if that is fair or not. Are you asking that we look at each one of them individually, is that your request?
MR. DEXTER: Yes. And finally . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: A motion was made on them as a group, so we will have to deal with that first motion, then we can come back to your suggestion.
MR. DEXTER: Sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But go ahead.
MR. DEXTER: Now, as far as I can tell from looking, Mr. White is listed as having a Doctorate of Law. As far as I could tell from his résumé, in fact I think he has a Bachelor of Law, not that it makes a big difference, but if anybody is under the impression that he has a Doctorate of Law (Interruptions) What is that?
DR. SMITH: It makes a lot of difference to those who have a doctorate.
MR. DEXTER: Right, exactly. Unless there is something deficient in his résumé, that certainly doesn't appear there. The problem that you present in the motion that is put forward is that there are people who we may well agree with being appointed, there are others with whom we disagree. We are not going to be put in the position of filling positions with which we disagree in order to put through those which we agree with.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Darrell, just to backtrack a little bit on what I said, that we had a motion on the floor. You could make an amendment to the motion on the floor, and then we would deal with that amendment.
MR. DEXTER: I will move that the motion be amended to deal with the individuals separately.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We have an amendment to the main motion on the floor. Any discussion on that amendment? (Interruption) We don't second motions.
DR. SMITH: Oh, I am sorry, that is right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You can vote in favour of it. Tim.
MR. OLIVE: If I may address this, I think we are starting to lose sight here a little bit. One of the prerequisites to any board appointment under our policy is that nobody can be discriminated against for a number of reasons. One of them obviously has to be the political angle. Sure, we know who these people are. The fact is that they are, all five candidates, not two in particular that the member for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour wishes to talk about, but all five candidates are perfectly qualified for these positions.
They have passed a review screening process. People like David Peters, Joanne Mutton, Peter O'Brien, Dick Smyth, Barbara Jones Gordon. Most people around this table know all of these individuals. I would suggest that they are as qualified as anybody else in Nova Scotia to go through the names and put forward those that sort of pass the litmus test. As such, the fact that we have submitted before us five names who are qualified, they are here because of merit and they were screened by a non-partisan screening committee.
[11:00 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: So you will be voting against the amendment.
MR. OLIVE: I certainly will be.
MR. DEXTER: I wonder if the member who just spoke, or if any of the members from the government caucus, bothered to call the selection committee to find out whether or not in fact these names were considered by the members of the selection committee, because I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, we had the opportunity to speak to at least some of the members who have told us that they never saw these. So the department may have put it forward to selective members of that committee, but all of the committees in fact didn't review these appointments, and that is a fact.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't want to go back over the issue of the screening panels, which we have already agreed to write a letter on, I would like to deal with this amendment to the motion of whether we will vote on these individuals separately, which is the amendment you put forward. We have already dealt with the other one, so if we could deal with this now.
MR. DOWNE: Just a clarification. Mr. Spurr indicated that in fact with the previous committee there was no screening committee named when their names came forward. Are we saying that none of the names before us now have gone through any screening committee or citizens committee? Just for clarification.
MR. SPURR: I am only able to speak to the first two on the list because I have, obviously, personal knowledge of the process, but I can't speak with the same level of detail on the remainder that I could on the first two.
MR. DOWNE: One other point of clarification. In the past when people applied for these positions, they went back two or three years. You put your application in and it was kept on file for a number of years. I assume they have not been exit-delete, on the computer, they are still on that list of names that are at the forefront. So all those previously applying for those positions were reviewed in this process, without the understanding that it went through the screening committee and/or citizens committee?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Clearly we are putting in a new process and there are growing pains in it. I don't think that means the process is bad in any way, it just means that a new process is being put in. I want to deal with just the amendment. Are there any further comments about the amendment that anyone wants to make before someone calls for the vote?
Is someone willing to call for the question on the amendment then?
Would all those in favour of the amendment to look at these individually please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
So what do we have Mora?
