HANSARD
NOVA SCOTIA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE
ON
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Tuesday, November 16, 2021
Legislative Committees Office
Organizational/Agenda Setting
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard
Reporting Services
VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Chris Palmer (Chair)
Danielle Barkhouse (Vice-Chair)
Larry Harrison
Tom Taggert
Nolan Young
Hon. Ben Jessome
Ali Duale
Suzy Hansen
Lisa Lachance
In Attendance:
Heather Hoddinott
Legislative Committee Clerk
Gordon Hebb
Chief Legislative Counsel
HALIFAX, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2021
STANDING COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
2:00 P.M.
CHAIR
Chris Palmer
VICE-CHAIR
Danielle Barkhouse
THE CHAIR: I’d like to call the
meeting to order. I’m honoured to be the Chair of this committee. We are all
here to do a great job for our veterans in our province, and I look forward to
the many discussions we’re going to have around this table over the coming
months and years and look forward to sharing as many ideas as we can to improve
the lives of veterans from a provincial standpoint.
A few reminders before we start. I’d
like to ask us all to keep our masks on during the meeting unless you’re
speaking. Please have your phones on silent or vibrate.
At this point, I’d like to ask everybody to introduce themselves. The
members first.
[The committee members introduced
themselves.]
THE CHAIR: Our first meeting today
is an agenda-setting meeting that we will be having, an organizational meeting
to discuss our agenda going forward. We’ll do a brief review of the committee
procedures. That will be provided in a number of committee decisions will need
to be made today.
We’ll go through a few topics from
an organizational and agenda-setting measure. We’ll talk first about meeting
schedules. Currently the committee meets monthly on the third Tuesday of the
month. The usual meeting time is 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Is there any discussion
regarding meeting times going forward?
TOM TAGGART: Do we need a motion on
that?
THE CHAIR: My understanding is we
don’t.
DANIELLE BARKHOUSE: One question:
When the House is sitting, we’ll just have to move it - we don’t have the
meeting? Perfect.
THE CHAIR: The current schedule will
remain the third Tuesday of each month. As far as the agenda-setting that we
need to discuss, topics submitted must be approved by the committee through a
motion. Previously approved topics included three from the government caucus,
two from the Official Opposition, and one from the Third Party. Because they
can all submit as many as they want, it’s the number of approved that matters
here. Is there any discussion? MLA Taggart.
TOM TAGGART: I have a motion
prepared. I forward it to the clerk, right? The motion is: I move that the
government caucus will get three regular or emergency topics per six-meeting
rotation. The Official Opposition will get two regular or emergency topics per
six-meeting rotation, and the Third Party will get one regular or emergency
topic per six-meeting rotation.
The standing committee will rotate
through topics using the following order: government, Official Opposition,
government, Third Party, government, Official Opposition.
Once the list of six topics is
exhausted, the Chair of this committee will hold another agenda-setting meeting
that will follow the above rotation.
THE CHAIR: We have a motion on the
floor. Mr. Jessome.
HON. BEN JESSOME: Mr. Chair, just
for consideration, maybe there can be some language added to enable the Chair
and staff to adapt that while we’re keeping the same number and the same
breakdown. There is value in the Chair having the flexibility to work with staff
to bring in witnesses at their discretion rather than having to come back to
the committee all the time to make those housekeeping-type initiatives. We keep
the same number, but with the consent of the committee, to just add some
flexibility for the Chair to work with staff - like if we have to adapt the
witness based on availability or things like weather so that we don’t have to
come back to this table every time to do things that we can probably leave up
to the Chair and staff to look after.
TOM TAGGART: I absolutely agree with
that. My motion really speaks to topics and not to presenters. I think
certainly whatever topic we deal with, we should have the best possible advice
or people to advise us on that. I’m certainly supportive of that.
Does it need to be in this motion? Should it be a separate motion, I
guess, is my question. I don’t know, but I’m happy with it.
THE CHAIR: It’s an amendment to the
motion, technically, correct? Any other discussion?
All those in favour? Contrary
minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried.
