Assemblée Législative de la Nouvelle-Écosse

Les travaux de la Chambre ont repris le
21 septembre 2017


Fifty-sixth General Assembly

Second Session

2:00 P.M.


Hon. Paul MacEwan


Mr. Gerald O’Malley

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We will commence the daily routine at this time.





MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Health.

HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place to announce that the
Department of Health has taken the first step toward the establishing of a sophisticated, integrated, province-wide health information system. This, indeed, is an exciting day for me and I am sure for the government
because this is a foundation stone upon which health care renewal will be based.

Health Care Management Group and its partners, CareLink and IMSIG, are an experienced Canadian
technology and consulting team and were selected by the department to plan the project. These
recommendations are expected, Mr. Speaker, by February 1995. The move to regional health services and to
community-based services means we need to use information technology to tie all of us in health care together.
Because health care consumers, the citizens of this province, are treated as brand new clients by each
component of our health care system, as is the present case, there is a great deal of duplication and



A province-wide health information system will eliminate this duplication and will make the
efficiencies plain to those of us certainly involved in the system for some years. A strategic plan will be
developed recommending implementation approaches that involve both the public and the private sectors and
that fits into the deficit reduction strategy of the province. Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in making this
announcement today.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.

MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I want to first of all thank the minister for
sending these over to our office prior to making the announcement. It is very helpful. I want to say to him,
too, that there is no question that a province-wide information system is important to eliminate some of the
efficiencies that we have.

I am concerned that this might have been sole-searched and not put out to tender and I am concerned
that this minister is doing that on a number of occasions where we are not allowing people to bid and that we
are sole-sourcing some of these things. I think what the minister is trying to do, obviously, should have been
announced at least a year ago because in order to draw all the things together this has to be done. But I think
the guy on the street is looking for concrete answers to health services in their area. They don’t understand
that this link will help do away with some duplications, but I say to the minister that I will be watching as this
progresses. I will also be watching the cost versus the saving that will come out of such a venture.

There is no question in my mind, with the computer age we are in, this kind of information is very
important and I thank the minister again for bringing this to our attention.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the minister for his public
announcement and for giving us advanced notice of such an announcement this afternoon. I think the minister
deserves further congratulations that this was, as I understand it, fully tendered in an open manner and in fact
the information has been circulated as to who submitted proposals in response to the tender call.

The reason that I think this is to be applauded is because it is a darn sight more acceptable practice
than what happened a year ago when it appeared as though untendered, this IBM LifeSmart proposal was
going to go ahead. So, that has not happened in this instance.

I think it is disappointing - and I do not want to say this to reflect on the quality of the proposals
accepted - that the two firms that had been awarded the tender are Ontario-based when there were at least six
or seven proposals from Nova Scotia firms, as I understand it. I don’t want to presume to know what the
quality of those proposals were, I just think it should be noted and if there are ways in which we can address
this more satisfactorily in the future, then I think that is an important thing to try to do.

I want to say I have one concern that arises out of the tender call. As the minister will know, we have
been trying for some time to get a copy of the Community Continuing Care Report, dated June 1994, coming
out of the deputy minister’s working group on long-term care. We were denied that report by a senior official
in the Department of Health, on the basis that it was confidential. We applied through freedom of information
to gain that report and it still has not been forthcoming, yet attached to the tender call was the following, that
the following reports are available, if required, from the Department of Health. One of the reports itemized
is that Community Continuing Care Report of June 1994.

I think it is unacceptable, frankly, in the case of a government that says it is committed to freedom of
information and to more community control and public participation in development of our health care
system, to have such a report denied to publicly elected officials and members of the public when it is freely
made available to private sector interests who are submitting a bid to do business with the government. So
I hope the minister will address this in a timely fashion. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The time allotted has expired.

The honourable Premier on an introduction.

HON. JOHN SAVAGE (The Premier): Mr. Speaker, through you I would like to introduce to the
House, physicians and representatives from the MD-MLA Contact Network, who you see arraigned up there
in several rows of the gallery.

We acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that the medical profession and the government have dealt with
difficult issues in the past and obviously will have to continue dealing with some of these issues. Open, honest
communication is probably the only way to get through these tough times and I would like to put that on the

The network is an initiative of the Public Affairs Department of the Medical Society of Nova Scotia
that will help achieve this goal. So it might be appropriate if we welcomed these good people on behalf of the
House of Assembly. (Applause)

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to join in the sentiments of welcome
expressed just now by the Premier to the group of physicians who are here with us today. I can tell you and
all members that the MD-MLA contact program which has been undertaken by the Medical Society is, in the
opinion of this caucus, vitally important and, as it happens, there was an opportunity for two of my colleagues
to participate in discussions with members of that contact program group as recently as today.

As the Premier has rightly said, there are some vitally important issues, in terms of health care delivery
which are very complex and difficult and for which enlightened answers are going to have to be found. This
caucus welcomes the initiative of the Medical Society and commits its continued involvement and interest and
participation with the Medical Society and, may I say, with all other organized health care delivery
organizations in the province, to ensure we do not allow the fabric and integrity of our provincial health care
system to be further impaired.

I welcome all the physicians here today.




MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.


MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the
adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas the Premier promised to represent the concerns of Nova Scotians over the federal Liberal
decision to cut the EH-101 helicopter project about one year ago; and

Whereas the Premier’s efforts consisted of a phone call lasting all of five minutes, with nothing on
paper as proof to Nova Scotians of a legitimate and serious effort to save hundreds of high-tech jobs, ensure
the safety of military crew and secure a replacement for the ageing Sea Kings; and

Whereas the Premier in response to questions raised by this caucus regarding a parliamentary defence
review this week is again very feeble in his conviction to fight the federal government on behalf of Nova

Therefore be it resolved that the Premier who yesterday said he was not prepared to get in an argy-bargy over the review, consider getting very hot under the collar on recommendations which, if acted upon,
could affect as many as 3,000 direct jobs and as many as 10,000 indirect and direct jobs if Nova Scotia’s
military establishment base were to be slashed.

MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.

The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.

[2:15 p.m.]


MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the
adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas yesterday’s tragic death in a work place accident was but the latest reminder that the failure
to take legal precautions needlessly endangers life and limb; and

Whereas no such tragedy was required to warn employers and workers of the dangers of unsafe work
practices, yet without effective training and enforcement unsafe practices persist; and

Whereas the best means available to this House and government to save workers from death and injury
is truly effective training and enforcement of health and safety laws;

Therefore be it resolved that this House observe a minute of silence, express its condolences to the
family and friends of George DeWitt and affirm the urgent need for a strong climate of work place safety in
Nova Scotia.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for waiver of notice.

MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver of notice which requires unanimous consent.

Is it agreed?

It is agreed.

Is the House ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary
minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

[A minute of silence was observed.]

MR. SPEAKER: Please be seated.

The honourable member for Queens.


MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption
of the following resolution:

Whereas due to a shocking decision by the Supreme Court of Canada and subsequent lower court
rulings, drunkenness can now be used as a defence against spousal assault; and

Whereas in contrast, the Nova Scotia Government yesterday introduced tough new legislation to protect
the public interest by immediately seizing the drivers’ license of anyone suspected of drunk driving; and

Whereas once again, the Canadian judiciary has demonstrated a frightening lack of understanding of
the seriousness of sexual assault by not holding abusers accountable for their actions;

Therefore be it resolved that the Legislature go on record endorsing a zero tolerance policy towards
sexual assault and that the House appeal to Justice Minister Allan Rock to enact legislation which ensures
individuals are held accountable for their actions.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for waiver of notice.

MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver of notice which requires unanimous consent.

Is it agreed?

It is agreed.

Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

The honourable member for Pictou Centre.


DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption
of the following resolution:

Whereas despite public education efforts, the RCMP yesterday told a legislative committee that
instances of spousal abuse continue to rise; and

Whereas the federal Criminal Code limits what police can do to protect families from abuse; and

Whereas the RCMP yesterday urged the provincial government to introduce new laws which
strengthen protection for women and children against domestic violence;

Therefore be it resolved that the Ministers of Justice and Community Services outline a timetable to
enact new legislation, which would be preceded by public input and an opportunity to canvass other
jurisdictions on their experience with the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.

The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.


MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption
of the following resolution:

Whereas recent court decisions have created widespread concern by permitting drunkenness to be used
a defence against serious assault charges; and

Whereas there are strong reasons to believe that each successful use of the drunkenness defence will
make more women reluctant to report assaults, thus increasing the number of violent offenders who go

Therefore be it resolved that this House urges the federal government and Justice Minister to address
concerns about the use of drunkenness as a defence against assaults on women by quickly introducing
Criminal Code amendments to ensure that drunkenness is no legal excuse for singling out women or children
for attack.

Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice and passage without debate.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a request for waiver of notice which requires unanimous consent.

Is it agreed?

It is agreed.

Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

The honourable member for Cape Breton South.


MR. MANNING MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move
the adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas the amalgamation of industrial Cape Breton municipalities will be finalized with the election
of its first council and mayor in May 1995; and

Whereas the new municipality will be the third largest metropolitan area in the Maritimes after Halifax
and Saint John, New Brunswick; and

Whereas the creation of this municipality is a golden opportunity for lasting economic development
in industrial Cape Breton;

Therefore be it resolved that the members of this House applaud the action taken by this government
and lend our support to the birth of a new beginning for the industrial area of Cape Breton.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for waiver of notice and passage without debate.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a request for waiver of notice which requires unanimous consent.

Is there consent?

I hear several Noes.

The notice is tabled.

The honourable Leader of the Opposition.


MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the
adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas on two occasions recently I placed a small advertisement to seek the views of my constituents
on the government’s plan to establish casinos in Nova Scotia; and

Whereas as a result of those two advertisements, I received 99 phone calls from individuals wishing
to register their opinion; and

Whereas among those 99 phone calls, 92 were against the establishment of casinos while only 7 were

Therefore be it resolved that this government acknowledge that Nova Scotians are opposed to the
establishment of casinos as recommended by the current administration.

MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.

The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.


MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the
adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas Liberals in Canso, Antigonish, Pictou, Amherst, Digby, Yarmouth, Shelburne, Bridgewater
and other stops on the Savage save my leadership tour were never told that they, themselves, were paying for
the tour through the Liberal Party as well as through their provincial taxes; and

Whereas the threat to the Premier’s grasp on the seat of power was so important that he overlooked
laws and guidelines requiring that he disclose both his Liberal Party income and his ministerial expenses;

Therefore be it resolved that this House regrets the aura of a one-Party state whereby this Premier and
Cabinet secretly assemble the resources of Party and government, heedless of law or policy, to do whatever
it takes to keep one man in power despite the wishes of those who elected him.

MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.

The honourable member for Halifax-Bedford Basin.


MR. GERALD FOGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the
adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas Halifax has been selected as the site of the G-7 Conference of the world’s leading industrial
nations and Russia in June of next year; and

Whereas the G-7 Conference will draw thousands of dignitaries, officials and media to Halifax,
resulting in enormous spinoff benefits for the economy; and

Whereas this will also provide a unique opportunity to display Nova Scotia’s outstanding beauty,
friendliness and quality of life to the world, attracting new investment and tourist dollars;

Therefore be it resolved that this Assembly congratulate Halifax on being selected host city for the G-7
Conference and pledge to do everything possible to make this event an overwhelming success.

I would request waiver of notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a request for waiver of notice which requires unanimous consent.

Is there consent?

It is agreed.

Is the House ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary
minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

The honourable member for Yarmouth.


MR. RICHARD HUBBARD: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the
adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas the safety of youth in this province is a priority for us all; and

Whereas new drivers face a higher risk for death and injury from traffic accidents than do experienced
drivers; and

Whereas the Department of Transportation and Communications has implemented a graduated license
system that will give new drivers greater experience behind the wheel;

Therefore be it resolved that the members of this House fully endorse the graduated license system and
encourage safety in all pursuits.

I would ask for waiver of notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver of notice which requires unanimous consent.

Is there consent?

It is agreed.

Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

The honourable member for Shelburne.


MR. CLIFFORD HUSKILSON: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move
the adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas filming of the movie, A, The Scarlet Letter has had a resounding impact in Shelburne
County; and

Whereas employment, construction, tourism and retail sectors have all been prospering; and

Whereas the production company has injected several millions of dollars into the economic

Therefore be it resolved that this Assembly extend to Disney Productions every success in the
entertainment industry.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for waiver of notice on this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver of notice which requires unanimous consent.

Is it agreed?

It is agreed.

Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.


MR. DENNIS RICHARDS: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the
adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas over the past year, Nova Scotians have experienced the best government that they have seen
in many, many years; and

Whereas in the past year, (Interruption)

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, so we can hear the resolution. Order please.

MR. RICHARDS: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member wants the floor I will gladly give it to him,
if not I would appreciate . . .

MR. SPEAKER: He will have his turn but you have your turn right now through the resolution. Order!

MR. RICHARDS: Whereas in the past year the government has made difficult decisions that have
resulted in a more streamlined, focused government that has restored confidence and encouraged investment
and job creation; and

Whereas at the same time, the government has restored fiscal integrity to this province, exceeding its
deficit targets and laying out a clear plan to eliminate the deficit over the next four years;

Therefore be it resolved that the members of this House commend the government for its remarkable
achievements over the past year.

MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.

The honourable member for Victoria.


MR. KENNETH MACASKILL: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move
the adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas in September past, Chrysler’s new car, the 1995 Cirrus, made its Canadian debut in Nova
Scotia along the world famous Cabot Trail; and

Whereas this is the first time a new car has made a debut in Canada with more than 20 automotive
writers representing the media from Vancouver to Halifax; and

Whereas the Cabot Trail is a superb location to test drive a car by hugging the curves, climbing
mountains, rolling along plateaus or pulling in at scenic look-offs;

Therefore be it resolved that this Assembly congratulate Chrysler’s Operations Manager for selecting
the Cabot Trail as the site for testing their new product, while showcasing vacation and conference
destinations which will generate more business for our Island’s economy.

MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.

The honourable member for Hants East.


MR. ROBERT CARRUTHERS: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move
the adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas the Minister of Finance announced this summer that the government has succeeded in getting
control of provincial finances and that the deficit has been lower than forecast for the past two years; and

Whereas this is a refreshing and important change from the previous government, which consistently
under-estimated the deficit while emptying the till with its irresponsible spending; and

Whereas this government will continue to make the very difficult decisions that are required to control
spending and ensure that the budget is balanced within four years;

Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Finance be congratulated for the tough, open and realistic
fiscal strategy that has brought us back from the brink of disaster and has put us firmly on the road to fiscal
integrity and economic prosperity. (Applause)

MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.

The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.


MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption
of the following resolution:

Whereas with great fanfare on June 14, 1994 the Premier tabled in this House new guidelines for the
reporting of ministerial expenses, “to ensure uniform reporting of current monthly expenses in a place where
the public can see the information”; and

Whereas the guidelines state that, “the Premier and Ministers will report all of their travel expenses
and other expenses . . . regardless of the method by which they are paid”; and

Whereas the Premier admitted yesterday that some of the costs of his travel to prevent a Liberal
leadership review were charged as a ministerial expense, yet his public reports falsely state no such expenses;

Therefore be it resolved that this House regrets the example provided by the Premier who is so
flagrantly breaking his own guidelines by giving Nova Scotians misinformation about his own expenses.

[2:30 p.m.]

MR. SPEAKER: The resolution is quite accusatory. I would like to read it if I could before tabling it.

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, would you please revert to the order of business, Statements
by Ministers.


MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Justice.

HON. WILLIAM GILLIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of the intentions of this
government with regard to a response to incidents of sexual abuse at the Shelburne Youth Centre, formerly
the Shelburne School for Boys.

As I commence, I am begging the indulgence of all honourable members, with regard to the length of
my statement. I am taking considerable time, only of necessity.

As you may know, Mr. Speaker, a criminal investigation has already been carried out with regard to
certain aspects of this matter. A criminal trial was held and Mr. Patrick MacDougal was convicted of 11
counts of sexual assault in connection with incidents at Shelburne. Mr. MacDougal is serving a prison term.

But, that is just one aspect of this situation, Mr. Speaker. As a government, we recognize and accept
that we have an obligation to respond to this issue in a more comprehensive manner. We firmly believe that
this obligation will be met through the process I am about to outline.

Mr. Speaker, we have three goals we wish to accomplish through this process.

(1)  We want to be sure that this very troublesome victimization cannot reoccur.

(2)  We want to find out what happened in this particular situation, and who was responsible.

(3)  We want to provide fair compensation for victims.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we want to accomplish these goals in a reasonable amount of time, and at
a reasonable public expense. To accomplish these goals, we are proceeding with a three step process. These
three steps are:

(1)  An independent audit of current practices to ensure that young people in our custody are safe and
secure. This audit report will be made public.

(2)  A thorough, independent investigation into the events that took place at the youth centre, in order
to determine what happened; who was involved; who knew what was happening; and what actions were taken.

When this investigation is complete, the report of the independent investigator will be made public,
with appropriate protection for the identities of the complainants. In order to ensure the integrity of this
independent investigation, it will be directed by a person with no connection to the Government of Nova
Scotia. We feel it is essential that this process take place at arm’s length from ourselves due to allegations of
misconduct against government officials.

(3)  If liability is revealed through the investigation, an alternative dispute evolution process will be
put in place to determine appropriate compensation.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I will provide a more detailed description of this three-part process.

The first part of the process is an independent audit of current practices at the Shelburne Youth Centre,
and other young offenders institutions operated by the Department of Justice. This is to ensure that present
policies and procedures prevent any reoccurrence, and to assure current residents, and their families, that
young people in our custody are safe and secure.

I am pleased today to announce, Mr. Speaker, that Ms. Vicki Samuels-Stewart has agreed to undertake
this important task. Ms. Samuels-Stewart is currently the Assistant Manager, Employment Equity, with the
Atlantic Regional Office of the Bank of Nova Scotia.

She has a very strong background in the human resources field. Her unique training and work
experience combine to provide us with a wide range of strengths from which she can draw for this important

For example, Ms. Samuels-Stewart has been the administrator for Adsum House; and she has served
as the Executive Director for the Sir Sanford Fleming House, a residential halfway house for adult male
offenders, a facility operated by the St. Leonard’s Society. Ms. Samuels-Stewart has worked as a human rights
investigator with the Canadian Human Rights Commission; and as a human resources officer with the Public
Service Commission of Canada, and Canada Employment and Immigration. We are grateful to the Bank of
Nova Scotia for their cooperation in allowing her to undertake this challenging assignment.

The terms of reference of Ms. Samuels-Stewart’s independent audit are as follows. To inquire into,
report and make recommendations in relation to:

(a) whether persons held in custody in the Shelburne Youth Centre and other young offender
institutions operated by the province are adequately protected against sexual and other abusive conduct;

(b) whether there is an adequate system in place to ensure that, in the event of such improper conduct,
complaints may be made, received and acted upon in a timely and effective manner; and

(c) whether there are in place appropriate mechanisms to ensure proper communications and follow-up
between responsible departmental authorities and police agencies in the event of allegations of sexual or other
abuse of young persons held in custody.

In order to fully demonstrate our accountability in this process, this audit will be made public. As far
as a timetable is concerned, the policies and procedures audit at the Shelburne Youth Centre will start on
December 1st, or no later than December 1st. Projected completion date for the audit is February 28th, a
period of 90 days. The projected cost of this audit is $36,000.

The second step in the process, Mr. Speaker, is a thorough investigation into the events that took place
at the youth centre in order to determine what happened, who was involved, who knew what was happening
and what actions were taken. We need a factual basis from which to operate. Those who are responsible must
be held accountable for their actions or inaction.

