HANSARD
and
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
Mr. David Wilson - Glace Bay (Chairman)
Hon. David Morse
Mr. Alfred MacLeod
Mr. Chuck Porter
Mr. Charles Parker
Ms. Joan Massey
Mr. Clarrie MacKinnon
Ms. Diana Whalen
Mr. Michel Samson
[ Ms. Joan Massey was replaced by Mr. Howard Epstein. ]
[ Ms. Diana Whalen was replaced by Mr. Wayne Gaudet. ]
In Attendance:
Mrs. Darlene Henry
Legislative Committee Clerk
Mr. Gordon Hebb
Chief Legislative Counsel
[Page 1]
HALIFAX, TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2007
STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
9:00 A.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. David Wilson (Glace Bay)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's bring the meeting to order please. Thank you.
Perhaps we'll start by just putting ourselves on the record for Hansard, please. Would you start us off, Mr. Porter.
[The committee members introduced themselves. ]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The first item on the agenda is the appointments to the Agencies, Boards and Commissions. We had a piece of correspondence from the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - has everybody received that correspondence? It is in the book.
Regarding our question about why there were no representatives from the Cape Breton region on the Fisheries and Aquaculture Loan Board, the minister - well, you have the correspondence so you know what the minister said. No one applied; therefore, the ad will be posted again and hopefully somebody will come forward. The minister is quite willing and hopeful that somebody will come forward from Cape Breton. Does anyone have any comment? Mr. Samson.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, based on that information, I would move the reappointment of Moody R. McKay and the appointment of Paula McQuinn to the Fisheries and Aquaculture Loan Board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
1
[Page 2]
The motion is carried.
We'll move on to the current boards that are on the list before you, the Department of Agriculture, Crop and Livestock Insurance Commission. There are four names there; one is for Chair, the other three are members of that commission. Is there a motion? Mr. Porter.
MR. CHUCK PORTER: Mr. Chairman, I would move to the Crop and Livestock Insurance Commission of Nova Scotia, Avard Bentley as Chair; Greg Coldwell, Philip Stead and R. Michael Walsh as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The Department of Environment and Labour, Alcohol and Gaming Division, Film Classifiers. There are 14 members there.
Mr. Epstein.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move that we defer consideration of this committee - that is, of the proposed appointments to the committee - and I'd like to explain why.
I had a long day yesterday and last night I sat at home and I watched a film. I had an old movie, it's a Marx Brothers movie from the 1930s called At the Circus. I chose it for recreation, as many people do. Movies are a very popular form of entertainment, it's seen as the art form of the 20th Century, it's a new invention as an art form.
When I watched this movie, I was struck by how out of date some of the standards were that appeared in the film, in this case particularly race issues. It was very clear how Black people were portrayed in this film, it was just something that you wouldn't find these days in films and entirely appropriately so, it is appropriate that there has been a big change. It reminded me when I was thinking about this committee that we had to deal with this morning that sensitivity to diversity in our society is something that we should think about very carefully when it comes to making appointments to a film classification board.
Now I know we're well past the point of outright censorship. It's only, of course, classification but classification is an important guideline to people who are thinking of watching different films and it does send information and a signal. When I looked again at the resumés and the covering letters of all the people who put their names forward and whose names have come from the Premier's office on to this committee for our view, I'm struck by a couple of things. One is that based on the letters and the resumés as they appear, there is
[Page 3]
very little indication that there is anything in this group of people that really reflects the general diversity of people in Nova Scotia today.
This comes in a whole variety of ways. One is that if you look at the age of the people whose names come forward, a good 50 per cent of them are over age 60. Now I know we're an aging and greying society - I'm right up there with the demographic - but you know it isn't 50 per cent, it isn't even close to 50 per cent when we talk about people being over age 60. This is hugely striking.
Another factor that emerged is these are virtually all retired civil servants. These are people who also are up for reappointment. Overwhelmingly, of the 14 names we have in front of us, only three are new names. Everyone else has been on that committee for a long time, which gives it something of the appearance of a cozy little sinecure. I have to say that when I look at the educational attainments of the people who have applied, there are only three who have university degrees. There is no indication from any of the applicants that they know anything about film, that they have thought about film. There is no indication that there is a connection with the film or arts community, which is a very dynamic part of our cultural and economic life in Nova Scotia, to the extent that there is community involvement - there is a range of community involvement.
One of the things that also jumps off the page is that for many of these people, a lot of their community involvement has been with their church. Now there is nothing wrong with that - that is fine - but again, on the issue of diversity, it hardly leads us to see that what we're being invited to put in place is a committee that really does reflect what it is that we see at large. To the extent that there is some diversity, it might show in gender where there is some gender balance and there certainly are several people who are bilingual - English and French - which is terrific and I would think pretty well essential in terms of reviewing some of the films. Beyond that, it is extremely limited.
