Revealing Truth for Child and Family Justice: March 2008

View listing of all articles at HOME

NS Human Resources Committee - Is it doing it's job?

Check for updates - We are watching- You are reading - Let the politicians know

The problem of power is how to achieve its responsible use rather than its irresponsible and indulgent use — of how to get men of power to live for the public rather than off the public. - Robert F Kennedy

The Nova Scotia Human Resource Committee is a multi-party committee established for the purpose of reviewing and approving or NOT approving candidates for appointment to agencies, boards or commissions (known as the ABCs) .

Two women, Linda Youngson and Marilyn Dey, took the, then, Minister of Community Services, David Morse, to court in December of 2005 when the Minister refused to obey the law under Section 88 of the Children and Family Services Act to appoint a committee to review the Act and its implementation. In fact the Minister had not done this since 1996! They won !

[Ministers] Advisory committee
88 (1) The Minister
shall establish an advisory committee whose function is to review annually the
provisions of this Act and the services relating thereto and to report annually
to the Minister concerning the operation of the Act and whether the principles
and purpose of the Act are being achieved.
(2) The
advisory committee shall be appointed by the Minister, after consultation with
the relevant groups and individuals, and shall include
(a) two persons whose children
have been, are or may be in need of protective services;
(b) a representative from an agency;
(c) a representative of the Minister;
(d) a legal aid lawyer;
(e) two persons drawn from the cultural, racial or
linguistic minority communities;
and
(f) such other persons, not exceeding three, as the Minister
may determine.
(3) Appointments to the advisory
committee shall be for one year and may be renewed.
(4) The advisory committee shall choose one of its number to
chair the committee.

After twice requesting this committee be appointed, and the Minister refusing to obey the law, these ladies filed for court action against the Minister in June of 2005. It was only after they filed against the Minister that he reluctantly began making appointments.

We believe it is important that the public have insight into the ongoing shenanigans of the government over these appointments. They have made a farce of the Minister's Advisory committee !

This committee was suppose to be an annual committee - It has now been more than 2 years since the original full committee as mandated by law was finally appointed.

As of April the 1, 2008, there were 4 members on this committee NOT APPOINTED ! (See NDP MLA Trevor Zink's news release) The committe is NOT LEGAL unless all specified members are appointed

Because this committee has rolled on for such a long period of time, numerous people have been on and then off this committee, often leaving this committee for many long months without the legal mandate of specific members.

Most presentations to this committee were done in the first year and no audio or video recordings of the presentations were made. Because of this, the people who are now on the committee, and are now resposible for writing a report for the Minister, were not present to hear the critical and important presentations that were made.

In addition, we were originally promised by the earlier members of this committe that this report would be public, but were told later, by the newbies on the committee, that they had no obligation to make this report public - Well Shame !

If you take the time to read the exerts of the Hansards of the Nova Scotia Human Resource Committee, we have included in this article, you will be enlightened! We urge you to contact your MLA and the MLAs cited and make them aware of the fact that we are watching them and we do care. - Please feel free to cut and paste from this article in e-mails to the various MLAs. Find the contact info here: NDP , Liberals, PC .

Also check out the schedule for the HR Committee and make your physical presence known .
Location: 3rd Floor, Dennis Building1740 Granville Street

Fr Hansard for Human Resources Committee: Tuesday, October 25, 2005

http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/hansard/comm/hr/hr_2005oct25.htm

Mr. Ronald Chisholm (Chairman) - PC
Mr. Brooke Taylor- PC
Ms. Judy Streatch - PC
Mr. Frank Corbett - NDP
Mr. Howard Epstein - NDP
Ms. Joan Massey -NDP
Mr. Keith Colwell - Liberal
Mr. Leo Glavine - Liberal another e-mail address
Ms. Diana Whalen - Liberal
[Mr. Frank Corbett was replaced by Ms. Marilyn More.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good morning, everybody. I guess for our agenda we have the appointments to the agencies, boards and commissions. We'll start with the Department of Community Services and I understand one person has withdrawn their name from that committee.

MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Who has withdrawn?

MR. CHAIRMAN: One of the members who applied, Chrystal Malay.

MR. EPSTEIN -NDP : Well, in fact, I think that's important information given the context within which we work. I know the usual thing in this committee is to deal with the nominees one by one. This is an unusual committee, however, because there's a statutory framework for it. Section 88 of the Statute requires certain categories to be filled in order to meet the requirements of what it is that the Act contemplates. I think we have to consider the whole range of what it is that we're dealing with here.
That person was in a particular category. It's interesting that she's withdrawn. I wonder if I could speak to this before we start dealing with the other nominees. Is that okay?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, go ahead.