The terms of reference for this comprehensive investigation are as follows to determine:

(1) the extent of sexual and physical abuse of boys housed in the Shelburne School for Boys, in
particular to determine:

(a) whether any staff other than Patrick MacDougal engaged in sexual abuse of children;

(b) whether Patrick MacDougal or any other staff physically abused children; and

(c) whether children were abused, other than those known to the Crown, as a result of the
criminal prosecution of Patrick MacDougal;

(2) the practices and procedures in place at Shelburne that permitted or hindered detection of abuse
of children, and the state of knowledge of senior officials within the institution and the Department of
Community Services as to abusive behaviour of staff towards children from 1956 to 1975; and

(3) what steps were taken at the Children’s Training Centre in Sydney, where Mr. MacDougal was
transferred from Shelburne, in order to ensure that children in Sydney were not placed at risk.

Mr. Speaker, this investigation will be directed by an individual who is completely independent from
the Government of Nova Scotia. I anticipate making a further announcement with regard to this individual
in the near future. It will be this person’s responsibility to prepare a report for submission to me on the
findings of the investigation. This report will be made public, although the identities of the complainants will
be protected.

The investigation will include, at a minimum, interviews with the following people: police officers
involved in the criminal investigations; victims; employees at the school during the period in question;
medical staff who were responsible for the treatment of victims; and government officials and administrators.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that witnesses have the prerogative of refusing to assist the investigation,
leaving us with the option of proceeding via the public inquiry route. On the other hand, the indications we
have to date from many people involved is that they are willing to discuss the matter with an independent

As far as a timetable is concerned, it is our intention to have the investigation start on December 1st,
with a completion target date of March 31, 1995, a period of 120 days. The budgeted cost of this investigation
is $75,000.

The third step, Mr. Speaker, if liability is revealed through the investigation, compensation will be
offered to victims through an alternative dispute resolution process. The Department of Justice is currently
studying models of alternative dispute resolution processes used in other jurisdictions. The alternative dispute
resolution process is one that is binding on both parties, the victim and the province. Both are bound by the
decision of the adjudicator. The adjudicator will be selected based on their experience and independence from
the Parties.

Mr. Speaker, it is our sincere desire, through the alternative dispute resolution process, to provide fast
and fair compensation to victims. The alternative dispute resolution process will be offered to victims as a
substitute for the civil litigation process, a process that can be lengthy and expensive.

Naturally, Mr. Speaker, if any of the complainants do not want to take part in an alternative dispute
resolution process, but instead pursue this matter through civil litigation, that is their prerogative. This type
of process is becoming more common across Canada because it simplifies the compensation process, resulting
in faster, more efficient service to victims. The report of the adjudicator will be made public.

Mr. Speaker, the course of action outlined here has been carefully chosen. It is the most efficient way
of accomplishing our three very important goals. Other alternatives were considered, and although they may
play a part in this process, they are not central to it. For example, there is currently civil litigation before the
courts with regard to this matter. It will continue along as the plaintiffs see fit. That is their prerogative.

Mr. Speaker, some people have recently called for a public inquiry into the incidents at the Shelburne
Youth Centre. This is the traditional response to situations like this, but in our view, it has certain limitations.
We need only look to New Brunswick where a public inquiry into similar difficulties recently concluded its
public hearings. That process started in December of 1992. A written decision will not be available at least
until the end of March of 1995. So, approximately two and one-half years after it started, a written report will
be issued, over $1 million will have been spent and only then does the process of compensating victims begin.

The Hughes Inquiry in the Mount Cashel Orphanage in Newfoundland followed a similar pattern. Over
$2.5 million was spent there over a period approaching two years. To this day, Mr. Speaker, over five years
after that public inquiry process started, not a single victim has been compensated.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, one of our three central goals in this process is to get to a point
where we can provide fair compensation to victims. We want to arrive at that point in a reasonable period of
time, at a reasonable public expense. The timetable for this three-step process should see us in a situation
where compensation negotiations with victims can start approximately six months after this process begins.

We expect the costs involved in the investigation and the audit to be in the range of $110,000 to
$115,000, a fraction of the cost of a full-blown public inquiry. There is another significant benefit to an
independent investigation as opposed to a public inquiry, in addition to the time required and its cost-effectiveness. Through the process we are following, victims would not have to testify again in a public
setting. Many of the victims of Shelburne have already testified at Mr. MacDougal’s criminal trial. We want
to provide those who have been gravely injured by this situation to be able to tell their stories without a public
spectacle; a procedure that would make them victims all over again.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, we are proceeding with a three-step approach. First we are undertaking an
independent audit of current practices of the Youth Centre to ensure that present policies and procedures in
no way condone or promote unwanted behaviours on the part of staff. This audit report is to be made public.

Second, we are initiating a thorough investigation into the events that took place at the Youth Centre.
In order to ensure the integrity of this investigation, it will be overseen and directed by a highly-qualified
individual, operating independently. This person’s investigation report will be made public.

And, number three, if liability is revealed to the investigation, compensation could be determined
through an alternative dispute resolution process, including public release of the report on this process.

Mr. Speaker, we have three goals we wish to accomplish through the process. We want to make sure
this cannot happen again. We want to find out what happened and who was responsible and we want to
provide fair compensation for victims.

Plus, Mr. Speaker, we want to accomplish these goals in a reasonable amount of time and at a
reasonable expense.



With the process I have outlined here today, Mr. Speaker, we are hopeful that we can find the truth,
compensate the victims and ensure that this tragedy is not repeated. I thank you and all members of the House
for the time allotted to me. Thank you. (Applause)

[2:45 p.m.]

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, without wanting to be overly provocative, my first words
of reaction to a highly significant, vitally important statement by the Minister of Justice are to the effect that
whereas it was possible for the Minister of Health to communicate with our caucus office some hours in
advance of coming to this House, the substance of the statement which he made earlier here today, this 17
page, very detailed and precise - and I repeat, vitally important document - was shared with me, and I presume
with the Leader of the New Democratic Party, as the Minister of Justice got to his feet to deliver it. I want to
say that, frankly, I would have thought that courtesy, if nothing else, might have warranted a delivery of this
very important document to our caucus office well in advance of the delivery of the statement here in the
House. I would trust that for future reference, this minister and, with respect, all other ministers and the
Premier would, again, if out of nothing else, out of courtesy, provide Opposition members who are expected
and called upon to respond to statements of this kind to have some even modest advance warning.

This, as the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, has pointed out, is a tremendously important statement.
There were events and occurrences which, as he has indicated, resulted in criminal trials being held and the
conviction of an individual on 11 counts of sexual assault in connection with incidents at a facility run by the
Province of Nova Scotia. That just simply, as the minister again has said, cannot be allowed to happen ever

As I read the document and as I listened to the minister, one thing that I did not hear him say, and it
may be there and hence, as I said, a little bit more time to see the document and think it through might
disclose for me that it is there, but it appears that the report or the analysis, the audits and the investigations
will be almost totally prospective. In the sense that I do not see anything here that leads me to believe that
there is going to be an analysis done that addresses the question of the processes employed by the department
when the hiring of staff to work in facilities of this kind, from this point forward, will take place. It occurs
to me that, unfortunately, the human condition being what it is, we have learned too often, sadly, that men
and women working in facilities of the kind that we are dealing with here are, unfortunately, after the fact,
found to have perpetrated heinous criminal crimes against so many young people.

If I have missed it, I apologize but if I have not, I would very seriously urge the minister to go back
and review his statement and review his planning in his department to determine whether or not the audits
and the investigations which will be undertaken here will address, undoubtedly in concert with the
Department of Human Resources, the processes and the analysis done when men and women are considered
for employment in the places of the kind we are describing here because I believe that in this age of
sophisticated psychiatric and psychological testing and so on, it should be possible for us to do better than we
do in terms of employing people to work in these facilities.

I would ask, further, if I may, Mr. Speaker, that when the minister reports to us, as he has today - and
I am on Page 9 of the document - that, “The practices and procedures in place at Shelburne that permitted or
hindered detection of abuse of children; and, the state of knowledge of senior officials within the institution
and the Department of Community Services, . . .”, I note that the reference is to Community Services only and
I have reason to wonder whether or not the minister might, to go back and have a discussion with his officials
as to whether or not that might be expanded to include the Department of Justice in its earlier incarnation
called the Department of the Attorney General. It occurs to me that if we find, as there might well have been,
some contact between officials of Community Services and the Department of the Attorney General, I would
not want to think that there would, in any way, shape or form, be anybody consider that there was a
constriction or restriction on the ability of those officials to be subjected to some examination.

Overall, I am absolutely delighted and I say sincerely, I applaud the minister for proceeding in the
fashion he has. I take a little bit off that fast-ball, if I may use a line that a former deputy of mine used to use,
by saying that it does concern me that the processes employed, while describing them as he has in this
document, the minister suggests the process inviting people in to offer their testimony and their evidence and
their recollections of events, is invitational. We are not in a mode, as I understand it, in relation to certain
elements of this investigation where those conducting the investigations will have the power of subpoena and
I am concerned that that may prove in certain circumstances to be a flaw.

Again I repeat, if I have misread or misunderstood the thrust of some of this document, I apologize
but I honestly believe that we may be selling ourselves short in terms of having a full, complete and total
analysis of these events if we do not have those who are conducting the investigations able to compel the
attendance of a witness or witnesses as required. I get a little bit of a sense that the minister is being so precise
in terms of timeframes and amounts of dollars being spent that we may be attempting an exercise here which
has ravaged the lives, as we are told, of unfortunately a number of young people and I am concerned that we
may be, in the interest of time and dollars, trying to set a timeframe that might not allow those who are being
asked to do the investigation sufficient time to do the job that really does need doing.

A final comment, if I may, relative to the document itself, I would ask that in those cases where the
minister’s statement says that this report and that report shall be made public, I would like to ask the minister
that he would consider that the form of making those reports public would be by way of tabling same here in
the Legislature. That may be his intention in any event, it is unstated in the document but I would hope that
that would come, as far as he is concerned, to be an established principle upon which he would operate.

The situation here is not unlike certain resolutions and other matters which have also already been
addressed in this House thus far today. We simply cannot, as a society, allow child abuse, physical abuse,
sexual abuse, spousal violence and abuse, to run as rampant as it appears to be in our community and I
sincerely hope that not only will the studies which will be undertaken and described here by the Minister of
Justice today, disclose the detail and the perpetrator and the victims are, in fact, equitably and fairly
compensated but that it will afford us an opportunity through his expertise and that of his officials in the
department and all of government, that we will be able to design a regime where we can with reasonable
confidence say, this simply is unacceptable and it will not, it can not, with the checks and balances and
protections which we have in place, it cannot happen again.

I applaud the minister for this announcement, I am disappointed that we didn’t get it a little earlier to
have a chance to prepare ourselves for perhaps a more cogent response and I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker,
and all colleagues if I have been a little bit disjointed in my response but I very much applaud the initiative
and trust that the people chosen to do the work will be up to the task and that in due course those documents,
reports and recommendations will be tabled here in this House so that all members and all Nova Scotians will
know what has happened and more to the point, will know the processes that will be in place to ensure that
was has happened will simply never, ever happen again. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the minister for his lengthy
statement. He owes no apology for the length of the statement. I too am disadvantaged in not having had an
opportunity to review it in advance and further disadvantaged by not having a legal background that would
allow me to satisfy myself on some of the nagging questions about legal protections and legal representation.

I want to make a general response at this point and indicate at the same time that I reserve the right
to raise further concerns with the minister after I have had an opportunity to seek further advice and counsel.

I want to say that in general I applaud the minister’s statement; I applaud the stated objectives, the
three part objectives that the minister has outlined because I think it is absolutely important that the issues
of compensation and accountability be addressed but also equally important - and I applaud the minister for
recognizing this - that a major objective of this exercise must surely be prevention, that we must put an end
to the kind of victimization and, in this case, surely it has to be recognized as at least double or triple
victimization of youth, to find themselves in the care and custody of the provincial authorities and only to be
further abused.

We absolutely must recognize that it may cost money to ensure that the system is one that will prevent
any such abuses in the future. I am a little bit nervous, frankly, Mr. Speaker, at the amount of preoccupation
in the minister’s statement with cost-effectiveness and at the same time I want to not reject out of hand some
of the alternatives to the public inquiry that the minister has put forward and some of the rationale for the
alternatives. I think we should carefully consider the merits of the arguments he has made, and I think we
would all agree that to not drag victims further through a very public process that can be extremely damaging
may, indeed, be an argument in favour of the course that the minister has proposed.

I think it certainly must be said that the minister has given due attention to the importance of the
independence of the three-stage process, the importance of full public accounting for the outcome. Both of
those are absolutely mandatory and I think it is fair to say the public would accept no less.

I think, again, it is to be applauded that the minister has recognized the importance of safeguarding
the identities of victims who may want to come forward and, at the same time, respecting and safeguarding
the civil rights that they may choose to exercise through the litigation route and nothing should stand in the
way of that.

I think the principal concern that I would raise at this point surrounds the question of what legal
representation will be available to enable victims to come forward and ensure that their interests and rights
are fully protected and addressed. Secondly, I have a concern, frankly, given that we are not talking about a
full public inquiry with the powers to subpoena, for example, that there be the assurance that there is some
legal counsel available, for example, to employees or past employees who might wish to come forward to
cooperate in the investigation, to share information but, at the same time, to ensure they are encouraged to
do so without perhaps jeopardizing their own situation. It seems to me there is the need to ensure there is
some legal counsel available to balance out those interests and, if nothing else, to make sure that people don’t
hold back from sharing information and their experiences because they are fearful about possible legal
consequences in the absence of having appropriate legal counsel.

So with those comments, Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that I think the general thrust of the minister’s
announcement is to be welcomed. It seems to me it is sensitive, it has due regard for the range of matters that
need to be addressed in public policy, as well as in terms of personal compensation. I certainly applaud the
excellent selection of Vicki Samuels-Stewart. She has a solid track record in a variety of employment settings
that I think make her extremely suitable. I hope the resources made available to her will be sufficient to do
the job adequately. I would simply say the same with respect to the assignment of the others who will
participate in the investigation process.

So, Mr. Speaker, with those comments, I would like to further consider any legal issues that arise
around the decision not to engage in a full public inquiry, but generally would applaud the minister for the
sensitivity and the direction he has taken here today. Thank you.

[3:00 p.m.]

MR. SPEAKER: That concludes the daily routine. Now before we advance to the Orders of the Day,
I wish to advice the House that the Clerk has conducted a draw for the Adjournment debate at 6:00 p.m. and
the successful entry this afternoon has been submitted by the honourable member for Halifax Bedford Basin
who proposes the resolution:

Resolved that Nova Scotians should take advantage of the exceptional opportunities provided by the
G-7 Summit Meetings to be held in Halifax in June.

We will be debating that matter at 6:00 p.m. this afternoon.

I further wish to advise the House that both the Clerk and myself have studied the Notice of Motion
of resolution proposed by the honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid. I am prepared to table the motion
with the deletion of one word and that one word is falsely. I propose that deletion, supported by the Clerk, on
the grounds of unparliamentary language. Beauchesne’s Rules and Forms of Parliamentary Procedure, Page
144, Paragraph 489, under the heading of Unparliamentary Language lists as unparliamentary the following:
false, false representations, false statement, falsehood and falsify. So, because of that very clear ruling on
Beauchesne’s part, I will direct that that one word be deleted from the Notice of Motion, the notice, otherwise,
is tabled.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.


MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question is through you to the Premier. I want to know,
as does Mrs. Jean Ward of Three Fathom Harbour, Halifax County, why our province is losing some of our
best specialists and doctors to other jurisdictions? The taxpayers are losing millions of tax dollars that were
used to help educate and train these doctors when they were medical students here in Nova Scotia. The strains
on our health care delivery system are beginning to strangle quality health care.

My question is, why are they leaving?

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, a question best addressed by the Minister of Health
and I am obviously going to pass it to the Minister of Health, in whom I have complete confidence.

HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I welcome that question from the honourable member’s
constituent, or whoever, and certainly say that we are constantly, in fact, in this province receiving specialists.
I, myself, just this morning, met with several new specialists coming into this province in psychiatry. We had
a marvellous discussion, very enthusiastic. He is a man, as chair of the department, who is well recognized
in his specialty.

I can go on, certainly, but let me say this in response to that question, for information to the honourable
member and his constituent, that we in this province have never had a policy or a thrust in terms of
recruitment or retention of physicians. We have never had, in this province, in any ability, to cooperate and
form joint programs with our colleagues in the Medical Society or the professional groups to ensure that the
physician resources are deployed properly and adequately in this province. This, of course, is reflected in the
honourable members question and the person’s question that he relays.

MR. DONAHOE: If I may, by way of supplementary, addressed to the Minister of Health. Might I ask
him if he can tell this House how many, as but one example, radiation oncology specialists are working at the
Cancer Treatment Centre at the present time, as against the number which the provincial population would
suggest we should have working there?

DR. STEWART: The honourable gentleman opposite probably recognizes, and I am sure he does, that
we have in that particular specialty, a dearth of specialists in this province. That is true across the country.
We have recruited one oncologist, at least, cancer specialist, to Sydney lately, as of July. We, again, are
dependent upon a rather hodgepodge, patchwork method of attracting physicians and professionals to the
province in our health care system and we intend to put that right. We are going to partner with our colleagues
in medicine. We are going to approach the academic community as I have been for the last seven to eight
months now in order to provide proper physician resources and we can certainly discuss this. We do have
shortages in certain areas, we have shortages with respect to specialties and, by the way, we also have a very
difficult time to determine how many physicians are coming and going in this province because we do not
have a data set. We do not have a way of data collection and I myself this very day announce that we are
putting that right as well in this province by the establishment of a proper data collection system.

MR. DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, as part of his answer the Minister of Health indicated that and I think
I quote him accurately, we are going to put that right, meaning right the problem that we are deficient in
certain areas. Could I ask the minister if he would describe with some degree of specificity for us, just what
it is that he is doing or what process is in place to use his words, put it right.

DR. STEWART: Yes, I have suggested, Mr. Speaker, in my answer that we alone will not put it right.
We will put it right with our colleagues in medicine, in nursing and in other professions. We are, for example,
studying very closely the way of redeployment of physicians in terms of rural and under-serviced areas and
what we can further do our discussions with the Medical Society proceed along those lines. We welcome these
discussions, we welcome however, a proper, realistic and practical programs of doing this and I would give
the undertaking to the honourable Leader of the Opposition and to his constituent that we will continue and
we will produce results in this regard in terms of organizing a thrust in this very important effort.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.


MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. As the Premier will know
his guidelines for reporting ministerial expenses require uniform reporting through the Executive Council of
all expenditures incurred on a monthly basis. Yet, the Premier has filed his expense claim for the month of
August without showing one red cent of expenses incurred in conjunction with his extensive travel throughout
the province in August as part of the Save Savage Summer Circuit. My question is simply, why?

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday the expenses that the Liberal Party paid when I was
on Party business should have been part of my disclosure. I corrected that, I apologize for that because
obviously it should have been. It was done the previous year, it was not done for 1993-1994. As for my Party
expenses this last summer they will be properly filed as required on my disclosure form for next June. That
is the advice we have and we are taking it up with the commissioner to make sure.

MS. MCDONOUGH: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has simply not addressed my question because
my question relates to the public expenditures incurred in his travels on behalf of the people of Nova Scotia
in the month of August. In response to my question yesterday the minister stated that when they are doing
government business, for example, to announce the thing in Canso, “then we used a helicopter. . . . The
expense is there somewhere; if it is not in my account then it will be in the office account.”. Yet, Mr. Speaker,
the Premier’s guidelines clearly state, the Premier and ministers will report any significant expenditures for
ministerial expenses paid by another person who will be reimbursed by the province such as an executive
assistant or a deputy minister.

