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
[Mr. Charles Parker was replaced by Mr. Leonard Preyra.]
[Ms. Diana Whalen was replaced by Mr. Keith Colwell.]
In Attendance:
Ms. Jana Hodgson
Legislative Committee Clerk
Mr. Neil Ferguson
Legislative Counsel
[Page 1]
HALIFAX, TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2008
STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
9:00 A.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. David Wilson (Glace Bay)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's start then. We'll call the meeting to order.
I wanted to take this opportunity, as everybody knows, we have a new clerk and you've been introduced to our new clerk - I think everybody has. Darlene is finishing up, so I wanted to take this opportunity to publicly thank Darlene for all of the work she's done on behalf of the Human Resources Committee. If you're looking for her, she's the person with the biggest smile on her face that she no longer has to do this job right now. But anyway, thank you, Darlene, for everything that you've done. For me, personally, it wouldn't have been possible to be as good a chairman as I am without your help. That was a compliment, wasn't it? (Laughter)
The only thing we have on our agenda for today - I think our next meeting after today will be September 30th and I think what we've just been talking about is that on top of everything else, we have a presentation that day. The presentation is from the Black Cultural Centre and then I think afterwards - we'll do our ABCs first that day perhaps, if it's okay with everyone at our presentation, and then we'll have an organizational meeting to plan the rest of the year. Is that okay with everybody? That's on September 30th.
Is it agreed? Agreed.
For today the only thing we're dealing with is the appointments to the agencies, boards and commissions. So shall we start, please, with the Department of Agriculture, Nova Scotia Farm Loan Board. Mr. Porter.
[Page 2]
MR. CHUCK PORTER: I so move that Hank Bosveld be appointed as a member of the Farm Loan Board of Nova Scotia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The Department of Economic Development, Trade Centre Limited. Mr. Morse.
HON. DAVID MORSE: Mr. Chairman, I so move that Stewart McInnes be appointed as director of the Trade Centre Limited.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The Department of Education, Colchester-East Hants Regional Library Board. Mr. Porter.
MR. PORTER: I so move that Ruby McDorman be appointed as a member of the Colchester-East Hants Regional Library Board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The South Shore Regional Library Board. Mr. Porter.
MR. PORTER: I so move that David Brattston be appointed as a member of the South Shore Regional Library Board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
[Page 3]
An appointment to the Department of Finance, Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation. Mr. Morse.
MR. MORSE: Mr. Chairman, I so move that Charles Cox be appointed as a member of the Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission. Mr. Morse - wait, sorry, Ms. Massey.
MS. JOAN MASSEY: I just wanted to make a comment on that one. Every once in a while, I like to bring this topic up. I notice that commission has four men on it now, and two females and nine males applied. I just wanted to point out that we're still struggling onwards and upwards with the battle of finding women, apparently, that can make it through the process - the applicants that are applying. Since we don't see the applications ourselves, we don't really know who these women are. As a female, I feel it's my duty every once in a while to point that out.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Massey. I think in the past, what we've done is we've made a couple of inquiries to whatever the agency, board or commission was, to ask them if they could just - that should be in your book, should it not, as to the number of applicants and whether they were male or female?
MS. MASSEY: Yes, there were two females and nine males that did apply to that. I'm just pointing it out as a point of interest. There's always more work to be done.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we agree - well, I do anyway. Mr. Preyra.
MR. LEONARD PREYRA: I have some questions about that. It does say, "Does the ABC currently meet the affirmative action and gender equality policies . . .", and the answer is, "Yes." I would think if all five of the members of the board are going to be male, does that still meet the affirmative action/gender equality policies?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's an excellent question, Mr. Preyra. I'm not sure . . .
MR. NEIL FERGUSON: I'd have to go and examine the particular policy to tell you one way or the other.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We can do that, if you so wish. Are you saying whether or not that board would be able to function unless it meets the . . .