The next topic we’ll have a
conversation about is the witness questioning. The structure of how witnesses
will be questioned by the committee members shall be agreed upon by the
committee. The committee could keep a running list of questioners and go member
by member or there will be two rounds of questioning. The first round is 20
minutes. The second round is typically 10 to 14 minutes, depending on the
amount of time remaining and allowing for time to deal with committee business.
The order of questioning in that aspect is Official Opposition, Third Party and
governing Party.
Is there any discussion on that? Mr. Jessome.
BEN JESSOME: We’re just trying to
distinguish what the format of questioning is going to be? I hear three options
on the table.
THE CHAIR: Two.
BEN JESSOME: Can you repeat that
then, please, Mr. Chair?
THE CHAIR: The committee could keep
a running list of questioners and go member by member or there will be two
rounds of questioning. The first round is 20 minutes. The second round is
typically 10 to 14 minutes, depending on the amount of time remaining and
allowing for time to deal with committee business. The order of questioning
would be, in that case, the Official Opposition, third party, and governing
party.
BEN JESSOME: I’ve sat on this
committee since 2013 and operationally, I think it works well when we can ask
questions as they come up. You’ll see over the time that you’re here with the
different committees that you sit on, that different committees do function
differently. In particular, Veterans Affairs seems to work well when each
member has an opportunity equally to jump into the queue and ask questions.
If the committee decides that we want to shift gears at another time,
then we can do that, but my two cents is that we go around the table and put
our hands up and ask questions as they come.
THE CHAIR: Any discussion on that?
MLA Young.
NOLAN YOUNG: I just want to say I’m
fine with that suggestion. It’s something that works well, so let’s continue
that. As mentioned, you always have the opportunity to amend this by the
committee. If something doesn’t seem to be working, we have that opportunity to
amend in the future, but it’s fine.
THE CHAIR: MLA Taggart.
TOM TAGGART: I certainly agree with
that. This is my first meeting and I’m assuming - and I hope that I’m correct -
as we go around through the question process, each person would have an
opportunity to ask the one question before someone else got a second one.
THE CHAIR: I think that would be a
courtesy. As the Chair, I would recognize as you put your hands up or I’d
recognize each speaker and go from there.
No other discussion? Great. If every
day in the House was like this, this would be great. (Laughter)
Next topic is motions. If members
are intending to introduce a motion at a meeting, please email it to the clerk.
When the motion is put forward at the meeting, the clerk will distribute it via
email to members. This reduces paper, it’s quick and efficient. We won’t do it
for every single motion, just for the longer ones. Members might want to read
carefully or discuss before they vote on it.
MLA Young.
NOLAN YOUNG: Just with regard to
that, I don’t know how everyone else feels, but personally I like to have the
motion in front of me that I can dissect and write on a piece of paper. I don’t
think we’re going to be getting that many motions that are going to be coming
through here, where it’s going to be rampant paper-paper-paper - if that’s the
case, maybe I’ll change my tune. For the time being, I would like to have a
motion in front of me on a piece of paper as opposed to logging in my email,
checking my device, waiting for something to come through. I don’t know how
anybody else feels about that.
THE CHAIR: MLA Barkhouse.
DANIELLE BARKHOUSE: I feel the same
way as MLA Young. I also like to have the opportunity to go over the
information so that way there’s no rash decisions made at this committee.
THE CHAIR: MLA Hansen.
SUZY HANSEN: I agree, but I would
also like to, if I may ask to have it emailed ahead of time, maybe the night
before, and then that way when we do have a piece of paper in front of us, our
thoughts are already ready to add to or not. I’m for either way.
THE CHAIR: MLA Jessome.
BEN JESSOME: I promise I’m not going
to try to be catty here, but as a former Chair of various committees, the
number of times that we would have asked for this protocol to take place and
I’ll say the level of operationalizing that ask that took place was not exactly
to the same situation that was proposed by the Chair and perhaps the government
of the day.
I’m fine to try to do that as a general rule. I think respectfully it
makes sense for us all to have the opportunity to look something over. It does
enable an opportunity for us all to consider what may or may not take place as
a result of that motion.