My question to the honourable Premier is where are the expenses that pertained to his travel in August
that are being charged publicly and are they buried in someone else’s expenses and if so, where and whose?

MR. SPEAKER: That seems like a great number of questions under one heading.

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, they are not buried as the insinuation would have it. The money for the
helicopter which was the only public expense that I recall was in fact on the account because the minister was
with me and the minister’s assistant, therefore, it was an Economic Renewal Department account and
therefore it was not part of mine. Whether it comes out of mine or whether it comes out of the minister’s, as
long as it is clear which it is, there really is much ado about nothing.

MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier is saying that the only government business being
conducted during his touring across this province in August pertained to the helicopter trip to Canso and that
all of the rest of it was Liberal Party business and that is why there are no expense claims. Was it appropriate
to be dishing out public money in town after town in a Liberal sponsored tour?

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I have clear policy on this which says that if I am going into an area
and the business is primarily talking to Liberals, as part of it was, then the fact that I was there and announced
three - her repetitive account of handing out money is, in fact, fairly typically put across by her - these were
three waterfront grants, grants that were already decided some months ago by my colleague and the
Department of Economic Renewal. I announced them when I was there but, as such, I did not feel that the
announcements and my travel to them should be put on the public account. They are, in fact, on Liberal

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Queens.


MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier can come to my constituency any time and provide
money to my constituents. He is always welcome.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, I want to know,
as does Nancy Selig of Lunenburg, how, under health care reform, which is supposed to provide equal or
better service than before, Ms. Selig will get better service at the South Shore Regional Hospital where she
has been five times for tests and they have done the wrong test altogether or failed to do any tests at all. She
wants to know, and I want to know, how the health care reform will provide her with better service?

HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, this question appears, again, and I welcome it nonetheless,
to make some comments on standards of care in hospitals but, nonetheless, it perhaps speaks to a specific
issue. I might say that health renewal in this province will be very effective in helping this person to whom
the honourable member opposite refers in that we will have requirements for testing and for standards to be
adhered to, protocols that will be followed, but nonetheless, it also begs the question as to perhaps why this
lady had to go in the first place, five times. Was she not better served by, perhaps a mobile system or
something nearer her home? These are the kinds of things that community boards will be studying very closely
and improving on. I think that that may well please her very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.


MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is through you to the honourable Premier. The
forestry is a valuable resource to Nova Scotians, employing thousands of individuals. Mr. Premier, other
members of this Legislature from places such as Cumberland County, Colchester North, Guysborough-Port
Hawkesbury, Richmond-Victoria, any of them, and more can tell you what the importance of the forestry
industry is to Nova Scotia. I want to know, as does Tim, Alex, and JoAnne Craib of Malagash and Wallace,
Cumberland County - what are you doing to ensure another forestry agreement will be ready to be signed
when the current one expires March 31, 1995?

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I think the best information that I can give these honest citizens is to
pass them to the minister who is doing his utmost best for this kind.

HON. DONALD DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the question in regard to the concern of the
forestry agreement for the renewal of round six of the forestry agreement. The specific question you have
asked, what has the Premier done, I want you to know that the Premier has been very active, as well as the
department in this process. He is not one to necessarily talk about this. (Interruption) He, himself, has dealt
on this matter with the Prime Minister of Canada because he realizes the socio-economic importance that the
forestry industry plays in the Province of Nova Scotia.

Now, in regard to what we have done, I realize that part of the debate this afternoon is to talk about
some of the activities that we have done. Well, I have had a number of occasions to meet with the federal
minister, Anne McLellan, I met with Mr. Manley, I met with Mr. Dingwall, I met with some senators with
regard to the importance of this issue. We have written countless letters to federal ministers. I have dealt with
the ministers across Canada, at national meetings, pointing out the importance of these agreements. In fact
directly related to the cooperative agreements some 1,450 jobs are directly related because of silviculture
contracting and sustainable development of our forests.

[3:15 p.m.]

This is a very important issue, we have been working extremely hard on this matter. We have contacted
all the Members of Parliament from Nova Scotia, as well as key Cabinet Ministers in Ottawa and we will
continue to do so. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou Centre.


DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. The Blueprint Committee clearly recommended that
as a health care service is withdrawn during the process of reform, that the replacement service be put in place
simultaneously. I think it is fair to assume then that as hospital bed services are withdrawn, that the
replacement service that would be available in the home would occur at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the Premier that the beds in the Annapolis hospital are gone and that area
services Lawrencetown. My specific question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, through you and on behalf of Mr.
Lawrence Reid of Lawrencetown is, where is the plan for community-based service that is to replace the
already disappearing hospital-based services in our area?

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, once again I have the pleasure of taking the question seriously by giving
it to the appropriate minister.

HON. RONALD STEWART: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this question, of course, can be answered best by the
various groups in that community working very hard on the plan. In fact, that community has been very
successful, as the honourable member might realize now, in proposing changes that might occur in relocating
acute care beds in larger facilities, in Middleton and other places. We are very happy with the outcome of
those discussions which again represent in a real way, community development.

DR. HAMM: From the minister’s reply, is the minister reassuring Mr. Reid that if his family becomes
ill tonight that there is a number he can call if that family member is not admitted to hospital or is discharged
prematurely from hospital, that there is a number he can call that will provide in-the-home care to replace the
care he has lost now that the Annapolis beds are closed? Is there a number he can call tonight?

DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I would reassure the honourable member and his constituent or the
constituency that he is representing, that indeed there are numbers there to be called, to be telephoned. The
hospital is there, the out-patient services, the ambulance services. In addition to that, I might say that
relocation of acute care services has, indeed, been the only change that has occurred in Annapolis Royal and
is occurring gradually and under the plan that has been developed by that community. Indeed, we do have
excess capacity in the Valley to handle in-patient services. We are saying that yes, indeed, there are services
there and they will be maintained and, in fact, be improved by the plan that community has very properly
come up with.

DR. HAMM: Mr. Speaker, by way of final supplementary, would the minister commit to provide me,
no later than Question Period tomorrow, the phone number that I can provide to Mr. Reid that he may call
if, in fact, the situation that I described in my previous question should occur? The number he can call for the
service that he will require in the home?

MR. SPEAKER: I question whether that question is in order. If the minister wishes to respond, he may,
but I think it goes far beyond the confines of oral questions, as laid down in Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules
and Forms.

DR. STEWART: I believe I have already responded, that the phone number is well known, I am sure,
in the community of the hospital and the ambulance service.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.


MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. At
the end of September I wrote to the minister to express some concerns about the appointment of Mr. James
Mitchell to the Northern Regional Health Board, because of his views on women and homosexuals. The
minister wrote back to me on October 26th to say that he had met with Mr. Mitchell regarding this and that
he is satisfied with his explanation regarding both these issues.

My question to the minister is quite simply this, what specifically did Mr. Mitchell tell the minister
that satisfied him on these issues?

HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I was indeed, and prior to receiving the letter by the
honourable gentleman opposite, I expressed my concern to the member the Regional Health Board mentioned
in his letter. We had a very frank discussion and exchange of views, and it was my considered opinion at the
end of that meeting that this person certainly would represent his constituents and represent the interest of
health care, both in that region and in the province, and I was comfortable in doing so.

MR. HOLM: My question is, I would like, and the minister has assured us that he has the satisfaction.
Those who are going to be represented and supposedly the regional health board represents the communities
and not just the minister. They have to have the assurances, of course, that those who are going to be on the
regional health board respect and will be obeying the Human Rights Act, respect the equality and so on of
women. In fact, basically, respect the laws of Nova Scotia. I would like to ask the minister very directly, what
specific information, what specifically was the minister told that gives him the assurances that those concerns
are going to be addressed?

DR. STEWART: Very simply, Mr. Speaker, we discussed those very issues, and I am convinced and
my concerns were alleviated to the fact that all human rights and other aspects of health care will not only
be respected, but promoted by that board and that particular individual.

MR. HOLM: Mr. Mitchell is quoted in the press as saying, we’ve got to stop making patronage a dirty
word and understand that you bring your Party together by making certain the Party is part of the governing
process. My question to the minister is, how much of the decision to appoint Mr. Mitchell to this board was
based on trying to appease yet another disgruntled prominent Liberal? How much of the decision was based
on that rather than upon his experience?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I hesitate to allow that question. If I may, I wish to read from Beauchesne’s
Parliamentary Rules and Forms, concerning the standards of oral questions and it states at Heading 409,
Subsection (7), “A question must adhere to the proprieties of the House, in terms of inferences, imputing
motives or casting aspersions upon persons within the House or out of it.”. I think that guideline is very clear,
and I think that it ought to be adhered to in this House.

The honourable Leader of the Opposition.


MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question is through you to the Premier. I want to know,
Mr. Premier, as does Ms. Hewitt of Truro, when you are going to give a break to small business in Nova
Scotia. Businesses with revenues under $300,000 and which employ over 70 per cent of the population which
have recently experienced a raise in provincial tax and may be looking at a hike in their UIC and Workers’
Compensation costs?

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, we have done more for small business in a year than the group opposite
did in 15. (Applause) As a result of the proposals and the budget brought in by my colleague (Interruption)
If you would ask your colleague to be quiet, I could answer you, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. Good. The
issue that was raised was what have we done for small business? There have been a number of measures which
my colleague in Economic Renewal and the Minister of Finance have brought in.

Some of the issues related to the money that was rebated by my colleague and the Minister of Housing
which has led to an unprecedented burst of activity in building houses in this province. In addition to that,
there are benefits related to the specific tax benefits which I will dig out for you and be very pleased to put
across to you. All in all, the reports that we get from small business is that they are very pleased with the
majority of jobs that have been created. Do not forget, Mr. Speaker, that Nova Scotia will have the highest
incidence of job creation of any province in Canada and part of it is attributed by, other than myself, to the
measures that this government has introduced. (Applause)

MR. DONAHOE: I take part of the Premier’s answer as a commitment that he will, in fact, provide
documentation to me which will disclose the range of programs and initiatives to which he has referred and
I would expect in light of his imminent departure that I could expect to have those before he leaves because
I understand he will be away for two weeks. (Interruption) I don’t particularly care when he is leaving, I would
like to know when I am going to get the information. I am getting a commitment from the Premier that I will
get it tomorrow?

I would like to know, as would Ms. Hewitt of Truro, who is not at all impressed that the assistance to
small business has been as helpful as the Premier would have her believe in the answer he just gave, I would
like to know, as would she, why it is that the government continues, having said they would get out of the
grant business, to give hand-outs to such big businesses as Sears?

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to read seven pages into the record of
small business loans approved by county, from September the 30, 1994 . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Could the seven pages perhaps be tabled?

THE PREMIER: May I shorten that, obviously, Mr. Speaker. Let me talk about the Paradise Country
Crafts in Paradise, $10,000 first-step loan, total project $24,000; East Coast Divers, Antigonish, $10,000
(Interruption) Mr. Speaker . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, the Premier has the floor.

THE PREMIER: In deference to the blood (Interruption) Mr. Speaker . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please.

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, in deference to the blood pressure of my colleague opposite I would
table them, because I understand the anger that it might create when he sees how much this government has,
in fact, given, and these are, of course, loans, not grants. It gives me great pleasure to table this but I am going
to get it actually copied first of all so that all the others can have copies. Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker. (Applause)

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition on a new question.




MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. I would like to know if the
Premier has had his phone call to the Honourable David Collenette returned either yesterday or today and,
if not, if he has placed a new phone call to either Mr. Collenette or to the Prime Minister on the Department
of National Defence issue which we discussed in Question Period yesterday?

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, nothing gives me greater pleasure than to be prepared for a question
that is so obvious.

Following my statement in the House yesterday, I did in fact speak to the Chief of Staff of Mr.
Collenette at about 4:15 p.m. - don’t tie me down to the time - it was a phone call that we had arranged from
the morning. Mr. Collenette was unfortunately enjoying Question Period and could not come to the phone
himself, so I did speak to the Chief of Staff and what we know confirms the concerns that were expressed
quite well by the Leader of the Opposition and by myself, that we obviously do not want to lose jobs.

But it is important to understand that this is a paper that at the time that I called to speak to Mr.
Collenette, he had not seen the report himself. In other words, it was a report of a Senate joint committee and
it was presented and what he is having is an analysis of this. He will be submitting a White Paper by
December 15th and, obviously, this particular item is of major concern to us. The idea of moving people from
our area and creating the loss of jobs, exaggerated though it may be at this point, is still a matter of major

Because of my impending departure for China and because this is fundamentally an economic matter,
I have appointed Mr. Ross Bragg, the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency, who will be the person
who will deal with this in my absence.

[3:30 p.m.]

I have already arranged phone calls tomorrow morning, conference calls with the three MPs in the area
here. A conference call is set up and in addition to that, speaking to Mr. Collenette’s Chief of Staff, an
appointment will be arranged at the joint convenience of the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency and
Mr. Collenette, probably early next week.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I am proposing that this government will be obtaining specific expert
evidence and direction so that Mr. Bragg, who has the help of some of the people like Mr. Pye, who worked
in Cornwallis on it, we will have other specific evidence to look at the proposals and to give a reasoned
approach to why, in effect, this province and this area, in particular, should not be so hit by the proposal as
contained in this paper.

Mr. Collenette’s Chief of Staff was quite clear that this is not government policy. She also admitted,
quite carefully, that it could be as a result, and I am being honest here and I am sure the House will join with
me in saying that we will all work together to see what we can do to prevent the loss of so many good jobs.

MR. DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question then to the Premier, by way of supplementary, is if he
would indicate to this House as to what specific directions has he given or will he give to Minister Bragg,
prior to his departure for China, as to how the Nova Scotia Government response and the response on behalf
of the people of Nova Scotia will be crafted as these meetings unfold? Because I would expect that the
meetings which take place during this first couple of weeks of debate of this issue will set the tone for what
happens later.

Could the Premier please be specific to give us the sense of direction that he has shared with Minister

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be specific at this point. The minister himself has not
even seen the report. It is perfectly obvious that we do not have enough information either. A copy of the
report, I forgot to tell you, Mr. Speaker, is being sent down. It may be out there in the House. It was being sent
down by delivery to the House of Assembly here for me by Mr. Collenette.

But no, we have no specific directions yet. But I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of
cooperation, if the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party have any suggestions
on this, let them contact Mr. Bragg and make an appointment. We are open to any suggestion on this, but it
will be the government that will lead the policy. (Applause)

MR. DONAHOE: Well I wonder if the Premier would really make a commitment to a tri-Party
initiative here. This is a complex matter. It is a matter in relation to which, Mr. Speaker, as the Premier well
knows and you certainly do, that the government, in its dealings with Mr. Collenette and the Department of
National Defence, will have access to considerable additional information than will be made available to the
Opposition Caucuses.

I wonder if the Premier would today commit that he will direct the Minister of the Economic Renewal
Agency to share with my caucus, and with the third Party, those materials which he receives from the Ministry
of National Defence and from the Government of Canada so that we can, in fact, play a meaningful part in
the preparation of a joint Nova Scotia position to attempt to save what could be a devastating loss to the
Province of Nova Scotia. Will the Premier make that commitment that the relevant information will be shared
with us?

THE PREMIER: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not make that commitment today. We are 24 hours into this
issue. The minister has just been appointed to take this under his wing. The issue of whether or not there can
be wonderful assistance from the Leaders of the Opposition and the New Democratic Party remains to be seen.
What is important is that we get the right information, is that we get the right kind of expert advice, that we
take the right direction and that we don’t just go clawing away at a federal government that is, in effect, also
doing its bit to try and get its own deficit under control.

It is not a simple matter. The important thing is that we will do our bit and if it is possible for the New
Democratic Party and the Conservative Party to assist us in this, then that may be possible. But, Mr. Speaker,
this government sets the policy that we will follow, not the Opposition. (Applause)

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.


MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. The minister will
know of my application for information regarding the contract for the communications consultant that was
hired this summer by the department. I will table now confirmation here in the House that there was no
contract. But there was a memo from the consultant to the deputy minister arranging for seven weeks of work
at the rate of $125,000 a year plus air travel, extra trips, plus a car, plus accommodations. I would ask the
Minister of Health if he could tell us why it was necessary to hire a communications consultant from Ontario
at that rate?

HON. RONALD STEWART: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this consultant was a nationally known consultant
in public affairs and in communications and we needed help in this regard, the prompting of the Opposition
would itself give evidence of that and we needed someone who had done this job before, that was expert in
health renewal and we as a result have the finest advice and we are acting on that advice very properly.

MR. MOODY: I find it a pricey arrangement. I also find it kind of strange that a person writes their
own ticket. In other words, they write a memo to the deputy minister saying, this is what I want. I would ask
the minister if he will table today the report and recommendations and evaluations that he received for all that
money that was paid to that consultant for that short period of time? Would he be prepared to table that
information in this Legislature?

DR. STEWART: First of all, make it clear that this person did not write her own ticket and indeed that
was not the case. This person, of course, arrived here after some lengthy negotiations seconded from another
facility so that she was promptly available, did her work very properly. I am happy to report that we made
great progress in the design and reports that she had made and I will be happy to table those documents and
I can get them from the department.

MR. MOODY: I find it very strange when I ask for freedom of information that is all I get. If there is
more information why is it that I don’t get it. I would ask the minister also in that document that I got from
his office and the information that I got from his office indicated that this person also would receive a
computer worth $3,700 that this person could keep and take home with them when they were finished their
seven weeks of work. I would ask the minister why that agreement was made to buy the person a computer
that they could take home with them after seven weeks of work?

DR. STEWART: First of all, this is not an unusual arrangement for consultants to be given instruments
and tools with which to do their job. In fact, this person was very helpful after she finished her contract in
preparing reports and then advising us further and she did so with the computers that we had provided for
her and that was part and parcel of our agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member of Halifax Atlantic.


MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of
Transportation. I would like to ask the minister has he had any contact with Keith Thompson since that
person was appointed to the casino project team on or before May 15, 1994?

HON. RICHARD MANN: Well, contrary to what the metro telecaster reports, I do talk to Mr.
Thompson but I have not spoken to Mr. Thompson about casino related issues, no.

MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance I would like to ask the minister has he had
any contact with Marilyn Gaudet since she was appointed to the casino project team on or before May 15,

HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Yes, she is a senior person on the staff of the Department of Finance.
I have had contact with her in her capacity. I have had no contact with her respecting her duties on the casino
project committee.

MR. CHISHOLM: My final question is to the Premier. I would like to ask the Premier was he merely
trying to create the impression of an arm’s-length relationship with a casino selection process when in fact
the reality is different or will he enforce his own policy to do what he said he would do and dismiss these
ministers here today for having contact with the casino project team persons.

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, that is downright insulting, untrue and just typical of the member who
spoke it out.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.


MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: My question is for the Minister of Health. I will table a letter which I
have here which I wrote to the Minister of Health on July 22nd. In that letter, I requested of the Minister of
Health details on the contract for the communications consultant, in relation to which he just had an exchange
with my colleague for Kings West.

In the minister’s September 22nd reply back to my letter, which I will also table, the minister wrote
that the communications consultant was seconded in the department for, and I quote, seven weeks only, to
fill an immediate need for communications expertise, until a permanent information officer could be hired.

We have just learned that the fill-in was hired at the rate of $125,000 a year. I wonder if the minister
will tell us whether or not the replacement, who is now there on a permanent basis, is there and being paid
at the rate of $125,000 a year?

HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, let us set the record straight here; first of all, we did not
pay this consultant $125,000 a year. We paid her for seven weeks work for a transfer from Ontario, to leave
her job, interrupt her job, to come down here and give us very solid advice. So let us make sure we understand
what we are getting for the price that the honourable gentleman is suggesting we are paying.

In addition to that, we have provided tools for her to do her job. In addition to that, she has given
continuing advice regarding some of the suggestions that she had made, for which we are not paying her, by
the way. So let us put the perspective that is proper and fair - I ask only fairness in this - and, in fact, to reply
to the second part of the question, no, that is not the salary for the current public relations director in our

MR. DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the mental gymnastics just now done by the Minister
of Health, the fact of the matter is that the seven week consultant was being paid by the taxpayers of Nova
Scotia at a rate of $125,000 a year. I didn’t ever say, nor did anybody else, that she was paid $125,000 a year
but she was paid at that rate and she was also given, if I may say, $3,700 worth of taxpayers’ computers to take
away afterwards.

I ask then the Minister of Health to tell this House what is the pay of the current information officer
in his department?

DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to table that and the details of that position resulting
from the consultant’s work that we had done.

MR. DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, going back to the seven week fill-in at the rate of $125,000 a year
consultant, I wonder if the minister would explain why it was necessary to go to Ontario to hire such a
communications consultant, at that rate, rather than secure competent service here in the Province of Nova
Scotia, either by secondment of an appropriate person in one or other of the existing government departments,
or in the health care facility delivery system here in the Province of Nova Scotia?

DR. STEWART: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that indeed we did search for someone who had dome some
health care renewal and reform in this government and we were unable to find it. Why? Because health care
reform and renewal had not been done by the previous administration. That is why we had to go to Ontario,
to have someone who did it already. (Applause)

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition on a new question.


MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. I understand that in
September 1993, after the Premier rather unceremoniously fired eight deputy ministers, that the government,
his government, hired a consulting firm at a cost of over $100,000 to find replacements for those fired
deputies. I wonder if the Premier would confirm that that is, in fact, the case?

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure how much it was. There certainly was a fee and it
certainly was a company that was hired to do it. Yes, they won it by tender.

MR. DONAHOE: Will the Premier confirm for this House that those consultants hired, at what I
understand was well in excess of $100,000 and I am sure the Premier will, being his gracious usual self, get
me that number and ensure that it is made available to us. Will the Premier confirm that those consultants
conducted a national search for candidates for those positions to be replaced, the deputies’ positions?

THE PREMIER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DONAHOE: By way of final supplementary, I wonder if the Premier will confirm that once the
screening process was done by those consultants and that part of their operation was completed that he, the
Premier, received a short list and that then having received that short list he, the Premier, determined who
he would hire for those eight deputy minister positions, that it was his call?

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the Premier to hire and fire deputy ministers.
I therefore did receive a short list. I did the interviews between December 15th and early January and that is
the way that business is done.

[3:45 p.m.]

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.


MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier and is a follow-up to that last

In making the final decision for deputy ministers and I know it is a job that you are responsible for,
do you review their resumes and references or what criteria, specifically, do you use in making that final
decision who will become the deputy minister?

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I reviewed the documents, the security checks, the total amount of
paper, plus the reference from the consultant and then, I presume, employed what people do when they make
selections, they employ good judgment.

MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier. I would ask the Premier, in reviewing the resume
of Mrs. Lucy Dobbin, did he notice that she did work with Carrick Consulting Services, was that included in
her resume? Did he notice that she had previously done work for the Department of Health, did he notice that?

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t honestly tell you. I don’t remember the issue at that time, I
would look it up and be prepared to get the answer. But it would be foolish for me to try and remember the
individual references of each person who applied for each of the nine jobs.

MR. MOODY: I am sure the Premier has many things on his mind but I would hope that he would
notice those things.

I would ask the Premier if he noticed such a thing as Mrs. Dobbin’s involvement in Carrick Consulting
Services and had done work for the Department of Health, if he notices such a thing in the future, would he
refer that to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, prior to making a decision on somebody being hired.

MR. SPEAKER: That question seems hypothetical to me.

THE PREMIER: It is a hypothetical question and we don’t answer hypothetical questions.

MR. SPEAKER: It is out of order under Beauchesne.

The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.


MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Last week the
minister told this House that a study of tertiary care facilities recommending consolidation, formed the basis
for his decision to merge four tertiary care hospitals in metro into the QE II mega-hospital.

Earlier the Minister of Health had cited strategic plans requested by him from the affected institutions
as further documentation behind his mega-hospital decision. Yet on Monday, the acting Deputy Minister of
Health, wrote to our caucus to state that the Health Department does not have any background material for
the decision to merge the four hospitals, either in general or dealing with specific aspects of the merger.

My question to the Minister of Health is simply this, which story truthfully describes the basis of this
far-reaching decision?

HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I was mistaken in saying a study had been done. Many
studies formed the basis. Now in the reply by the deputy minister, I assume he was alluding to the fact of the
merger itself and the transitional board. However, I certainly am able to give information to this House
whereby we and I, as minister, when coming into the ministry, had access to many studies that had suggested
that a coalescence and merger of the hospital facilities in Halifax would be, in fact, not only economically
feasible but, more important, that the programs would be improved by that step.

MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I will table the surprising response from our Freedom of
Information request from the Deputy Minister of Health in this regard. My follow-up question is, how can the
minister justify a decision to disrupt four major health care centres, spending literally millions of dollars and
countless thousands of staff hours on an organizational shuffle, rather than program consolidation and
operational streamlining, without first determining whether there would be any net benefit?

DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I would again reiterate that we had access to information and to
numerous studies, which I am prepared to table, that suggest program improvement. In fact, economics would
improve in regard to the coalescence into a single administration of the teaching hospitals in this city.

MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Health could explain to this House then,
if he says that he has studies, he has documents that would indicate the net benefits that would indicate that
this is absolutely the cost-effective way to go, how does the minister explain the response from his deputy
minister, indicating that no such reports or records are in the custody or control of the Department of Health?

DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the deputy minister was referring to two things; one was that
most of the studies were outside the Department of Health, although they were funded and commissioned
therefrom and they came from the metropolitan hospitals’ council. The second thing is, I believe that the
request by the honourable member’s Party opposite was very specific to the QE II and that merger. We are not
speaking of program studies that would have recommended a coalescence of those programs.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.


MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. On October 7th,
one day after the Premier had said publicly that Mrs. Dobbin, the Deputy Minister of Health, was squeaky
clean, I think was the Premier’s reference, and the Premier suggested further that she was a great deputy
minister. This is the same Premier who just told my friend from Kings West that after he had all the
applications, he used his great and good judgment to make the decisions. One day after, I am talking about
Mrs. Dobbin being squeaky clean and being a great deputy minister, he requested her resignation.

At that same time the Minister of Health said he would be offering his resignation. I ask the minister
if he would tell this House why he thinks, and thought at that time, that it was necessary for him to offer his
resignation to the Premier?

HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, this, as the honourable gentleman might recognize, is a
very difficult and painful question in regard to the events that had occurred. We certainly had been very open
and as frank as humanly possible in this regard when we went before the press. I myself had spent a whole
weekend studying the issues involved and seeking counsel.

I sought that counsel, Mr. Speaker, from my colleagues here; I sought counsel even from some
members of the other Parties and I looked at the records of the last decade, to see, in truth, what constituted
ministerial responsibility.

I will tell you very frankly, Mr. Speaker, and tell the honourable member opposite that I could get very
little guidance from the last decade in this House, in terms of ministerial responsibility because I could see
very little evidence therefrom. So I, myself, looked at these issues and said if I am in any way responsible for
what has happened, then I want that publicly aired. The Premier very kindly aired that; he aired the question,
he responded to press questions. I examined this very closely and came to the decision that I should not resign,
with the counsel of the Premier, who very kindly counselled me against that, and I rest on that decision.

MR. DONAHOE: Well, my supplementary to the minister is simply this, that the tendering of the
resignation by the minister was accompanied by statements from the minister and subsequent statements to
the effect that he was wanting it in the open that if there was wrongdoing that it would, as he said, be aired
and assessed.

Then it occurs to me, my recollection is, that following the weekend and his walk in the snow or his
look in the mirror or whatever he did over the weekend. (Interruption)

Well, I am not meaning to trivialize it, but it is a vitally important question as far as the taxpayers of
Nova Scotia are concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Leader of the Opposition please put his question.

MR. DONAHOE: My question to the Minister of Health is what he meant when he said following the
weekend he had come to the conclusion that he had done no wrongdoing, that he, by implication, leaves the
impression that when tendering the resignation, that he was concerned that he had perpetrated some
wrongdoing. I want to understand, and Nova Scotians do as well, what wrongdoing was he concerned that
he committed at the time that he tendered his resignation and later concluded did not represent a wrongdoing?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would again refer to Beauchesne’s prohibition against questions that
do not adhere to the proprieties of the House in terms of inferences, imputing motives or casting aspersions
upon persons within or without the House. If the honourable minister wishes to respond he may. But I caution
the House, collectively, about this section of Beauchesne and I ask all honourable members to please bear its
contents in mind.

DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, in looking at this issue, this was not a question of wrongdoing, as much
as it was a question of knowledge of what was happening in my department and my responsibility of that.

I might say that I reviewed press reports. I reviewed press reports reporting on the honourable member
opposite who sat on a board of a school in which his wife was receiving grants. I examined other things that
were there and there was no ministerial responsibility that I could get. I asked, therefore, members of his own
Party for some guidance as to where I should go and what my conduct should be. I got guidance. I was very
thankful for that guidance. But as to wrongdoing, it was a question of judgment and knowledge. I concluded,
after consultation with the Premier and others that, indeed, judgment was proper. I acted promptly as soon
as I knew and I rest my case on this and ask the people of Nova Scotia to judge that. (Applause)

MR. DONAHOE: So I take it then that the translation of this exchange is that the Minister of Health
is suggesting to people in Nova Scotia that it was not wrongdoing and not bad judgment on his part to invite
the husband of his deputy minister into the meetings where he, the minister and his senior officials, would
be planning policy direction for the Department of Health, knowing that the husband of the deputy minister
was a professional consultant in health care in this province.

I assume the minister came to the conclusion that he considered none of that was in any way a
wrongdoing or a lack of good judgment?

DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, this honourable gentleman opposite knows full well that I faced the
press and the public of Nova Scotia with facts and I put them before the citizens of this province. He is
repeating things here that are inaccurate in the extreme. First of all, I did not know, at any time, that Mr.
Dobbin was or intended to be a consultant. Now let us put that on the record and make it straight. Secondly,
I did not invite this person into any confines or into any conclaves that the Department of Health had. So let
us also make that clear.

These are the things that I very, Mr. Speaker, I hoped, diligently examined over a two day, in fact, a
three day period, and I came to the conclusion only after a major examination, not only on the part of my
Premier and my Leader, but also on the part of friends and colleagues in all Parties of this House. I have
appreciated their counsel and I rather must take exception to some of the misstatements that are being made
from the opposite benches in this regard.

I will not have it, Mr. Speaker, if I could say, any aspersion cast on facts that I placed well in the press
and before the public of Nova Scotia and I will beg the indulgence of the benches opposite to understand that
I will do no other than to tell the truth in this regard. (Applause)

[4:00 p.m.]

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.


MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I will ask some questions to the Minister of Health, as well, to elicit
some information. My first question to the minister is simply this, was the minister aware when he appointed
Mr. Mitchell to the regional health board that Mr. Mitchell had earlier campaigned against the Tearmann
Society establishing a transition house for battered women and children in New Glasgow and in his residence?

HON. RONALD STEWART: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that fact.

MR. HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I should have said, in neighbourhood not residence, obviously, in that last
question. My second question to the minister is, were you aware of his homophobic views when you appointed
him to the Regional Health Board?

MR. SPEAKER: I will not allow that question. It casts aspersion on a person without the House.

The honourable member for Pictou West. (Interruptions)


MR. DONALD MCINNES: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Last June 17th
Pictou Industries Limited was closed due to lack of contracts and due to a slowdown in the fishing industry.
At that time there were approximately 250 people working at the yard and some of them had been laid off
previous to that. Some of them had been laid off, in fact, many months before the actual closure.

Now, they are starting to run out of UI benefits and will have to go on welfare. The local union has
applied, under the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, sometimes known as POWA. I know it is a federal
program, but the provincial government does play an important role in that program. The program would give
a package to older workers over age 55. Would the minister indicate to the House and also to the older
workers in Pictou as to where that program is and what they may expect?

HON. JAY ABBASS: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for the question. Not only
as the member for Pictou West had interventions in this regard on behalf of his constituents, but also I have
had discussions with the members for Pictou East and Colchester North as well. I do not want to raise older
workers’ hopes too much as regards to the speed with which this will happen. All I can do is confirm that
there is the seventh report soon due from the Canada-Nova Scotia POWA Committee in which Pictou
Industries will be included as one of four industries which are being considered now for coverage under the
plan. I can only confirm that Pictou Industries will be one of the ones which I do recommend for coverage.
Again, I would hasten to caution against getting one’s expectations up that this will happen in a week. It is
going to be a matter of several weeks before something happens.

MR. MCINNES: I thank the honourable Minister of Labour for that answer. I realize that it does take
time, but you have to realize too that these people are going to be running out of UI benefits and there is no
other shipyard work available. Some of them have actually come to Halifax and some of them have actually
gone to Newfoundland to do work. I think it is important, and I would ask the minister to assure the House
and to assure the people that are involved in Pictou Industries that he will continue to press to have this
program put in place as early a date as possible. Hopefully, this year and at least by 1995.

MR. ABBASS: Yes, I can assure the member for Pictou West, through you, Mr. Speaker, that
everything will be done on the province’s end to ensure that this particular application from Pictou Industries
is approved and is expedited.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou Centre.


DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. The continuing delay in the signing of a contract
between the government and Minmetals is of ongoing concern to all Nova Scotians. On Friday, the Premier
is off to China. One of his announced objectives is to join Mr. Joe Shannon, President of Sysco and Mr. Tom
Mulrooney, a provincial trade representative in Beijing. My question to the Premier is, will the Premier be
bringing back a signed contract concerning the sale of Sysco to Minmetals?

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question. It is one that obviously
is important for all Nova Scotians, and particularly those people who work in Sysco.

We have made every possible effort, both through diplomatic and business channels, to expedite the
sale of Sysco to Minmetals. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, has been in on this regularly and, I too,
went up to Toronto in June or July to speak to the Deputy Premier of China in our efforts to expedite this.

It is our understanding, and we could only give you this from the contacts we have with Mr. Mulrooney
and Mr. Shannon who call us, it is our understanding that an agreement is being drawn up. But it is not our
understanding that they can say with any certainty that it will be ready for signing. It would give me great
pleasure to come home with a signed agreement, but I am not going to stick my neck out and say in the advice
of the people on the spot that it will be ready. I just do not know. We are working towards it and we will give
you every possible answer as soon as we get them.

DR. HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I do thank the Premier for that answer. The Premier made reference that
there was contact and I presume daily contact between the government, Mr. Shannon and Mr. Mulrooney
regarding the progress of the negotiation process. While the Premier cannot assure us that he will come back
with a signed contract, would the Premier comment on the progress of the negotiations in terms of giving
some protection to the people of Cape Breton that the plant will stay in Sydney?

THE PREMIER: These are the issues that took us such a long time in October last year, that took us
a long time in negotiating. I really feel it is unwise to give any commentary on that particular item. It is
certainly part of the plan of this government, but it would be unwise until I see the document which way we
are proceeding.

DR. HAMM: I always hesitate to bring up questions regarding jobs and so on, but I do not think that,
certainly, the Chinese are listening in today. My final supplementary to the Premier, in the event that this
round of negotiations is unsuccessful, will this open the door to other companies making bids to the
government for Sysco for purchase?

THE PREMIER: I think it is fair to say that we have made our position very clear that we are tired of
the prolonged negotiations and that were there to be a credible alternative after the failure, and I use the word
advisedly, of these negotiations, were there to be another suitable person, then this government in a prudent
action would, indeed, look at it. But we are, in effect, answering hypothetical questions and I do not think it
is realistic to do that at this point.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.


MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment, I am glad
he came back at the right time. I am sure the Minister of the Environment knows about the situation up in
the Floral Heights Subdivision about Mountain View Elementary School and a number of parents have opted
to keep their students home. I know that the minister’s department has been working closely with that group.

I would ask the minister, is he and his department convinced that there is no risk to the students going
to that school?

HON. ROBERT HARRISON: I am aware of the situation in Floral Heights and, certainly there is a
multi-departmental effort going on there. The county has announced today that they will be supplying water
to some 37 homeowners. Information has been provided those people and it is my understanding that the
school authorities have taken every action possible to identify the source of contamination, both for their
school and for the potential contamination of wells in the neighbourhood.

They have been supplying bottled water for some time now, I understand, to the students of that school
and I would like to reassure that those students are well cared for in terms of the supply of bottled water by
the school board, in this case, and also that the county has made a commitment to supply bottled water for
those residents so affected.

MR. MOODY: I thank the minister for his reply and for being current on the situation. I would ask
the minister if he has met with the MLA for Cape Breton West to discuss the situations since he is one of
those parents keeping his child home, from going to school?

MR. HARRISON: It is our practise to meet with the MLAs from whatever Party and areas that are
affected by, in this case, well contamination but it could be other environmental concerns in other areas. I
have spoken with him to keep him up-to-date on the progress being made by the environmental health
officials, the County of Cape Breton and school officials who are working diligently to try and solve a difficult
problem both in the short term and the honourable member should know that a steering committee met at 1:00
p.m., there is a public meeting tonight called by the county. That steering committee will continue to form
a round table around the issue to develop short, medium and long-term plans for its resolution.

MR. MOODY: Well, thank you very much and he has even given me more current information on the
meeting today at noon and tonight. I would ask the minister since that he gave assurances I am sure to the
MLA for Cape Breton West that it was safe to send his child to school and he wasn’t able to convince that
MLA that it was safe because he is keeping his child home, how does the minister convince the general public
that the MLA for Cape Breton West may have information that is being kept from them because it is not safe
for his child, how can the minister convince the general public it is safe for their children?

MR. HARRISON: Am I able to quote Beauchesne, sir, or an I pre-empting your comments here?

MR. SPEAKER: By all means, go right ahead. (Laughter)

MR. HARRISON: The assumption is that some of us may need Beauchesne, sir, I don’t think we do
in this case. In fact, the people of that community have been well informed. The staff has gone door to door
with information about coliform counts. The school, I am sure, is advising parents throughout the area of the
fact that bottled water has been supplied for three weeks. The health officials are diligent and communicating
effectively with everyone concerned and the county has taken their responsibility for ensuring that safe water
supply is available to the residents.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member of Halifax Atlantic.


MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: I would like to direct my question to the Minister for the Economic
Renewal Agency and Tourism. Back on June 3rd of this year, the minister announced the creation of a
foundation to head up fundraising for the construction of the Bluenose III and also that that foundation would
have the responsibility for maintaining the Bluenose II through until that new Bluenose was constructed. In
fact, there was I think upwards of $400,000 assigned to that foundation for that very purpose. Yet, today we
see there is an ad in the paper, and I will be happy to table this, from the Bluenose II Preservation Trust that
they are looking for submissions for the conventional repair of the schooner Bluenose II. I guess my question
to the minister is who is in charge of Bluenose II?

