Assemblée Législative de la Nouvelle-Écosse

La Chambre s'est ajournée le
26 octobre 2017
























HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1994



Fifty-sixth General Assembly



Second Session



2:00 P.M.



SPEAKER



Hon. Paul MacEwan



DEPUTY SPEAKER



Mr. Gerald O’Malley






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



PRESENTING AND READING PETITIONS



PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES



TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS



STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Natural Resources.



HON. DONALD DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, on November 2nd, the honourable member, Mr. Brooke
Taylor, made a comment in the House in regard to, and I quote from Hansard, “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.”.



Mr. Speaker, this is a letter of response to Mr. Taylor dated August 18th, which I will now table.
(Interruptions)



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



MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to know if the letter was
ever mailed.






4155

 

MR. SPEAKER: I feel that both members have made their points.



GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Agriculture.



RESOLUTION NO. 963



HON. WAYNE GAUDET: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the
adoption of the following resolution:



Whereas many Nova Scotians take pride in the natural beauty of our rural areas and work to
enhance this image; and



Whereas the Nova Scotia Rural Beautification Committee, on an annual basis, recognizes
individuals and organizations who have made an outstanding contribution to the enhancement of our
scenic rural countryside;



Therefore be it resolved that this House express its appreciation to the Nova Scotia Rural
Beautification Committee and to the 1994 award recipients for their efforts this past year.



Mr. Speaker, I would request waiver of notice and, if you would indulge me, I would also beg leave
to table, for the information of members, the listing of the 1994 award winners.



MR. SPEAKER: There is 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.



INTRODUCTION OF BILLS



Bill No. 121 - Entitled an Act to Amend Chapter 438 of the Revised Statutes of 1989. The
Special Places Protection Act. (Hon. John MacEachern)



Bill No. 122 - Entitled an Act to Reform the Law Respecting Compensation for Workers.
(Hon. Jay Abbass)



Bill No. 123 - Entitled an Act to Repeal Chapter 79 of the Acts of 1981. The Springhill Parks
and Recreation Commission Act. (Hon. Guy Brown as a private member.)



MR. SPEAKER: Ordered that these bills be read a second time on a future day.






NOTICES OF MOTION



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.



RESOLUTION NO. 964



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



Whereas hundreds of thousands of Canadians have made a supreme sacrifice on behalf of freedom
and Canada; and



Whereas the blood of Canadians was spilled on Flanders Field, Vimy Ridge and Passchendaele;
and



Whereas 50 years ago, thousands more Canadians died on the Hitler and Gothic Lines, at the
battles of the Schelde, Normandy and Hong Kong;



Therefore be it resolved that this House take pause to remember and reflect on the terrible price
paid by so many Canadians in wars around the world and that we hope the two minutes of silence
observed on Remembrance Day may one day be a lasting peace for Canada and the world.



Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice on the motion.



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



Is it agreed?



It is agreed.



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



The motion is carried.



The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.



RESOLUTION NO. 965



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



Whereas in April, the Community Services Minister defended his defiance of a Nova Scotia
Supreme Court decision, striking down the arbitrary spouse-in-the-house rule, by claiming the
government awaited an Appeal Court hearing; and



Whereas that appeal was quietly abandoned almost four weeks ago, yet the arbitrary,
unconstitutional rule that has been struck down is still being applied; and



Whereas despite the Liberals’ best efforts, Nova Scotians still enjoy a justice system that is
supposed to apply equally to all, regardless of power, wealth or position;



Therefore be it resolved that the Community Services Minister respect the law which his
government has chosen to accept and abandon once and for all the arbitrary spouse-in-the-house rule,
effective November 26, 1993 when this rule was judged to be unconstitutional.



MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.



The honourable Leader of the Opposition.



RESOLUTION NO. 966



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 newly elected chair for the Cumberland District School Board summed up the
confusion in Nova Scotia’s education system aptly when she stated, “It’s hard to tell what the changes are
going to be because . . . (the education minister) changes his mind day to day.”; and



Whereas the Minister of Education has left Nova Scotia and school boards wondering, before and
after elections, just when and by how many our school board numbers will be sliced; and



Whereas the minister’s comments before school board elections were held made the thought of
running for the board seem very pointless to many, evidenced by the low numbers who placed their name
for election;



Therefore be it resolved that the minister, as he moves forward with his reform of so important a
system, heed the words of the Cumberland District School Board chair and start making his plans for the
future of our children’s schools clear and not leave all affected by his decisions dangling on a day-to-day
basis.



MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.



The honourable member for Cape Breton South.



