HANSARD
NOVA SCOTIA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ESTABLISHING AN
ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
Halifax, Nova Scotia
3:30 P.M.
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ESTABLISHING AN
ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION
Hon. Geoff MacLellan (Chairman)
Hon. Tony Ince
Hon. Patricia Arab
Hon. Lena Metlege Diab
Mr. Gordon Wilson
Hon. Christopher d’Entremont
Mr. Brad Johns
Hon. David Wilson
Ms. Claudia Chender
[Hon. Derek Mombourquette replaced Hon. Patricia Arab]
In Attendance:
Mrs. Darlene Henry
Select Committee Clerk
Mr. Gordon Hebb
Chief Legislative Counsel
Mr. William Hirtle
Manager
Legislative Television & Broadcasting Services
Ms. Donna Davis
Manager/Editor
Hansard Reporting Services
Ms. Stephanie Hines
Media Buyer
Communications Nova Scotia
HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2018
SELECT COMMITTEE
ON
ESTABLISHING AN ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION
3:30 P.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. Geoff MacLellan
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Ladies and gentlemen and all those attending here today, welcome to our first meeting of the Select Committee on Establishing an Electoral Boundaries Commission.
My name is Geoff MacLellan, and I’m very proud and honoured to be the chairman for this important work that we’ll do as an MLA Select Committee in ensuring that electoral fairness is established in Nova Scotia. We’ve had a number of conversations about this very topic stemming from Bill No. 99 and we’re here today. This begins what is going to be a very obviously critical process for the province and the future of boundaries and constituencies and the people we all represent - so, critical work.
Looking around the table and knowing the personalities and the character that’s here, I know we’ll do it right. I know we’ll work together and we’ll come out of this with a strong set of principles, recommendations, and direction for the commission that will ultimately decide what the electoral map looks like for our province.
Just a few housekeeping issues - please at this point put your phones either off or on silent, as once we get into the discussion we want to avoid as many distractions as possible. Washrooms and coffee, water, in the anteroom out the exit door here. In the event we have to leave for an emergency we exit through the side door, the Granville Street exit, and come up to Parade Square on the St. Paul’s Church side. If the unfortunate event happens that we have to evacuate, that will be the rallying point.
Again, this is a committee that has been established normally every 10 years, but because of a number of circumstances related to the previous Boundaries Commission and where we are today, this starts over a new journey for us. Again, having the complement around the table, I think we’re in a good place.
Before we begin to work through the agenda I’d like to ask all the members of the committee and the staff who are at the table to state their names. Also, those of you who are substituting for a member, please state your name and who you are substituting for. With that, I’ll turn to my left.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point we can move immediately to the draft agenda which would become our template for today. We’ll roll through these one at a time. Please ensure that I recognize you officially so we’re not speaking over each other and then we’ll turn the microphone on and we’ll go from there.
First item, No. 1(a), review the resolution - determine the number of members of the commission. I think in the previous commission there were eight but, again, that’s something that we haven’t really talked about in terms of defining. I know that there are some members around the table with some history on the previous Electoral Boundaries Commission. So just to put it out there for discussion, is eight that magic number? Obviously, it’s reflected in the terms under Bill No. 99 that we would establish for the terms of reference, so there are committed spots for that.
We want to have that discussion now and we’ll lead off with Mr. d’Entremont.
HON. CHRISTOPHER D’ENTREMONT: Thank you very much. The question around the eight, the nine, or the six - actually one of the commissions only had six. The point is, as the commission rolls around the province doing its public consultation, some commissioners might be able to make certain meetings and not be able to make other meetings. My suggestion would be to keep it to eight or nine anyway just to keep it reasonable for them so they don’t have to kill themselves getting to all the meetings but at least have enough of a roster there that there is good consultation that goes on across the province. I’m not struck to either eight or nine but I think it’s a hell of a lot better than six.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So in your experience, nine is the most that you have seen. Just to throw out a number to understand sort of the context, is a number like 12 too many? Does it get too cumbersome? You did mention at a previous discussion that if there is an event at the far-reaching ends of the province - if it’s Sydney or Yarmouth or anywhere in between - there may not be members available, but 12 becomes too many. So eight or nine is that upper ceiling?
MR. D’ENTREMONT: I think that should be the upper ceiling. I mean, 12 would be too many, plus I think by the quality of person we’re looking to fill these positions, it would be difficult to find 12 Nova Scotians that want to do this kind of thing. We might only find eight that actually accept our invitation to participate as commissioners.
Plus the issue of remuneration probably goes along with this. I’d ask that question later on, but there is a cost to these individuals as well to participate wholly in the commission’s work. I don’t think we want to overburden it but at the same time, we need to have enough people to do the job.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anyone else on the number? Ms. Metlege Diab.
HON. LENA METLEGE DIAB: Thank you, Minister MacLellan. Based on what I heard, I would probably say a range of eight to nine and leave it at that because it depends on how many we actually are able to find as well. You don’t have to boil it down today to eight or nine - I’d say a range of eight to nine.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Johns.
MR. BRAD JOHNS: Thank you. Is there not probably merit in having an uneven number versus an even number so if there was an opportunity to split the vote if there was a discussion around something that needed to be voted on. I do echo what MLA d’Entremont said in regard to it’s a pretty big province and to try to get everybody to get all over the province, I think that nine is a good number. It’s not burdensome but yet you could still split the province into threes and three go to one or different parts.
So it’s the quorum, it was the travelling - yeah, that’s good for now. I would lean towards nine and try to keep it an uneven number I think if it’s possible.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We okay with that? So, the previous two speakers it’s eight to nine and, then, Mr. Johns is saying nine. So, do we want to decide that it’s going to be the range? Mr. Gordon Wilson.
MR. GORDON WILSON: I don’t think we should set a firm number, personally, I think a range is nice - eight or nine. We’ve had previous commissions that have worked with eight, so obviously the odd number isn’t really a factor in there. I think actually we kind of hope this commission works by consensus and really doesn’t have to get down to that vote. I’d give us a little bit of levity. I’m concerned also we want quality over quantity here and to find the people who are going to be needed to make these kinds of decisions. This is going to be probably one of the most complex commissions I think that we’ve had, actually over all the other ones.
[3:45 p.m.]