One more point, which is this: When I compare it with the next committee that we're being asked to make appointments to - the next one down, the boards of the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia or the Nova Scotia Museum - when I read the resumés and the letters of the applicants there, they have resumés that show their involvement in the arts community. They show their knowledge of this, they take the trouble to write letters in which they explain their interest in the Art Gallery or in the Nova Scotia Museum and how they've been members and their involvement in the arts community and it's clear that these are appropriate people. That is not even showing in any of the letters.
So my point about deferring is that we send it back, we not make appointments at this point, that we register the kind of concerns that I have been outlining here about diversity and about knowledge of the particular activity that they're being asked to engage with. For all of those reasons, I'm going to suggest that we simply defer dealing with all of these appointments and ask that the department look for better candidates, or to invite these
[Page 4]
candidates to explain in more detail at least why it is that they would be appropriate for appointment to this committee and to consider particularly diversity issues.
With that said, I'd like to make that motion for simply deferring the proposed appointments to the Film Classifiers.
[9:15 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacKinnon.
MR. CLARRIE MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I'm really impressed with the research that the honourable member has done on the 14 applications. To have scrutinized them so thoroughly, I think, is really something - to get into the age dynamics and all of these demographic things that he has. It is really something that we are appointing so many people who are in the age category that I am in, and if we were dealing with one-fifth of the population in that age category or less than one-fifth and the majority of these are in that age category, I think we should have some youth involved here as well. So I support what the member is saying 100 per cent, in relationship to this issue. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I did have the opportunity as well to review a number of the applications here and, like the member for Halifax Chebucto, I was surprised at the amount of retired civil servants who were on this board. It certainly jumps out, the vast amount that are out there. I recall when the film classification system was put in place when we were in office and I actually remember at that time quite a few of the classifiers were younger classifiers who had experience both through high school and university with both the arts and film and were members of the board at that time. I certainly think the concerns raised by the member for Halifax Chebucto are legitimate. Last month, I raised concerns over another board and the minister did come back to us with information and I think it is certainly appropriate to ask the minister in this case as well to explain the reasons for the appointments that have been suggested.
From the information that I see here, there certainly were numerous applications made to this board - there were 34 responses to the advertisement - so I would be curious to hear the minister's response as to why he chose the specific ones that are presented to us here today. In essence, we will be supporting the motion to stand these appointments until our next meeting and until we hear from the minister.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Morse.
HON. DAVID MORSE: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of comments, a couple of questions. The first one is how do you identify from a piece of paper the demographics, to
[Page 5]
give you a sense of comfort that we have a fair measure of diversity in the makeup of the board? It is a question - there are some questions that are not answered on applications. It's interesting to hear the comment about age and I have no idea why it is that most of the people here are retired civil servants, but I think we also have to be cognizant that we do not make decisions based on somebody's age because one could argue that that in itself is perhaps not an appropriate reason to decline an applicant.
The last question is just simply, what is the capacity of the existing board makeup to continue the business of classifying films and will the deferral of these 14 names for a month in any way compromise the board's ability to function?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure, are you asking those questions of this committee or are you just raising them for discussion?
MR. MORSE: I think we should be aware - I guess my question is how many people make up the committee, a full complement?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: I think at least 16 is the membership of the board, so some people, I think their terms must not be up. I believe there is a power to temporarily extend while the committee considers what to do, so I think some of these people could continue until there is further discussion at the department and it comes back here.
On the factual question, the one about how you would identify things like age that I pointed to, it is pretty obvious from the resumés and letters, the age of people. In several instances, people specifically said how old they were and in other instances they gave details of their careers starting when they first started their employment or mentioned the year they graduated from high school or other indicators like that. It was fairly easy to gather what the age actually was either in terms of an exact age or in terms of a range above age 60, so that wasn't all that hard. The minister, of course . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: You had a full day yesterday - a movie, and you still did all of that? (Laughter)
MR. EPSTEIN: Still did all that - that was part of the full day. (Laughter)
The minister is right about the point about other aspects of the demographics. People are often, I think, in the ads invited to self-identify if they so choose as to their particular backgrounds if they wish and some have and many have not here. It is true if you took, for example, a race as a criterion - I don't think anyone has identified one way or the other. At the same time we're not focusing on one individual here, we're not looking to make a decision based on age or race characteristics. We're looking at the whole overall issue of
[Page 6]
whether the board is more reflective of what it is we find in society at large, so we're inviting the minister to make comments on this - not this minister but the minister of the department - to make comments and help guide the committee.