RESOLUTION NO. 967



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



Whereas Sydney is the steel centre of Eastern Canada; and



Whereas the Premier has completed a deal with Minmetals of China that will maintain
employment at the Sydney steel plant; and



Whereas this deal opens a huge market for steel products produced in Cape Breton by Cape
Bretoners;



Therefore be it resolved that the members of this House wish the workers and operators of the
Sydney steel plant every success.



Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.



MR. SPEAKER: There is a request for waiver of notice.



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 Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.



RESOLUTION NO. 968



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



Whereas Christopher Columbus was evidently not 100 per cent correct in believing the world was
round; and



Whereas experts in measuring the size and shape of the earth agree that the world is not perfectly
round, Stewiacke can still claim to be half-way between the equator and the North Pole; and



Whereas due to the flattening of the earth at the North and South Poles, the half-way point between
the equator and the North Pole is actually 16.2 kilometres north of the 45th parallel of latitude;



Therefore be it resolved that members of this House recognize the Town of Stewiacke’s bragging
rights to being located half-way between the equator and the North Pole.



Mr. Speaker, I ask for waiver.



MR. SPEAKER: Is there consent that that motion be now dealt with.



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 Digby-Annapolis.



RESOLUTION NO. 969



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



Whereas HMCS Fraser was paid off in Halifax a couple of weeks ago after 37 years of faithful duty
to Canada; and



Whereas retired Chief Boatswains’ Mate Ron Elliot has proposed that the Fraser be beached, above
the tide, next to the Lester B. Pearson International Peacekeeping Training Centre with a walkway for
visitors to have access; and



Whereas such a venture could support sea cadet training, create employment and provide an
impetus for tourists to visit the project;



Therefore be it resolved that this government support such a proposal that pays tribute to the fine
Canadian naval vessel, the HMCS Fraser.



Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.



[2:15 p.m.]



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 Sackville-Cobequid.



RESOLUTION NO. 970



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



Whereas Deloitte & Touche was awarded without tender a $1,125 a day contract for the services of
Grant Morash, who the Municipal Affairs Minister identified as the single, most qualified Nova Scotian
on issues of governance and local services; and



Whereas this same Grant Morash has led costly, Liberal inspired Deloitte & Touche management
audits of Economic Development and Tourism, and of the Motor Vehicles branch; and



Whereas this morning, Nova Scotians read that one Grant Morash opposes open tendering and
believes provincial taxpayers should pay more for goods and services to ensure “quality”;



Therefore be it resolved that the government with no money, imposing amalgamation without
regard to consequences, can surely do better than assigning the task to a $1,125 a day man who believes
the cost of public goods and services is far too low.






MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.



The honourable member for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour.



RESOLUTION NO. 971



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



Whereas Tim Roberts and Ron Stubberts at the Dalhousie Business School have created a
simulated version of Nova Scotia on the Internet; and



Whereas Nova Scotia has received over 20,000 visitors this summer from all over the world by way
of the electronic highway; and



Whereas this is an effective and inexpensive way to present Nova Scotia to world-wide travellers
and potential global business interests;



Therefore be it resolved that this House of Assembly extend congratulations to Tim Roberts and
Ron Stubberts for presenting the beauty and potential of Nova Scotia to the rest of the world through
information technology.



Mr. Speaker, I 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 Victoria.



RESOLUTION NO. 972



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



Whereas Saint Ann’s Gaelic College, located along a beautiful, rustic backdrop reminiscent of the
Scottish Highlands is dedicated to preserve Scottish traditions; and



Whereas the Gaelic College Pipe Band has achieved prominent recognition as World Champions
(Level 3) in Scotland this summer; and



Whereas John Walsh, as the piping instructor, has been honoured for his contributions to the
band’s success;



Therefore be it resolved that this House of Assembly extend congratulations to the talented students
and the highly qualified staff at Cape Breton’s own Saint Ann’s Gaelic College.



Mr. Speaker, I would ask for wavier 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 Lunenburg.



RESOLUTION NO. 973



MRS. LILA O’CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the
adoption of the following resolution:



Whereas the Nova Scotia Rural Beautification Committee recognizes individuals and organizations
who have made an outstanding contribution to the enhancement of our scenic, rural countryside; and



Whereas there are many Nova Scotians who take pride in and work hard to enhance the beauty of
our rural areas; and



Whereas there were two recipients of the 1994 Nova Scotia Rural Beautification Awards from the
riding of Lunenburg;



Therefore be it resolved that this House of Assembly extend congratulations to Allan Croft, who
placed second for the Farm Improvement Award, and Diane and Nelson Zinck for receiving an Award of
Merit.



Mr. Speaker I 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 Halifax Atlantic.