I’d leave that range variable and maybe at the next meeting, if we get to that point of bringing names forward, we’ll be better poised then to make a decision on what the actual number is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Mr. Johns.
MR. JOHNS: Just for clarification, will we also be setting terms - once we have the commissioners come forward, will we also be setting Chair as well as Vice-Chair? Will that be the role of this committee as well?
In the past, I think some did not select and pick Chairs and some did, so I’m curious about if we could talk about that in a few minutes as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Advice from staff is that we did select only the Chair. I think again, Mr. d’Entremont would confirm that but yes, we select a Chair and then they decide from that point.
MR. JOHNS: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s it, we’re good. Do you want to set it as the range of seven to nine? Is that the consensus? That seems to encompass . . .
MR. D’ENTREMONT: Eight to nine. Seven is too low. Six isn’t good, seven isn’t good, eight is getting better, nine is best.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you worry about the even versus uneven, Brad’s point?
MR. D’ENTREMONT: No, I don’t. I think it is a consensus group and if we go from the experience of last time when Monsieur Gaudet had a dissenting opinion to it, so they had their opportunities to step out of the group. I think Dr. Grant had dropped off, I believe, she had resigned her position there so there are opportunities there for them to let their votes be known with stepping out of the consensus model, so I think eight is fine and nine is fine too.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we okay with the range from eight to nine? We are.
All right, perfect, so eight to nine it is.
Part ii of item 1(a) is the vetting process. I know that in the past it was an internal exercise where we would individually go as MLAs and bring back names and sort of create the list from that roster of names. If that’s not what we’re going to do and we want to go to a public process, advertising and such, then we certainly have the wherewithal and the option to do that but there’s lots of suggestion that we would stick to the original process. With that I turn to Mr. d’Entremont.
MR. D’ENTREMONT: My question around that is, I think we’ve made a commitment that there be one African Nova Scotian representative, one Acadian representative, and then others as we go along. Should there be a different process maybe for those two important positions, the representatives for community? I don’t know how you’d do it differently without suggesting and bringing the names forward. Those two positions were two promises that we’ve all made on this one, too, so just how we treat those positions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ms. Chender.
MS. CLAUDIA CHENDER: I think we obviously have to talk about the vetting process as a whole, but I would suggest that if we did do a public process then we could hold those two specifically, so people could self-identify and apply to those two roles, or apply to be a general member.
I’m not suggesting which course we take but I think that would solve the issue potentially on the public, if we took that road.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Metlege Diab.
MS. METLEGE DIAB: I guess here’s my thought process, there has been a lot of public attention to this in the last year - no, actually since 2012. There has been a lot of public attention certainly during my time as Justice Minister. We set it and had to send it back and get an opinion, and that was brought forth. Then the terms of the Electoral Boundaries Commission took some time to do a very lengthy report and recommendation. I believe that we - there are nine of us here, plus all the public - I think people know who is on this committee.
This is a process where anybody can contact any one of us on this committee to show interest that they want to be on the commission. My suggestion would be - there has already been a lot of public attention - I think to do another public call process is going to lengthen this. I don’t know how many more months that would be, and what I would suggest is getting bios and CVs of interested applicants and then sharing them amongst the committee - obviously not in such a public forum, when we’re talking about people’s names - and going from that process.
That would be my feeling on that, making it known after we leave here that it’s open for people to contact us should they be so inclined and interested to be on this commission, because I do recognize that not everybody is going to want to jump at the chance to be on the commission. Some of the other discussions we’ll have later today will dictate whether or not people are going to be available to be on it, depending on the timelines that we set and so on, and obviously, without going into a lot of details here, people who apply or want to be on it have to have certain, I would suspect, criteria and experience and education components, or various other factors. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Gordon Wilson.
MR. GORDON WILSON: I’m a firm believer if it isn’t broke don’t fix it, and why reinvent the wheel? In previous commissions, it’s clearly stated that select committees have at least one person from the African Nova Scotian community - it’s in the Act - and one person from the Acadian community. We’ve had some excellent commissions struck in the past, and I think for the sake of time - and I think we have a very good group of MLAs here who certainly can, and are open to, collecting very good, nonpartisan names, people that can come here and do the work that we want to do, that’s open and transparent.
I do agree with Minister Diab that when we do have those discussions in camera, that’s when the real work will come, making sure that we all represent what we want best for Nova Scotia. I think for the sake of time, and it’s a process that has been set in the past that’s worked, that we just stick to the original process that was there for selecting them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just for clarity on this particular point, I think we probably have to separate the conversations of, are we advertising or are we just doing it within the committee? The other aspect about separate process is for the two defined seats. So, maybe we’ll do the public versus the internal process at this point, and we’ll decide on that first, and then move to the second part.
Mr. d’Entremont.
MR. D’ENTREMONT: I think because we haven’t discussed timeline on any of this yet, I don’t know what the government is interested in, and I don’t know what we’re interested in. As all these processes have time involved in them, I think the traditional method of us sitting down, presenting some names, looking at their availabilities - some of these people, we might ask 15 people to find nine. We might ask 20 people to find nine.
There’s going to be a challenge in that. Not that I want to overburden the Committees Office, but I think last time around they were the ones that started calling the people to see if they were interested.
There is a lot involved here, but I think all of it should be done amongst the group, rather than doing public because if we do public, then there’s a whole advertising process that would have to go with it and I feel that would take six months just to figure that part out.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. Okay.
Mr. Johns.
MR. JOHNS: I would probably support reaching out to people in the community as well. Ideally, we’re going to bring people who are as nonpartisan as possible to the process, for the best process in Nova Scotia, but the reality is people will - we’re all Party affiliated and people will say, well so-and-so - I think that it provides an opportunity for each Party as well to reach out to people that they think are competent and with the goal of trying to find somebody who is non-partisan and doing it for the right reasons. I would think that would probably be better than putting it in a paper.
I also think we’re looking for certain competencies, and so hopefully caucuses and members of the committee would know people who would meet the competencies we’re looking for.
I just want to confirm and pick up on something that MLA Wilson mentioned, which is that it would go into the vetting process once the applicants, we’ve reached out and we’ve brought them in, that would then go through an in camera process of this committee to review those applications and those people - correct?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That would certainly be our decision, but it seems like the table is leaning in that direction.