MR. MORSE: I'm wondering whether it's within the minister's discretion to extend the incumbents for that extra month or whether that has to come from the committee because if the committee is only made up of 16 and we've got 14 pending applicants here, I think that we should confirm that the minister has that power to extend for a month, or we should extend them for that month pending the minister's response. I really do not think we should leave the committee with an active membership of two for that one month.
MR. SAMSON: No, there's three. There's three to go to 2010.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not up to the committee, is it, Gordon?
MR. GORDON HEBB: No, it would have nothing to do with the committee; whether the minister has the power or not, I can't tell you from the information that's here, whether the minister has the power to extend the appointments but certainly whether he does or not, it would have nothing to do with the committee.
MR. MORSE: I wonder whether it would be appropriate to have staff make a quick call over to the department to confirm, because again I would not want this committee to interrupt the classification of films for one month in the province if there was some way that we could circumvent this.
I'm not taking issue with the suggestions that have been made by the previous speakers, I'm just trying to make sure that the wheels of commerce still turn for that one month, or maybe I should say the wheels of culture.
MR. PORTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've deferred others - I don't know that it's really made too much difference there. My only other comment was we continually talk in this committee about trying to get people applying and on these boards, et cetera, and going back again, not unlike we did last month, we'd like to know how many other - I don't want to say age diversity - but other people who applied who may have been qualified. Do we need to see all the resumés of others, I don't know but I don't like the age issue being an issue again. These people have all sat on this board, there must be some experience there for the last two or three years, I guess, or however long their term was, without looking it up.
Anyway, I don't know, I'm just thinking back to what we've done over the past year. We have had a couple of occasions where we have deferred and I don't know that the issue of one month made any difference. I thought they just carried on, do they not, until it was done?
[Page 7]
MR. SAMSOM: Mr. Chairman, I guess with all due respect to the film classifiers and the hard work I'm sure they do on behalf of Nova Scotians, I don't believe that holding this up for one month is going to bring a halt to arts and culture in our province in the distribution of films. So with all due respect, I think it's safe for us to give this opportunity to the minister to address the concerns that we raised and there are three members who are active until 2010. I am sure that this delay is not going to cause undue hardship to this committee or to that department.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, just before calling for the question, I think regardless of the situation, this warrants putting off for a month for sure. When there is absolutely no one under the age of 25 and there are seven of the 14 who are over 60, I think that warrants looking at, and also from the ethnic and racial end of things as well. I think it is of paramount importance that we do put this off. So, having said that . . .
MR. MORSE: I believe that the clerk is just confirming what would happen in the meantime and if we could wait until she gets the answer.
MR. CHAIRMAN: She is trying, we're not sure if she will be able to get hold of anybody.
MR. MORSE: I do have one extra piece of information which I have to go back five years to retrieve and that's when I was the minister responsible for this board. It may be of interest to the members of the committee, especially as it pertains to age, that some of the movies that they have to classify are challenging, at the best of times. In fact, it does affect the willingness of people to serve.
I'm not sure that the average person would always enjoy all the movies that they have to classify.
MR. SAMSON: May I suggest that we defer this matter and deal with the other appointments and finish off with this so we don't cause any more unnecessary delay?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we can do that and then just wait for the clerk to get back. Can we do that, please? Agreed.
We'll move on then to the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, the Real Estate Commission. There's one name there; do I have a motion, Mr. Porter?
MR. PORTER: I would move Donna Anderson as a member of the Real Estate Commission of Nova Scotia.
[Page 8]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage, Art Gallery of Nova Scotia, Board of Governors. Do I have a motion? Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: Following what I said before, I was very impressed by the quality of the applicants. They've taken the trouble to write letters that explain their history, their involvement, their keenness on going forward and I'm happy to move the list of proposed members to the Board of Governors of the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia, making seven members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Nova Scotia Museum, Board of Governors. There are five appointments there, is there a motion? Mr. Porter.
MR. PORTER: Dr. Martine Jacquot, Lloyd Newman, George Richard, Thomas Rissesco and Dave Whiting to the Nova Scotia Museum, Board of Governors as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
We can hold on for another five minutes or so, I could adjourn for five minutes or else we could have a slight discussion - although I need the clerk here to have that discussion about when our next meeting is because there's a question about - yes, go ahead, Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: Thank you. Before we either adjourn temporarily or finish the meeting entirely, I wonder if, thinking back on the motion I made about the members of the board of the Art Gallery, whether I should have read the full names into the record. I didn't do it but perhaps I could do it now, just to clarify what the motion was.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, please.
[Page 9]
MR. EPSTEIN: The people we voted in favour of a moment ago for the Board of the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia are: William Barker, Michael Cormier, Carl Doty, Mary Lynk, Ralston MacDonnell, Linda Pirard and Ken Ward.
[9:30 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll have an adjournment for five minutes, until we hear from - no, never mind, don't go anywhere.