RESOLUTION NO. 974



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



Whereas this government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on outside consultants to do
the normal work of the professional civil servants in the Human Resources Department; and



Whereas the average cost has been nearly $20,000 per job, in fees alone, for these outside
consultants; and



Whereas when challenged, the Premier and his loyal Cabinet have all claimed taxpayers must pay
for the invaluable “independent” participation of these high-priced consultants;



Therefore be it resolved that this House offers hearty congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture
and Marketing, who is relying upon the staffing division of the Human Resources Department, rather than
paying extra for consultants, to conduct the search for a new Deputy Minister.



Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate to ask for waiver of notice for this.



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



Is it agreed?



I hear several Noes.



The notice is tabled.



The honourable member for Annapolis.



RESOLUTION NO. 975



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



Whereas agriculture in Annapolis County is a $14 million industry; and



Whereas the agriculture industry creates employment for hundreds of people in the county; and



Whereas some of the most beautiful and productive land in the province is located in Annapolis
County with the potential to make an even greater contribution to our provincial economy;



Therefore be it resolved that this government continues to support and encourage the development
of agriculture in Annapolis County.



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.



The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.



RESOLUTION NO. 976



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



Whereas John E. Clarke brought the dedication and ability of a lifetime of trade unionism and
social activism to his participation in the Cape Breton Council of Senior Citizens and Pensioners; and



Whereas the council members recognized John E. Clarke’s leadership by choosing him President, a
position in which he continued to provide a model of active, responsible citizenship; and



Whereas the best tribute to the council and to John E. Clarke can be found in their many successes
and effectiveness, due largely to the broad-based participation and solidarity of the council’s members and
supporters;



Therefore be it resolved that this House express its condolences to the family and friends of John E.
Clarke, and to the Cape Breton Council of Senior Citizens and Pensioners, on the occasion of his recent
death, and hails the example of committed, active citizenship that he provided for all Nova Scotians.



I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if the House would be willing to waive notice and to pass this motion
without debate.



MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver of notice.



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.



The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.






RESOLUTION NO. 977



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



Whereas under Liberal management, this House ran out of government business only days after the
sitting began, while major bills are being rushed forward for immediate debate; and



Whereas the same government was advising provincial organizations that, “the Legislature is too
busy”, to deal with long-approved, necessary amendments to legislation governing professionals; and



Whereas the military acronym SNAFU has wide application in civilian situations, for example, when
a government is consumed by its campaign to stop a Liberal leadership review;



Therefore be it resolved that this house urges the Cabinet Committee on Legislation to stop the
SNAFUs, fulfill the government’s many commitments to specific Fall 1994 legislation, and allow enough time
for its major, far-reaching bills to be considered by the public.

 

 

MR. SPEAKER: I believe that resolution contains three separate propositions, resolved that a certain
body do (a) and (b) and (c). I therefore want to read that resolution before ruling as to its admissibility. If the
member wants to satisfy himself with (a) and (b), it urges the Cabinet Committee on Legislation to do three
things simultaneously. It certainly is not a model of ideal construction.



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 Opposition expressed no opposition to the concept of casinos in Nova Scotia days after
the Finance Minister made his announcement on Wednesday, April 20, 1994; and



Whereas the Leader of the Opposition went so far as to endorse the concept of casinos in Nova Scotia;
and



Whereas the Opposition’s, “withdrawal of support”, was based on political motives in an attempt to
injure the Finance Minister’s credibility;



Therefore be it resolved that the Opposition apologize to the Minister of Finance for implying that the
motive for casinos had to do with the expectation of personal gain.



MR. SPEAKER: With deference, I will have to rule that resolution out of order. It imputes motives
and casts aspersions and is contrary to the principles that I have established for notices of motion.






MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Is the reading of that resolution, even though it has been struck,
contained in the Hansard record or is it struck altogether? Because there is an erroneous reference to the
Opposition and we are talking about the Official Opposition in this instance, I assume, not the NDP which
has been consistently opposed to casinos from the beginning.



MR. SPEAKER: The Hansard record will be a verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this House
and will include the Speaker’s ruling. The proposed notice will not be included as a notice of motion under
that heading.



The honourable Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency.



HON. ROSS BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, I rise on an introduction. In the east gallery today, we have the
President of Pratt & Whitney Canada, Mr. David Caplan; and Vice President of Operations for the Halifax
Division, Mr. Peter Wressell. Pratt & Whitney employs over 300 people in the plant and have had continued
growth, even through the tough, recessionary times and I want to welcome them on behalf of the House to our
Legislature. (Applause)



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.



HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, would you please revert to the order of business, Presenting
Reports of Committees.



PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Acting Premier.



HON. WILLIAM GILLIS: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee on Law Amendments, I am
directed to report that the committee has met and considered the following bills:



Bill No. 30 - Crane Operators Act.