MR. JOHNS: I assume that - it wasn’t in the reference binder as to whether or not it was going to be in camera. I encourage that, but I just wanted to . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ince.
HON. TONY INCE: I’m just going in the same path as everyone else. I believe that we haven’t discussed timelines yet; that is going to be very integral in all of this. If we were to go from that other public process when there is already a system that has sort of worked in the past, I’m of the same mind as everyone else that we might just stick with what - you know, let’s not recreate the wheel.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Chender.
MS. CHENDER: I am fine to do that, but just a couple of comments on the conversation. One is I think we can all bring non-partisan names to the table, but I think one of the things that was identified in the Keefe commission was that we have communities that are really disengaged and it would be nice to have some of those folks at the table. I think those are not the folks that we know in our offices necessarily, or even that the Parties know.
So, while I understand the arguments against a public process, I guess I would make a request to at least have some collateral. I know for me to go out into certain communities with not just a piece of paper with the terms of reference, but even just a one-pager from CNS that sort of - it’s not an ad, but it’s something that says this is what it is, this is why we need you, contact - and it could just have our contacts or the clerk’s office or whoever is most appropriate, just so we can make sure to push it out a little bit further than the usual suspects, respecting that we don’t need to advertise, per se.
I think it is a little broke. Like the idea that it ain’t broke, don’t fix it - it’s a little bit broke. I think that’s what the Keefe commission told us. We have a lot of people who aren’t engaged. I think that’s one of the reasons we’re here, so let’s make sure to try to get out to those people as early as we can.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s a good point, and I think we can certainly have CNS take a look at something like that.
I guess the discussion for the table, and the fine line is that we’re not going to use a public process and advertise, so where do you sort of walk that? Do members put it in their social media or is that advertising? I guess that becomes that fine line. Again, we can figure this out as a group, but just to have that reference document makes sense.
Mr. Johns.
MR. JOHNS: I apologize because I don’t know, and I think it was asked – what are the timelines? I guess that somewhat really affects how we go out as well.
I was on a number of committees and committee selects over at City Hall and sometimes you would get a binder this big with 75 to 100 different applications for committees. If that’s the case it really lengthens the process somewhat to go through all of those. I don’t know if we have set a timeline - or is there a goal? I think that if we’re looking at doing this in time for the next election, which I’m assuming is going to be 2021, and if that’s the case, somewhere around there, then by the time they do the public consultation and they write the report and come back, I think we want to streamline the process as much as possible while still trying to maintain open transparency and fairness. So it’s that thin line.
[4:00 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, makes sense. That’s fair. So again, I think we’ll have some discussion around the commission and our work on item No. 5, but I think that establishing these pieces and how we want to approach this, so the public versus the internal, I think that impacts the timeline. At the end of the day, we have to be prudent and we have to give everything the landing space to materialize, but at the same time, it’s as soon as possible. I think that’s the focus of our group, and the commission will have that direction as well.
With that, any other discussion about public versus internal?
Mr. Ince.
MR. INCE: I just wanted to applaud Ms. Chender for her suggestion. I think that when we talk about communities not being engaged, we should be looking at - either through our caucuses, through us, somehow - that we reach out to make sure that those individuals are engaged. Then at least we can say we’ve done our due diligence to reach out, to inform, to make sure that everyone has an idea of what it is we’re doing and how we’re doing it, and then give them the opportunity to put their names forward or be a part of that process.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That makes sense. I think that having a document to apply to that process for all of us to talk through caucus members, through our respective caucuses, and then to reach into our communities - but again, look, there is some onus on us as individual members here to make sure that we get out - not only in our ridings, per se, but in our regions as well. So that’s good.
Mr. Gordon Wilson.
MR. GORDON WILSON: In regard to Mr. Johns’ comments, also, I guess item No. 5 does talk about completion of the report timelines. But I think to his point, should we be establishing in the vetting process, the timeline for getting these names to the committee, to find that balance between what MLA Chender is suggesting and what traditionally has been done, a week or two weeks. A week is probably not enough time for us to do that, but in respect of that, is two weeks from now maybe a time that we - I looked at the way previous select committees worked, and they’re pretty nimble. I think from the time they were established until they had all - and they actually even had public meetings; I know we haven’t discussed that point yet - but they were four to six weeks, and they had their commission established, their terms of reference on the go, and their commission starting to do work.
I think it’s worth the conversation right now while we’re at this agenda point to decide when we would like to have some names put forward by the committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Again, if we were going to look at a bimonthly schedule - so trying to have one every second week - we could certainly shoot for that.
But I guess back to the discussion would be, does that give us the time to have this document not prepared but in play? Does that give us the breadth to get out and make sure that we contact those people? If we were looking at establishing a meeting two weeks from now, does that give us the opportunity to come back with that potential commission member roster?
Ms. Metlege Diab.
MS. METLEGE DIAB: Just like all of us, for me, having gender and diverse individuals on the commission is of prime importance. Having said that, I personally don’t think two weeks is going to be enough. I think we all need to really reach down to identify people and have them at least agree to even let us potentially put their names forward. I think that’s going to take a bit of doing with individuals and communities and so on who would never have considered this before.
To be frank with you, there are a number of people who are sitting around this table who I don’t know - who they are or what their function is. With all respect, I don’t really know any of you. I don’t know what aids we have available and what support we have available around this table. Obviously, we have a lot, because there are people sitting here taking notes, but I have no idea who you all are. So, can we just find that out to see how much support we are going to have, or whether this is something we have to take on our own initiative.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Let’s stick tight to each task at a time.
You are talking about this document that Ms. Chender referred to which would be essentially a one-pager for the outline of what a commission member would do?
MS. METLEGE DIAB: Well, yes, having some kind of document would certainly help us.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have Stephanie from CNS.
MS. STEPHANIE HINES: I do all of the advertising, media planning, and buying for the province. I can give you an idea of advertising costs and so forth, but I do know that CNS would be available to help.
MS. METLEGE DIAB: I don’t think I’m asking for anything that really costs us money. All we want is a document that we can display in the community, or with different people, or organizations, or whatever, that explains what this is and what we are looking for.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Right. In terms of a document, I will go out on a limb to say that if we need something that identifies what a commission member would be, it is not going to take CNS long to put that together - I’m going to say that takes one day.
