HANSARD
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
Mr. David Wilson, Glace Bay (Chairman)
Hon. David Morse
Hon. Christopher d'Entremont
Mr. Chuck Porter
Mr. Charles Parker
Ms. Joan Massey
Mr. Percy Paris
Mr. Michel Samson
Ms. Diana Whalen
In Attendance:
Mrs. Darlene Henry
Legislative Committee Clerk
[Page 1]
HALIFAX, TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2008
STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
9:00 A.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. David Wilson (Glace Bay)
MS. DIANA WHALEN (Madam Chairman): Okay, if I could call the members to order, we'll begin the meeting for the Standing Committee on Human Resources. We don't have any witnesses here today or any discussions, so we'll be doing the appointments and that will be the focus of our meeting. We have a little bit of correspondence at the end, so don't jump up and run away.
I have regrets from Dave Wilson, our chairman, and Chuck Porter and Michel Samson as well, so we're all accounted for and that's why I'm substituting as the chairman today. So we have to introduce ourselves, if we could, please, for the record.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Very good, so now we can get on to the business of the meeting. Would somebody like to make the nomination?
HON. DAVID MORSE: I see, Madam Chairman, that we have an explanation as to why Minister Muir is recommending Dennis Haverstock to be a member of the Board of Registration of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, and I so move his appointment.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay, very good. Is there any discussion on that?
I should point out we do have a letter in front of us from Mr. Muir, answering to the question about whether other people had applied and I think it also answers why there was no CV or resumé with the application. Is there any discussion on that?
[Page 2]
MS. JOAN MASSEY: Madam Chairman, I would like to make a couple of points that are included in the letter, that the minister does believe that he appears to be the best qualified applicant based on his experience and the minister also states that gender balance will be considered for future appointments, as those positions open up. Apparently an appointment will be expiring on March 1, 2009, so wait until then.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: So you want to certainly draw attention to that the next time his appointment comes up for that committee. Any further discussion? Mr. Paris.
MR. PERCY PARIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just want to make a comment with respect to - and maybe for future reference - when we consider applicants and we look at qualifications, my only comment is that if an applicant is qualified, he or she is qualified, I don't think there is such a thing as somebody being more qualified. If there are minimum qualifications and an applicant reaches those minimum qualifications, that is the prerequisite and that is what should be considered.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We've heard the motion. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
HON. CHRISTOPHER D'ENTREMONT: Madam Chairman, for the Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers, Board of Examiners, I so move Edward MacMaster as board member.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Madam Chairman, if I may, since this is Department of Health related, I'm going to excuse myself from the next two appointments.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Yes. Proper procedure.
MR. MORSE: Madam Chairman, I so move Marion Landers as a member of the Board of the College of Dispensing Opticians.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
[Page 3]
The motion is carried.
MR. MORSE: Madam Chairman, I so move Robert Cowan as a member of the Nova Scotia College of Physiotherapists.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Madam Chairman, for the Nova Scotia Boxing Authority, I so move Mickey MacDonald as chair and member, and Ricky Anderson, Ronald V. Clarke, Francis (Rocky) MacDougall, Wayne Reynolds and Walter R. Stewart as members.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. MORSE: Madam Chairman, for the Municipal Board of Police Commissioners for the Town of New Glasgow, I so move Ivan Baker and Dorothylane Hale as members.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Madam Chairman, I so move William Hastings Laurence and Dr. Bridglal Pachai as members of the Public Archives Board of Trustees.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Those are all of the appointments to the agencies, boards and commissions. We have a little bit of committee business and I'm not sure if people have had a chance to see the letter that has come from our MLA for Dartmouth North, Trevor Zinck, referring to somebody who wanted to speak before our committee. Have people had a moment to read that or seen it in the past?
[Page 4]
[9:15 a.m.]
MR. CHARLES PARKER: It came to us individually.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: So that's good. I wonder if there's some discussion on that, I think we need to certainly have a response so that the chairman of this committee can reply. Or we can move forward, one or the other.
MR. PARKER: Madam Chairman, if I could start off, I think this is the second request that MLA Trevor Zinck has sent here on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Dalziel. I guess basically Mr. Dalziel is having difficulty finding any committee or government agency that would listen to his information and, you know, maybe it's in the purview of our committee to listen or to consider this request.
I know in the past we haven't always listened to individuals, it has been groups or organizations - although I think we have from time to time met parents or grandparents, and I know with the school issue, Landmark East, on special-needs children, I think those were individuals who were representing their children who came before this committee. So, you know, there is a precedent in that regard in that individuals have come before us I believe, and I think it might be a reasonable request to at least hear what Mr. Dalziel has to say.