Bill No. 109 - Tourist Accommodations Act.



and the committee recommends these bills to the favourable consideration of the House, each with certain
amendments.



MR. SPEAKER: Ordered that these bills be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on Bills.



The honourable Acting Premier.



HON. WILLIAM GILLIS: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee on Law Amendments, I am
directed to report that the committee has met and considered the following bills:



Bill No. 103 - Pharmacy Act.



Bill No. 111 - Fatality Inquiries Act.



Bill No. 112 - Trustee Act.



Bill No. 113 - Natural Products Act.



and the committee recommends these bills to the favourable consideration of the House, each without
amendment.



MR. SPEAKER: Ordered that these bills be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on Bills.



I wish to advise the House that the Clerk has conducted a draw for the debate on the Adjournment
motion at 6:00 p.m. The successful entry this afternoon was submitted by the honourable member for Cole
Harbour-Eastern Passage. His resolution reads:



Therefore be it resolved that the Nova Scotia Government should be commended for the success of its
four year fiscal plan.



So, we will hear on that matter at 6:00 p.m.



The time is 2:29 p.m. The Oral Question Period this afternoon will run until 3:59 p.m.



ORDERS OF THE DAY



ORAL QUESTIONS PUT BY MEMBERS



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.



MUN. AFFS. - HFX. METRO AMALGAMATION:

 

CONTRACT (COMMISSIONER) - TERMS



MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The
minister said on Friday that she had awarded a contract to Mr. Grant Morash to undertake the work necessary
to orchestrate the amalgamation of the four metropolitan municipal units.



I would ask the minister if she will, today, table a copy of the terms of reference of the contract that
she had arranged with Mr. Morash?



HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think I made it quite clear yesterday that we had not signed
an official contract. That I had spoken with Mr. Morash last week and we had a verbal agreement of what the
contract would entail. We were in the process of doing a written contract that would have been signed this
week. As he knows, we have agreed to call for proposals on this coordinator and that is where we are today.



[2:30 p.m.]



MR. DONAHOE: Well, I find it interesting that the honourable minister could have been in the press,
as she was last week, talking about a contract and a precise amount of money that would be expended by the
taxpayers to the tune of $225,000 and now be telling us that they really just had had a few discussions. I find
it very . . .



AN HON. MEMBER: They agreed on the money awful quick.



MR. DONAHOE: Yes, they agreed on the money awful quick instead of agreeing on the nature of the
work that would be done. (Interruptions)



MR. SPEAKER: Order, now. Order. Please place your question.



MR. DONAHOE: I wonder if the Minister of Municipal Affairs, by way of supplementary, would
explain to Nova Scotian taxpayers how it is that the calculation of $225,000, as being the value of this
contract, in fact was arrived at in discussions with Mr. Morash?



MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think as I explained yesterday - or I believe it was in Question Period
yesterday - that in actual fact we had set a limit on the contract. We had set the price on the contract. In actual
fact that was a limit that we had set from the Department of Municipal Affairs. When I spoke with individuals
about taking on this job, that was the limit that we had set on that contract. So, it really actually was not a
discussion, it was, as a matter of fact, a discussion that we had had with them on the amount that would be
available in order to do the job.



MR. DONAHOE: I wonder, by way of final supplementary then, if the Minister of Municipal Affairs
could tell Nova Scotian taxpayers this. After having made such an abysmal botch of the mess with Mr. Morash
the last few days, and having made the public statements that she did yesterday that the Premier has now told
her, from Bejing or somewhere, that she will have to have a public tender. I wonder if the minister would
commit to this House and to the Nova Scotian taxpayers that she will table in this House the terms of reference
and the conditions of the contract which will, in fact, be the subject of the tender before it is, in fact, sent out
for consultants to respond to? Will she table the terms of reference here in this House so that all Nova Scotians
know what is being tendered on?



MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised that the Leader of the Official Opposition does not
understand that a call for proposal, certainly on amounts over $50,000, have to go out over the wire. They
have to go out to the public. The public will be made well aware of what the tender proposal is. I am surprised
the honourable Leader does not know that.



AN HON. MEMBER: Pick them up at the office.



MR. DONAHOE: So you will table them then?



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



MUN. AFFS. - HFX. METRO AMALGAMATION:

 

UNTENDERED CONTRACT - REASONS (DEP. MIN.)



MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have some questions on tendering and I must say at the outset
that I want to thank the Deputy Premier for having tabled yesterday the directive from the Premier on
tendering because the one that he tabled yesterday is different from the one that had been released earlier. The
document that was tabled yesterday spells out that the policy came into effect in 1993. My first question is
going to be for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.