[Page 4]
MR. PREYRA: No, I'm just - this is my first meeting of this committee and I look at these guidelines and the responses to the guidelines, and the answer to Guideline 5 is yes, it does meet the affirmative action. I'm wondering how the answer could be yes when all five are male.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know the answer to that. I can attempt to find out the answer, whether that just means that there should be - and this is me speaking alone now - it could possibly mean that the attempt is made and that if the actual composition of the board has to meet those guidelines, I'm not sure. Or whether or not the application process has to meet those guidelines - is that what you're asking?
MR. PREYRA: That, but also in part, following up on Ms. Massey's question. Two women applied for a position, and I'm assuming the recommendation deems they were not qualified for the position; even though we don't see it, it's implied that they were not qualified.
MR. FERGUSON: My understanding from this type of policy, having worked with it in the past, is that the first consideration is the qualifications. You strive to have a balance, but if you had nine people and seven of those had extremely high qualifications, you're basically required to go first with the qualifications to make sure that the best people are doing the best job for the province. That doesn't mean that women are not going to be the best, but I think when you get into a question of deciding between fairly equal candidates that you then move to try to achieve the balance by appointing . . .
MR. PREYRA: So the test for this one would not be whether they're qualified or not.
MR. FERGUSON: The test is always whether they're qualified.
MR. PREYRA: When it comes to affirmative action/gender equality.
MR. FERGUSON: I can look into it and give you a more balanced answer.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be nice to - yes, Mr. Paris.
MR. PERCY PARIS: Just very quickly, it will only take me a minute to point this out. I think we had this discussion at the last meeting and I brought up the point when the honourable member talks about qualifications, that it sends up a red flag for me because if you're qualified, you're qualified. If the qualification calls for a Grade 12 and because I've got a Ph.D., that doesn't make me more qualified than somebody else. So when - and I think that may be the problem when it comes to matters of diversity, when it comes to ABCs, that we're making determinations not based on qualifications because if the qualification is X, then if everybody has X, regardless of what level, then everybody is qualified. Maybe then
[Page 5]
what we should be doing is when it comes to issues of diversity, the swing should always be to the applicant who is from the diversity arena.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Some interesting questions have been raised, so perhaps we'll ask legal counsel to do a little review of exactly what's being done and perhaps report back to the next meeting of the committee.
Ms. Massey had brought it up before, about gender balance and we wrote to a particular department - I can't recall which department it was right now. The answer we got back was that yes, it was being considered, but the candidates were not qualified - that was the answer that we received. Therefore, they weren't in the running, so to speak, for those appointments, but it has been brought up before. Mr. Colwell.
MR. KEITH COLWELL: I agree, we really have to look at diversity on these boards but when you look and see that there are two ladies who applied and nine gentlemen applied, we really, without seeing the resumés - and this has been an ongoing problem that we've had in this committee, seeing that people are really qualified. Anyone can apply, absolutely anyone can apply, whether they're qualified or not, to these boards. It makes it very, very difficult to get diversity on the boards if we don't see the resumés, because we could very well have someone who has a background that would qualify them to be a diverse member of a board who doesn't get appointed and we don't know that without seeing the resumés.
It's unfortunate because as Mr. Preyra says, if the requirement is Grade 12, it's Grade 12, it's not a Ph.D. So we have to have the people - and the qualifications, it's up to the department to set the qualifications for the board, to ensure that they get the people they need, but at the same time they really have to look at diversity all the way across the board - not just with females but right across the board.
I think it's a message we should send pretty strongly to all of the departments and have a look at this. I don't know how, without seeing the resumés, you can say if someone is qualified or not. That's always been an issue here on this board.
I don't know how we can address that, we've tried before with no success. So perhaps the chairman could write a letter to the committee that sets all this up, that represents the government, and ask them what process they use for diversity and how they choose who is qualified and who isn't qualified and . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: We can ask for an explanation, sure, that's not a problem.
MR. COLWELL: I think that would be a start. We probably won't get very much back - we never do - but if we don't ask, we'll never find out.