MS. MORA STEVENS (Legislative Committee Coordinator): The Ayes have it at the moment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So we will look at each of the names individually. Are we willing to . . .
MR. OLIVE: There was a Nay vote? Where did you get No out of that?
MS. STEVENS: There were only three Nays on this side of the room. (Interruption) I am sorry, Bill, I didn't see you.
So that is a tie at the moment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: A tie. So I will vote and I will vote that we look at them individually. I will vote Aye. So let's look at them all individually.
Are we willing to nominate them individually then? Please and thank you, let's have nominations for Dr. Oscar Wong. The board and the name please. Is there someone willing to nominate this individual?
MR. OLIVE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would nominate for the Department of Labour, Workers' Compensation Board, Dr. Oscar Wong.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions or comments about this candidate? Could I call for the vote? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
A nomination for the second candidate.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Speaker, I would nominate for the Department of Labour, Workers' Compensation Board, Mr. Paul LeBlanc.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
You are recording a Nay vote?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: We are abstaining
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are abstaining? Okay. The third name.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Labour, Workers' Compensation Board, I would like to nominate James Melvin.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion?
MR. DEXTER: Yes, I do. I want to come back to this because I think it is important for all the reasons that both you, Mr. Chairman, and the member for Dartmouth South stated before in the appointments to these boards. What this does, the message here, and I know that the members from the government side are under a great deal of pressure from people within their Party who feel that they won the last election and therefore they are owed something. I know because I hear the Tories from your organization talking out loud about the fact that they are wild, that they consider the Liberals still to be running the government. I know that this is a way for you guys to be able to go back to your people and say, look, we are appointing high profile Tories, but loading up the Workers' Compensation Board with partisans is not running government differently. It is not doing government in a new way. So I am objecting to both Mr. Melvin and Mr. White.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are dealing just with Mr. Melvin.
MR. DEXTER: I am objecting to Mr. Melvin in this instance because I believe that the message here is very clear to people that government in fact is not going to be done any differently. These screening committees are not screening committees at all. They are not screens. They are sieves and what is going to happen is that every Tory appointee is just going to make their way back to this board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any other discussion on this particular individual? Are you ready for the question?
MR. OLIVE: What is the question, please?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is to nominate James Melvin to the Workers' Compensation Board.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, Department of Labour, Workers' Compensation Board, I would like to nominate Roberta Morrison.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion on this name? Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, Department of Labour, Workers' Compensation Board, I would like to nominate James White.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion?
MS. O'CONNELL: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out while we are here that he is recorded in the book as a management rep but, in fact, he is not. I believe he is representing the public at large. So I just wanted to draw the committee's attention to that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that clarification. Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
For, 4. Against, 4.
I will vote and I will explain my vote very clearly. We have stated that political affiliation cannot be a factor for people serving on these agencies, boards and commissions. If it cannot be a factor - and I wrestled over this one - then it cannot be a factor against those people being appointed. So I had to try to look at Mr. White objectively - which was not always the easiest thing to do because I knew his background - and I am voting in favour of his appointment.
The motion is carried.
The Department of Tourism and Culture - we have two here so we will separate them - Art Gallery of Nova Scotia.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the situation you are in and I accept your comments.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
DR. SMITH: But it certainly doesn't reflect the history of the committee when we formed the previous government.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn't sit on the committee at that time.
DR. SMITH: No, and I think you would have been fair had you been here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. The Department of Tourism and Culture, Art Gallery of Nova Scotia. I am willing to entertain a motion for this particular agency or board. Is someone willing to make that?
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: I would make the motion, Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Tourism and Culture, Art Gallery of Nova Scotia Board of Governors: Anne Bruce-MacNeil, Karen M. Cramm, Fred S. Fountain, Audrey M. Hanrahan, Ann Kitz, Fred MacGillivray, Sandra MacLennan, Gail Rudderham Chernin and Kay Stanfield.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have to vote in support just because you got all the names right. It there any discussion on these names then, the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia, before we proceed with those?