HON. ROSS BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, that is the nice thing about the Bluenose in Nova Scotia, it
generates so much interest and support everybody wants to help. Just so the member opposite understands our
fund raising campaign, with John Lindsay as the Chair, for the new Bluenose III is ongoing and will raise the
money so that we will have a new Bluenose for this province. (Applause)

Mr. Speaker, we also have a group working in cooperation with Mr. Lindsay’s fund raising effort to
build a new Bluenose headed by a lawyer by the name of Wilfred Moore from the South Shore area who is
going to undertake to raise money and repair the existing Bluenose II so that she may be available, yes, in time
for the G-7 so that we can use it as a promotional vehicle during that time and as well to use it as a farewell
tour for Nova Scotia and perhaps to use it to raise money for the Bluenose III campaign. (Applause)

MR. CHISHOLM: I appreciate that answer and I certainly wouldn’t begin to try to rain on the
minister’s parade here but all I am trying to do is to cut through some of the apparent confusion as a result
of competing interests here in terms of the Bluenose II and the Bluenose III. I would like to ask the minister
in my supplementary, does that mean then that if the Bluenose Preservation Trust is now going to handle the
repairs, that some of that $300,000 or $400,000 that was given to the foundation for some of that maintenance
work is going to be transferred over to the preservation trust group?

[4:15 p.m.]

MR. BRAGG: The details of the financial arrangements have not been completed, Mr. Speaker. Our
direction is that the foundation is the one that we chose to build the new vessel and we have committed to
them certain funds that were held in the Bluenose Foundation Trust, which is money set aside for the new
vessel, not for the old vessel. That is where that will remain. That money currently is under the control of my

Any monies that go into the Bluenose II repair, at this time no government money has been committed,
although we have agreed to have discussions with the federal government about entering into a cooperative
agreement, if necessary, to assist in the repair bill on the existing Bluenose II.

I must reiterate at this time that we have not committed any dollars. It depends on the cost of the
repairs and the amount of fund raising that Mr. Moore and his group do.

MR. CHISHOLM: I guess my final supplementary to the minister is, would it not make sense, given
the fact that the foundation has indicated that the Bluenose II being in operation will benefit their fund raising
activities, would it therefore not make sense, instead of having this confusion of these different groups doing
different parts of this, being involved in this project, why was it decided that the foundation would not have
this responsibility but that a new group was created, thanks to the Premier, in order to take on this new

MR. BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lindsay and his group and the Schooner Bluenose Foundation that
is going to raise the money for a new vessel, are driven to raise money and build a new vessel. The issue of
now getting involved in fixing up the old vessel in time for the G-7, which I think is a tremendous idea, to
have that vessel when the spotlight of the world is on Nova Scotia, sailing in this harbour, is worth every
nickel we are going to spend to repair her.

Mr. Speaker, we wanted a group to come together, to just look after fixing it up, not to distract the
foundation from their efforts of raising money for a new one, to work with the people in Lunenburg to repair
it in the most efficient way. That is why we have asked Mr. Moore and his group to work with us and with
the foundation. I might add they are working together to raise the money to fix up the old one so that it is

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Queens.


MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, my question also is for the Minister for the Economic Renewal
Agency and again it is concerning Bluenose II. I would like the minister, through you, sir, to advise Nova
Scotians if there is a contract or an agreement in place between the Government of Nova Scotia and the
Bluenose II Preservation Trust, conveying responsibility for the Bluenose II to the trust?

HON. ROSS BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, in fact I have sent a letter to the Chairman of the Preservation
Trust, Mr. Moore, outlining what we expect his group to do, what the province’s limitations are and so on.
Mr. Moore has responded and agreed to those terms and conditions.

MR. LEEFE: That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if he would be kind enough
to table that exchange of letters in the House, so that all Nova Scotians may understand precisely what
responsibilities are being extended to Bluenose II Preservation Trust.

MR. BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that I can release that letter at this time. What I would
do is take it under advisement and perhaps what I can do is provide the members of this House with the
general guidelines that we have agreed to.

MR. LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, the Bluenose II belongs to the people of Nova Scotia, it does not belong to
the government. It is incumbent upon this minister and this government to be unequivocal with Nova Scotians
and allow them to understand unequivocally precisely how that vessel is going to be managed by the Bluenose
II Preservation Trust.

Will the minister provide that information to Nova Scotians, so they can understand in detail precisely
what responsibilities are going to be extended to the Bluenose Preservation Trust group by the government
with respect to Bluenose II?

MR. BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that quite fairly in my last answer to his second
supplementary and I will stand with that answer. I think it is important that people realize that we are working
together with the foundation, the preservation trust and the government to ensure that we accomplish all of
our objectives, to build a new Bluenose so there will always be one for this province and that we have one for
the interim period to go on and celebrate the G-7 and help raise the money. (Applause)

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Queens on a new question.


MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, on the assumption that Bluenose II is made seaworthy and meets
Canadian steamship inspection requirements, she will have to have an operating budget. It is entirely unclear
with respect to reports in the newspaper just where that operating budget will come from.

My question to the minister is, will the operating budget come from the province, that is to run
Bluenose II or will the operating budget be provided by the Bluenose II Preservation Trust?

HON. ROSS BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, if the Bluenose is sailing on behalf of the Province of Nova Scotia,
whether it is promoting industry, the province, tourism, or whether it is being used to raise money for the fund
raising of Bluenose III, the funding will be provided in part by this department and by this government, if it
is needed.

MR. LEEFE: Earlier this year the minister and I discussed Bluenose II and whether or not she would
be repaired. The minister has changed his mind since that time and it is his right so to do. I noticed in the
advertisement that has already been referenced and tabled in the House that the Bluenose II Preservation Trust
is asking for submissions for conventional repairs of the schooner, Bluenose II.

The minister put a price tag, I think, somewhere around $900,000 on repairs last year. I am wondering
what constitutes conventional repairs, as advertised in this advertisement, understanding that the Bluenose
II Preservation Trust people are talking about spending $300,000? What constitutes conventional repairs?

MR. BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, conventional repairs and the discussions I have had with Mr. Moore is
that it will be repaired with wood materials adequate to give it the basic class of standard that the coast guard
requires. The estimates that we had to fully repair the vessel were in excess of $900,000 but we are told that
there is a method that they can do partial repairs that will give the boat a lifespan of a couple of years, to make
it seaworthy enough to get its ticket so that it can be used. The cost will be substantially less than the original

I must add that these costs are only of an interim nature and will not make the boat seaworthy for many
years in the future but will make it available to be used in the next couple of years while we are building a new
Bluenose III.

MR. LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, the government recently reached an out of court settlement with Captain
Donald Barr, the former captain of the Bluenose. I understand there is also an unlawful dismissal suit against
the government, brought by Mr. Ottens who was former chief engineer of the Bluenose and who was fired by
Mr. Barr. I wonder if the minister and the government are prepared to extend the same opportunity to Mr.
Ottens, that is an out of court settlement that they have extended to Captain Barr?

MR. BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Barr who was the captain of the Bluenose, was relieved of his duties
and the member opposite is right, we have arrived at an out of court settlement. We have not been requested
to talk to Mr. Ottens on that basis. I must also remind members of this House that Mr. Ottens was not in the
employ of this administration, that his job loss happened before our administration came to office.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.


MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the honourable Minister of Natural

I had a call this week from a family in Shubenacadie and this couple is very concerned about an
application which they believe has been made to your office, Mr. Minister, concerning the lifting of the
wildlife management status for the area. This area is bounded by the Gays River Road on the west side of the
Wildlife Park in Shubenacadie, the Saint Andrew’s River Road on the south side and the Lynch Road on the
east side with the Wildlife Park being situated on the north.

Is the minister aware of any such application?


MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the minister will give me the assurance today that he
will check with his executive assistant because she has been talking with the concerned individuals.

MR. DOWNE: Yes, I appreciate the member opposite bringing this concern forward in regard to the
wildlife status. I will find out, hopefully, tonight and report back to him tomorrow. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.


MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question through you, sir, to the Minister
of Municipal Affairs this time. In 1988, and this has to do with the whole idea of metro amalgamation, the
community of Sackville was considering what you might say was a reverse. They were looking at
incorporating or the possibility of incorporating as either a town or a city and separating off from Halifax

At that time, a very respectful process was followed in that options were developed. Those options were
then costed out. There were public meetings held and the information was disseminated widely within the
community through public meetings and other ways. Then, a plebiscite was held to determine the wishes of
the residents.

My question to the minister is quite simply this, is the minister, with respect to the metro
amalgamation, prepared to follow a similar process that would include a plebiscite among the residents who
live in the communities that the government plans to amalgamate?

HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, as I previously explained, the decision to do the amalgamation
has been taken.

MR. HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the minister could tell us if it is a view of her government
and herself that the residents in the metropolitan area, if they were given all the facts and information, would
be unable or unwilling to make a reasonable, responsible decision in the best interests of the metropolitan area
and the province as a whole. That is why the province has to impose its own will.

Is that the view of the government?

MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that this member would even consider
underestimating the people of the Province of Nova Scotia and, particularly, the people in the metropolitan
area. I think it is atrocious. (Applause)

MR. HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I don’t underestimate at all the good sense and the reasonableness of the
people of this province or in the metropolitan area. That is why I am prepared to let the decision rest in their
hands when you, if you ever do, give the facts and information.

My question is, why are you and your government refusing to give the people in the area affected a
direct say by means of a plebiscite in the form of government that they want and that they feel is best suited
to their needs?

MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think, as we have talked in this House before, this issue has been discussed
for 20 years. There have been ongoing reports. There has been ongoing consultation and those things have
all been taken into consideration with this decision.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.


MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I have what I believe is a very congenial question for the
Minister of Municipal Affairs. The Interdepartmental Committee on Municipal Reform, in a report issued
shortly after the member became minister, in June 1993, identified a number of areas where it is believed
regional policing would provide a better alternative. As an example, two of the recommendations made in the
report were merging of the police departments in Mahone Bay, Bridgewater and Lunenburg into one regional
police force, with the RCMP to make a few adjustments and police the remainder of Lunenburg County.

Another one of the recommendations, Mr. Speaker, is a regional police force for Kings County that
would cover Kentville, Wolfville and New Minas and enable police forces in Hantsport, Berwick, Middleton
and Annapolis Royal to be disbanded and replaced with the RCMP.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a question?

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, so I can hear this question.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, some of the members’ bad manners are only exceeded by their bad
manners. (Interruption) I must ask the minister, are you considering any other recommendations from the
report or have you already consulted regions on these recommendations and do you plan to go an entirely
different route towards regionalization of police forces?

MR. SPEAKER: Three questions. The honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs, you will have three
minutes to respond to three questions.

MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, in actual fact, I think the service exchange has addressed that issue on the
responsibility of policing in all of those areas and that is one of the things that we did in the service exchange,
that those municipalities who had not previously been responsible for policing will be doing so. That is step
one in looking at a service exchange and policing. What we will find from there once these municipalities,
as of April 1, 1995, become responsible for policing, where they have not often in the past, there may be a
discussion among them to look at how they can provide services much more effectively or more cost-efficiently
on a regional basis.

[4:30 p.m.]

MR. SPEAKER: We have time for one supplementary.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to see that the minister is at least consulting or
planning to consult these various areas before announcing additional regional policing alternatives. Mr.
Speaker, I am wondering if she would make a commitment this afternoon to the residents, who are now under
the jurisdiction of municipal policing, that any announcements she makes will be handled with the greatest
courtesy and she will seek a wide range of opinions and not drop another huge weight on the shoulders of
these municipal units in one fell swoop?

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has one minute.

MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, that is what we have done all along and that is what we intend to do in the

MR. SPEAKER: You have time for a final supplementary.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I might just comment that there are citizens in the different municipal
units that would certainly argue with the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that we can safely state that the time allotted for the Oral Question Period has

The honourable member for Lunenburg.

MRS. LILA O’CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to just make a comment on the honourable
member over there when he talked about Mahone Bay, Lunenburg and Bridgewater Police. (Interruption)

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker?


MR. SPEAKER: The member has the right to present her point of order briefly and concisely.

MRS. O’CONNOR: The three police departments and commissions themselves from the Towns of
Bridgewater, Mahone Bay and Lunenburg started talking three years ago on amalgamating the police forces.
It has nothing to do with the Minister of Municipal Affairs or anything else. They decided among themselves
to talk. I think when he wants to make a comment about something, he should make sure he knows his facts.

MR. SPEAKER: I might rule on that point of order first, and then we will hear the next one. My ruling
on this point of order, and I do not feel I need any further interventions on this matter. Is this a new point of
order? A new point of order. We will hear the third point of order after the second, but on the first,
Beauchesne’s Rules and Forms clearly states that a dispute between honourable members as to facts does not
constitute a point of order. The honourable member, however, has made her point.

The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.

MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that my privileges, as
a member, have been infringed upon by the accusation made by the Premier during Question Period that I was
misinforming this House. The fact is that the Premier made the following statement on October 26, 1994 in
an interview on CBC with Jim Nunn. He said the following, “I personally have not spoken to Lichter, nor the
commission, and I will not. I have not had a briefing on that since I appointed it. I have said to every Cabinet
Minister, if you go near any of those you’re fired and this has been an arm’s-length process.”.

Mr. Speaker, that is in relation to the perception of the arm’s-length relationship between the Cabinet
and the casino project team. That information was presented during an interview on CBC television and that
is the information that I was speaking about here in this House, today, during Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Premier.

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, none of the ministers has spoken. The fact that some people were
seconded from the department does not imply, unless you have a particular frame of mind, that all the
information was channelled through those deputy ministers who were seconded from Transportation on
occasion and from Finance. These people did their work. They knew what they had to do. They knew they
were not to talk with anybody, and this has been an arm’s length process, and I will repeat what I said on
television. I have neither seen nor spoken to Mr. Lichter and the only person who has done it has been Mr.
Boudreau concerning the question of their budget. This has been a clean arm’s-length process, and you better
be careful what you say, sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?

MR. CHISHOLM: What right does this member of this House have to stand there and try to discipline
another member? I would like to have your ruling on that, please, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I have no ruling to make on the matter other than to state that I do not find a point
of order. A dispute between two honourable members as to facts does not constitute a point of order.

MRS. FRANCENE COSMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have found it quite intriguing in
the last two Question Periods to see the Opposition Parties utilizing letters sent in from Nova Scotians. Quite
often those letters have been cited and used as documents. It is my view that when those letters take the time
of the House and take the time of the members to respond, that they are public documents. It is also my view
that in that case if they represent letters from any of the MLAs in any geographic area, the letters ought to be
tabled and we would then have an opportunity to read them and reply if we felt it necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I would really urge that you rule on that and have the letters tabled.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, perhaps this honourable member is somewhat closer to a true point of order
than were the other two. It is clear from our rules that if a member reads from a document, the document may
then be required to be tabled, by another honourable member so requesting.

I notice the honourable member for Queens, a former Deputy Speaker, nodding his head in
concurrence to that. I do not believe that simply to refer to a letter that one may have in one’s hand, but does
not actually read from, requires that that document be tabled, since it has not been read from, it has only been
referred to.

Personally, I have no difficulty in the new practice of honourable members asking questions on behalf
of those who have corresponded with them. It is somewhat new here but I am not at all certain that it has
never been done before.

I note that in our rules, in the Rule Book, Rule 2 states that in cases that are not clearly provided for,
that first the usages and precedents of this House and secondly, the standing in sessional orders and forms of
the House of Commons of Canada in force at the time shall apply. We know, of course, that in the House of
Commons this procedure is now used quite frequently. So I do not find it would be out of order to refer to a
letter. But if the letter is read from, it should then be tabled upon request, yes.

The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly on a point of order. Yesterday in the
House the Premier stood and instructed all members that they were to go to Supply and Services to have their
picture taken, in order to have an identification tag. I wonder if I could ask for clarification on that point from
you, as Speaker. We were directed to go and have our pictures taken at Supply and Services in January; we
did so, have our ID cards and now apparently the Premier thinks we need to go and do that again. If nothing
else, it seems like it is a waste of staff time, a waste of scarce resources. I wonder if I could have an
explanation as to why the Premier thinks we need to go and have it done all over again, as part of the new
security regime around here.

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that all the recommendations were tripartite; in other
words, all the Parties agreed to the recommendations.

On the question of the car badge, our officials seemed to have jumped ahead of us a little with the car
thing. But in terms of the identification, my understanding of this and let me just say this and put it in
perspective quite clearly, we do not want, in the event of another mishap in this House, to have overlooked
anything that could make it easier for police and commissionaires, in the event of something happening. That
is quite simply and purely the easy answer to this.

All we have done in this is to make a number of proposals making it easier for those new
commissionaires, who have failed to recognize a number of us, I might add, easier for them to identify people
coming in. It is all part of a process which is an attempt to drive the middle of the road approach so that we
don’t have the strict, overhanging security that there is, for instance, in Ontario and Quebec and yet, at the
same time, gives us the opportunity to take some precautions in the event of things happening and for us to
have the wisdom to do that ahead of time. That is all it is, Mr. Speaker. Most reasonable-minded people are
not objecting.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Premier, I believe, has adequately addressed the matter.

MS. MCDONOUGH: With respect to you, sir, as Speaker, the honourable Premier did not even address
my question. My question is, those of us who already have an ID card that was provided at public expense
through our pictures being taken at Supply and Services, we have been told that we need to go and have it
done again and my question is why.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I might state this. There is no formal rule of the House requiring compliance
with this new policy. It is a matter of a request. A request was made by the Premier. I had no difficulty with
it; I went over at 8:30 a.m. this morning and got my picture taken and put on a little card and it is in my
pocket. If honourable members wish to comply with the Premier’s request, they will do so. If they do not wish
to, I suppose they will not do so. It is not, in my view, a matter of privilege or an order.

The honourable Premier.

THE PREMIER: I just want to say how pleasant it is, Mr. Speaker, to see how the Leader of the
Opposition has acted on this and has gone over and obtained such a card. That fills my heart with warmth
and belief.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition has his right there to display.

THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I would just add it in the interest of balance and the imputation that one
ear only has an earring on, that you may get a second one to make sure.

MR. SPEAKER: These various points are trespassing on the time allotted to Opposition business. Are
there any further points before we advance to the Opposition Members’ Business?



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Queens.

MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, we will be spending 30 minutes on Resolution No. 857, 10 minutes
allotted to each Party; 45 minutes on Resolution No. 854, 15 minutes allotted to each Party; and the balance
of the time we will spend dealing with House Orders.

Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough, please, to call Resolution No. 857.

Res. No. 857, re Nat. Res.: Forestry Dev. Agreement - Status - notice given Oct. 28/94 - (Mr. B.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.

MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to speak this
afternoon on Resolution No. 857. I will start by reading the end of the resolution which I introduced in the
House last Friday: “Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Natural Resources immediately provide Forest
Group Management Ventures here in Nova Scotia with a detailed update on his discussions with the federal
government as to the status of the new federal forestry development agreement that can be both beneficial to
the taxpayer and to woodlot owners.”

The agreement with Ottawa expires on March 31st of the new year. That is less than five months away
and we are hearing very little from the minister as to what is transpiring concerning the new deal. Now,
granted the minister did say in Fredericton in early October, at the annual meeting of the Canadian Council
of Forest Ministers, that continued cooperation between the provinces and Ottawa is essential if the objectives
of sustainable forest management are to be achieved.

The minister went on to say that a federal government commitment to forestry development is vital
to Nova Scotia. Without it, the impact on forestry in Nova Scotia would be dramatic. It is fine to do a lot of
talking and make it appear that the minister is very concerned about a new agreement, but it is quite another
thing to actually stand up and be counted and tell Nova Scotians connected with the forest industry precisely
what is being done by the minister and officials in his department, the Department of Natural Resources, to
secure a new agreement.

I want to table a letter this afternoon which I wrote to the Minister of Natural Resources on July 28th
requesting an update on negotiations concerning a new federal-provincial agreement on forestry. July 28th,
Mr. Speaker. As yet, I have to receive an answer; I have not received an answer to that letter.