[Page 6]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, if that's the wish of the committee. Mr. Morse.
MR. MORSE: Mr. Chairman, I think it's always good to be aware of the criteria that are used to determine the candidates. I know that when the request goes out, there is an explicit statement of provincial interests, that we want to have diverse representation on the agencies, boards and commissions. It's very explicit and it encourages a breadth of applications.
I'm not sure whether it's for all agencies, boards and commissions, but I do know that there are screening panels in place to judge the qualifications and if they meet a minimum - I probably do disagree with my honourable colleagues who feel that if you're just over the line, that excellence over meeting the basic minimums should be ignored in the minister's recommendation, but I do feel there is in place a vetting process which is arm's length from the minister. I think that's part of the process that gets it here.
From that point on - as somebody who's done more of these than I'd like to remember - the minister looks over the qualifications or takes advice, which is basically what I've always done. I rarely know any of the applicants and I may look at their resumés and listen to the advice of my staff and any assessment once they get through the screening panel. So I just bring that for information today, but I certainly concur that a letter would be appropriate just to confirm the process.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Massey.
MS. MASSEY: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to try to make a motion. There may be a way around this because I have to say that on the drive in here this morning I was already feeling the frustration level of being on this committee. Someone had asked me last week how long I've been on this committee and I said since 2003, so since I was elected I think I've been on this committee. I know we have made some strides forward and we certainly attempted to make other changes - I feel both our Party and the Liberal Party, especially Diana Whalen - and we've all tried to work together to find some way around this because we can't go right to the heart of the matter. So we're always looking for these backdoor routes to get to the problem, which is we don't see these resumés. I find this so very frustrating and dare I say, you know, sometimes I feel like we're rubber stamps - we're literally human rubber stamps on this committee.
[9:15 a.m.]
So I would like to make the motion this morning that the Human Resources Committee be given the opportunity to view the 11 applicants before voting on the applicant before us this morning for the Department of Finance, Gaming Corporation of Nova Scotia - sorry, the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission.
[Page 7]
MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no motion on the floor yet, is there? I don't think so.
MS. MASSEY: Just to clarify that, I think we should see - this is just me talking about the motion - the two females who applied and the nine males who applied.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Your motion then is for us to request to see all of the resumés?
MS. MASSEY: This one here, in particular, that we were talking about this morning, Mr. Chairman, the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MS. MASSEY: Because we've sort of pinpointed that one as having four men on it now and that we know two females and nine males applied for it and I'm just saying, can we see those?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's your motion, okay, that's fine. It would appear to me to be in order to ask for that. I believe that not since I've been on this committee and not since I've been here as chairman have we asked to see any resumés, but I believe the committee has asked in the past and has been refused.
MR. COLWELL: That's correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Colwell would have knowledge of that, because I think he served as chairman before on this committee, but we'll ask again. Is there any further discussion on that motion? Mr. Morse.
MR. MORSE: I would say that I think in the past we have also asked for explanations as to why a particular applicant was chosen at the expense of diversity, whether it's gender equality, or some other measure of diversity, and we've held up appointments until a satisfactory answer was given by the minister. I'm not anxious to go down the path where this committee starts to screen every single applicant that comes in for every ABC, so I'm going to be voting against the motion for that reason. But I'm certainly in favour of asking the minister to explain what it is about this candidate that would make him choose Mr. Butler over, say, any one of the other 11 applicants.
MR. PARIS: I think we have to recognize that in the area of diversity - I'm still somewhat new to this committee, it's been less than a year - if we're still struggling with the issues around diversity, then I think it's incumbent upon us as a committee to do anything and everything within our power to improve the diversity within those ABCs that we rubber-stamp every month. I think anything and everything we can do to improve diversity within the ranks, we should - I think it's incumbent upon us to do it.