I would humbly suggest that there should be opportunities for us to make
motions on the fly based on the discussion of the day. There are a number of
reactions that can take place to that, whether it be tabling the motion or
whatnot, but I do think that we should leave that door open as a means of
flexibility.
THE CHAIR: MLA Barkhouse.
DANIELLE BARKHOUSE: I think we are with this motion, because it states
right in it that it’s for the longer ones, so anything that’s a page or two,
there might be quick two-line motions. You don’t know, right? It states right
in it that it’s for longer ones, so I think that should be sufficient in this.
THE CHAIR: Further to the conversation that we’re having, just to note,
if members are reading from a document that has not already been provided to
the committee, it should be emailed to the clerk as well, who will distribute
it to members during the meeting via email.
Any points on that? MLA Jessome.
BEN JESSOME: I’m fine as long as at
the end of the day we have some flexibility to make motions on the fly. I think
that’s fair and has been the precedent that’s been set, at least over my time
around. I think we’ll all experience this committee as a very well-intended
initiative. There have been very few instances where the emotions have been
adversarial or controversial, rather than constructive.
[2:15 p.m.]
I think that it is important for us to enable that flexibility to enable
something on the fly, regardless of the length. We’ll try to be practical with
the time required to digest motions and things like that. We can ask for
recesses and whatnot to understand what’s going on or clarification questions.
There’s more than ample opportunity for the committee to consider and have
discussion, but I just want to make sure that we do have an opportunity to make
motions on the fly if they do come up.
THE CHAIR: With no further discussion on that piece, we’ll just move on
here then. The next item that comes up here would be the December meeting. We
previously discussed that our meetings would be the third Tuesday of each
month. Where the third Tuesday in December is the 21st, there might
have been a thought that it might be hard to coordinate witnesses and get
things in order for the 21st of December, that we look at our next
meeting being in January.
Any discussion on that? How do you feel about that?
BEN JESSOME: Just to clarify, our meeting would be in January?
THE CHAIR: That’s correct.
BEN JESSOME: I’m open to trying to schedule something earlier in the
month if that’s agreeable with the committee. I recognize that December is a
busy month, but this is a committee that doesn’t meet when the House is in
session. If we want to ensure that we’re maximizing our opportunities for
witness engagement and questioning of this nature, then I think we should
consider trying to make use of that December month as well.
THE CHAIR: Is the idea that we would meet on the 21st and do
what we can do for that December 21st meeting or move the meeting?
What’s the thought being put forward? Mr. Taggart.
TOM TAGGART: I don’t want to jump in on Mr. Jessome, but can we leave
it? I need to understand. I don’t understand the process. The clerk knows what
other meetings are scheduled between now and, say, December 21st. I
don’t know what the notice is we have to give, but if we could kind of agree to
leave it with the clerk and the Chair to try to find a date that would get us
in here and get us started down the road, because I absolutely agree. Is that
okay? Is that reasonable?
THE CHAIR: I’ll take the direction from the committee. Ms. Hansen.
SUZY HANSEN: I definitely agree as well. Even if we could bump it up to maybe
the week before, just to kind of give us an opportunity to get started. I
agree. We don’t want to miss out on a month and just be able to kind of keep it
moving - absolutely.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Duale.
ALI DUALE: I’ll do my best to be generous to those coming from out of
the city. For me, I’m just living in the backyard here, I can show up any day.
I also have to be mindful of those who are driving far away. I think that also
has to be put into context. Whoever is making the schedule, be mindful of those
people.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Taggart.
TOM TAGGART: I was just going to say that Tuesday works quite well for
me and I think most of us caucus on Wednesdays anyway, so if we’re here
Tuesday, then we just stay over, except for those who are halfway.
THE CHAIR: Ms. Barkhouse.
DANIELLE BARKHOUSE: I like the idea of leaving it up to the clerk
because, for example, the Health Committee is on Tuesdays as well, 1:00 to
3:00. Some committees meet on Tuesdays - I don’t know how many, but I’m certain
a percentage - and so I would be more than happy to leave it up to the ones who
know everybody’s schedules instead of dropping here and there.