I will make an executive decision and say that when we need that, it’s going to take a day. They can produce that easily. The timeline will not be impacted by CNS putting this together at all. That will be relatively easy for them.
Back to the question about timelines. The suggestion on the floor was two weeks to come back with a roster of potential commission members, and that’s our discussion.
MR. JOHNS: I guess my thought would be, and Minister Ince actually said this, but I think it’s do it right; don’t do it under pressure. We do have the pressure of summer coming, and I know we are jumping back and forth between timelines on this, but I do think they are related.
Is the intention to have the committee up and working prior to September, or is it to wait until September, with a September start? We get committee members, have them in place, they meet maybe once or twice over the summer, and then really hit the ground in September?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I just want to keep this a little tight in terms of the agenda because we are spreading from the discussion here - basically if you look at the bulk of what we are mandated to do as a select committee, the key part of this is the commission piece. Outside of that, the terms of reference are set. Some of the things around filing the meetings and public versus private, all those things are handled relatively easy. The bulk of this is going to be getting this commission selection roster right.
If it’s two weeks to come back with a list, so be it; if it’s a month, then that’s what it is, and that is what we will decide as a group. After that, once we have the commission in place, we should not need very much time after that to be set and finished. I can’t imagine that we could not have this completely wrapped by, I don’t know, mid- to the end of June. I can’t imagine why we would have to wait any longer than that.
Mr. Johns, with respect to the number of meetings and what is going to happen, the whole purpose of this is that’s the commission’s job. We can at least recommend or set a range in terms of the commission’s timeline to get back to the Legislature. So, if it’s next Spring’s session when they report back, that is something we will discuss at a later time.
In terms of our work here, the bulk of it which will eat up the calendar, so to speak, is getting the commission roster.
MR. INCE: I’m thinking, just given some of the discussions already, and I’m looking for feedback from the rest of you, but I’m thinking possibly a month is coming into the summer, and that is where I’m at - I’ll just add that.
MR. DAVID WILSON: I think two weeks would be rushing it and if we are able to get some information from CNS on that one-pager, I don’t foresee - four to six weeks would take us into June, either the start of June for four, and six weeks would take us to the end of June, to have that hopefully done because, remember, you are going to be going to an individual, cold, most likely, and saying, are you interested in this? They’re going to need some time to digest it, maybe some encouragement. I would think even if you left it with someone for a week and said, listen, I’ll be back in touch with you in a week.
Four to six weeks would put us into June. Four would put us to the first week of June, I think. Then we’ll hopefully have a roster, and then the commission can hopefully decide how frequently they’ll meet throughout the summer, for example.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just for discussion, and we’ll round into this through the course of this conversation, but I’m thinking if we looked within a month - so four weeks, we would work to identify those members, if it’s CVs and a sort of breakdown of each member.
If we wished, and I think it’s a good idea, we could disseminate those that we find amongst each other prior to the meeting. Within a month, we have our roster of individuals, and we spread them amongst the group through the clerk’s office - the committee function. Then we come in probably the second week of June, we each know what the collective is, and then we figure out from there. We’re still on track to be completely wrapped by the end of June. That’s just food for thought.
Mr. d’Entremont.
MR. D’ENTREMONT: The challenge is this - I want work to go on. I don’t want us to just go off and do our thing and not talk to anybody for four weeks and then come back, and then we have a six-hour meeting going over people’s names.
I think there has to be a process that if we chat with someone, and they’re interested in doing it, then we flow it to the chairman and to the committee, and then we have a roster when we get here. We know that they have been contacted and that they’re agreeing to do the work.
Then we make a decision out of the 10, if we’re lucky enough to have 10 names - there’s probably going to be one person who gets dropped off. We have to be able to flow along the process here rather than just showing up in four weeks and then dumping a bunch of resumés on the table because that’s going to take too long.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. My suggestion was that we continue to flow those resumés for four weeks, and then we ensure that everyone has seen every name. So five weeks from now, we would have a complete understanding. Five weeks from now, we would do that final decision.
Ms. Metlege Diab.
MS. METLEGE DIAB: Do you foresee us completing every single task on this list by 5:00 o’clock so that we don’t actually have to have another organizational meeting prior to vetting?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MS. METLEGE DIAB: Oh my goodness. Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We can do it. Any other comments?
The idea is that there’s a four-week window. We’re going to set the meeting for five weeks. Let’s aim for four weeks from now to have our names completely compiled. We’re going to flow them through the Legislative Committees Office. We’re going to ensure that they’re disseminated amongst each and every member of the committee. We’ll do some work. Essentially, when we come back in that fifth week - the second week of June - we have all had the opportunity to look at the names. We’ll go through those lists. We have the range set at eight to nine. Then we’ll decide at that meeting who the commission members are going to be. Of course, again in the interest of discretion and privacy, that particular meeting will be in camera.
Does everyone agree with that process? Agreed.
That being handled, let’s now turn to the idea that Mr. d’Entremont had mentioned. That’s about the African Nova Scotian and the Acadian representatives in terms of a different process.
Maybe you can kick that off, Mr. d’Entremont.
MR. D’ENTREMONT: I know there has been some interest from la Fédération acadienne - I know the African Nova Scotian community has made some suggestions. There are discussions there, and I don’t want it to be all our decision picking those individuals as well.
I don’t have a recommendation here. I think it can fit within the process we have, but we need to make sure we consult with those groups in order to make it happen. That’s all. I think it’s just to make sure that we consult with them.
[4:15 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, we all sort of trust each other and our objectivity here and what the goal is. I think it’s a fine line because you have the two defined positions, but then you wouldn’t want it to mean that African Nova Scotians can only have one position. That’s that fine line. We don’t want to control it and sort of put parameters of that nature. I think to have that open conversation with the stakeholders certainly should be part of this.
Perfect. Item No. 1(b) is discuss the terms of reference. I think everyone has a package for Bill No. 99. If you look at the subsection, which we altered, everything listed under (5A) and (5B) has been decreed. That is set in stone. That’s part of this discussion. If you look at (5C), there are a couple of lines at the bottom of the first page, and (5C) continues on Page 2. All of those things are aspects of Bill No. 99 that are optional to this group.