So maybe just to get it on the floor, I'll move that we do consider this request to have this gentleman come before us.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. D'Entremont.
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Madam Chairman, I think we should stay with the original answer on this one. Really, both of these issues fall within the purview of the Minister of Labour and Workforce Development, so I would suggest again that Mr. Dalziel meet with the minister and his staff to discuss these issues rather than come to this committee.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Morse.
MR. MORSE: I just want to maybe give a different interpretation of what happened when we had the parents in with regard to the three private schools that help children with disabilities. I feel that was caught under the umbrella of why it was important to have those specialized schools and that the parents and grandparents were just giving evidence of the importance to their children. So I see that as very much in line with the purpose of the committee and in support of those organizations. This, I see, is perhaps a little bit different. So it's just, you know, a difference between two members perhaps in the interpretation of who those parents and grandparents were representing that day.
[Page 5]
I did want to get that on the record that, respectfully, I have a different interpretation of what took place.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Is there some further discussion on that? There is a motion on the floor that we make time within this committee to see Mr. Dalziel. Mr. Paris.
MR. PARIS: Madam Chairman, when I look at this, I think there seems to be maybe some confusion about the interpretation of the rule, to some extent, of the committee itself. I think when Mr. Wilson wrote back to Mr. Zinck, MLA Zinck, I think there's maybe a disagreement. Do we as a committee - who are we in agreement with? Are we in agreement, when MLA Zinck quotes pieces of policy with respect to Rule 60(2)(c) "(i) considering matters normally assigned to or within the purview of the Departments and Ministers of Education and Culture and of Labour." I'm just wondering if we have a position, where do we stand on this?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Yes, the letter does really beg that question, I agree.
Is there any further discussion from the members? Mr. Morse.
MR. MORSE: As I'm reading over the letter and from what I understand of the nature of the request, it seems to be the feelings of an individual as opposed to an organization. He appears to have brought his cause forward to the Minister of Labour and Workforce Development, which seems like a reasonable place to lodge his concerns. If he's unhappy with the working of the present Act, would it not be appropriate to refer him to the Ombudsman?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I could just check. Did we do that? We would have done that. I think our first answer to this gentleman was that he go to the Ombudsman.
MR. MORSE: And I would stand by that position. I might take a different point of view if he was representing a recognized profession or group that has been established with the Registry of Joint Stock Companies, but this is an individual who is coming forward and this would set quite a precedent. I would suggest that if we were to see him that we really would be obliged to see everybody who feels aggrieved by some decision of a minister or, even worse, by the operations of some independent professional organization. So I think that we should tread lightly on this one.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Ms. Massey.
MS. MASSEY: Madam Chairman, I would just like to go back and read a few excerpts from the original letter that this gentleman wrote to us back on January 26, 2008. He was requesting to be called before our committee and he wanted to bring to our attention the enforcement of the engineering standards of Nova Scotia and the application of the Act
[Page 6]
by the Association of Professional Engineers of Nova Scotia. He actually quotes at the bottom, and I'm just going to read what he said:
He said, "The Nova Scotia Minister of Environment & Labour wrote me in 2004, responding on behalf of the Premier, stating:
'The documentation that you have provided certainly makes a case for the introduction of legislation to protect those individuals who make disclosures in the public interest, more commonly referred to as "whistle blower" protection. The need for legislation in this area has been a topic of discussion at both levels of government. Notwithstanding the fact that there are some provincial statutes, like the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which provide for this type of protection, there is no legislation of general application.
Your concern and the suggestion to proceed will be considered as the discussions surrounding this issue move forward.'"
So I think this gentleman is just wondering if this is another place for the discussion to occur and happen. Is there not some way we can hear about this issue, even if, in the end, we don't allow this person to come before us, is there a way we can at least get the issue on the table? If we need specific bodies that represent the people who are dealing with this issue, then maybe that's what we're going to have to do. But in the meantime, I still think, as Mr. Parker pointed out, we have, in the past, had representatives that came to state their concerns before the committee and I don't really have a problem with that occurring again.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. d'Entremont.
MR. D'ENTREMONT: It really boils down to a bit of a disagreement between this individual and the association, or basically with the Engineering Profession Act, so therefore with the college of engineers, really. This is a self-regulated organization, a self-regulated group that we, as government, should not be mucking around with. If there's a disagreement between a member and his professional association, it should be dealt with at the professional organization. If there should be a change requested by the association or by the college, then that's the time for government to help along.