THE CHAIR: So, is the direction of
the committee that the clerk and myself would come up with an alternate date in
December? It would only be for the month of December, but then January we’d be
back on our third Tuesday of the month. Is that the direction of the committee?
MLA Young.
NOLAN YOUNG: Just to further
complicate things - I apologize (Laughter). If it’s the third Tuesday, or
whatever it works out to be - if it happens to be the same date - I agree this
is important and we should maximize our time here, so whatever works at the
discretion of the Chair and the clerk, let’s try to maximize our time, whatever
the day may be.
THE CHAIR: All right. Under
advisement. We may end up leaving the same date. We’ll leave that with you.
HEATHER HODDINOTT: Okay. I can
follow up with you on that.
THE CHAIR: Okay. MLA Jessome.
BEN JESSOME: There is perhaps value
in having a regularly scheduled program month over month but I would submit
that December we add an element to flexibility to make sure that given that the
21st is the third Tuesday that we have an opportunity to get it in
specifically for the month of December. That’s my two cents.
THE CHAIR: MLA Barkhouse.
DANIELLE BARKHOUSE: And my two
cents, I don’t know - you’ll have to excuse my ignorance. I’m a bit of a
neophyte as well in this. The option for Zoom - because you’re absolutely
correct, travel can be quite difficult, and I’m wondering if that option can be
made possible for this meeting.
THE CHAIR: I would think we’d have
to obviously talk to the technical people to organize all that but I’m sure
it’s a possibility. I’ll leave that to (Interruptions) Yes, MLA Jessome.
BEN JESSOME: Just for curiosity’s
sake, maybe staff can advise, but is that something that we need to consult the
Speaker’s Office on? I can’t remember, to be honest.
HEATHER HODDINOTT: We may need to
consult with the Speaker’s Office, and that’s a thing I can take . . .
THE CHAIR: For a change to Zoom.
HEATHER HODDINOTT: Right. In place,
yes. (Interruptions)
THE CHAIR: We’ll check on that with the Speaker’s Office and then we
will proceed from there. All right.
So for that meeting, we would need to look at our topics for the agenda
for that meeting. Does everyone have the - MLA Taggart.
TOM TAGGART: Mr. Chair, that’s a question that’s been jumping around in
my mind since we first sat down and I made that motion. We passed a motion that
says three, two and one, basically, and we’ve got eight here. I thought that
one of the purposes of this meeting was to set that agenda for the first six
months. I don’t know where to go from this but I’m suggesting that the PCs have
three and three are noted, but the Liberal Party has three and only permitted
two in the first six months, and the NDP has one.
I would suggest that would be the particular Party’s decision on which
ones they wanted to bring forward, not us as the committee. Is that fair ball?
THE CHAIR: I agree with that.
TOM TAGGART: My follow-up question, if I could, is when does that
happen? Does that happen today?
THE CHAIR: At the meeting yes.
TOM TAGGART: All right. I’m only asking this because I want to
understand it, because I have to chair a meeting (Laughter). We set six dates,
we follow those dates unless there’s some type of emergency or whatever. Is
that correct?
HEATHER HODDINOTT: That is correct.
TOM TAGGART: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: At this moment, what I’d
like to do is ask the government representatives to put forward the three
topics. I’m assuming the three topics that are listed will be the three topics
that the government side will go with.
MLA Jessome.
BEN JESSOME: There may be value, at
the discretion of the Chair, for the committee to consider each of these in
separate motions. In the past, there has been some value in doing things one by
one. In this case, three different topics. If there are questions around
presenters and things like that, there is some value in doing things in separate
motions, but I’ll leave that to the consideration of the Chair and committee.
THE CHAIR: If the committee agrees,
we can do that. We can go back to the original (Interruptions). MLA Jessome.
BEN JESSOME: In the event that there
are three different topics and witnesses submitted at one time, and the chance
that motions are defeated, then it still enables us to - as opposed to
dismissing the three or the two - it wouldn’t be one, but the two at the same
time or the three at the same time. It gives us an ability to pick and choose,
rather then defeating a motion that has all the subjects in one motion. Does
that make sense?