I have said publicly during the discussion on this particular bill that, for example, at this point we aren’t interested in establishing the number of seats in any way. So that range is a moot point for us. At this juncture, I think that allowing the commission to do that makes the most sense.
From my perspective as the Chairman, (5A) and (5B) are set. I don’t know if we would make any alterations incorporating Section 5C of the Act.
With that, we’ll open it up. Ms. Metlege Diab.
MS. METLEGE DIAB: I was actually going to say what you just said, so I will not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If you do that, we’ll never get out of here by 5:00 o’clock.
MS. METLEGE DIAB: We’re fine. I would concur that we don’t want to determine the minimum or maximum number of seats.
MR. D’ENTREMONT: I’m going to walk the thin line here. The challenge we have, without speaking to our own jobs, and this one here - right now the number is 51. Before the last boundary review, there were 52. The challenge we’re going to have would be should a group come out and say, “There are too many politicians in here. Really, we could do with the number of 40.” Would we be okay with that at the end of the day? We sort of have to be because that’s the recommendation of that commission.
On the other hand, if we look at the Keefe report and the Commission on Effective Representation, they say you’re challenging that. In order to meet your minimums and maximums and try to represent a couple of other communities, you probably need a couple more. So there will be some competing discussions on the number of MLAs.
I don’t think it should go anywhere below the 51 in order to represent those communities and provide a good voice for the Acadian community, the African Nova Scotian community, and whatever other community that the commission might identify at the same time. We talk about those two the most, but there are other communities that might want to have representation as well.
Again, I’m of two sides on this issue. It’s going to be a tough one. I know what the challenge is to represent a rural area now, and I do worry if they make my district bigger, the effective representation of that community, whoever they are, is going to be that much more difficult - not just for me accessing them or for them accessing me. I think that would be the same for any MLA, especially rural. It’s a little different in the city, but not that much different either. It’s a thin line here that I’m worried about.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is, for sure. Again, that was the challenge when we talked about the range of seats. The reason why we wanted to leave it in the legislation as part of the MLA select committee option is to your point, Mr. d’Entremont - if the commission came back and took a number of seats away and it was far less than 51, well the next MLA select committee, which could be all of us or some of us or none of us, will then have the option to say, based on what we have seen historically, we need more seats because effective representation was taken away by that final number. I don’t know how we pick the floor and I don’t know how we pick the ceiling. Just to leave that in as a discussion, you’re right, it’s a tricky one.
Mr. Johns.
MR. JOHNS: I guess I would be more comfortable picking a floor so that there’s realistic expectations out there. I do recognize that, and I see it very clearly in our caucus, the challenges. You know, there are challenges representing an urban area, and there are challenges representing rural areas, particularly around the geographical size of those areas, and I think that if we put out unrealistic expectations to the public I don’t think that’s fair, or to the committee.
I’d be comfortable being one of the people to take responsibility to set the number, and I’ll lead with my experiences at council - when we reviewed with Halifax Regional Council the number of members, we went from 24 to 16, including a Chair, but that still wasn’t enough when we were done.
I think that we need to ensure that we set a number to ensure that we have effective government, effective representation, and not to cave to the public. You know, Mr. Joe Public may feel there should be 10 MLAs across the Province of Nova Scotia, and all politicians are a waste of time and money, right? But, the reality is we do a job just like anybody else, and I think that it’s unfair to set an unrealistic expectation that we’re going to end up going to 25 or 30, something like that.
I’m not so concerned about the higher number, but I do think we should give the commission some kind of direction at a number we would like to see. I think if they came back with the number 30, the political pressure - we’ve given them the authority to go out and do this, the public pressure on them, the political pressure on us would be to follow through with what their recommendation would be, and that does not necessarily mean good governance at the end.
I speak from experience, when council went from 24 to 16, the grassroots - the ability to be in contact with residents, to serve residents properly - that really watered out, and I’d hate to see that happen here because I think, particularly given challenges that already exist for some MLAs - particularly rural ones - with 51 seats.
So, I think I would be comfortable talking about a floor - ceiling is somewhat irrelevant.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gordon Wilson.
MR. GORDON WILSON: I don’t know how to frame it other than to throw out the word trust, it’s probably the biggest thing that we’re going to be putting in this commission. This is going to be a group of people who are going to have probably, at the end of it, the greatest understanding of what Nova Scotia should look like. I personally have faith that what they’ll come up with - and I think we need to go into it with that faith, unbridled, no restraint, give them as much leash as we can - to make that decision, and I would be surprised if we came out with fewer MLAs.
Knowing what I’m hearing and seeing on the ground with the size of my riding, and the diverse cultural entities that I represent - in saying that, I can understand the points that Mr. D’Entremont and Mr. Johns bring, but I really think that we should put our trust in this commission, and we should leave it up to them to decide, and we should be as unrestrictive as we can.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Metlege Diab.
MS. METLEGE DIAB: I guess, I’m going to say that I also have faith, that we are going to select commissioners that are going to do what is best for the province, but having said that, if you look at section (5B)(g) it already tells them that the preliminary report must include electoral boundaries for the existing number of electoral districts, which is 51, and for at least one different total number of electoral districts, prior to them going out to the public. So, you know, they’re going to get the public coming out seeing what exists now and something different and we’re selecting those commissioners to do what is in the best interest of all electors in the province and I say we do that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Mr. David Wilson.
MR. DAVID WILSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think definitely part of our job as a committee is to make sure we are seeking out candidates for the commission that we can trust, for one, but have the ability to educate them on what our roles are as MLAs. We all, this committee itself, has a diverse representation of rural, urban, city kind of ridings and I think it’s upon us to make sure that the commission knows exactly how busy we are as MLAs - even though some in the general public think we’re on vacation right now because we’re not in session, and I think that that is another key component for us as members of this select committee to know that they understand what our workload looks like in our different ridings, and I too think we’re going to have to put a level of trust there. I mean, we’ll all see a final report eventually and cast our opinions and our ideas and thoughts on that.
So, I think it’s upon us not only to go out and seek who will be on the commission, but to also educate them on what our roles are as elected officials. We did put in the legislation that former members or senators cannot be on the committee, which can have challenges and that’s one of them - do they understand, the commissioners, do they understand the work that we actually do? I would hope that through a package potentially for commissioners, there’s kind of an MLA schooling component to it just so they know, but the trust needs to be there and that’s, I think, our role - to make sure that we have proper representation on the commission.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excellent. Thank you.