It says in that tendering directive from the Premier that, “In those instances where it is not possible
to follow the policy, Deputy Minister’s must provide written reasons why.”. Since the Minister of Municipal
Affairs had announced that she was planning to award this contract untendered to Deloitte & Touche, I ask
the minister, will she table in this House the deputy minister’s written reasons why that policy regarding
tendering should not be followed?



HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think, as I clarified yesterday, we were in the process of
writing the official contract and the official tender that would have been done with Mr. Morash. We had had
verbal conversations and we had outlined what the job was going to entail, the amounts of monies that were
available for that job. At this point in time, we have gone for a call for proposals. As I had mentioned to the
Leader of the Official Opposition, I will make available the actual tender call for proposal that will be
available shortly.



MR. HOLM: The minister said that they were in the process of writing a contract and getting the
contract ready, Mr. Speaker. That means that they had already decided to award the contract without going
to tender. Will the minister provide the written reasons why, as ordered by the Premier’s directive, the
tendering policy was not being followed?



MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the individual last week, I went to four individuals, I
contacted four individuals to see the availability of those individuals and the interests of those individuals in
doing that specific job.



As we have explained, Mr. Speaker, there are opportunities and there are exceptions when the policy
is followed in a different way than is normally set out. Certainly, going to the limited competition as we have,
I think clarifies that.



MR. HOLM: My question to the minister, given her answers, is it the minister’s opinion, and that of
her government, that they do not have to follow the directive from the Premier on tendering, which clearly
spells out what must be done when the official and proper tendering policy isn’t followed? Is it the view of the
minister and the government that you don’t have to follow the Premier’s directive?



MR. SPEAKER: All right, I just might observe, you asked the same question twice and that is out of
order. You just ask it once.



MS. JOLLY: I think as I explained yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we have put out a call for proposals. That
process will be followed. The coordinator has not been contracted. The individual who will be accepted as the
coordinator is going through a call for proposal, as I outlined yesterday.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.



MUN. AFFS. - HFX. METRO AMALGAMATION:

 

CONTRACT (COMMISSIONER) - BILLING



MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Yesterday the minister said, on numerous occasions, that she was looking for a candidate, a person - not a
firm - to carry out this particular task for the Department of Municipal Affairs. She explained that was why
she had offered the untendered contract to Mr. Grant Morash of Deloitte & Touche.



Mr. Speaker, in view of her statements, I was wondering if she could explain to the House today, and
for the taxpayers of this province, why it is that Mr. Morash said that the bills for his services, for the services
provided by his firm, would be submitted to the firm of Deloitte & Touche?



HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I am sure, as the honourable member is quite aware, it has been
stated that Mr. Morash is a partner in that particular firm, and we had looked at contracting that individual
to do the work. But I understand Mr. Morash’s partnership contract would probably be one where the income
that he earns would go through the firm. I certainly know that we had contracted, were looking to contract
that particular individual to do the work.



MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs said yesterday that she contacted three
people besides Mr. Morash. On Monday, or over the weekend, she stated to the media that she had contacted
four people. Today, in the media, I notice that she states that she contacted two people. Would the minister
advise the House how many people she did contact and would she table the names, addresses and dates on
which she contacted those particular persons?



MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to clarify that. As I think I had mentioned on a number of
occasions, four individuals had been approached as to looking or wanting to be considered for this job. Of
those four individuals, only three were able to be contacted last week because one individual was away.



MR. RUSSELL: Obviously the minister is not going to answer the most important part of my question
which was, who were the people she contacted? I presume, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to have to go
through the Freedom of Information Act to get that particular information, or is she now prepared to deliver
to the House, today, the names, addresses and dates on which she contacted those other individuals?



MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered yesterday when I received that question. I will contact
the individuals to ensure it is acceptable to them to release that information, and I have not had a chance to
do that.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.



MUN. AFFS. - HFX. METRO AMALGAMATION:

 

CONTRACT (COMMISSIONER) - CONFLICT



MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Over the last several days, the minister has made some - what struck me at least - rather confusing statements.
She has said that the Premier was aware before he left the country last Thursday to go to China that she, this
Minister of Municipal Affairs, would be awarding Mr. Grant Morash an untendered contract for over
$225,000 the next day.



I ask this minister, was the Premier made aware of the possible conflict of interest difficulties in
awarding the contract to Mr. Morash of Deloitte & Touche who is in partnership with the wife of this
minister’s deputy minister. Was the Premier made aware of that potential difficulty?



HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, yes, the Premier was made of aware through his Chief of Staff
that the wife of my deputy minister worked for that particular firm.