DR. SMITH: I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, I feel differently about these appointments in that they are essentially volunteers with no remuneration and I think that makes a difference. I think to serve on this board, while it is an honour, it is also a commitment and I would like to make that statement.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any other discussion then? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. WILLIAM DOOKS: Mr. Chairman, I nominate to the Museum of Nova Scotia Board of Governors, Dr. Peter J. Christmas.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have heard the nomination. Is there any discussion on Dr. Peter Christmas? That is a good name for this time of the year, isn't it? (Interruptions)
MS. O'CONNELL: Is his wife's name Mary?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mary Christmas, Merry Christmas; good point. We once had, when I was a minister in Moncton, a lady whose last name was H-o-a-r, and her first name, her mom had named here Ima, in good old Baptist territory. So these funny names, it isn't Mary Christmas, is it, you are just teasing us here.
MS. O'CONNELL: I don't know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyway, any more discussion about Peter Christmas?
MS. O'CONNELL: Question, please.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Good. Now we get into the more fun part.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, before you get off that subject, I feel, as other members have said, they would like to get something on the record and I think it is appropriate that there be another comment placed on the record. A while back there were a couple of other
appointments that came before government. While we were not the government at that time, we supported those appointments because we believed they were the best people put forward by the government of the day. That was John Morash, Chairman of the URB, and I think most people know where John Morash's political affiliations are, but that certainly had no effect on his qualifications and his ability to be Chairman of the Utility and Review Board. While we were not the government, we were sitting in the Legislature and we supported that.
Mr. Chairman, another individual who was placed by the government of the day, which was not our government, was Jim Dewar, who was made Chairman of the Human Rights Commission. Everyone knows his background and we supported him and his appointment because he was, as put forward by the government of the day, the best person for the job. I think it is important that be on the record, that this policy that we have has been set prior to us taking over the government and it is our intention to keep that process going.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Tim. Any other discussion? I did not mean to hurry you on, I am sorry. Does anybody else want to say anything to put on the record in terms of the discussion we have just had? Okay. Let's go onto our next agenda item, setting the future agenda.
This is something that has been held over from the past meeting. We have a very full agenda item from Mr. Olive that he brought back from the government caucus. I want to thank him for that; a lot of work in that. We have some items from the NDP which we will ask for a little clarification on if that is okay, since there was to be a covering letter, and I think that is missing. Do we have any items from the Liberal caucus? What we asked for, if you remember, was if there were any caucus items under the mandate of Labour, Education, Tourism and Culture and sometimes we have looked at Justice issues, I think, in the past that this committee could look at and to bring them back. At the last meeting people didn't feel that the caucuses were ready yet to proceed with putting these in some sort of order as to how we wanted to deal with them. So we brought it to this meeting.
We have the government. We have the NDP items. Do we have anything that the Liberal caucus would like us to discuss under that other hat?
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Chairman, two items. One was through education, the universities, and the other is labour. Certainly with the pending issues that are going on with the budgetary issues I thought labour issues should be one that could be brought in on that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you be more specific in regard to universities?
MR. DOWNE: In going through the book here, ". . . considering matters normally assigned to or within the purview of the Departments . . . of Education and Culture and of Labour,", and I guess if there are any issues that would be appropriate with regards to their input to the committee, I sense that there is a fair amount of concern with university
structures right now, from what I am gathering, as well as concerns with regard to labour and what the impact would be with the pending budgetary processes and whether there would be an impact on that and whether or not that would be an item that we could discuss as a committee.
Joan Jessome might be one, or others, who would want to talk about the labour issues. I don't know if that would necessarily fit in 100 per cent, but those are the two that I think that we just discussed in general terms. I would assume that the offer would be open throughout the year as issues might arise.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is not a closed offer, but we only have limited time and we need to set some sort of priority of how we are going to deal with them. So if we could do that at this meeting or at least begin the process at this meeting and then maybe finish it up at the next meeting.