Mr. d’Entremont.
MR. D’ENTREMONT: Thank you, and I know this is the touchy part of the subject, but the fact that we’re talking about and discussing it, I think is a good thing. What I know the commissioners did in the past is they looked at the Hansard of our meetings and saw what we actually discussed and talked about. So, I think the sake of bringing up the caveat that we have will at least allow them to understand the challenges of what we’re facing in this particular case. So, you know, as much as I agree with Mr. Johns, it would be good to have a floor on it. I think talking about it is a good thing and part of the process here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you, and final word to Mr. Johns.
MR. JOHNS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, just to confirm and to follow up on Mr. Dave Wilson’s comments, are we defining or are we giving direction that they would interview and have a discussion with MLAs - that’s just a given that that will be part of that process so that concerns can be raised? Do we direct that or is that just part of the Hansard and, hopefully, they’ll recognize that that might be worthwhile doing?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, we haven’t given any direction in that regard and we certainly could as a committee but I think, you know, Mr. David Wilson was referencing that we could provide the commission that and, again, we could decide to do that as a group. Now, we’re at a later conversation, but I think the public consultation aspect of that gives that opportunity as well.
With that, it seems like the consensus is that we leave it open and allow the commission to establish the number of recommended seats. Are we okay with that by way of consensus? All right.
Committee business, item No. 2, services available to support the select committee. So, do we require a presentation from Hansard, Legislative TV, Communications Nova Scotia? Just by way of support, do we need any of those?
Mr. d’Entremont.
[4:30 p.m.]
MR. D’ENTREMONT: I know Gordon had a question here, but are we going to get a draft terms of reference? At some point we’re going to have to see what we just agreed to, so hopefully that will be in the Hansard as we roll around.
The second question, before we go to what services and advertising we are going to need, are we going to do a road show? Are we not? Are we just going to have meetings here? If we just have meetings here, what kind of process are we taking? Because, if we’re just doing names then we don’t need the services of Legislative TV or Hansard, outside of the meeting. Maybe a little bit of drafting for an advertisement for Facebook or social media.
My appetite is not to have a big public road show, because we just had one with the Commission of Effective Representation. The commission will be doing it, so I think for us to do it again would just confuse the issue that much more. Plus it’s using taxpayer dollars and it’s a bit of travelling around - I don’t think we need to do that.
Maybe there’s an opportunity to have a little public website so if people have a few comments to send in to us before we make our final decisions, we can allow that to happen. Public input is a good thing, but I don’t think we need to go out and knock on doors and have big public consultations as we’ve done the last two rounds.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. d’Entremont. Just for clarification, obviously as soon as the minutes are ready, we’ll circulate them and then as we do, we’ll talk. If there are any issues or questions, we can certainly identify those. Absolutely right - I think that largely defining what we’ll need from Hansard, Legislative TV and CNS would be hinged on how we are going to do this. Much of the discussion has been that we would do it quickly and we wouldn’t require that public consultation, because lots of that has happened and there is lots more to come. So, that’s the focus of the discussion at this point.
Mr. Johns.
MR. JOHNS: Yes, I was just going to say once again, if the goal is to have this completed and the report back in time for the 2021 election, to expedite the process, I kind of agree with MLA d’Entremont.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Chender.
MS. CHENDER: I just want to say, and I don’t know if it comes under this item or not, but it would be my hope that to the extent that we are engaging the public, that those engagements are accessible. So perhaps interpretive services where required, or you know - especially with the accessibility consultations starting this month. Maybe we reach out to Gerry Post or to the board and just make sure that whatever consultation may happen, even if it’s a website, those are accessible to all Nova Scotians.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, that’s a good point.
Any further discussion on the requirements for Hansard, Legislative TV or CNS? So, I think we’re clear that given our mandate and focus that we will not require those. No other discussions under item No. 2?
Moving on to item No. 3, advertising. Again, it sounds like we won’t require much of this, but there is a piece around translation, forms of media and ads. Obviously, that would be Communications Nova Scotia helping if there is a requirement, but let’s chat about whether or not there is.
Mr. Johns.
MR. JOHNS: So I guess consensus is we’re not going to do a huge road show, we may go to one or two places then?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we’re right here.
MR. JOHNS: Just right here. Based on that I think that once again, going back to openness and transparency to the public, I think it would be advantageous to ensure that the hearings not only are accessible - I think that’s really good - but also that they’re broadcast if possible.
Though you Mr. Chairman, what I would suggest is sometimes during Law Amendments and other things, we haven’t had TV there and it’s been brought up numerous times that it would probably be beneficial to actually have it broadcast over . . .
MS. METLEGE DIAB: This is the select committee we’re talking about, there is nothing to broadcast.
MR. JOHNS: I’m sorry Mr. Chairman (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: If we could keep it through the Chair.
MR. JOHNS: Yes, thank you. Let me be clear on what I am talking about, then. Once we have picked the commissioners, they will go around and interview people across the province, or they won’t. My understanding is, we have just said that they will not be (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: It’s okay, folks. We will just keep the reactions off the microphones.
MR. JOHNS: I’m sitting on the wrong side, I’m waiting for someone to hit me.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that’s okay. (Interruptions) Yes, I’ve got your back.
This particular piece and all these aspects are just about us, if we were going to do it, because the previous select committees did that. The commission is going to do a lot of that work - a significant amount of travelling and public consultation, individual meetings, and some of the work with MLAs. That will be their role.
MR. JOHNS: Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are welcome.
Will Hirtle, Legislative TV.
MR. WILLIAM HIRTLE: Hi, I’m William Hirtle, with Legislative TV. I’m the manager.
Just to Ms. Chender’s point about CART services and not requiring LTV - if you are going to have CART services or any accessibility services made available for the committee only, your best way to do it is probably through us. It will require just a few things added here - no real cost, I don’t think. We will work that out later on, but it’s something we can provide and do provide pretty easily. Mikes get opened up, it gets sent to Alberta, and we get it back in text. We do it pretty easily.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Excellent. Thank you, and nice to meet you, by the way. (Laughter) I was like, he looks familiar. Thank you, William.
Any other discussion on the advertising piece and translation services? I think we’re okay.