MR. DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, perhaps as the honourable minister answers the supplementary, she
might identify the Chief of Staff to whom she refers. By way of supplementary I ask if that is the case if the
answer that we have just now been given, does this minister have knowledge as to whether or not the message
which she claims that she communicated with the Chief of Staff was, in fact, communicated to the Premier,
prior to her announcement to the taxpayers of Nova Scotia that she was going to engage in this contract for
$225,000 with Mr. Morash? Does she know that the Premier, in fact, got the message prior to her public
announcement?



MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, the Chief of Staff is Ms. Brenda Shannon and I will certainly check with
Ms. Shannon to make sure that she had passed that message along. It was my understanding that it had been
done.



MR. DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the Minister of Human Resources. I
wonder if the Minister of Human Resources, whom I assume was involved in the process of arranging this
contract along with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, if that Minister of Human Resources could explain to
Nova Scotian taxpayers why she would allow this contract to go forward, untendered, committing $225,000,
a quarter of a million of the taxpayers’ money, with all of the questions which did surround the problems of
the fact that (a) it was being let untendered and that (b) there were potential conflict of interest difficulties?
Could the minister explain how it is that she, with her responsibilities as Human Resources Minister would
allow the matter to go forward in that fashion?



HON. ELEANOR NORRIE: It is my understanding that the contract has not been let and has not gone
forward.



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



MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the honourable Minister of Municipal
Affairs. Yesterday in Question Period I asked the minister if she changed her mind on giving the contract for
metro amalgamation to Mr. Grant Morash on the basis of a phone conversation with the Premier. Her answer
was very clear, very concise and I quote, “No, Mr. Speaker.”. But in today’s Chronicle-Herald, the minister
indicated to provincial reporter, Mr. Dale Madill, that she changed her mind after a two minute conversation
with the Premier who is in China.



My question for the minister is simply this, is she telling the truth in this House or is she telling the
truth to Mr. Madill, which is it?



MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, please. Beauchesne, Chapter 10 on Questions, Reports and Returns under
the heading of Oral Questions at Paragraph 408 states, “In 1964, the Special Committee on Procedure
recommended the following guidelines, which were subsequently provisionally concurred in by the House,
to be used by Members in asking oral question. Such questions should:” and I quote item (b), ” not inquire
whether statements made in a newspaper are correct.”.



Those being the contents of Beauchesne I have no alternative but to rule the question out of order.



The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.






COMMUN. SERV. - CHILDREN’S TRAINING CENTRE:

 

STAFFING LEVELS - RESTORE



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question through you to the
Minister of Community Services.



Mr. Speaker, you are no doubt aware that a report was tabled in this House yesterday from the minister.
It was A Review of Children’s Training Centres in Nova Scotia. That report clearly indicated the direct
relationship between staffing levels and safety and security of residents of Children’s Training Centres.



I would like to ask the minister, you are the minister responsible, you are required and accountable for
the residents of these facilities. The review lays it out quite clearly that government decisions have been
having a significant negative impact on the safety and security of the residents of the Children’s Training
Centres. Will you agree immediately to restore staffing levels to the September 1993 level, as recommended
by the report?



[2:45 p.m.]



HON. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Speaker, concern was expressed on this matter within the report. I would
want to inform the honourable member that there are many factors relative to the needs of staffing within
those particular training centres; some are the patient load and the demands of particular patients. There have
been some changes made in that direction. The ratio, while not as high as it had been earlier when there were
higher risk patients in the facilities, it is higher at this juncture than it was before June of 1993.



MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, in fact, the report clearly indicates that it is back down to the levels
of spring, 1993. They raised very serious concerns and recommended that the minister do one of two things,
either immediately increase the staffing levels to the September 1993 level or, in the alternative, to take
measures immediately to close these centres down and bring forward the community alternatives.



I would like to ask the minister again, is he going to move immediately to respond to the very clear
concerns expressed here, that the staffing levels at the Children’s Training Centres are such that the safety
and security of the residents are in jeopardy?



DR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I believe the report that the honourable member is referring to is targeting
basically the Dartmouth Children’s Training Centre. I think if he reviews that, he will see that. In relation to
this report, we are working with parents and we will be working with parents as we proceed. There may well
be an option that the Dartmouth Children’s Training Centre will be closed earlier then the targeted date that
we had originally proposed. Certainly, I am satisfied at this juncture that the safety and security of the children
within the Dartmouth and Sydney Children’s Training Centres is secure. Every measure will be taken to
ensure that and that is on an ongoing basis.



MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, a major area of concern in the report had to do with small options
homes and the lack of standards for those homes. I would like to ask the minister, in view of the fact that the
minister knows that the safety, security and dignity of the residents of small options homes is not now assured,
will he take the measures that he knows are absolutely necessary to ensure the safety, security and dignity of
the residents of the Children’s Training Centres and small options, or is the government going to continue
to ignore the human consequences of its actions?