I want to table another letter that I received from the minister on February 22nd of this year. In this
letter the minister said that discussions have been held concerning a new federal-provincial forestry
agreement, as well as a number of other issues with representatives from the Nova Scotia forest industry. Yet
here we are, over nine months later, and the minister is saying nothing about the prospects of the new
agreement. I am still receiving correspondence from Forest Group Management Ventures. In a letter dated
October 11th, which I will table, Mike Bloomfield said that federal-provincial forest resource development
agreements have been critical to improve the productivity of our forest land while contributing to the
economic health of our communities.

[4:45 p.m.]

I will table a copy of this letter and may I suggest that the clock is ticking. There is uncertainty among
forest industry people. They are worried about jobs. Every Nova Scotian realizes the importance of jobs and
make no mistake about that.

I am not asking the minister for anything confidential. All I am seeking is a progress report and I
sincerely do not see anything wrong in requesting such a report from the minister. We have all heard what
the federal government intends to do with their budget in February and that is to trim $10 billion from their
expenditures, the federal government intends to trim $10 billion from their budget. That is a lot of money and
I wonder if those cuts will mean no new provincial forestry agreement; I hope not.

The current Premier liked to talk at great length, during the 1993 election campaign, about what great
things his counterpart, Frank McKenna, was doing. One must give the devil his due, just look at the
agreement inked last week in Fredericton by the Premier of New Brunswick and his Minister of Energy and
his Minister of Natural Resources, it calls for the creation of up to 3,600 new jobs, beginning with 1,000 next

In New Brunswick, Frank McKenna has stated they are going to spend $10.7 million, spent annually
in silviculture management for Crown-owned land. The intensive demand for hardwood in New Brunswick
will mean New Brunswick will make available for harvest an additional 246,000 cubic metres of hardwood
from Crown land. The New Brunswick Premier stressed last week that in timber stands where pre-commercial
thinning is already being carried out that an acre of forest that normally, naturally produces 17 cords of wood,
it can yield at least 40 cords.

If the Minister of Natural Resources is unable to provide an update to Nova Scotians this afternoon
concerning a new forestry agreement, then perhaps he could proceed with a forestry development agreement
along with Nova Scotia business interests to secure the long-term future of Nova Scotia’s forest industry. As
an example in my constituency and I use it as an example because I am quite familiar with it, there are eight
large sawmills employing hundreds of people and with the decline in the fishery and, in some cases, the
demise of the fishery, I just can’t help but emphasize how important a sustainable forestry is to Nova Scotia.


I also have serious concerns and reservations about the fact that there is no replanting policy, or
legislation regarding the harvest of our woodlands. I can’t help but wonder if the minister isn’t afraid that he
is leaving just a little bit too much up to regeneration, Mr. Speaker. I realize because of our topography and
so on in Nova Scotia, it does produce a substantial yield but I have concerns that the minister in his
department is leaving too much up to regeneration. The minister has also decided to close the nursery
component of the Musquodoboit Valley Forest Education Nursery complex. Now, this to me indicates that the
minister himself may have his priorities just a little bit mixed up.

I also realize the minister will probably rise and he will be exceedingly loquacious and I would just like
to say I will be listening for the substance, (Interruption) loquacious, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of - yes, no
rabbit tracks yes you are right - but there is a saying that is very germane to this discussion, he that uses many
words for the explaining of any subject doth like the cuddle fish hide himself in his own ink. I just thought
I should mention that, Mr. Speaker. I was pleased to bring this to the attention of the minister and I know he
listened as he usually does very intently and when he gets up I hope he isn’t too prolix.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Natural Resources.

HON. DONALD DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, being the country boy that I am from the rural parts of Nova
Scotia, some of the comments that are made, I don’t know if they are made up words or real words but the
average Nova Scotian certainly doesn’t understand what he is saying when he uses those words and I guess
he should get back to his roots.

In reality, I appreciate very much the concern about the upcoming subagreement of round 6 of the
forestry agreement for Nova Scotia, in fact, for all of Canada. As many of us realize all too well, it was under
a Tory Administration in 1993, the federal government, Don Mazankowski, then Minister of Finance, made
it very clear to all Canadian provinces that the new subagreements in forestry, mining, energy and agriculture
and the list goes on, the basis of the economic activity within all of Canada, the resource-based industries, will
no longer have a subagreement.

It was under a Conservative Administration that said, we do not support the natural-resource-based
industries of this country, we will not put money back into those industries and their concern for Nova Scotia
was zippo. I had never seen a federal and a provincial ministry at that time make any strong representation
against the federal government’s decision until the Liberal Government came into power and pointed out, all
too well, to the federal Tory Government that was in power and under the leadership of the ministry of Mrs.
Sparrow, that this is unacceptable and one that will create tremendous economic upheaval and create major
problems within the sustainability of the forests in the Province of Nova Scotia, albeit the rest of Canada.

The federal government, under their administration, had signed an agreement back in 1991 for some
$98 million in a forestry agreement of which $49 million was the responsibility of the federal government and
within a very short period of time they had whittled it down to $43.4 million.

It was under the Liberal Administration that took over power last year that made it clear that yes, these
are tough financial times and they are prepared to take another look. They haven’t put it in a concrete box and
buried it at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean; they said we are prepared to take a serious look at whether or
not the renewal of these agreements and if whether or not they have the money to do those agreements, will
be forthcoming.

I want to make it very clear to the member opposite today, in regard to the comment he made of
whether or not we, in fact, had been tenacious in fighting this issue, I want to make it very clear that we have.
But before I go into it I want to talk just for a minute about the importance of this agreement to Nova Scotia’s

The forestry sector represents in excess of $800 million of economic activity to Nova Scotia. It creates
thousands of jobs in direct and indirect jobs for over 20,000 individuals. It is a lifeblood as most of the
resource-based industries are to rural Nova Scotia. We talk about sustainable development, this is truly
sustainable development for rural economy, rural sociology, the issue of looking after people.

The subagreement in itself, in Nova Scotia, plays a vital role in the fact that 75 per cent of the land in
Nova Scotia under harvesting is privately owned and those private woodlot owners, those contractors, those
silviculture workers, those private landowners, need to have a forestry agreement to make sure that the
renewable resource that we have will be properly managed. This forestry agreement is the pillar upon which
forestry in Nova Scotia is built and the loss of this particular agreement will be devastating to Nova Scotia.
We talk about the long-term jobs, the direct jobs is something similar to about 1,400 jobs directly and
indirectly in regard to the agreement itself with the people that are involved.

The termination of the funding of this agreement will have absolutely serious impact on the rural
economy of this province and on the future of sustainability of the forest itself. We have been fighting this
issue, I have had numerous meetings with the federal minister responsible. I have met with the Honourable
John Manley, Minister of Industry and Trade, I met federally with the Honourable David Dingwall, Minister
Responsible for ACOA on two or three occasions on this matter, as well as other MPs. In fact, the question
that arose was, what have we done about it.

On November 9, 1993 I sent a letter to the Honourable Anne McLellan, when she first became
minister, pointing out the seriousness and the importance of having this subagreement renewed.

On December 23, 1993, I again wrote a letter to the Honourable Anne McLellan, pointing out this
matter. On December 23rd I wrote a letter to the Honourable David Dingwall, pointing out the seriousness
of this agreement and why we need it. On January 26th I received a letter from the Honourable Anne
McLellan expressing her concern and again reviewing back to the agreement to whether or not they were
going to be able to continue it.

On February 1st I wrote a letter again to the Honourable Anne McLellan in regard to this issue. On
February 22nd I wrote a letter to Derrick Wells; in fact I have written a letter to every single MP in Nova
Scotia about this important issue.

On March 9th I again wrote a letter to Mr. Wells, in response to Wells’ communications to the federal
minister. On March 11th, again, Mr. Wells has taken up the lead on behalf of Nova Scotia and Derek Wells
is the Member of Parliament for the South Shore and doing an excellent job of being an MP for that
constituency and fighting on behalf of the forestry sector of all Nova Scotia, as well as other members and
ministers in government today in Nova Scotia.

On April 8th I wrote a letter to the Honourable David Dingwall again, in regard to the importance of
this agreement. On May 10th I also wrote a letter to the Honourable Paul Martin, pointing out the concern
that we have in the Province of Nova Scotia. On May 10th I wrote a letter to the Honourable Doug Young
about the importance of this. Again, back on May 10th, writing the Honourable David Dingwall on the
importance of this issue.

I can go on and on, Mr. Speaker, and I have a list of those for which I will table the letters and the
responses that I have gotten to date, with the chronological timeframe in which those letters were sent.



Now what have we done about it besides writing letters? Anybody can write a letter, is the comment
that will probably come from the member opposite. Well, we have taken a very proactive role; we have
developed a coalition which is a body, as the member opposite realizes, is a conglomerate of all the forestry
sectors in Nova Scotia, to meet collectively to deal with these issues because I, myself alone, do not have the
ability to push all the pressure in Ottawa to make this a reality.

The industry needs to work together in harmonization with the government, to make this a political
issue and make it well known not only amongst Nova Scotians but clearly, at the level in Ottawa, that this is
a critical issue. Because of the leadership of the coalition under the chairmanship of Diana Blinkhorn and
Steve Talbot, both of them who have created a lot of positive effort in this matter, have worked very closely
with our ministry and with the industry, along with other coalition members, to make it very clear that this
is a serious issue which needs to be dealt with.

The issue in regard to the resolution that was brought forward makes it very clear in the resolution the
concern of the Group Ventures. Now Group Ventures is only one part of the industry that have a concern. But
the group . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: They are a big part.

MR. DOWNE: Well, they are in an important part as all them are important.

Mr. Speaker, what I have done in regard to the Group Ventures is very clear. The President of the
Group Ventures Association, of which we have 18 Group Ventures in Nova Scotia, sit at the table of the
coalition. They themselves have been very active in the lobbying process with the Government of Nova Scotia
and every time they have a meeting, we try to meet every couple of months, I spend a day with that coalition,
not an hour, not 10 minutes, but a day with them, going through exactly what the status is of my negotiations
at the federal level with the minister responsible, the Honourable Anne McLellan. They have been briefed on
a month to month basis of exactly what the status of that issue is.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I had also made an effort to meet with members of the Group Ventures on many
occasions. For example, I had the opportunity to meet on September 15th, I believe it was in August of 1993,
with the coalition and a Group Ventures President. Again I met with the Group Ventures annual meeting -
I forget the date that happened, I don’t have it on my book, but I met with that group earlier, in fact I believe
I am the first minister ever to meet with the Group Ventures at that level to discuss the co-op agreement. In
fact, I have briefed them on it.

I have also had the opportunity (Interruption) Pardon me? Anyway, I have spent a lot of time on the
Group Ventures. In fact, as of October 23rd to 25th, we had a major conference held in Amherst, in which
the Group Ventures were there and we worked on developing a strategy for Nova Scotia. Mr. Speaker, this
is a very serious issue and one that we have taken very seriously and have been very aggressive.

[5:00 p.m.]

The last point I want to make is that we have not stopped at just my efforts alone. Members of Cabinet
have gotten together and have formed a committee. That committee is now going to Ottawa to fight on behalf
of not only the forestry industry, not only the mining industry or the energy industry, but all the resource-based industries that are geared up for round six to go forward. To make sure that we can try to secure a
program for the Nova Scotia natural-resource-based industries, agriculture included. (Applause)

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.

MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I wish that we would be accorded . . .

MR. SPEAKER: You will be accorded the exact same amount of time.

MR. CHISHOLM: . . . the same scope when we rise in Question Period or whatever to speak and are
given the signal to sit down.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, let me just say I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand and rise and speak
briefly about the resolution that was brought forward by the member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley. To
talk briefly about the issue that was raised and that is on an issue that I think we all agree. All members of
this House, and certainly the three speakers that are going to be touching on it, are concerned about the joint
programs between the federal and provincial government, the deal with silviculture and woodlot management
in the Province of Nova Scotia, the woodlot development programs, in particular.

There is some considerable concern, I think, right across the country, but for our purposes, here in the
Province of Nova Scotia, that six months from the date of the deadline, from the expiration of those particular
programs, we have no real indication, no solid indication from the ministers responsible that, in fact, those
programs, Mr. Speaker, or a facsimile thereof are going to be negotiated between the province and the federal

I have brought this issue to the minister’s attention, as have others. One of the concerns, in particular,
that came to my attention was that in some of the negotiations between the feds and the province, one of the
concerns that was raised by some people in the industry was that the federal government wanted to go directly
to the woodlot owners and deal on that level with some different types of programs, management programs,
instead of going through the province. There was some concern that there was going to be a jurisdictional
squabble and, therefore, that that was part of the reason why the negotiation of these programs or
replacements of these programs was being held up. I don’t know if that is the case. I wrote to the minister and
he assured me that it was not. I certainly have no reason to not take him at his word. But that was the reason
why I brought that issue to his attention.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, again, that the value of programs affects this province in a number of
ways. I am referring to a letter of October 14th by the Canadian Federation of Woodlot Owners to the
Honourable Paul Martin, Jr. It raises four particular ways that these programs contribute to the economy. If
I just may quote and I will table this letter in the House. “More long-term jobs through better use of the
resources in our forests. Healthier and more productive forests through improved methods of harvesting and
silviculture. Better trained, more entrepreneurial woodlot owners and, finally continued access by woodlot
owners to markets for our products in light of international moves to eco-labelling of forest products.”. I think
it is important to read that in the record in order to outline the contribution that this industry and that these
particular programs make, not only to Nova Scotia, but to the province.

In terms of the private woodlot owners, my information, Mr. Speaker, is that in the Province of Nova
Scotia, 75 per cent of the ownership of the forest is by private woodlot owners, 23 per cent by the large
industrial and the remainder, sorry, 52 per cent of those private woodlot owners are small private owners. So,
programs like this, I think it is clear, have a very significant impact on the viability of those operators and
their ability to manage and properly ensure that their woodlots and the fibre and so on is available in the
province for this economy.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable member entertain a question from the minister?

MR. CHISHOLM: Sure, a brief one.

HON. DONALD DOWNE: I find it very interesting. The member opposite talks about the importance
of the private woodlot owner and the small private woodlot owner and the need for a program designed for
the small woodlot owner. Yet, the New Democratic Party within British Columbia’s ministry have made it
very clear that they do not support the small woodlot owner, but the major corporate approach.

I would really appreciate this member opposite standing up and fighting against his own colleagues
in that province and that of Ontario, making it clear that any program changes that are going to be in place
are there for the private woodlot owner, the small individual, the 30,000 of them which we have in the
Province of Nova Scotia, and not the corporate giants that his Party is supporting in British Columbia and in

MR. SPEAKER: A brief question.

MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, here we are engaging in a discussion, you know, from all different
sides of this House on the importance of these particular programs to the viability, to the long lasting future
of this industry in the Province of Nova Scotia, and that minister has the audacity to rise and try to twist my
words and engage in some of the most pathetic, grandstanding, political partisanship that I have seen that
minister engage in for some time. But then again, he does not get the opportunity to rise to his feet very often,
so maybe when he does we will begin to see more of it.

Clearly, the record will show, Mr. Speaker, that I was talking about the private woodlot owners in
relation to all of the woodlot owners as being an integral part of the industry and the necessity for those, as
well as other people that are affected by those programs, to be considered in the negotiation of these programs
for the industry in general. Let us not forget that this is Nova Scotia. This is not British Columbia so that
minister should not distract himself from the responsibilities that he has for the Crown lands and the private
woodlands here in Nova Scotia.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, as I am beginning to wrap up here because I think I have three or four
minutes left, the concerns that were raised by the member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley are not
unfounded. They do not just simply come from the air. This minister stands up and says that we have done
this. We have written these letters and those letters, and I have talked to Tom, John, Bill and Sue and these
people that have federal responsibilities for these issues.

That is all well and good, but people in Nova Scotia have seen what this government is prepared to
do when the EH-101 contracts were cut. We have seen what has happened to Cornwallis even though there
were very clear pledges on behalf of this administration and on behalf of the federal Liberal Party and the
Liberal Leader before the election to ensure that the long-term viability of the base at Cornwallis would be
maintained. What do we see happening? I was through Cornwallis not too long ago, Mr. Speaker, a week or
so ago. That place is absolutely devastated because of the lack of concern and the lack of action by this
government and by their federal cousins.

Let me say also that Nova Scotians are concerned by the silence from this administration as a result
of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that have been cut out of the economy in Atlantic Canada and Nova
Scotia as a result of UI changes in the federal budget in the spring. What do we hear from this minister or
anybody else in the Treasury benches about those particular concerns? What did they do to represent the
interests and the concerns of Nova Scotians on those issues as these monies were being ripped out of our
communities? We heard absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker.

What about the current social policy reform proposals that are before Canadians and before Atlantic
Canadians and Nova Scotians. What have we heard from these members . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the honourable member to keep his remarks within the
context of Resolution No. 857, which has little to do with the proposed social reforms.

MR. CHISHOLM: My comments, as the member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley would say, are
very germane, because what they do is . . .

MR. SPEAKER: I will decide that.

MR. CHISHOLM: . . . justify the concerns that are raised about the silence . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member knows we are debating a resolution. I would
ask the honourable member to keep his remarks germane to that resolution. In my judgment, they have not

MR. CHISHOLM: Is the Speaker through?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the Speaker is through. (Interruption)

MR. CHISHOLM: The reason for me raising these particular points is because of the fact that this
member who brought the resolution forward, along with hundreds of thousands of Nova Scotians, are
concerned about the silence of this minister and this government and their ability to carry forward, to ensure
that these programs are re-negotiated. That is why I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all members
of this House, that it is important to look at the record of this government in dealing with the federal
government on all issues that have an impact on Nova Scotians, in terms of jobs and our economy, now and
for the future. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable acting Opposition House Leader.

MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Resolution No. 854.

Res. No. 854, re Health - Hospitals: Hfx. Merger - Concerns Address - notice given Oct. 28/94 - (Mr.
G. Moody)

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.

MR. GEORGE MOODY: Resolution No. 854 has to do with the QE II centre and the merger of four
institutions in metro. Last Thursday I asked the Minister of Health about what evidence he has that the
establishment of a hospital with over 500 beds is cost-efficient and could he show me the study that was done
that said the merger of these four institutions are, in actual fact, going to provide better care, at a more
efficiently, cost-effectively.

The Minster of Health jumped to his feet and he said that there were, when he arrived in the
Department of Health, studies done on various aspects of health care delivery and tertiary care facilities in this
region and they made recommendations which included the consolidation of laboratories, consolidation of
programs and nothing was done with the report. It lay dormant on the shelf until he came in. He walked
through the office and he found it and immediately started it.

Well, I found it very interesting today that the NDP, through freedom of information, asked the
department, was there such a report? The department says there was not such a report. Now would the deputy
be wrong or would the minister be wrong? I am still trying to figure out who is wrong. The report was not
there when I was there, Mr. Speaker, but he found it after I left, and the deputy minister said it wasn’t there.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a question here of on what basis was that decision made? I am trying to
find out, in all sincerity, what conclusion did the Minister of Health come to that a large, mega-hospital in
this metro area was the answer. I want to know, does it save money? I want to know if it provides a better

The Minister of Health says that no study was done on the economic side. Now I don’t know what the
study was done on that he is using that says that one mega-hospital is going to be better for people in the
metro area.

Camp Hill Hospital, or the old Infirmary Hospital, which is all under one institution, also provided
some community-type health services to the metro area, the people in Halifax. Well, apparently under this
mega-hospital they are going to lose that.