THE CHAIR: MLA Taggart.
TOM TAGGART: The way I envisioned
this is that we would have a motion - there’s no debate on the three PC ones,
right? I guess one question would be, if I don’t vote, is that a nay?
I don’t believe I have any business whatsoever in determining which -
maybe I’m wet behind the ears, you know what I mean? I’m not sure I have any
business deciding what topics either the Official Opposition or Third Party
bring forward. I may be wrong, but I think that’s the decision that those
caucuses make. I’m not going to vote on them, or I don’t plan on it. My
question is, if I do not vote, does that mean it’s a nay, or can I just
abstain?
THE CHAIR: It would be abstained.
TOM TAGGART: It’s not a nay vote?
THE CHAIR: It’s not a nay vote.
TOM TAGGART: Thank you. That’s all
the matters to me.
THE CHAIR: MLA Hansen.
[2:30 p.m.]
SUZY HANSEN: I’m like MLA Taggart
here. Just a point of clarification. I just want to be sure. What we’re
discussing right now is topics for the next six months. We already know three
are for the government side, two are for Official Opposition, one is for us.
We’re just discussing that amongst
our own caucus to decide. I just want to clarify, because I want to be sure
too. When the time comes for us to put forward that topic, that’s when we’ll be
deciding whether or not we want to put that one forward.
THE CHAIR: And for some reason, I
think the idea is if the topic - let’s say you have two topics and you have the
opportunity to put one forward: That’s only the first round. You still have
that opportunity to place your second witness at some point in the future too.
I think the thought would be there
are two options. There’s one that MLA Jessome said that would be to vote on
every single one, or basically just allow each caucus to select the one that
they want to go with - three from the government, two from the Official
Opposition, and one from the NDP. I think there’s a general agreement that
we’ll do the original thought of each caucus will select the topic and the
witness that they want to bring forward in the first round. Mr. Taggart.
TOM TAGGART: How far in advance does
our caucus have to notify the clerk of what the topic will be?
THE CHAIR: I guess the thought might
be that it may be difficult for each caucus to decide that immediately at this
meeting. They might want time to do that or can the decision be made today? Mr.
Jessome.
BEN JESSOME: Just to clarify - are
you talking about submitting topics for consideration?
THE CHAIR: Yes, that’s what we’re
talking about.
BEN JESSOME: It’s one week, if I’m
not mistaken. The intention is one week. Generally, that is the procedure.
HEATHER HODDINOTT: The process
normally will be that the committee clerk will email the Party members and the
Party researchers and indicate when the time is ready for submissions. The
deadline will also be provided as well. It generally is a week. You will get an
email indicating that.
THE CHAIR: There is no further need
for discussion on that particular issue right now. We’ve got an understanding
of how the process is going to work. Does the committee agree with that?
Excellent. Mr. Jessome.
BEN JESSOME: I’ll be the first one
to take the plunge here. I move that the Liberal caucus’s topics for the
consideration of the committee be read as topics two and three on your list.
First, Transition from Active Service and Veteran Homelessness
Prevention. We bring in as our witnesses representatives from the Department of
Community Services, at their discretion; HRM Division Chief Emergency
Management, Erika Fleck, the Assistant Chief of Emergency Management;
representative Debbie Lowther from VETS Canada - she’s the Chair and CEO and
co-founder; and a representative from the Royal Canadian Legion Nova Scotia
Nunavut Command and representatives Kenneth George or Stephen Telford who are
service officers.
The second one - the third as it
reads on your list - we’ll receive presentation from a national organization
called Seamless Canada, which is a composition of Canadian Forces, Department
of National Defence and a representative from their organization at their
discretion. If anybody wants clarification on that, I’m happy to provide that.
THE CHAIR: MLA Jessome, that’s a
motion you’re putting forward, that those would be the two topics and the
witnesses?
BEN JESSOME: If I may, do I have to
amend the initial motion? I think I do.
THE CHAIR: I think you should.