MR. EPSTEIN-NDP: So here's the problem. The problem is with this particular committee, if you look at what we've been given in materials, you will see there is an extract from the Children and Family Services Act, right at the beginning. It includes Section 88 where it describes the advisory committee that has to exist. It gives several categories of people that have to be filled. One's a legal aid lawyer, one's a nominee of the minister and two people are to come from cultural, racial or linguistic minority communities. There are extra positions, but right at the top it says, "two persons whose children have been, are or may be in need of protective services . . ." So it's pretty clear that what's contemplated is an advisory committee that at least takes into account the views of parents as part of the process.
The committee can have 10 people and indeed, we're offered 10 names. Looking at what it is that we have, you'll find that there's something very peculiar that's happened in the names that we've been given. We have a legal aid lawyer and that's fine. We have the minister's representative who, in fact, works in the department and that's fine and to be expected. We have three people in the other category who seem to be okay.
We then are focused on the two other categories. One is the minorities where there are supposed to be two positions and the other is the parents where there are also supposed to be two positions. For the minorities, we have two applicants who have self-identified - one is an Acadian and one is an African-Nova Scotian, so they would certainly fit the overt wording of the Statute.
On the other hand, both of the names of the people who have self-identified as fitting the minority category work for Children's Aid Societies. So, in effect, where the minister has offered the opportunity to have his own nominee, to have others, to have an agency person, he has gone on to give us two people in the minority category, who should be there primarily on behalf of their minority communities, whose jobs are in the system as Children's Aid Society workers.
So, first, that's questionable, and the second problem is with respect to the so-called parents. Now the chairman told us this morning that one of the people in the parents' category has apparently now decided to withdraw her name, but let me point out the problem with both of the people who are in the parents' category, which is that neither of them had said in any of the material that they were parents of children who might fit those criteria. In fact, if you look at the second person [VanZoost] in that category and you read his resumé, it seems extremely unlikely that he's ever likely to have had his children apprehended or be in any kind of position in which that's likely to come up.
The point is though that we don't know; it didn't say. It didn't say in his covering letter. It didn't say in any of the material that was given to us from the department, and the same is true with respect to the person who has withdrawn; in fact, I don't think she had a covering letter, it was just sort of a short resumé. So I think that we're seeing two things. We're seeing an attempt to stack the committee with too many people from the Children's Aid Society, and that's in the minority category, and we certainly don't have parents who would fit the category of Section 88(2)(a), that is, ". . . persons whose children have been, are or may be in need of protective services . . ." So at the very least I don't think we can fill that category, and on the other one I wonder if what we ought not to do is to send back the recommendations for those two positions, the two minority positions, and ask if it's not possible to find people who aren't Children's Aid Society employees, since that doesn't seem to be the thrust of what this committee is all about.
Anyway, there it is, Mr. Chairman, those are the observations I have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.

MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: I would just say it seems very obvious that the member has done quite a bit of research on the composition of this committee, and I would apologize to you, Mr. Chairman, and committee members, that I have not. Consequently, I believe that it may be appropriate to give some consideration to the concerns that the member has raised, but I'm not sure of the process that should follow because I think it's a very important committee that the minister is trying to establish - I think it's also important that we do get it right. I'm not sure, in terms of gender balance, what the composition there would be required, but I have some concerns about that myself. So I'm just wondering if possibly the member has a suggestion as to what he feels would be appropriate at this particular stage.

MR. EPSTEIN-NDP: Just to be clear, I think there are six people there we could approve. We've had one withdrawal, one where clearly the person [Van Zoost] either doesn't fit the category or more evidence is needed - it needs a statement from a person that he fits the category - and then we've got these other two where I'm saying we should defer and ask the department if they can't possibly find two people who fit the category who are not Children's Aid Society employees.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Colwell.

MR. KEITH COLWELL-Liberal: I, too, have concerns with this, and of course there's nobody here from the minister's office to answer any questions on this, which is normally the case anyway. The thing is I share some of the concerns that have been stated around the table by both my learned colleagues and the real question is if we did appoint six members - which again, I don't have any objection with, because I think we have very qualified people there - can the committee properly function, and if it can't properly function, why do we approve anyone until the minister comes back with the proper slated candidates?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a new committee. There's nobody there now. [we were suppose to have this up and going since 1990!]