[Page 8]
I want to also say in response to the minister, I take great offence with comments about just over the line. When I hear that, that in itself is part of the problem of that whole diversity arena and why we are not there yet. So I want to really stress that if we have requirement, if the prerequisite - I want to make this clear, it's clear in my head - if we have a prerequisite that to sit on Board A you need a B.A., then if that's the qualification, regardless of what I have - I might have a B.A. and I might have a law degree and I may have a Ph.D. - that doesn't make me better qualified than that other person with the B.A.
The qualification says, requirement, B.A., so when we look at the applicants, we should be saying, do they meet the qualifications, yes or no? If you meet them, you check it off and it shouldn't be that somebody's overqualified or more qualified based on the number of degrees that they have. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Preyra.
MR. PREYRA: I just want to take issue with something the minister said about this motion being a fishing expedition to look at all the files all the time. I think if we just go back . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. MORSE: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I certainly never used that term. I would refer to my comments, it will appear in the minutes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I will say that term wasn't used, Mr. Preyra. Perhaps you could change that around a bit.
MR. PREYRA: Let me put it a different way. When this issue arose a few minutes ago, we were asking about the answer to Guideline 5, which says, "Does the ABC currently meet the affirmative action and gender equality policies of the government?" The answer to that question is, "Yes."
Now we have five men on this board that are being recommended and the question was, how do they reach that conclusion? I think it would be useful for the committee to know how they reached that conclusion. They had two applicants who were female and the question is whether or not these women were qualified for the position and the answer was maybe. But the question was, can we assume if their names are not being brought forward that they're not qualified? The only way to know that is to actually see their files in comparison to the person being proposed. I don't see that as a fishing expedition - my term - I see that as a very specific question relating to this position. Or are we just to say we're going to trust the minister and the government to say, trust us, this person is the best qualified and those two women were not qualified enough and definitely not qualified to the point that we were willing to disregard the affirmative action policy to hire another man?
[Page 9]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Preyra. There's a motion on the floor now which deals specifically with the appointment to the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission. Again, I'll ask Ms. Massey just to read your motion one more time please.
MS. MASSEY: My motion is that the Human Resources Committee be given the opportunity to view the 11 applicants before voting on the applicant for the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission before us this morning.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Colwell.
MR. COLWELL: If we're going to review resumés, or the committee is, I'm not a regular member of the committee anymore - this would have to have a motion that this be in camera, because we got in trouble before by individuals being sort of singled out publicly. So we would have to amend that, if indeed the government does provide us with that information, the committee has to deal with it in camera.
MR. FERGUSON: There are two things that are sort of at odds within the rules. One is that in considering people for appointment, there has to have been two sort of kicks at whether or not there's diversity represented in the appointment, one is a specific candidate and that's provided for in the rules, qualifications of the individual. But the other one, which has been touched on and which gave rise to this, is the current composition of the board where relevant gender and regional representation, et cetera. But the flip side of that is that the rules specifically say the purpose of the committee review is not to replace the function of government departments and ministers in making appointments. Its function is to approve or not approve the name before it, not to consider or recommend alternative names for appointments.
If the way the committee is going is toward that, then that is in contravention of the rules as they stand. So maybe the rule needs to be changed, but I just wanted the committee to know what the specific rule is and this is probably what gave rise to the past refusals. I just wanted everybody to be aware of that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Porter.
MR. PORTER: Just a quick question. Neil, then does that make the motion out of order according to the rules?
MR. FERGUSON: No, it doesn't necessarily make it out of order because in considering whether you're approving this one name, I guess you could look at things. But if you started trying to recommend somebody else, then you would be out of order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Preyra.
[Page 10]
MR. PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, the question really still remains, you know, how did this agency, board or commission reach the conclusion that the affirmative action and gender equality policies of the government were being followed? I mean this provides a window to the committee on how this selection body views gender equality and affirmative action policies and how it reaches its conclusions. It doesn't necessarily require that we look at all of the applicants, but it's useful for the committee to know whether or not the policies of the government are being followed and when they're not, what rationale was provided for not following it?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually we're looking for that explanation, correct? Not only are we looking for - Ms. Massey's motion calls specifically to look for the 11 resumés that were put before to make this decision and at the same time, we're asking for an explanation of how that came about. Ms. Massey.