MR. SPEAKER: That is an either/or question and, as you know, either/or questions are not encouraged
by the Chair.



DR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling, but I think, in all fairness to the member, that
the reports have made some either/or recommendations and certainly that is an area that we will be moving
in. I can assure the member that within the next few weeks, I will have a report for discussion within this
House on the standards within small options.



I think the matter the member brings is an important one, as we see the continuum of flow and transfer
of children to either their families or into small options within the community. This has been a matter of
concern of mine since I have been the Minister of Community Services. I have asked our staff for this. They
have worked very hard. There have been many reports coming before our department, many demands on staff
and I am pleased to say that I will be able to bring this forward within the next few weeks.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou West.



MR. DONALD MCINNES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and through you to the other
members of the House, the presence in the west gallery of a former MLA of this Legislature, also a former
Cabinet Minister, the former member for Lunenburg West and a good friend of mine, Mel Pickings.
(Applause)



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.



HUMAN RES. - CONTRACT (MR. GRANT MORASH):

 

UNTENDERED - APPROVAL



MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the Minister of Human
Resources, if I could. She rather neatly attempted, I think unsuccessfully, to skirt my question to her a moment
ago. (Interruptions)



MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.



MR. DONAHOE: I asked the Minister of Human Resources a few moments ago as to how it is or why
it was, that she with her responsibilities as Minister of Human Resources would approve or allow a contract
to go forward untendered, cost the taxpayers of Nova Scotia $225,000 which was also surrounded with
possible or potential conflict of interest difficulties. Her cute answer was, well, Mr. Speaker, it has not been
let, and it has not gone forward.



Well, what I want to ask the minister is, or say to her first and then ask the question, it did not go
forward because your other colleague botched it so badly that the guy who was going to get the contract has
now backed off. I want this Minister of Human Resources to tell us yes or no, did she approve the letting of
the untendered $225,000 contract which had the conflict of interest problems attendant upon it? Yes or no.



HON. ELEANOR NORRIE: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member opposite in his eloquent
way, not cute way, must understand that the responsibility for staffing departments is the responsibility of the
department and they have come to the Department of Human Resources for assistance and for guidelines. This
is a service contract, a one-time contract and it had not come forward as a contract to my department, so I had
no input into it at this time because it has not gone forward.



MR. DONAHOE: So, the Minister of Human Resources I guess now is telling the taxpayers that she
has washed her hands of this whole deal, so she is washing her hands of all of this, my supplementary then
is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, will the Minister of Municipal Affairs advise the Nova Scotia
taxpayers as to whether or not she had any consultation with anybody in the Department of Human Resources
or in the Department of Supply and Services before making the arrangements with Mr. Morash?



HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is well aware of the fact that contracts are
dealt with within various departments. I had put forward a process, I had had discussions with individuals,
I had a verbal agreement from an individual and was in the process of trying to put the contract together.  As
I said yesterday we have made a change, we have gone to the tendering process and that is where we are
today.



MR. DONAHOE: Well, I guess the ultimate bottom line question is simply this and I address it by way
of supplementary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Can you possibly explain so that Nova Scotian
taxpayers can understand it, why it is that for a contract worth $225,000 of the taxpayers’ money, under the
circumstances which pertained to the contract, you felt it appropriate at any point to proceed without going
through a public tender process? How is it possible that you did not proceed with a matter of this magnitude
without going through a public tender process?



MS. JOLLY: Well, Mr. Speaker, there would be a lot of individuals that say the precedent had already
been set when we appointed the coordinator in Cape Breton, Mr. Charles Campbell.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings North.



MUN. AFFS. - HFX. METRO AMALGAMATION: TENDER - CHOICE



MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, my question through you is to the Minister of Municipal
Affairs. Yesterday, the Minister of Municipal Affairs indicated that she had searched high and low and found
the perfect person, the only, the unique person in all of Nova Scotia that could coordinate this very difficult
and very controversial issue. Well, I am quoting, reading from Hansard. My question since Mr. Morash has
indicated that he will no longer work with the Department of Municipal Affairs in this adventure and that he
was the only person qualified, since he is unable to do it, will now the minister cease and desist, and will do
away with amalgamation at the present time?



HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think we have made it very clear why the amalgamation of
the metropolitan area is crucial to the development of the metropolitan area, as well as to Nova Scotia. The
economic situation that having an amalgamated area will bring forward will be extremely strong. We need
an area that is going to be able to come forward as a single unit, that will be able to attract businesses which
will be able to bring jobs in.