There's no one there at the department who can answer our questions, as of this moment anyway, so we're going to have to move along and make the decision as it is. Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: My suggestion is this: If it turns out that there is a problem, if there is a practical problem in terms of not having classifiers and if this is going to interfere with the showing of films - all of which, I think, is highly unlikely - but if we get to that point then I would have thought it would be a relatively simple matter to call the committee back and make, if necessary, temporary appointments. Indeed, if that's something that we can do, make the one-month extension, we can certainly engage with it when we find out what the proper state is with respect to whether there's a continuation of the memberships.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion that's on the floor is to defer the appointments and to - you added something about registering our concern.
MR. EPSTEIN: Well, implicit in that would be that either a transcript of the discussion go to the minister or that you, as chairman, write a letter that embodies the discussion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll send both, how about that?
MR. EPSTEIN: Sure, that's fine, too.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, any further discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
There is one matter dealing with - Darlene, what is it?
MRS. DARLENE HENRY (Legislative Committee Clerk): The matter of the tuition support funding meeting that we were going to have. There is a caucus out of town at the end of September, which is why we are just going to meet for the agencies, boards and commissions, as you can see on your agenda. We do have a witness scheduled for the end
[Page 10]
of October, however, that may be moved depending on whether the House is still in session or not because this committee had agreed not to meet with presenters during House sessions. So that puts November to meet with the tuition support program representatives, of which there are going to be six, two witnesses per caucus. Right now that is what's on the table, however you want to deal with that.
MR. CHARLES PARKER: What date is that in November, do you know?
MRS. HENRY: Our meeting at the end of the month which would be the 27th.
MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I know we had agreed at some point that when the House was in session we would not be doing that, but I know for most of us we probably have lined up our witnesses somewhat at a point in time here. The longer we leave it, the less relevant it becomes, especially in light of the special needs report that just came out this past week.
I'm wondering, is it possible to look at that date in October, even if the House is sitting? Could we have our witnesses come in and have our meeting at that time?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we have already made a decision as a committee that we're not going to meet. If the committee wants to revisit that, go ahead, but that decision was already made. Does anyone, except Mr. Parker, want to revisit that issue? You may be alone here, Mr. Parker, I'm not sure. Mr. MacKinnon.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I believe that this tuition issue is an important one and am certainly willing to support the member for Pictou West and his comments.
MR. PARKER: Do you need a motion, Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: If you so wish.
MR. PARKER: I'll make a motion that we look at the scheduled date in October for the tuition support meeting. What is the date?
MR. CHAIRMAN: October 30th.
MR. PARKER: Try for our tuition support meeting on October 30th.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? Mr. Morse.
MR. MORSE: I guess I would say from a selfish point of view, I'm pleased that it is not moving ahead in September because I have a federal/provincial/territorial ministers meeting that is going to take me out of town on that day. I felt that during the brief time I
[Page 11]
have been on this committee that this subject and these witnesses probably, in my opinion, are going to have the most constructive impact on the future direction of government and specifically, the tuition support program that is so important for that small minority of children in the public school system. I regret that circumstances have come to pass that prevents that from occurring on a more timely basis and I think the sooner this happens the better for those families who depend on this program and would like to see an expanded program. I really feel that the evidence that will come forward on that day is going to be profoundly moving and I feel could influence the future direction of that program. In my own way, I'm protesting the fact that it is being put off from September. I assume that we are still going to be having Human Resources Committee on September 25th?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is on your sheet that the next meeting is September 25th at 9:00 a.m..
MR. MORSE: So why would we defer the witnesses if the members are going to be here at the meeting?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Because there is an out of town caucus and I don't think we would have enough people here, would we? Or there would be members absent. Whose out of town caucus is it?
MR. PARKER: NDP
MR. MORSE: I have to ask the question whether all the members of the NDP caucus that normally would come and serve on this committee are going to be absent in September?
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, that's being held in Digby, so to shoot back in for it may be difficult, and to miss a very important caucus meeting where we are doing lots of fundamental planning and so forth for the future.
MR. MORSE: Again, I guess what I'm hearing is that the NDP is not going to be represented at the next Human Resources Committee meeting?
MR. MACKINNON: That's correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyway, we've made lots of accommodations for other reasons, other caucuses and I see nothing wrong with that. If we're going to do this motion, let's make sure we know it is the exception to the rule. We have already passed a motion here that said we would not have meetings during a House sitting and if that's the case, we'll go ahead.
The motion is to try to arrange a meeting for October 30th to deal with the tuition support issue and to have our witnesses appear at that time. Any further discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
[Page 12]
The motion is carried.
There is no further business unless members have further business, so the next meeting will be September 25th at 9:00 a.m.
The meeting is adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 9:38 a.m.]