MS. MASSEY: Mr. Chairman, I know when I was on the Halifax Regional School Board, well, we used to sometimes audit, like just pull certain things out and just look to see, you know, did that go through the process properly. I think maybe we can use this just as a sort of tool to do that and if, as we've heard before, staff are doing, you know, fine and dandy jobs, that's what it will show and, hopefully, that's what we'll see, is that the two women did not meet the criteria to serve on the board. So if there's nothing to hide here, I don't see why there's such a big problem. It's like the world's best kept secret to stop us from seeing those two women's resumés. So I'm just saying this can be sort of like a little mini-audit for us on the committee to see if the committee is really doing what we're supposed to be doing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a personal comment. I don't see us as a rubber-stamp committee, I think we have more authority than that, and I think that it doesn't hurt every once in a while just to see if we're doing our job. I personally don't have a problem with that but, anyway, we'll vote on the motion before the committee right now. If I can call for the question, if there's no further discussion. (Interruption)
You had an amendment, Mr. Colwell?
MR. COLWELL: Yes, that if indeed we do get the resumés, they have to be held in camera.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MS. MASSEY: A friendly amendment, I would agree to that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreed? Thank you. Okay, now we'll call for the question, as amended. Mr. Morse.
[Page 11]
MR. MORSE: I just wonder if maybe the amendment is something that might follow whether the committee adopts the initial motion, in view of the fact that we are challenging the procedure as it has been laid out in the rules.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure if we're challenging the procedure.
MR. FERGUSON: If I might, Mr. Chairman, it would be if you were to consider or recommend alternative names, then that would be contrary to the . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: We're not recommending any names. I believe we still have to vote on whether or not Mr. Butler is appointed to the commission, we have not done that yet. We haven't stopped anybody from being appointed to any commission as yet, but we have a motion that has been amended. Can we not vote on that motion as amended, right now?
MR. FERGUSON: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried. Okay, thank you.
Can we deal now, then, with the appointment to the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission. I think it was Mr. Morse who was about to make the motion.
MR. MORSE: Mr. Chairman, I think in view of the committee's wishes to get more information about how the minister came up with this candidate, it would seem reasonable to me to defer voting on a motion until we get some sort of response from the minister and, in fact, if I could also make another motion, contingent upon the minister's response to providing the resumés. If the minister refuses to provide the resumés, I would ask that the minister send a letter explaining why he chose this candidate over some of the other candidates, which would seem to better provide a greater sense of diversity on the commission.
[9:30 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, first of all, will we defer this name? Is it the wish of the committee to defer this name? Mr. Preyra.
MR. PREYRA: I do have a couple of other comments before we move to the motion. I would also, while we're in the process of reviewing this application, look at the qualifications for this appointment, among which is a requirement that, ". . . members should have a professional designation or Masters legel [sic] education in one of accounting, business, engineering or public administration."
[Page 12]
In looking at the qualifications as set out in the initial description and comparing it to the actual Form "A", the Form "A" said, "Members should have experience working on boards and experience in administration, engineering or finance." Those are two very different qualifications. I'm wondering why there's that inconsistency - one says that you should have a professional designation or a master's in legal education and one of accounting, business, engineering or public administration, but the actual Form "A" says that they should have experience in boards and experience in administration. I would like some clarification on whether or not - what is the proper qualification there?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Let me - this is going to be a long letter. Mr. Morse.
MR. MORSE: In the interests of making this a better letter, maybe our friend and colleague, Mr. Preyra, might like to make a friendly amendment to my motion as to what else we might ask of the minister, in terms of explaining the reason for those criteria.