We have two items that are very broad that Don has mentioned. Darrell or Eileen, did you want to clarify a little further? There was to be a covering letter, I understand, that we didn't get.
MR. DEXTER: What we did was we sent along to you, I guess, the transcript of our committee meeting in which I set out what I thought were some relevant questions with respect to the whole issue of the impact of the culture sector in Nova Scotia. So that was one thing that was in the package you would have received.
The second but I think more important thing is the whole question - and we have been raising this over the last number of days and weeks - of safety on the offshore and the difficulties that have been obvious with the process: the lack of any regulations, the lack of prosecutions when there have been significant problems and deaths resulting from accidents in the offshore, something that we see as a problem.
Something that is interesting, although I think the connection should be obvious in coming out of a situation like Westray, is you have an industry where there were some problems that were pointed out by Justice Richard and the way in which that industry was overseen, and you now have this very similar situation occurring in the offshore. This is something that we have an opportunity now to look at in a very positive way, to bring forward, I would think, some recommendations to the government that quite possibly could save lives in the offshore, to make recommendations which the government is going to have an opportunity to act on in a very positive fashion.
What I want to say about this in terms of our issue is that this is at the top of our list of things that we think this committee can do constructively and, as the Chairman has pointed out, can have a real effect on the policy of the province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have two items, one fairly specific and the other more general. We also have a very specific and good list from the government caucus. I want to commend you, Tim, for the work you have done. Do you want to speak to the document that you have before us?
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I think it is pretty well self-explanatory. There are a number of areas which I believe we can provide, as a group, definitive input into government in the preparation of changes to the way we provide services and improvements. These are just some of the areas under some various departments which I think we should take an opportunity to discuss. I think the honourable member for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour did mention Tourism or Culture last time and I think we both have an interest in that on our own side of the harbour. I think that is certainly an issue that we can work well together on as well as all of the others. So it is pretty well self-explanatory, and it is so tabled.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to thank the three caucuses for doing that work. What we need to decide, since we have limited time and the ABC appointments chew up a lot of our time, so we can't do everything, it would be nice if we could look at all of these, they are all interesting. We need to decide some priorities.
Do you want to do that at this meeting? We are getting close to the end of our time. Do you want to try and do that? We can extend the time if we want to. Do you want to try to do that now, or do you want to reflect on it some more and do it at our next meeting? It is up to you as a committee. This is something that as Chair I have sort of pushed simply because I feel that the ABC takes over too much of the other work of the committee, which I think is very important work, but really the time line is up to you.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask a question or get clarification. When these issues are brought before the committee, are they the primary focus of discussion during a Human Resources Committee or are they a part of a larger agenda item? What has been the practice?
MR. CHAIRMAN: In the past the practice was that once a month the committee dealt with ABCs, and at the other meeting, in the middle of the month usually, they dealt with these items. We don't need to follow that practice, but it helps in the sense that discussing both the ABCs and these human resource issues gets a little confusing. We can do what we want, but that has been the practice in the past.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, as a follow-up, is it also part of the process whereby we do invite, as they do in Public Accounts, people in to get clarification on various issues?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have that right, yes.
MR. OLIVE: Okay.
MS. O'CONNELL: I just wanted to say a couple of things. During the minority government, as I understand it, under the Liberal Government the mandates of the committees were under review, so we didn't have any witnesses, but, prior to that - and I think I am the only one left on this committee from this other issue, and Mora you will know about it - I believe it was two years ago that when the new copy of the rules and procedures came out, the Status of Women had been dropped from the committee's mandate.
We had a flurry of correspondence - I remember Terry Donahoe was on the committee then - over a number of months that seemed to indicate, if my recollection is correct, that that was a typographical error and the Status of Women was indeed part of the mandate of this committee. We didn't submit anything because it is not in the new book.
I don't know whether you want to say something, Mora, but I would urge us to go back again and make sure that is clarified as part of the mandate of the committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mora, do you want to respond to that?