BEN JESSOME: So amend that motion to
include in the first topic Mr. Gus Cameron, who’s joining us today as a
witness, at that meeting pertaining to mental health and crisis - excuse me, Transition
from Active Service to Veteran and Homelessness Prevention. So amended.
THE CHAIR: Okay. There’s a motion on
the floor to accept those two topics and witnesses from the Liberal side. MLA
Taggart.
TOM TAGGART: I apologize to MLA
Jessome - I was talking and not listening. So you changed to go with the mental
health and crisis support as opposed to . . .
THE CHAIR: No, sorry, the bottom
two.
TOM TAGGART: You’re going with the
bottom two? Okay. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Okay. Any more discussion
on that? MLA Duale.
ALI DUALE: I just want to mention
that amendment that this would make - Gus Cameron is right here and he will
provide you his title and what organization he serves, so hopefully you’ll get
that information. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: All those in favour?
Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried.
Mr. Cameron, thank you for being
here and thank you for your service.
We’d like to ask the NDP to put forward their topic. MLA Lachance.
LISA LACHANCE: Mr. Chair, we would put forward the topic Women and
Gender-Diverse Veterans Issues. We’re suggesting Dr. Maya Eichler, who is noted
in your handout. That’s our motion.
THE CHAIR: Any discussion?
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried.
MLA Barkhouse, could I ask you to put forward your topics?
DANIELLE BARKHOUSE: Definitely.
THE CHAIR: Sorry. MLA Taggart.
TOM TAGGART: I was wondering if we would call for a recess. Would that
consist of a time when I could do that?
THE CHAIR: We will recess.
TOM TAGGART: Thanks.
[2:38 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[2:46 p.m. The committee
reconvened.]
THE CHAIR: I’ll bring the meeting
back to order. Before we recessed, MLA Barkhouse was going to notify the
committee of the proposed witnesses and topics from the government side.
DANIELLE BARKHOUSE: We are going to
do Services Provided by the Foundation, and that’s Veterans Legal Assistance
Foundation’s Peter Stoffer, VLAF Board Member.
The second one we’re bringing to the table is an Update on Current
Affairs, Funds, and Services, and that’s Royal Canadian Legion - Nova
Scotia/Nunavut Branch. Valerie Mitchell-Veinotte is the Director.
The third and final, which is Legal Capital Assistance Program,
Department of Communities, Culture, Tourism and Heritage, and that’s Nancy
Sheppard, Corporate Strategist.
THE
CHAIR: All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried.
Thank you for getting through that
part. Now we know who we will be seeing and who we’ll be talking to.
We’ll move on to correspondence. An
email had been submitted from a Brad LeBlanc, President of the Veterans UN-NATO
Canada-Nova Scotia. It was submitted to the clerk, and it was a request to
attend the committee meeting today under a misunderstanding resulting from the
sharing of the proposed agenda topics.
Committee best practices was reviewed between the clerk and counsel, so
this is a reminder that all committee documents are considered confidential and
should not be shared outside of caucuses and the LCO. This is the common best
practice observed by each committee.
That was just something that I was
asked to read today. At least we have an understanding of that in our
committee.
After that, the next item on my
agenda here is adjournment. Is there any further business before we do that?
MLA Harrison.
LARRY HARRISON: I just think we
should probably pick the topic for next month, and that will give people a
chance to get organized. I think we agreed on the Legal Capital Assistance Program.
THE CHAIR: I’m not sure if you heard
that. We’re just giving the clerk flexibility to …
MLA Taggart.
TOM TAGGART: Will we be advised of
what that topic is, so that we can do our due diligence in preparation?
THE CHAIR: The Clerk.
HEATHER HODDINOTT: I can send the
agenda. The materials, the notice of meeting get sent out a week before each
scheduled meeting so you’ll have at least a week’s notice to know which topic
we’ll be addressing, which witness will be attending.
THE CHAIR: Any other further
business? Any other further questions? Thank you for your patience. It was my
first time in the chair today. I appreciate that.
The meeting is adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 2:51
p.m.]