MR. PREYRA: Well, is a professional designation a requirement for this position? That's my question. It says yes in one and not in the other.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we'll ask for clarification of that. Let's deal with this motion first, to defer. Did you make a motion to defer this appointment?
MR. MORSE: Yes - or I would make that motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Is there any further discussion on that motion?
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried. That particular appointment of Brian W. Butler to the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission is deferred.
The letter that we are going to write is being sent to the Minister of Finance. Is that who we're looking for this explanation from, the Minister of Finance? Yes, the Minister of Finance is the Minister responsible for the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission.
MR. MORSE: Yes, I had intended that the letter go to the Minister of Finance since he's the one who chose this candidate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. If there is no further discussion on the issue, we'll move along with the appointments, if that's the wish of the committee.
[Page 13]
MR. MORSE: So we have agreed to send the letter then?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We've agreed to write to the Minister of Finance, number one, and forward Ms. Massey's motion asking for the resumés. We're asking for a clarification on why the appointments were made and we're asking for a clarification on Mr. Preyra's point as to what were the particular qualifications there, because there seems to be an area of confusion as to whether or not you need a professional degree.
MS. MASSEY: Professional designation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We're breaking in our new clerk at a very rapid rate here.
MR. PREYRA: I have just one more point, I know it's going to turn out to be a long letter, but since the Bridge Commission is proposing to build a bridge and a highway through my constituency, I want to make sure the board is properly struck.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have no underlying reasons, right?
MR. PREYRA: I just wanted to put it on the record that there's only one reason why I'm really interested in this board today. But I do want to point out that this Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission has no representation from Halifax on it. At some point down the road, it's something that may have some policy implications for my constituency. I do want to ask whether or not, in considering regional requirements for representation, whether having a member from Halifax on the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission was considered.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't see any reason why we can't add another paragraph to the letter. If he's going to read the first four paragraphs, he may as well read another one. I don't know, maybe it needs a name change, Mr. Preyra, it should be called the HRM Bridge Commission. But we can specifically ask in that letter as to why there are no appointees to the board that are from Halifax.
MR. MORSE: Paragraph 6.
MS. MASSEY: Just, also, is the letter going to address the issue of Guideline 5, does the ABC currently meet the affirmative action - the explanation that Mr. Paris was talking about, the whole issue around that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we can ask for a full explanation of his decision - just ask him how he came about that decision in that particular appointment. Okay? Great.
Let's move on, please, to the Department of Health Promotion and Protection, the Nova Scotia Boxing Authority. There are two appointments. Mr. Porter.
[Page 14]
MR. PORTER: Mr. Chairman, to the Boxing Authority, I so move Mr. Hubert Earle as Referee-in-Chief and Glen Edwards as a member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. PORTER: Mr. Chairman, to the Department of Labour and Workforce Development, Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council, I so move Sheldon Andrews, Brian Ginpil and Joel Marsman as employee members.
MS. MASSEY: I would also just like to point out on that one that there are now 10 men and four women - six men applied and four women applied. The names before us are all men, three men, but of course two of them are reappointments. But just as a point of interest.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we're getting your point. Mr. Morse.
MR. MORSE: On that point, Mr. Chairman, from another time I was Minister of Labour and I know that there's a lot of discussion between the minister's office and the various representative groups. I would suggest it may well be that there were some suggestions made from those who represent employees as to who they might like to see considered for the actual appointment. I know that board is something that's very important to the labour movement and their concerns are considered by the minister before making those recommendations. At least I know that was the case when I was minister.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
One final appointment, the Workers' Compensation Board, there is one appointment. Mr. Porter.
MR. PORTER: I so move that John Gallinger be appointed as an employer representative to the Workers' Compensation Board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
[Page 15]
The motion is carried.
So unless there's any further business, our next regularly scheduled meeting, which will also include a presentation from the Black Cultural Centre and also will be an organizational meeting, will be in the committee room here at 9:00 a.m. on September 30th.
The meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.
[The committee adjourned at 9:39 a.m.]