MS. O'CONNELL: She has the history.
MS. STEVENS: It was a typographical error made by the Legislative Counsel; we do have letters on that. What I understand from Gordon Hebb is it just cannot be put back in without actual discussion at the Assembly Matters Committee, but we are in the midst and we are doing this within this office. Now that the committees have met and know their mandates, or know what they presently have and they are starting to get up and running, we want to meet with each of the chairmen to put together a proposal that can go before the committees as well as before the Assembly Matters Committee, to change the mandates of the committee that can then proceed to the House.
It all has to go through the House. Even though it was a typographical error, we have to go through that process. Because human resources was on our list many years ago for our mandate and then it got dropped because they assumed because we are named the Human Resources Committee, there are things like that, bringing Justice in if that is the decision, putting that within our mandate. We have had precedents before that we have brought in Justice when we dealt with the family violence prevention initiative and bringing them before us, and they are more than happy to be put under our mandate.
MS. O'CONNELL: Are you saying then that the committee mandates are under review still?
MS. STEVENS: They are. The process stopped because there was no consensus getting it before the Assembly Matters Committee, but there is a new initiative now to get them looked at because they are very antiquated in the fact that departments are misnamed. Tourism and Culture is now a department versus Education and Culture. A lot of the actual
departments are not even named within those mandates. We are looking, between Legislative Counsel and we want to get the Chairs of the committees together now that they are a little more comfortable with their actual committees, so this is a process that is going to start in January.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you leave that up to me then, Eileen, to make sure it gets re-inserted?
MS. O'CONNELL: Absolutely, it was just something that seems to have gone on, and I wanted to mention it. What I did want to say, I wanted to suggest a process for dealing with everybody's lists.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would love to hear that because I am sitting here asking, how do we start on this?
MS. O'CONNELL: What if we prioritize them for the next meeting, each Party, and then we were each given a turn and turnabout or something. But having said that, I would urge the committee to consider seriously having Jim Dickey and some of the board members from the offshore gas in, maybe for the next meeting before we prioritize. We know the government agrees with us, it has concerns about this. Maybe we could do that while we are prioritizing and kind of splitting up the time among the Parties.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You are on one level saying we prioritize and come back and on the other level we push this one, fast-track the safety one? Okay. Can you separate the two suggestions then and we will deal with them separately?
MS. O'CONNELL: They are kind of contradictory. I'd rather not. (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn't want to say that. It's Christmas time. (Interruptions)
MR. DEXTER: I guess the point is, we can take from what the Premier was saying in the press that he sees it as a significant problem. There aren't names associated with a number of the other items that are before us, either the one that we suggested or the ones that the Liberals or the government caucus have suggested, in terms of a list of witnesses that you would like to call or a suggested rotation for calling them or any of that. With respect to this particular issue, we know who the person is. We know we can bring forward Jim Dickey. It's a matter that we can begin to deal with right away and then after hearing from him we can decide and then we would fall back into the regular rotation. He may produce a list of people who should be talked to. That would form the basis of witnesses for the committee and then they could fall into some kind of regular rotation with other matters.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I just hold the James Dickey issue for one second. Eileen's suggestion that each caucus prioritize their top issue that they want to look at, then we do it in some form of rotation, how does that sit with the rest of the committee members?
MR. DOWNE: Another option, if all three Parties bring in their 1,2,3,4,5 and where there are similarities on those numbers, it becomes apparent that that's where we would want to go. In light of what Darrell was saying, about Dr. Hamm's position relative to this issue and so on and so forth, it might be a number one priority. I might say that it might be a priority on the issue of labour in the Province of Nova Scotia in light of the budget that will be coming down and the effect that is going to have on labour across the Civil Service in the Province of Nova Scotia and that might be a priority on a number of these different fronts. So maybe what we could do is simply send in our priority list and where there is commonality we could choose those and that would start the first meeting off. Then we could at least have everybody's priority list and we could talk about it. So that wouldn't slow the process down.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So that's a good suggestion too, that it may become clearer. For example, on the offshore, the government has some concerns about employment, how do Nova Scotians fare? One could see that tying in with a larger offshore analysis that would also hook in with safety in the offshore. Any other comments on this, then, some sort of guidance of what we should do as a committee?