Ms. Chender.
MS. CHENDER: This is probably where the one-pager comes back. Just as MLA d’Entremont mentioned earlier, for an abundance of clarity on our decisions here, I would say, of course, that that needs to be in French and English, and it also needs to be in an accessible font.
Then the question was raised whether or not that’s something we would share on our own social media or email list or things like that. My personal opinion is, sure, why not? But I want to get clarity on whether or not that’s what we are deciding here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Discussion?
MR. D’ENTREMONT: I think she’s got it. Whatever she said, let’s do.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s it. Members are going to use this individually, by way of their own social media. Does that mean us as individual members, or is this our caucuses? Are we keeping it to the people of this group or all MLAs?
Mr. Ince.
MR. INCE: I would think both, Mr. Chairman. If we can reach out to our caucuses and individually, if we can do it, I think that gives us a broader network to try to get the message out.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have just been informed that there is a select committee website through the committees page, which is helpful.
Ms. Metlege Diab.
MS. METLEGE DIAB: So we can just share that? Can we share that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MS. METLEGE DIAB: We don’t need to do our own anything? We will just share what you give us? That’s perfect.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes. That’s good. We can use it ourselves directly as well as our caucuses and do it that way. That’s great.
Any final discussion on item No. 3, advertising? Excellent.
Moving on to item No. 4, which is the budget. (Interruption) This is the select committee’s budget, again, for clarity. I think you all have the handout of the budget.
There are two documents. There are two tables on one page - 2018 budget estimate for a full campaign is the top one, the larger box. The smaller one at the bottom is for a smaller campaign, no public consultation. Obviously, by way of what we have decided thus far, the top box is not applicable - the first table. We’re down to the smaller campaign.
With respect to advertisement, that will tie into Ms. Chender’s point about the documentation being produced and the translation, as well. CNS staff/writer, $8,000; document translation is there too, Hansard report, $5,000; other per diems, kilometres - I don’t think that’s applicable. That’s tied in there in case there is any travel, but I’m not sure that there would be. So, the maximum budget identified for our particular work is $27,400, but again with that per diem number, and some of these others, I certainly anticipate that it could be lower. Is there any discussion?
Mr. d’Entremont.
MR. D’ENTREMONT: The advertising thing - I know there is going to be some work that needs to be done, but if we’re talking about sharing it on social media, are we really going to be using traditional advertising on it, and will we need to spend $10,000 on that?
Let’s give it a max of $25,000. Just be cognizant of it, and knowing we’re probably not going to hit that if we don’t actually advertise.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Obviously, any of these budget line items are loose estimates based on what we could potentially decide. These are essentially the maximums for each. It’s $27,400 as a top number collectively. Do we want to set it at $25,000 - but we’re going to have to go through a line item and sort of reduce those to get to that number? The other option is we could leave it as is, and the report is going to have to come back in terms of our final budget. There is no expectation at all that we’ll come anywhere close to $27,400.
Mr. Hirtle.
MR. HIRTLE: Just one quick note, the CART services and accessibility is not included in this previous budget. It’s just something that hadn’t come up before. It is $125 an hour to have speech-to-text available, and that is an outside company. We don’t have the ability to do that in-house, so that will be added on, but if you’re saving money on the advertisement, it can happen from that pretty easy - two hours a meeting.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So maybe it’s okay if we can have a discussion with the Legislative Committees group, and we can regroup and maybe bring an updated budget for the next meeting that will sort of tighten up on some of these numbers for the smaller campaign.
Mr. d’Entremont.
MR. D’ENTREMONT: That’s mostly for services for public meetings, and if we’re not really having public meetings, we don’t really need the service. We just need to make sure that the website is accessible, the advertising is accessible. So, we don’t necessarily need that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Mr. Johns.
MR. JOHNS: I’m just curious, and I am by no means a math wizard, but where did the $400 come from? It just doesn’t add in.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is a typo. That should be a flat number. We’ll make sure that’s corrected in time for the next meeting. Thank you for pointing that out. Is there anything else on item No. 4 of the budget?
Moving on - timeline for completion of the report. Obviously, too specific, and this is for the commission - file it with the Clerk of the House and report to the House of Assembly.
MR. JOHNS: I apologize, but are we having an interim report at any point in time - 50 per cent of the way through - are we having an interim report coming back to us to let us know how things are proceeding, with some type of update for us?
MR. CHAIRMAN: If we’re filing with the Clerk of the House and reporting to the House of Assembly, this is not our timeline. I think we’ve established that by way of the month to come back with our names, the five weeks, we’re going to have another meeting prior to finalizing all of this. We’re targeting the end of June at the very latest, for our work, but I think this obviously by way of - if we’re referencing the Clerk of the House and the House of Assembly, then clearly, we’re going to have to be leading up to a session. I’m not sure what the mechanics are when reporting to the Clerk.
MS. METLEGE DIAB: With respect to No. 5, can I make a suggestion to defer discussing it until our next meeting, because it’s just going a little bit overboard. We haven’t even looked at the people or anything of that sort yet. Is that okay with everybody?
[4:45 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: That seems pretty logical. It seems like we have agreement. Is everyone okay with that?
We’ll defer the commission’s timeline until the next meeting. All right, that’s it for No. 5.
Item No. 6, we have report writer/communications person, review of the terms of reference. This is the report writer for our work. If we were doing public consultation - so it’s just there as diligence, depending on where we landed on some of the previous discussions.
Mr. d’Entremont.
MR. D’ENTREMONT: On that one, my hope is that we just use the outside standing list for a writer, or is that something we can do in-house? Not that I don’t trust everybody - I try to - but I’d like to have an impartial third party writing this for us. There’s going to be a report that needs to be written with the terms of reference and everything combined in one piece - more than just Hansard.
We just want to make sure that our decisions, the names of the commissioners, the rewriting the terms of reference that are already within the Act and those kinds of things - they still need to be written by someone. We just make sure it comes off the standing list, and I don’t know what CNS’ idea is on that one is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We’re going to recognize Stephanie to clarify that.
MS. STEPHANIE HINES: We do have a standing offer list for writers that we can reach out to.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That are third party?
MS. HINES: That are third party. And they have had to go through the entire procedure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Johns.