In talking to staff at the four institutions who say they didn’t have any input and were not asked
whether this was the way to go, I am not sure, maybe the minister talks to the mayor every morning when he
gets his advice because when I try to find out who the people are that the minister talks to, I can’t find out.
It is a big secret, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Now maybe he is talking to you because you are an MLA from the
metro area, you would have a great interest in the four institutions that are becoming one and I am sure you
and all MLAs on the government side from metro wanted to know why this great announcement was good
for the people in metro. You would want to know why it was good for the people in your area, let alone people
all over the province because they do provide tertiary care.

[5:15 p.m.]

All of the people who work there are wondering. I understand that the Victoria General Hospital has
run the deficit this year up to about $11 million and the Department of Health may provide up to $7 million,
that is my understanding. So, when this merger takes place they are going to start with $10 million short
unless the minister adds that onto the budget next year and if the cuts come at the rate that they came this
year, another 5 per cent, we are up to millions of dollars short let alone the cost of merger, the price of
combining all of the agreements that the workers have into one. I am sure the minister wouldn’t expect people
in the institution if they are getting pay equity at the VGH, wouldn’t expect the people in the other three
institutions that are becoming one, not to get pay equity.

So, as near as I can calculate we are going to be millions of dollars short. I understand up to 800 people
could lose their jobs when this is all done. But the minister is going to have a more efficient and more
effective operation but he doesn’t know that because he hasn’t done the study and the department can’t find
the study and can’t give us any information.

I know for sure that the health council had some concerns, serious reservations about the
announcement. Here we have a group of people on a health council from all over this province who don’t get
paid; they get their expenses, they are coming into Halifax; we have a very dedicated staff over there at the
health council, excellent staff. They are there to sort of watch what is happening in the government and to
give some guidance. They say that they fear that this announcement could undermine the whole thrust of the
blueprint report towards a new community-oriented, decentralized health system. The merger seems, in their
opinion, to be headed in the opposite direction towards a more centralized, institutional based system.

So, you have the health council asking questions about the minister’s announcement. I am sure and
maybe the minister will copy me the answers that he has given the health council. He is not giving them to
other people but maybe he is giving some of the answers to the health council that he is not able to provide
us with, here in the House or at all. So, we have an announcement that I think was made very quickly so that
the minister could unveil a plaque at a time when we had a Royal Visit and that it would be a good idea, never
mind working out the details, to have one large institution.

The minister says, don’t confuse me with the facts or how it is all going to work because we will figure
that out, Mr. Speaker, as we go along. You know, I notice that the chairman of the new board of this mega-hospital says that issues surrounding the question of reporting relationships are still being worked out. He
doesn’t know if he is reporting to the minister, the chairman of the regional health board or who is reporting
to whom. He is confused. I don’t know why he should be confused, I thought when the minister would have
appointed him, would have clearly given him the mandate and clearly said to him, this is actually what is
going to happen and that he would be clear.

We have the IWK Hospital and the Grace Maternity Hospital, which I am told were waiting to merge
and probably would do it quickly. They share the facilities, they are joined together, they don’t know who they
report to. They say that they are as much a tertiary care hospital as this mega-hospital. Why would the mega-hospital report to the Minister of Health, why do they have to report to somebody else? They have not been
able to get the answers. They, I know, as early as last year were writing the Minister of Health about this issue
and as I talked to some of them they were not getting the answers and so they are wondering what to do.

The minister said in the House last Thursday that, “. . . the mandate of the transitional board and the
mandate of the regional board are well defined. They have been published and well defined. The mandate of
the chair of both boards is well defined and their mandates are quite different.”. But, you go on and you ask
the chairpersons and they tell you they are not well defined, so you are again left in the dark. Also, they say
it is too early to tell what this merger will cost and how many actual jobs will be lost in this merger and what
will we get better than we have now.

I have to tell you that the Nova Scotia Rehabilitation Centre over the years provided an excellent
service to those with spinal injuries and other injuries and it provided an excellent service, a caring place.
Under this merger I am told that the number of beds available will drop, that is what I am told. I noticed in
the paper that the eating disorder unit at the VG Hospital cannot find out about their future. There is a lot of
uncertainty. I do not know how the minister can sleep nights because you have all these people not knowing
what their future is. I cannot believe that the workers and the dedication of all the health care workers and
they do not know what their future is. They do not know if they are going to have a job when all of this
happens or what role they will play and they are not appearing to have any input on how this will all work.

So, one has to wonder. We do not have any details about a merger, but we have sort of said, the
government is saying, the minister is saying, look, we do not need to give details, just trust me, everything
will be wonderful if you just trust me. Details (Interruption)

HON. ROBERT HARRISON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. That is about the fourth time that the
honourable gentleman across has indicated that the minister said or the minister says and the allegation is that
he is using a direct quote of some kind, putting words into the minister’s mouth, in fact, from a previous
document, a previous letter or previous statement, either in Hansard, it will show in Hansard the words, the
minister says.

I would like to ask the Speaker’s ruling on a point of order as to whether or not an honourable member
in this House can actually use those words, the minister says, if, in fact, there is no document to support the
quote or if, in fact, there is a document would he table that document.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The proper procedure of debate has been followed. If there
is a difference of opinion between two members then it is up to the member to refute the statements being
made by the member who is presenting to the floor.

MR. MOODY: That’s what it is to be a rookie, but you will learn. I thank the honourable Speaker for
the ruling. Yes, I have been quoting out of Hansard and I will be pleased to table it if that will help the
Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency because he should concern himself about this health care system.
He should understand what is happening.

I want to say that the question on the labour issue with the QE II board . . .

HON. ROSS BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. He just offered to table something and he has
refused to do it. Maybe he should do as he says and table it so we can check when he goes off on these
rambling accusations and quotes so we can check what he is reading from. Would he please table the

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West will table the document from which he is

MR. MOODY: Oh, Mr. Speaker, you know I would always oblige with anything you want me to do.
You may be assured that I will table it and I suppose I should table the letter from the department that has
already been tabled. Do you have to table it twice, Mr. Speaker?


MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, going back to the new QE II board and the labour issue because we have
two elements of this announcement that are so important. One is kind of complex we are going to get because,
and as in other provinces, I know that their experiences with hospitals with over 500 beds became very
inefficient and not as effective. Here we are moving to a very large complex so you have to wonder whether
it is going to be so large, whether the individuals and people who go there, will get the kind of personal care
and the kind of attention that they would get in a smaller complex. We all know the bigger it is, the more
impersonal it becomes and the more difficult it is to get that kind of personal care.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, in closing up that the last issue that will be very difficult. The labour issue
should have been thought out and worked with through the unions and with the workers. It is an important
issue and should have been worked out prior to any announcements being made.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Health.

HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to respond to this mischievous resolution
inaccurate though it might be. I want to talk, first of all, if I could, to reassure the honourable member
opposite that there is no smugness when one talks about any kind of health care reform or renewal. We are
working diligently and hard with the humility due to that process of providing better care for people and
programs for people in health care that work.

The honourable member, in his resolution, refers to a study. This is not unusual. This is not unusual
for the members opposite. The former administration talked about studies, 32 studies since 1972 in terms of
health care in this province. None of which was acted on, by the way, with the exception of a few things, 32
studies. These were it. So when we talk about studies, we are talking about information and, indeed, we will
speak to that.

This resolution, Mr. Speaker, is not only inaccurate, but it is grossly deficient. It does not, in one
instance, mention programs. It does not mention the advantages of combining programs in health care so that
we may better recruit, so that we may offer better service to people, in fact, with perhaps less money. I must
admit to some distress to read the figures that are being thrown about and repetitively quoted by the member
opposite of $30 million, $31 million, whatever. It distresses me to realize how very short memories must be
when I go back in our records and find that the very member opposite, in his tenure as the Minister of Health,
quotes that all hospitals in this province, if they were brought to pay equity, would be $31 million alone, all
of the hospitals. Then he throws around quotations of equity and the costs of merger of one facility or four
facilities in this as $30 million to $31 million. We need some explanation. I would be happy to table this. It
is a very interesting letter in respect to changes in pay equity and capping. (Applause)

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, I am sure, that ministers make decisions based on
information, information gathered from within their departments, certainly, but also information gathered by
people who are knowledgeable about specific issues and, particularly, in this case, about health care.
Information which is gathered by people who are nationally known in their specialties, in economics, in all
of the surgical and medical specialities and for five years in the previous administration, did a total of 18
studies and evaluations of programs in those four institutions.

Let me tell you, here they are, Mr. Speaker. Do you want studies? These were on my desk when I
walked into the ministry. Here are some more, if we can bring them over. These are studies recommending
the changes that we are just getting over. I could not even carry these into the House. Look at these. These
are studies and these are recommendations. These are studies which were not.

[5:30 p.m.]

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: The Minister of Health earlier this afternoon was reminded that his
deputy had denied access to any documentation that provided the background for the decision to merge the
metro hospitals, on the basis that such reports were not and I don’t want to misrepresent so let me quote
directly, ” . . . were not in the custody or control of the Department of Health.”. The Minister of Health has
just stood up in this House and apparently is about to table a huge volume of reports claiming that that is, in
fact, the background documentation on the basis of which the merger decision was made.

My point, Mr. Speaker, is how is it that those reports were not available through the Freedom of
Information request that we submitted to his department and were denied on October 31st by his deputy
minister, and two days later he comes into this House and says, here are all the documents. Why would anyone
suggest that there weren’t studies and analyses and reports on the basis of which this decision was made.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to address this question as a breach of my privileges as a member and
a violation of the Freedom of Information provisions which this government says that it applauds and that it
upholds in the name of public participation and consultation in health reform.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member has risen on a point of order. She has made the point of
order based on a submission under the Freedom of Information Act. She is alleging that she had not been
provided with documentation that was indeed available under that Act, is compelled by that Act. If she is
charging a violation of the Act, she knows that there is another avenue, another venue, a legal venue through
which she may move to have that matter redressed. I will now . . .

DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer the honourable member’s point of order
in that I am presenting now in response . . .

MR. SPEAKER: I have ruled that there is no point of order. The honourable Minister of Health has
the floor.

DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, these documents have been retrieved from an independent agency
which was doing those very studies and which we just now have in our purview. So I am presenting these to
this House to demonstrate the false nature of the accusations in this resolution that says that I acted somewhat
frivolously out of some kind of light from heaven to decide that suddenly, as the honourable member opposite
charges, we were going to merge four institutions.

These documents were a result and are a result of the studies and the urgings of the medical staff, of
the agency called the Metropolitan Hospital Advisory Committee. They have studied this over a five to seven
year period and have said, each one of them, you must act to improve programs and the economy of programs
and urged past ministers to do so and that is my point, Mr. Speaker.

So, when this resolution refers to lack of studies or lack of data, we have retrieved these according to
the request by the honourable Leader of the NDP and we indeed are presenting them in this way because I
have investigated and retrieved them following that and we have them here. I would be happy to table them
if you wish and they are here to be seen.

Why in heaven’s name, if this merger were not desirable for program development, for the ability of
us to provide better service and to provide it more economically, would the medical staffs of these very
hospitals, the administrations and fiscal officers of these hospitals and the Metropolitan Hospital Advisory
Committee, all recommend some years ago, that this very thing be done which is the creation of a solid and
world-class teaching institution in the City of Halifax which will give us renown throughout Canada and
throughout the world? (Applause)

Why should, in fact, boards and trustees who were appointed by previous administrations and who have
been diligent in the actions and diligent in their deliberations, recommend, indeed, the merger of these
facilities? In fact, the honourable member opposite refers to the IWK Hospital and the Grace Maternity
Hospital which are very diligent and have come to the conclusion that they can better operate, they can
provide more economically sound programs and they can provide better services to the children of this
province and to the Atlantic Provinces by merging. Surely we must take the advice of the very people who are
providing these services and this advice, not only to this minister, Mr. Speaker, but have been providing it
to the government for some years. (Applause)

When all is said and done, we as a government and we as a ministry are concerned about our ability
to provide services for people. We are also committed to providing those services in a more economically
sound way, in a way in which people will be better served and in a way that will allow us to say to the country,
indeed to say to the world, that we are world-class in medicine, we are world-class in health care and we can
do this by doing the very thing which appears to be condemned by this resolution.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that with the information that has laid dormant on the desk of the
minister and in the Department of Health for many years, that we have also evidence in other agencies that
we are now presenting that would allow us to say not only yes, to a merger and to a better program but we
would invite other institutions to do the same, to do the very thing that will provide services which will
provide for more economical approaches to the provision of medical care and health care services in the

I would suggest that the quality of the membership of those boards and trustees who have served so
very well in those four institutions and now serve on a transitional board, will do very well by us and present
us with a world-class teaching institution, to the credit of this province and to the service of its citizens. Thank
you. (Applause)

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have seen here this afternoon
in this House, in the minister’s actions in the last 15 minutes and in the government’s response earlier today,
a very clear and I might say, alarming illustration of how this government intends to conduct itself in relation
to access to information matters. As soon as this Minister of Health announced the creation of the mega-hospital here in metro, we wrote to the minister on July 19th, in fact, and we asked him if he would give us
some understanding of the basis for this decision, some indication of what analyses had been done, what
studies were done and, in fact, where this decision was coming from, what cost-benefit analysis had been done
and so on. That was on July 19th, I am still waiting for a reply to that letter.

Mr. Speaker, because we have completely failed in our attempts to get any information, any
documentation, any studies, any analysis, and on the basis that a lot of members of the public were very
concerned about this information, we resorted to applying through the Freedom of Information Act for access
to this information. We did so on September 26th. We asked, not for a highly specific item, as the Minister
of Health indicated earlier this afternoon, in response to my questions during Question Period, but, in fact,
we asked for copies of any background material related to this whole matter.

We went on to say, in particular, “. . . any documentation illustrating pros and cons of such a merger;
cost-benefit analysis; potential financial effects; staffing levels, forecast or promised changes in service
delivery, number of beds, number of outpatients and day patients; costs of standardizing systems, programs,
etc.; the merger’s relationship to and effect upon health reform; and the role of the Regional and Community
Health Boards in the merger.”. Mr. Speaker, as you know, I already tabled that Freedom of Information
documentation earlier this afternoon to express our concern. This was written on September 26th.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in violation of the provisions of the Act, a response was received. It was
already exceeding the time line that should have obtained, but that is beside the point. Let us set that aside.
On October 31st, we were denied access to any such documentation on the basis that records required to
respond to your application are not in the custody or control of the Department of Health.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon in Oral Question Period, I raised this matter with the Minister of
Health. I asked about this and he confirmed that custody and control of this information was not in the hands
of the Department of Health. That was some 35 days . . .

HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I believe the record will show that I
did not say they were not within the purview of Health. I referred specifically to a study that was not done.
There was no one study, and I believe that the record will show that.

MR. SPEAKER: We will review Hansard to ensure that was your position. (Interruption) Order please.

MS. MCDONOUGH: We were looking for any and all documentation that addressed about 25 different
aspects of the merger hospital decision. The minister confirmed that this information was not in the custody
and control of the department. His department, Mr. Speaker, had some 35 or 36 days to comply with this
freedom of information request. Yet, after the Minister of Health, earlier this afternoon, said that this
information was out there beyond their control (Interruption)

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order.

MS. MCDONOUGH: The Minister of Health stood up in this House two hours later and was able to
table piles and piles of reports and documents. Mr. Speaker, there are two things very alarming about this.
The first is that this is a government that claims to be committed to an open process of health reform where
the public will be as widely informed as possible about its decisions and what they are based on, as well as
future decisions. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we were not even able to obtain that documentation through the freedom
of information route.

The second concern is, Mr. Speaker, that we have freedom of information legislation in place that,
hopefully, we will not have to resort to to get results to this kind of request. Yet, even the freedom of
information route was not successful in gaining access to documents that this minister, himself, said were not
available to his department some two hours ago. Yet, on the basis of further political pressure in this House,
they were produced here in this Assembly in the last 15 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it may not be so obvious to the public, but there is something of a shell game going on
by this government in regard to frustrating access to information through, in my view, the abuse of the
freedom of information provisions. We have had request after request for information denied, or Mr. Speaker,
in some instances we have been told if you want this information, you have to be prepared to pay thousands
and thousands of dollars to get it.

Mr. Speaker, this is the government that is committed to openness and accountability. One question
that may arise on some people’s parts is why would we not file a House Order requesting this information. In
the past, filing such a House Order, even when the Tories were in office, very often yielded the information.
Well, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, why we do not waste our time filing House Orders for some of this
information these days, is because when we filed a House Order in the spring session asking for the Premier
to reveal the information about what was happening with the 1-800 line calls and the information amassed,
the Government House Leader said, well, you can pass the resolution, you can pass the House Order but you
are never going to get that information. Well, that doesn’t do a lot to inspire confidence.

[5:45 p.m.]

HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I challenge that member to produce where
the House Leader said those words. I think that my rights have been infringed upon by that statement.

MR. SPEAKER: I think there is a valid point of order in debate of a charge has been laid against the
member of the House that is incorrect and I would hope that the honourable Leader of the New Democratic
Party will provide that information or that source of information.

MS. MCDONOUGH: I will stand here and say quite honestly that I don’t know whether those words
ended up on Hansard (Interruption) May I address . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The very least that the member, after
misrepresenting the facts and then admitting, will withdraw those remarks and apologize to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party has the floor. She
was responding to the first observation and you have the opportunity to complete your response.

MS. MCDONOUGH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was attempting to respond and I will do so. I cannot
tell you whether the words that were spoken by that member in this House at the time ended up on the
Hansard record or not because as you well know, as every member of this House knows, these taunts, this
shouting back and forth and back and forth does not end up . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, the honourable member has the floor.

MS. MCDONOUGH: Maybe they need you to advise them that when they yell back and forth such
comments as they are doing now, as they do frequently, as we all do from time to time, not all of those words
end up recorded in Hansard. For that reason I cannot tell you whether those words ended up in Hansard or
not; I certainly will go and look. They may or may not have been recorded but, let me tell you, those words
were spoken and nothing will take away from that fact. But, let me say…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the honourable member take her seat, please. In response to
the honourable Government House Leader’s point of order, the observation that has been made is an
observation that may or may not be correct, cannot be substantiated. I believe that the honourable Leader of
the Official Opposition should withdraw the remarks unless she is able to provide in Hansard that these
remarks have in fact been made, a charge has been laid that they have been made, of dishonesty and that is
not characteristic.

MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. (Interruption) I am happy to yield.

MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: I was sitting here minding my own business in conversation with
colleagues and heard, I think, Mr. Speaker, you make reference to the fact that there should be some
withdrawal of a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. I have not been engaged in this debate. I
have been paying some attention to it and I think perhaps through inadvertence you made reference to me and
I am concerned that Hansard would disclose that there was a direction to the Leader of the Opposition to
withdraw something and I would like you to clarify that.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition is absolutely correct and my
apologies are extended to him. The remark was directed to the honourable Leader of the New Democratic

HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am on record, in Hansard, clearly as
suggesting to my Cabinet colleagues that if they are not going to comply with orders of this House they should
defeat the motion to grant that order. I have stood in this House and encouraged that any order that is passed
is to be complied with. I resent the remarks of the Leader of the Third Party, the NDP Party. I did not make
those remarks; she will not find them in Hansard and it is absolutely reprehensible that she would stand in
her place and suggest that remarks were made by a member of this House that she cannot substantiate.
Absolutely reprehensible. (Applause)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for clarification from you, sir. I rose
to address this issue. I said that on a previous occasion, in regard to this whole freedom of information
dispute, that one of the reasons why we do not find it very productive to file House Orders is because on a
previous occasion, the Government House Leader made a comment. I don’t know whether it was recorded in
Hansard or not, I said . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: Prove it.