MR. EPSTEIN: Some people would know that they are on the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we have Ms. More.

MS. MARILYN MORE-NDP: Mr. Chairman, I too have several concerns about the process used. If you will notice in the binder, it indicates on the summary page for the guidelines, the information that there was a bulk ad - the process, as I understand it in reviewing is that a bulk ad is sent out to several media sources and if there's not much response, then a single ad can go out and then the department is free to solicit people to submit their applications.
Now, in the summary page, for every candidate, it indicates in Guidelines 9 and 10, the information provided to us that the bulk ad went out in April of this year and then Guideline 10 says, "How many responses came from the advertisement?" Total, 15: five males and 10 females. So one would assume, I mean that says how many came from the advertisements, yet I have information from the Acting Director of Child Welfare and Residential Services for the Department of Community Services, from October 7th, that the response to the ad was inadequate, and the department then proceeded to solicit members by advising various regional and program staff to encourage interested parties to apply to the Executive Council office, which, in other words, is Cabinet.
So why are there two versions of how we got these names? I think it would have been very easy in Guideline 10 to suggest that the initial process failed to elicit the number of qualified candidates and that there was another step in the process, but it's misleading to suggest that all these names came from the ads and that they were freely submitted. Now we don't know. It may be a minor point, but it's just that this whole advisory committee has been a problem from day one. It was mandated back in 1990. The committee has only been called to report to the minister four times [actually 2 times] in those 15 years, although, under the legislation, it's required to meet and report to the minister every single year, and it's only happened four times.
The process is flawed, and this is such a crucial advisory committee, because we're talking about legislation here that actually enables the Minister of Community Services to take children into the protection of the minister, as well as provide other programs and services for children and youth at risk. So it's essential that we have a broadly representative advisory committee, giving the best advice in a timely fashion to the minister. So it's hard to know what the total number of applications really were and how many of them from that first bulk ad are actually showing up on this final list, and how many other people have been recruited [by the government] as individuals and for what reason, we don't know.
It's interesting because two women [Linda Youngson and Marilyn Dey] actually took the minister and the department to court over the fact that this committee was not set up as required under the legislation, and those two women applied for the committee. Their applications went as far as the minister, and we have no idea whether it was stopped at the ministerial level, or if it was stopped at the Cabinet level, but there are two women who have publicly admitted their strong and long-time interest in these issues, who have been impacted personally by the legislation from the department, who are willing to serve on this committee, whose applications and names have not shown up in this binder. So I just question, where are those names, and they would certainly fill one of the categories that we're questioning.
The other concern I have is that in the guidelines and policies, regarding agency, board and commission appointments, it actually says that those policies can be changed by interpretation of the Clerk of the Executive Council. So I'm just wondering, how standard are those policies if their interpretation can be changed by one person, depending on the circumstances? I have a lot of concerns. This committee needs to be fast-tracked, it needs to be set up as quickly as possible because it hasn't met since 2001 [Since 1996] . There are lots of gaps and weaknesses in the legislation. I certainly would support putting the six on as quickly as possible, because I think they would influence the minister to fill the other positions and get the first meeting set up as quickly as possible [Naive ?]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Streatch.

MS. JUDY STREATCH -PC [Current Minister of Community Services ] : Not to drag the issue on ad nauseam, but I would certainly support the views of my colleagues around the table. I, too, agree that we need to at least get this started, and if we had some names that were put forth that qualified under the guidelines. I do have a bit of a caution, though. We are looking for a linguistic, racial, et cetera, balance, but I wouldn't want to eliminate someone if they did qualify under that guideline simply because they were part of an agency or a society as well. I would just say that though I understand what the member was saying about stacking in one direction, I would just offer my own personal caution that I don't think we should necessarily eliminate them immediately because they tend to double over.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think more information on the candidates is what Mr. Epstein is looking for. (Interruptions) It was more information on a couple of the candidates that you were looking for?

MR. EPSTEIN-NDP: What I was suggesting was that there are six people I think we can confirm today. There's been one withdrawal, so that doesn't come up. Of the remaining three, I think we have to send the last person on the list back [VanZoost] for more information. I guess what we should try to figure out is what to do about King and Landry. I'm suggesting, not that they be rejected but they not be accepted either [wishy-washy?- Watch for future wishy-washy comments by Epstein] , and the Executive Council be asked whether they can't find two people who might fit the minority category without also being agency employees.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Glavine.