MR. JOHNS: I totally agree. I think optics is a thing there. If we can use an outside agency in this case, I think there’s merit to it. My personal opinion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Chender.
MS. CHENDER: You can let me know if this goes somewhere else, because I see we’re moving right ahead to meetings and then we’re done. But we were handed this reference sheet, and I’m wondering - we appoint the commission, and is this what we give them and then they’re off to the races? That seems a little daunting for them.
Also, I’m wondering if they’re remunerated at all, just so that we understand that when we’re talking to people. What do they receive in terms of instruction? What do they get, if anything, in terms of remuneration? What’s the length of the commitment? Obviously they’ll set some of those terms, but I just feel like I don’t have that - maybe I have it somewhere, but I don’t know where I have that information if I have it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The reference sheet was given just as a summary of what happened the last time. It could be used, but if - so that’s not directly connected to the report, right, or it’s something different that you wanted? Maybe if it’s okay, after we finish No. 7, we’ll talk about that. I think that’s probably a good way to round off the conversation today. So we’ll defer that until last and we’ll talk about the commission aspects.
With respect to No. 6, the writer/communications person, we’re okay with the third party via CNS. Okay, perfect. That’s it for No. 6.
Second-last, in camera meetings. All meetings are public. I think, again, we’ve established that that is the case other than during our vetting of the potential commission members, as that certainly has a privacy aspect and should remain private. But the subsequent meetings, everything we do until the end of June, would be open to the public. Good. That basically takes care of No. 7.
Now, on the advice and recommendation from Ms. Chender, we’ll talk about the commission members themselves. Again, as referenced, this was sort of the breakdown of what happened on the last few boundaries commission processes. It says that the Elections Nova Scotia office looked after the remuneration aspects of that, but I really don’t know if there was (Interruption) They didn’t get paid anything. Obviously travel was covered.
So is that something we want to discuss about how this works about remuneration, or I think it’s pretty standard that they don’t get paid, they just get expenses covered? That’s the norm, yes.
Mr. Johns.
MR. JOHNS: Just for clarification, is the per diem rate the same as the government rate, then? It would just be the same amount?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would assume so. I don’t know. We can certainly check back for clarification on that, but that would be the norm, that it would mirror the government rate.
Mr. d’Entremont.
MR. D’ENTREMONT: You know, there’s a secretariat that has to basically be set up for this. I know we second a couple of people from other departments in order to play the positions. There’s always a reference person from Elections Nova Scotia, especially when it comes to mapping and GIS stuff.
Does that have to be in the written report, who does the standing order? I mean, here’s the standing order to these individuals who need to go out and do this work. How does that secretariat get set up as well? I know it’s through the House of Assembly, but I don’t know how that happens.
Maybe we can come back and talk about that next time?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That will be another aspect too. We’ll get some homework completed on that to make sure that we’re in the know in terms of how that’s established and what the actual mechanism is.
Any other aspects of that for discussion? Ms. Chender?
MS. CHENDER: No, that’s helpful. I just would like to - if I’m inviting people, I want to know what I’m inviting them into and to be able to paint a picture. I don’t feel like I can accurately do that now. So if there’s information forthcoming later, that’s fine.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s fair. Thank you.
Mr. Johns.
MR. JOHNS: One additional on Ms. Chender’s point is that we haven’t really set a timeline of what the expectation is for commitment of members, have we? When we go out to talk, what do we tell them? Is it a six-month process? An eight-month process? Up to a year? Is there a feeling?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, the previous one was eight. That’s really the benchmark. As Ms. Diab mentioned earlier, we will finalize that and talk about that at a later date as we get closer to the end of our MLA select committee process. I think it’s reasonable to say that we’ll be looking at eight to 10 months as a general benchmark, but we’ll certainly confirm before they start their work.
Ms. Metlege Diab.
MS. METLEGE DIAB: Would it be helpful to have another meeting just to cover off the couple of items that are outstanding, prior to us actually starting to - I mean, you can start it and some may have contact people and all that. That should be ongoing in any case. But before people can put their bios and CVs and all of that, would it be helpful to just have a meeting for us to collect the information that is missing, i.e. Elections Nova Scotia’s role? Or will you just send us that information? Perhaps it’s admin stuff. It’s nothing for us to decide on. It’s just for us to get information. What do you think?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don’t know how much substance is there that would require a separate meeting, just because the key part now is this commission roster, and then the process for vetting and then the final selection. I think it’s critical information, but I think in terms of time consumption, it wouldn’t be too heavy. I think maybe we can talk to Darlene and the team, and they can disseminate whatever they find out in terms of how the past structure existed, or any remuneration pieces, the Elections Nova Scotia participation and those things, and the budget and tightening up those budget numbers.
If there’s anything for further discussion that doesn’t become clear by way of electronic correspondence, then we could certainly discuss those at the end or the beginning of the vetting meeting.
MS. METLEGE DIAB: Correct. Okay, sounds good. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gordon Wilson.
MR. GORDON WILSON: I would ask that we focus on the draft terms of reference when that gets put together and comes out. We talked very generally here today on it. I’m assuming it’s going to be drafted in layman’s terms, so that we can understand it, not legal terms? I think that is the pillar for us, for the commissioners themselves.
There were a lot of unanswered questions here. I’m not one to want to meet just for the sake of meeting, trust me, but I’d be very interested in seeing what to-dos are left over from what we have here today. Maybe in the next few days, the chairman could make a decision based on what outstanding things we have there if we meet in a couple of weeks.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that we could leave that to the legislative committee staff to put together. I certainly think that’s fair. I think when it’s all said and done and when the minutes are finalized, we’ll see what is outstanding around those budgetary pieces, the commission process vis-à-vis Elections Nova Scotia, et cetera.
We’ll just decide it as a group. If we determine that we want to get back together prior to - maybe earlier that day or maybe well before, in the next few weeks - we can certainly do that. If that’s the key to tightening the bolts prior to that vetting meeting, then I’m certainly okay with that too. We’ll figure out what we have to do and what the missing pieces are, and then we’ll work collectively and go from there.
Any further discussion on any of the agenda, or any aspects moving forward?
No, all right. Again, thank you very much for your participation. We’ll follow up via email, and we look forward to scheduling the next meeting.
With that, we are adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 4:56 p.m.]