So I would suggest that if this individual is not getting the help that he needs from his organization, it should be to the Ombudsman and we, as legislators, should not be trying to supercede the work of a professional organization that the college of engineers represents within this Act.
[Page 7]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Parker.
MR. PARKER: My final comments, I think this individual certainly has tried the Ombudsman route. He has tried other avenues, other committees of the Legislature, without success. It is an involvement in an association, the Association of Professional Engineers, and that organization is under the purview of the Department of Labour and Workforce Development, and the precedent has been set. We've had other individuals come here before, as in the past, so I think it would be appropriate to have Mr. Dalziel also come before us. So I guess I'll call for the question.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: The motion before us is to allow Mr. Dalziel to come before us and speak. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
Do I have to vote on this one? I do. Well, I'd prefer, frankly - I hadn't spoken in the discussion, but I'd prefer to know that he had tried the Ombudsman route first and there's no indication in the letter that he has actually gone to the Ombudsman. I know there are times when we hear from constituents where they're still not satisfied, but I'd like to know that he had brought the issue up there first. So I'm going to vote that we not invite Mr. Dalziel at this time, that we write him again and ask if he has made that approach to the Ombudsman. I think it's important that we go through due process before we break with tradition and have him come here.
So that means a tie - then what?
MRS. DARLENE HENRY (Legislative Committee Clerk): As the chairman, you have the deciding vote.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Well, I voted once, so I'll vote twice.
[The motion is defeated.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: So that motion will not pass today, but I certainly would entertain it if he goes through all of the steps. So we'll write back on (Interruption) Well, I'm checking on procedure.
MRS. HENRY: The chairman does get to vote, the original vote.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paris.
MR. PARIS: Since this is the celebration of 250 years of Parliamentary Democracy in Nova Scotia, and indeed in Canada, my question is one of process. Does the chairman get two votes?
[Page 8]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could have Mrs. Henry speak to that.
MRS. HENRY: Yes. During committees, the chairman does vote along with the members and during a tie vote, the chairman does vote again in the event of a tie.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I think, Mr. d'Entremont, you had another comment.
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Well, you know, I understand what the member is suggesting here. Maybe we can pass another motion that would say we would write a letter back requesting whether or not he has followed the procedure and then we would consider it again at a future date. Maybe that's a better way to do it, but we would probably also need the member for Pictou West to withdraw his original motion in order to allow a new motion to make sure that he has gone to the Ombudsman, that he has followed the suggestion of the chairman in the original letter. That would maybe get us beyond our discussion here.
MR. MORSE: We voted on the motion (Interruptions)
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Well, there you go.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I think the motion that has been made has been duly voted on and we have confirmed the process, but another motion might be in order because that leaves the door open, sort of also gives direction to the chairman about the letter that should be written. Would people be in favour of that, that we look at a motion that actually clarifies what we said, that it will be considered again at a future point if he's not satisfied? (Interruptions) Yes, Ms. Massey.
MS. MASSEY: There isn't actually a specific motion on the floor and I'm afraid that the motion will tie our hands because it's going to hinge on whether or not he did, indeed, see the Ombudsman and I'm not really sure if I agree that needs to have happened. I guess I don't agree with that.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: All right then, we'll leave it as is and a letter will go back from the chairman.
Thank you very much. I think that's all of the business except to say our next meeting is July 29th. (Interruption) Yes, Minister d'Entremont.
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Maybe this is more for Darlene, as well, but I was just wondering if I could start getting my information in Word rather than WordPerfect. I have trouble reading Word with my computer. I'm trying to knock down on the paperwork that I carry around and therefore printing and using. So if you could send that to me in a Word format, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. It was a simple operational piece.
[Page 9]
[9:30 a.m.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parker.
MR. PARKER: I just wanted to ask then, what is on our September agenda or October agenda, whatever our next - I know ABCs are on this summer during July and August, but what witnesses do we have coming before us in the early Fall?
MRS. HENRY: At the last direction of the committee, they had asked if I would call in the Black Cultural Centre and the four individual museums from throughout the province to come in and speak on . . .
MR. PARKER: So September, then, is the Black Cultural Centre?
MRS. HENRY: I'm going to attempt to book them for September, and October would be the museums.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Just to clarify, that would be two separate meetings?
MRS. HENRY: Yes.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Yes. There were four individual, smaller museums that were on our list of suggested witnesses and topics. So with that decided, we'll have another meeting for appointments on July 29th.
A motion to adjourn.
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Madam Chairman, I so move.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, we are adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 9:31 a.m.]