MR. OLIVE: I think Don's suggestion is fine. We'll come back with a priority list.
MR. DOWNE: I think we can go from there. That will at least be one of those items on the priority list. We might also want to indicate who we would like to have as a representative on that so we can . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: As a witness, you mean.
MR. DOWNE: Yes. I don't know if you are allowed only one witness or if you are allowed a couple of witnesses but if that is the case it might streamline the process and then at the end of that session take a look at the other lists and then go from there.
MR. OLIVE: So we are going to prioritize and indicate . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: If there are witnesses that you are interested in. Is everyone clear on that process? Are we in agreement with it? Is everyone in agreement?
MR. DEXTER: It's different from what I said.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is different than what you said, so that is why I am asking if there is agreement.
MR. DOWNE: It's better than what Darrell said. (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's why I am not ramming it through, Darrell. I am asking if you have any further comments on it?
MR. DEXTER: Well, I don't see any reason for putting off calling Mr. Dickey, I guess, is my position. The setting of an agenda, once you have prioritized something and you are simply into a question of setting a rotation, we do this on the Public Accounts Committee regularly. It doesn't take very long to do. It's a half-hour meeting. So if you have two hours, I mean surely we can use the other hour and one-half of that meeting time, we are going to be here anyway, and call a witness. It seems like Mr. Dickey is an obvious person to call in the first instance.
[11:30 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any responses to that? We have sort of general agreement that we will take Don's suggestion. Darrell wanted to reiterate that he would like to call Mr. Dickey ahead of the process of prioritization, if you want. Are there any thoughts on that?
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, further to what Darrell mentioned. I understand where he is coming from but I really think that for the purpose of us new people on the block, so to speak, we would like to get a little comfortable with the process, comfortable within the room, comfortable with the discussions. We have not been in this environment and I think in fairness we do deserve an opportunity to move into it not gently, because there is nothing gentle about it, but at least with some order and certainly following into whoever witnesses the Chair wishes to call.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed that we will follow the suggestion where we will prioritize 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and where there is agreement, those will be the priority items that we will discuss? Probably your concern, Darrell, will be one of the top items I am sure.
It is agreed.
We are coming to our end time, but you have a comment?
MR. DOWNE: Just a comment. In the letters I note that we weren't supposed to have this meeting today because caucuses were going to be going into retreat; obviously the retreat either happened or it didn't happen.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is next week, it got changed, and we want to thank the Opposition members for being willing to accommodate that change. So thank you.
MR. DOWNE: It must be that the information coming back from the peer review is slower than what was anticipated, otherwise you probably would have been out taking a look at the outcome of that. Anyway, we are happy to be able to be here and to deal with that, but I just want to clarify that when we write these letters - and I think we have gotten some letters where you kind of think afterwards of another point, but we did discuss a little bit here today, I brought it up - just to have clarification from our point of view, how many appointments can an individual be appointed to? That would be good to clarify. I don't know if that rule has changed any or not or if there is a rule. Is there going to be any condition on that?
The other one is using the list. Historically, if an individual, say Mr. Dooks, applied for a committee four years ago or three years ago, his name would still be on the list. Are we continuing with that for three to five years so when people apply, they say we applied last year, do I have to reapply, things of that nature? I would like to make sure that I have clarification on that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mora, do you have anything to respond to those two?
MS. STEVENS: As far as I know, there is no limit as to how many appointments you can apply to or be appointed to. We have had people on five or six different boards, if I recall, but there is no set limit to how many boards you can be on. We have kept résumés within the departments for at least a five year period and some departments still have them and all they do is contact the person the next time the appointments come up and ask them if they are still willing to serve.