MR. LEO GLAVINE-Liberal : I just wanted to say, I think that sometimes working in a committee like this and having the input of a number of members is so beneficial. What Mr. Epstein has presented, along with Marilyn, I think are excellent points, very critical points. This is a committee whose absence has been a real deficiency for the minister and for the examination of processes that go on. Just within the last two years, there was the potential loss of organizations, like Kings County Family and Children's Services, which has been a leader in this area in the Province of Nova Scotia. There was a move towards centralization and organization of these bodies, and a committee to help examine and rethink those kinds of potential ministerial mandates, in my view, is so necessary to have up and going.

I don't really like the process of splitting, some members are good to go, others we have to reposition them for possible positions. I'd like to see this whole committee appointed at one time, and that it would, however, become active very soon, that there be almost a timeline that we would set down for this. Those are my two thoughts on where we need to go with this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR -PC [the government]: Mr. Chairman, like I said earlier, I think the member for Halifax Chebucto certainly has the wherewithal and has done a lot of research on the composition of this committee. I'm not really interested in somebody holding a hammer over my head or the government's head regarding a court challenge and that type of rhetoric. I really think people around this table are interested in establishing the committee to do its mandate. We're talking about the rights and the freedom of children and their families. That's what we're talking about here today. I want to make sure that we get this thing right. I'm not sure, based on the information I have and some of the comments around this table, that we do have it right at this particular time.
I'm willing to support approving the names, if the member for Halifax Chebucto would like to start. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to bring the committee into some type of being. It has to be engaged. We could come back a month later and there may be some names, once again that we don't like. I think if we're prepared as a committee to go at this one by one, then I think we should start doing that. I think the mandate's clear and we know the history of the committee, or the non-history of the committee, so to speak.
So why don't we get at it, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Colwell.

MR. COLWELL-Liberal: Yes, as I've already stated, this has to be a balanced committee to work properly. If you [the government] pick and choose who you're going to appoint, you're not going to have the balance on that committee. I think I would prefer to see it go back to the minister with some recommendations that have been made, that we have some concerns about particular individuals on here, and let him come back with a full slate so we can go with a full committee, then they can make the proper recommendations on these issues. If you miss one side of an argument on this and one or two individuals are missing, then you're not going to have a balanced approach to this committee and it could be worse than having no committee there at all.
I can't imagine that, I think it's horrible that there hasn't been a committee in place all this time, but I'd prefer to see it go back even if we - as my colleague has said, we need a timeline on this to get this back. It's important to get this up and going. It should be a totally balanced committee, and if it's not balanced, it's not going to work. I'd like to make a motion that we send all these names back to the minister to come back with a full slate with considerations that have been put forward by my colleagues of names that they don't feel are appropriate for the committee and move from there.

[You will see later, that, by slipping in the appointmentment one by one, the HR Committee members lost sight of the bigger picture and lost count and even concern about what catergory was being filled. And the Minister was able to further stack the Advisory Committee with the wild cards " Such other persons, not exceeding three, as the Minister may determine" - Section 88 (2)(f) without hardly a whisper from the MLAs who should have been protesting]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Epstein. There's a motion on the floor, so, on the motion. (Interruptions)

MR. EPSTEIN-NDP: We just had a little huddle in our caucus about this. There seemed to be two possible courses of action: one is the motion which is just to defer the whole committee, the other is to appoint some members.
Our feeling is that we'd like to appoint some members now rather than to defer the whole committee. I understand the point the member makes about - particularly this committee which has about five different categories that have to be filled. On the whole, I think we'd at least like to get some people aware that they're appointed to the committee, even if the committee may not start meeting right away. That's really, I think, what does it for us. We'll be voting against the motion and we're prepared to support six of the nominees individually.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the motion?

MR. TAYLOR [the government]: Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly going to speak against the motion. Again, I want to emphasize that we're talking about the rights and the freedom of children and their families. I'm confident that if we approve the names of people at the committee level that have already been vetted by the department that, in fact, we're doing a service to the children and families in Nova Scotia that have a profound need for this committee to be up and running. [Who does he think he is fooling] I'm sorry, I can't support the motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion on the motion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is defeated.
Okay, so I guess the consensus is that we go with - Mr. Epstein.

MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, I'm happy to take people through this. Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Community Services, the following people to the Children and Family Services Act Advisory Committee. I so move Katherine Briand as a member.