MS. MCDONOUGH: . . . and I will repeat it, made a comment that was overheard by myself and my
colleagues and my staff, I might add, that we might get that House Order through, but we would never get
the information. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask whether you are (Interruption)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. MCDONOUGH: The Minister of Transportation, the Government House Leader, stood up on a
point of order and asked that I be directed to withdraw that comment. I will not do so, sir. It is a dispute of
facts. There is no basis . . .

MR. SPEAKER: There is obviously a difference of viewpoint on what has been said between two
persons . . .

MS. MCDONOUGH: This is right, a difference of opinion. So I am asking for clarification from you

MR. SPEAKER: The matter now rests at that. The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party
has the floor.

MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, when you suggested that I should withdraw the remark, frankly,
I was not prepared to do so. I made no remark that was out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The time left is eight minutes.

MS. MCDONOUGH: There may be a difference of opinion here, but frankly, Mr. Speaker, I would
leave this Chamber before I would withdraw such a remark because there is not a basis for any such ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member is very much aware, as she participated in
and, I believe, gave full assent to the Freedom of Information Act. The Freedom the Information Act gives
her the full authority of law of this province on how to proceed to gain information from the government and
she has the appropriate venues to follow to gain that information. I informed her of that earlier and she is free
to do that at any time. Now let us keep our remarks germane to the resolution that is before us, specific to the
resolution before us. The honourable member has approximately seven minutes left in her time.

MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, after that very considerable diversion, perhaps it would be helpful
if we all reminded ourselves, I know I would find it helpful, that the resolution that is before us reads as
follows: “. . . the minister address the concerns that have been raised by the QE II hospital officials and release
figures of the true cost of the metro merger seemingly designed purely for the Queen’s visit, not for the
taxpayers of Nova Scotia.”.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we got into this dispute this afternoon, the reason that I asked questions earlier
today, my colleague, the member for Kings West, has asked questions as well about the basis for the mega-hospital merger decision made by this minister is because he has not provided one bit of substantiated
evidence that there will be cost savings, that there has been a cost analysis, that there has been the kind of
consultation that would lead to such a massive decision being taken.

So that is why, Mr. Speaker, we have asked that he do so. He has finally, even though earlier his
department denied access to such information, now tabled information in this House this afternoon. I assume
that is what the minister intended, was that that information be tabled . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn’t say that he would table it.

MS. MCDONOUGH: . . . so that it could be very accessible to all of us, which will be the first
information that we have been able to peruse in order to try and understand the basis of his decision. Frankly,
Mr. Speaker, before the minister took that step this afternoon, we were beginning to wonder whether the
minister, in the absence of such data on analyzing the metro hospital merger issue here in Halifax, was
perhaps just implementing Carrick Consulting Services’ master plan for how the hospitals in St. John’s and
the rest of Newfoundland should be carried out. That master plan, having been the result of a report on the
reduction of hospital boards by one Lucy Dobbin in February 1993, because we had a very hard time finding
what other basis there was for the decision.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you have indicated that my time is up. I don’t believe that is the case because you
said I had seven minutes. I want to finish by simply saying this, that if the Minister of Health expects members
of the public, if the Minister of Health expects the health care providers in this province and if he expects
members of this House of Assembly to have confidence in the decisions that he is making in regard to health
reform, then it is incumbent upon him to share the data, share the analysis, share the information on the basis
of which those decisions are made. That is the plea we make to the minister here again tonight in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for the debate on Resolution No. 854 has expired.

The honourable acting Opposition House Leader.

MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to call House Order No. 73.

H.O. No. 73, re Tourism, - Digby Pines Hotel: Hans Weidenfeld - Dismissal - notice given June 1/94 -
(Mr. T. Donahoe)

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I so move.

[The House Order was read by the Clerk.]

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Tourism.

HON. ROSS BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, this is a personnel matter and I don’t think it is appropriate for
it to be discussed in a House Order. On that basis, I am going to decline the House Order.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion for House Order No. 73 has been moved and declined.

Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion has been carried in the negative.

The honourable acting Opposition House Leader.

MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, would you please call House Order No. 89.

H.O. No. 89, re Justice - Correctional Centres: Inmates - Leave - notice given Oct. 28/94 - (Mr. G.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable acting Opposition House Leader.

MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the honourable member for Kings North, I so

[The House Order was read by the Clerk.]

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, I would indicate to
the House that we would have no difficulty in agreeing to return House Order No. 89.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and agreed that a return to House No. 89 be supplied.

Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

The honourable acting Opposition House Leader.

MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, would you please call House Order No. 90.

H.O. No. 90, re Health: Contracts (11/6/93) - Details - notice given October 27/94 - (Mr. G. Moody)

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable acting Opposition House Leader.

MR. JOHN LEEFE: In the absence of the member, I so move.

[The House Order was read by the Clerk.]

MR. SPEAKER: The House is in the process of taking a vote so the moment of interruption will be

[6:00 p.m.]

The honourable Minister of Health.

HON. RONALD STEWART: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we would be happy to provide this information as
long as the contracts are completed and they are not under discussion or under negotiation. I will see to that,

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and agreed.

Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.



The acting Opposition House Leader.

MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, would you please call House Order No. 94.

MR. SPEAKER: We have now reached the moment of interruption.

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the members of the House that we
will be sitting tomorrow from the hours of 12:00 noon until 6:00 p.m. The order of business following the
daily routine and Question Period will be Public Bills for Second Reading. It will be our intent to resume the
adjourned debate on Bill No. 114.

I move that we adjourn until 12:00 noon tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion for adjournment has been made.

The motion is carried.

The Adjournment motion draw for the late show has been won by the honourable member for Halifax
Bedford Basin and the resolution to be debated is as follows:

Therefore be it resolved that Nova Scotians should take advantage of the exceptional opportunities
provided by the G-7 Summit meetings to be held in Halifax next June.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Bedford Basin.


MR. GERALD FOGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I do welcome this opportunity to say a few words in the
Adjournment debate on what I feel to be a major international event that is coming to Nova Scotia, indeed,
to the City of Halifax. I feel that all Nova Scotians are honoured that their capital city has been selected as
the host for this 1995 G-7 Summit meeting.

It is indeed a distinction to be chosen to host this conference of the leaders of the seven most powerful
industrial nations in the world, as well as Russia, and the nation of Russia will be here more or less in an
observer status.

In the short run, the G-7 Summit will pump millions of dollars into our provincial economy. It is to
be held on June 16th, 17th, and 18th and it will provide an excellent kickoff and a boost to the 1995 tourist
season, encouraging more travel to Nova Scotia just in time for the peak tourist months of July, August and

Now if there is a negative, it might be and we have heard that hotels in Halifax-Dartmouth and perhaps
within a radius, I am told, of 40 to 60 miles, that hotels are solidly booked, hotels and motels because of the
great numbers of people who will be coming here. But there is a positive, an up side to this, Mr. Speaker. I
think that many visitors to the province can be encouraged because it is going to be difficult, as I say, for them
to get accommodation in Halifax-Dartmouth, they could begin their vacations in other parts of our province
and it is a beautiful time of the year as we move into summer in mid-June.

The Nova Scotia Government will be working in conjunction with the tourist industry and individual
operators to help tourists rearrange their schedules and to identify alternative vacation activities beyond metro.
Now it goes without saying that there are many locations in Nova Scotia that, of course, don’t receive the
attention of the metro area. So many people, when they come into Nova Scotia, perhaps they think of Halifax-Dartmouth and maybe Yarmouth which is the point of arrival, and many of them get to Cape Breton. But I
think that tourists can be encouraged to see other parts of Nova Scotia, it is a grand opportunity. It should
provide a special boost to our tourism industry in the rural areas of Nova Scotia.

The G-7 Summit also offers the entire province many opportunities to benefit on an ongoing basis from
this international exposure. It is indeed a rare opportunity and one that will likely not occur again in Nova
Scotia for many years to come. We should plan carefully and work hard to ensure that we make the most of
this occasion. Let’s not miss out on this opportunity, when quite literally the eyes and the ears of the world
will be upon our capital city, on our province and, indeed, on Canada.

Through the massive media presence that accompanies all G-7 meetings, and the power of modern
telecommunications technology, people around the world will enjoy instant coverage of the events, ceremonies
and the deliberations and of the comings and goings of the world leaders. We all know the outstanding success
of CNN. That is one example we can use. Their cameras will capture the events here on those three days in
June as they happen. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, people will be watching with great interest.

The recent world recession and the economic and the fiscal problems facing the developed and the
developing world such as slow economic growth, high unemployment, large government debts and deficits
have focused public attention on the issues that will face the leaders of the G-7 nations, and it will indeed be
a great challenge to those esteemed individuals.

Mr. Speaker, there are also several major issues of concern to the international community, such as
how to enhance international peace and cooperation. There are concerns about the environment, how to deal
with economic and political problems in the former Communist countries of Europe.

In short, Mr. Speaker, governments, businesses and citizens throughout the world will be watching
as the leaders of the most powerful nations gather to talk about economic issues that have major ramifications
for every single nation, rich or poor, powerful or weak.

The extent of the media presence that can be expected is absolutely staggering, Mr. Speaker. I would
like to look at some of the figures that are on record in recent years where the G-7 has been held. For example,
in Naples, earlier this year, the G-7 attracted 3,500 journalists from 46 different countries. The G-7 Summit
was held in Canada, of course, six years ago in 1988, when it attracted 2,500 journalists from around the
world. So, there is an increase of 1,000 in the estimated number.

For Halifax, the projection, Mr. Speaker, is that we can expect to see about 3000 journalists
representing international economic and financial publications; local, regional, national and international
magazines and newspapers; special interest publications; and all the major North American television
networks will be here with their cameras.

Mr. Speaker, to get a sense of the logistics required to accommodate such a multitude, the facilities
for the media at the G-7 Summit in Toronto in 1988 occupied a space of two and one-half football fields, with
broadcast facilities occupying two-thirds of this space. About 180,000 kilometres of cable were laid by the host

The Government of Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, will be providing the facilities and the services to the
international media, most likely in the World Trade and Convention Centre and surrounding area.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying, we must plan very well to ensure that the media’s
needs are met. That is the great challenge to Halifax as these journalists, the print and electronic media
journalists from all over the world will converge on Halifax in mid-June. Also, the challenge is to ensure that
the world leaders and their officials have a very successful summit session. We must also plan how to use this
unique opportunity to showcase Nova Scotia’s many attractions for the world to see. That is part of the
opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

The Prime Minister said, when he announced the selection of Halifax - he was here a few months ago -
“Halifax, with its spectacular ocean scenery and mix of historic traditions and contemporary style, reflects the
dynamism and heritage of Canada and will be an outstanding host city to showcase Canada to the world.”

Earlier today, here in this House, Mr. Speaker, we heard in Question Period, the minister for the
Economic Renewal Agency commented on how the Bluenose II will undergo repairs and refit, if you like, or
a refurbishing so that it will be available. I am extremely proud of the decision that has been made. The
Bluenose II will be on the waters of Halifax Harbour and it will be an opportunity for all the world to see the
replica, the successor to the great racing schooner of the 1920’s and 1930’s. I think we are going to see the
evidence that the Bluenose II is indeed well-known in North America and in other countries as well.

We should also use every occasion, Mr. Speaker, to display and demonstrate our wonderful quality of
life shaped by our safe, friendly communities, unspoiled natural beauty, outstanding education and health
services, myriad outdoor recreational activities and, of course, our climate as we approach our summer season.
We should show the world that Nova Scotia is a wonderful place to live and to visit.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would just like to say that Halifax, Nova Scotia and Canada have an
opportunity that may not come again for many years to promote the cause of world economic advancement
and peaceful cooperation while promoting our own industries and lifestyle to the world.

If I might paraphrase a line from a popular movie of a year or two ago, it was called, Field of Dreams,
and we are familiar with that line and with the cameras and the eyes and the ears of the world focus on
Halifax, if we do it right, they will come, people will come to visit us in years to come. Thank you, Mr.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to offer a few
remarks and comments in regard to this resolution that Nova Scotians should take advantage of the
exceptional opportunities provided by the G-7 Summit meetings to be held in Halifax next June.

I want to support and underscore much of what has been said by the previous speaker, but I might want
to come at it from a slightly different vantage point. I will support the proposal that the previous speaker and
the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency and others have talked about, namely that the Bluenose might
be available for the G-7, but I am only prepared to endorse that project and that proposal on one condition,
and that condition is that there is not five cents of the Nova Scotia taxpayers’ money consumed to revitalize
and refurbish the Bluenose for that purpose.

I honestly do not believe that in today’s economic circumstances it is right or possible or proper that
we ask the poor beleaguered taxpayers to rehabilitate that vessel as historic and important as it is to us today
and over all of our history for that purpose. I just do not simply think that is a reasonable expenditure of the
taxpayers’ money. I do, however, having said that, support and vigorously support, an effort that I believe
could be undertaken if the commitment and the resolve is there and the effort was begun tomorrow morning
at 9:00 a.m., by the appropriate group. I honestly believe that it would be possible for something in the order
of, if it is, in fact, $500,000 necessary, that private sector interests in this province and across this country
could be found, and found in short order to produce sufficient money to make it possible to revitalize the
Bluenose so that she would, indeed, be here and be seaworthy and the pride that we would like her to be on
the occasion of the appearance here of the G-7. I repeat, I do not believe the taxpayers of Nova Scotia should
be called upon to foot that bill. I, frankly, do not believe it is necessary that they do so.

My thought, however is that there are, perhaps, issues and approaches upon which the expenditure of
public money and taxpayers’ money might, again in my view only, be more appropriate and be more justifiable
and I have two things in my mind. First and foremost, is that I believe that we have a chance with G-7 coming
to this city that we will never have again, that can result if we make the commitment to it now, in the
development of a memorial to millions of Canadians and this city which will stand for generations and
generations to come and I refer to Pier 21.

I believe that if we make a commitment using, perhaps, some of this $500,000 that has been talked
about that others would spend taxpayers’ money that others would spend on the Bluenose. If we made a
commitment tomorrow morning at 9:00 o’clock, that we develop and dedicate considerable resources to the
revitalization and the refurbishment of Pier 21 we could begin to establish here on our waterfront what would
be the match here in Halifax of something in the order of Ellis Island in New York.

Millions and millions of men and women and now families and generations of families who are now
active and productive Canadians set foot first in Canada just down the street from this historic building in Pier
21. There is a Pier 21 Society, it is active, it is keen to find assistance to make it possible to make Pier 21 a
true and a living memorial to those millions of immigrants to Canada who are now in such great numbers in
every place in this country, such tremendously important contributors to the life and the economy and the
social and the ethnic reality that is Canada. I would plead and, in fact, have developed a communication
which I hope will bear some fruit to those who are organizing the G-7 events, that Pier 21 be considered as
one of the highest priority commitments possible.

[6:15 p.m.]

When I was Minister of Tourism and Culture, Mr. Speaker, I remember being able, at a time when
economic circumstances were difficult in that department, to assist the Pier 21 Society ever so modestly. I
don’t think even more able to assist even more generously than to enable the society to develop some
letterhead and to be able to communicate with the organizations that they wanted to have contact with, but
a contribution nonetheless.

In my dealings with the men and women who are so committed to Pier 21 and its development, I have
become a true believer that it could become a shrine on our waterfront to what this country and the history
of this country is really all about.

The second element, and I know I only have a moment or two, that I really believe is worth
consideration and, indeed, may I say potentially worth some expenditure of public money, and I don’t have
all the details or the logistics of this figured out, but I am sure there are men and women at the provincial and
municipal and federal government levels who, if given the task, could work this through and work it through
in pretty short order, I think the presence of G-7 in our city and in our province is a wonderful opportunity
for a process and a program to be designed whereby metropolitan Halifax-Dartmouth and all of its environs
and, indeed, may I say virtually every community of Nova Scotia, to undertake a revitalization and a
refurbishment project or projects in every community of this province.

What a wonderful legacy that would be of G-7 being here because, as my learned friend has said a
moment ago, if, in fact, his hope comes to fruition and I share his hope, that with the right advance
communication to the thousands and thousands of people who will come to Nova Scotia and come to Halifax
to be here when G-7 is on, with the right materials going to them, we are going to invite them to tour the
Valley, we will invite them to tour the South Shore, we will invite them to get to the Cape Breton Highlands
and all over glorious Cape Breton. We will get them on the Eastern Shore. We will get them, hopefully, in
thousands and thousands, to all communities of Nova Scotia. What better legacy which lasts for a considerable
time if, as our visitors go to all of those other places in the Province of Nova Scotia, they are seeing a town,
which for the moment will remain nameless, which has had some work done on its main street and it is bright
and it is shiny and it sparkles.

Those people will then go home to all of the countries of the globe which will be represented by visitors
here and say, that is a wonderful place, that Nova Scotia is a wonderful place to visit and, indeed, I would
expect would have tremendous impact on encouraging many of those visitors to return to us. I believe that that
could be done. I believe that if we went about it in an appropriate way, it is the kind of project that might well
justify the expenditure of public funds.

This truly is, as the member for Halifax Bedford Basin has said, an opportunity which will only come,
I will bet you, Mr. Speaker, that there will not be a person certainly in this Legislature alive when G-7 comes
to Halifax, Nova Scotia, again. It simply is not going to happen because it is held as infrequently as it is and
there are so many other sites of importance around the world and around the G-7 countries who will want to
have it and there are so many other Canadian sites, which have every legitimate right to be considered.

I want to compliment Prime Minister Chretien for making the decision that he did and designating
Halifax as the site. It was a bold and, some might say, a provocative and certainly an innovative move and
a decision on his part and he deserves full marks and I give him those marks. I think it is now up to us and
up to him, through his federal colleagues who will work to put this whole event together and all the
municipalities of Nova Scotia to convene immediately and say, how do we show every square inch of the
Province of Nova Scotia in its very best light? How do we put on the best bib and tucker in every town and
every community of this province and I really think that with some imagination and some innovation and
some modest expenditure of public money that can be done and we have a lasting legacy that will be here for
the enjoyment of all of us Nova Scotians and will be an attraction to we hope hundreds and hundreds of
thousands of future visitors to the province.



So, I compliment the member for Halifax Bedford Basin for bringing the matter forward and trust that
between his efforts and my modest comments and others that I am sure will be made to the organizers that
this really can put Halifax, as I am sure it will, on the map, on the world stage. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House do now rise to meet again tomorrow afternoon at the
hour of 12:00 p.m.

Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

We stand adjourned until 12:00 p.m. on Thursday.

[The House rose at 6:21 p.m.]



By: Mr. George Archibald (Kings North)

I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return
showing, with respect to the Nova Scotia Economic Renewal Agency:

(1) The organizational chart for the agency along with the names of individuals in each position;

(2) The names and position of former staff who have left the department/agency between June 11,
1994 to the date of this return. Please include a brief description of why the individual left, i.e. contract not
renewed, retirement or early retirement, dismissal.


By: Mr. George Archibald (Kings North)

I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return
showing, with respect to the Department of Health:

(1) The organizational chart for the department along with the names of individuals in each


By: Mr. George Archibald (Kings North)

I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return
showing, with respect to the Nova Scotia Economic Renewal Agency:

(1) A copy of all correspondence between the minister and the Premier with potential Korean
investors interested in coming to Nova Scotia under the federal immigrant investor program between March
27, 1994 and November 1, 1994.


By: Mr. Terence Donahoe (Halifax Citadel)

I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return
showing, with respect to the Department of Justice:

(1) A copy of the investigative report done by the RCMP and filed with the Department of Justice
following the attempted suicide on May 6th and eventual death of 39 year old Kevin Roy Peckham on June
10th in the New Waterford Police Department lock-up.