MR. DOWNE: So the citizenship committee - we are going to have to pick another name at some point so we can stay consistent with it, but that committee - they would then in fact review all those other names again? Just for clarification.
MS. STEVENS: Yes. There is one further question that was brought up to me by the department. What happens if the screening panels, whatever you want to call them, say they are not qualified, what then happens to that résumé? Does the department keep it on file? They asked me that question and I told them I would go back to the Executive Council's Office to find out if they can clarify that process, because that sort of keeps them in limbo if the screening panel says this person is not qualified. Do you contact the person and then say you are not deemed qualified, you can apply to other boards or just where does that résumé go from there?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions or comments?
MR. DEXTER: The next meeting date?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The next meeting date is our last issue.
MR. DOWNE: As my colleague was just referring to here, if in fact communication is important to these people, because we are not aware of what kind of communications they are hearing from at this point in time, there is a lot of confusion out there. I think it would be appropriate if in fact the decision is that they don't qualify that they would get a letter back so that there is some understanding of where it stands.
Those things could be clarified in a letter, if the Chair would, and at least then we are on record of how that process and the governance of that process is going to be handled. I would appreciate that.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, one other thing for the record. It is my understanding that the Workers' Compensation Board, the two people who were reappointed, Mr. Spurr may have left the impression that in fact the screening committee did not review those prior to them being presented to this group, and in fact they did.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for that clarification.
MR. DOWNE: That is not what he said.
MR. OLIVE: I know.
MS. STEVENS: It was just Economic Development he was referring to.
MR. OLIVE: The Economic Development appointments are the ones I am talking about. I am talking about the two we first started off with, Economic Development.
MR. DOWNE: Well, it made a big difference to people sitting here. The fact that Mr. Spurr said they were not part of that screening process, that nobody was even appointed to the screening process . . .
MR. OLIVE: I think what he said - and we can certainly look at the record - was that the name was resubmitted prior to the committees being formed, not that they were submitted after, and that they didn't get to be seen. He didn't say that, what he said was that he wanted to clarify that Mr. Holland in particular, his name was put forward before the committee was formed, not the other way around. He didn't say that they did not review the names.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we hold this until the next meeting. If we have concerns, ask Mr. Spurr when he is here, or we can check the written record. But thank you for your comment. Are there any other discussions, questions?
MS. STEVENS: There was a note from Executive Council saying that for the ad that was placed in November, just for the committee's information, 973 people applied for over 2,142 different boards, so they obviously applied for more than one each. That is just for the information of the committee.
MR. DEXTER: That didn't quite make sense to me. You said there were 900 applicants for over 2,000 boards.
MR. CHAIRMAN: They must have applied for multiple boards.
MS. STEVENS: Yes, if you applied for more than one board. You can apply for five boards. That is just saying there were 2,142 applications.
MR. DEXTER: Oh, I see what you are saying now, not that there were 2,000 boards.
MS. STEVENS: No. Sorry.
MR. OLIVE: Is that what it is, 2,000 positions, 900 people?
MS. STEVENS: No, 973 people applied for more than one board each, so the actual applications that went in were 2,142 to the 150 boards that were on the list, I think.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are we clear? Is there anything else? The next meeting. What is our normal practice here, Mora?
MS. STEVENS: The normal procedure is the last Tuesday of the month for ABCs, and that would be Tuesday, January 25th.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does that meet with everyone's approval?
MR. DEXTER: What is the time again, 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., is it?
MS. STEVENS: We have to discuss that, depending on what the Chair's teaching schedule is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair doesn't want to appear in Frank magazine anymore, so we will leave that discussion off the record. We will let you know what the time is if that is okay.
MS. STEVENS: If the House is out, we have gone from either 10:00 a.m. or we can start at 2:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. It is either afternoon or morning, depending on the wishes of the committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Merry Christmas to all of you and happy holidays.
[The meeting adjourned at 11:39 a.m.]