We have seen from the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses that this area does not seem
to be open for businesses to come here. We have seen reports on that very fact, Mr. Speaker. So what we are
doing is putting forward what we consider to be an opportunity for strong development in this area. I think
based on what has been going forward, that this is being well received. It has a lot of strong support and we
will find Nova Scotia much better off with strong economic development, a strong regional government, in
this area. It will be for the good of all Nova Scotians.



MR. ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, that had absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked. The
other day we were told that there was only one person who was qualified and again we heard another
discussion on why we need amalgamation. We are not arguing the need for amalgamation, we are talking
about a contract. All we are trying to do is find out exactly why that person was chosen. Yesterday it was
because . . .



MR. SPEAKER: We need a question. Now you are on your first supplementary, question please.



MR. ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, he obviously is not going to be the person doing it. What I want to
know now is, did Mr. Morash phone the minister or did the minister call Mr. Morash?



MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I called Mr. Morash.



MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, Mr. Speaker, I really do want to emphasize that what we are trying to get
to the bottom of is his contract. Is this contract that you are going to issue now for a Nova Scotian? Yesterday
you indicated there was not a Nova Scotian who could carry on and do this. (Interruption) Read Hansard and
you will find out exactly what is true. Is this going to be another one of those contracts that you are going to
send to an Ontario company or are you going to give Nova Scotians an opportunity to bid?



MS. JOLLY: I think I made it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that I had contacted a number of individuals.
All those individuals were people who live, work and reside in Nova Scotia. I feel very strongly that Nova
Scotia has an excellent number of individuals who could look at and could be considered for this particular
job. So the tendering call that will be going out shortly will make it available and more open and will give
a greater cross-section of individuals who may be able to apply. I think that was stated quite clearly yesterday.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.



FIN. - VLTS: INSPECTORS - APPOINTMENT



MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, who is responsible
for the Nova Scotia Lottery Commission. On May 20, 1994, the minister announced what he described as
tough measures to combat illegal video gambling in the province. The policy indicated was to come into effect
immediately, I believe. We received reports that in Cape Breton and in Sackville, and in my visit to Cape
Breton this fall I noticed the grey machines in corner stores, as a matter of fact in the minister’s constituency.
Could the minister outline the effectiveness of his - I think at the time he was going to hire 10 lottery
inspectors - could he outline to us how effective those 10 new lottery inspectors have been?



HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for his interest,
particularly in the grey machines in my area.



When we announced the policy of enforcement against the VLTs, which the honourable member refers
to, and we prescribed the penalties outlined in that policy, we were, I think, pleasantly, and I won’t say
surprised but we were pleasantly made aware that there was an extremely high level of compliance virtually
immediately. I can say, visiting one of the stores that the honourable member might have been referring to,
the machines disappeared overnight.



We had existing Nova Scotia Lottery Commission people assist in attempting to confirm this and, as
well, with those licensed premises we had the Liquor License Board people.



As a result of this very dramatic compliance, quite frankly, the priority of hiring the new inspectors
was pushed off the immediate priority list and, in fact, when we received something like 650 applications for
the 10 jobs, we worked it through the system. I believe the interviews have been completed and the first of
them will be on the job shortly.



[3:00 p.m.]



MR. MOODY: Well, I think I heard the minister say the first ones will be on the job shortly, I believe
that is what he said.



I would like to go then to the Minister of Justice for a moment. The Minister in charge of the Lottery
Act is just in the process, I understand now, of hiring these 10 inspectors that were promised last May and
if they had been hired we probably wouldn’t have seen happen what we have seen happen. I would ask the
Minister of Justice, at that same time I understand that two members of the Gaming Specialists Division were
to be put in place through the RCMP and I would ask the minister if that has been done and are they in their
jobs and working at the present time?



HON. WILLIAM GILLIS: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, some extra money was provided to the
RCMP and they added some additional personnel related to gaming. As far as I know, they are in place. I can
double-check and have that information on a future day.



MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister. In my final supplementary, I would go back to the
Minister of Finance. I would ask him then, since he is just in the process of hiring these people, that he would
give us some assurance that these people and his rules are going to apply. Otherwise, with the new casino
coming on, if we cannot police what we have now or look after what we have now, how are we going to look
after casinos? Would the minister assure us that there will not be another group of grey machines coming
back, will he address this immediately?



MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I think I can tell you that the first of the new group of inspectors will
be on the job very shortly. But I think there is no denying that when we announced the policy in this House,
and there was some enforcement done by Liquor License Board people, there have been some very celebrated
liquor license suspensions as a result of this policy. There has been a dramatic change on the grey machine
situation in Nova Scotia, it was dramatic to the point of the extreme.



Lately, there has been a little bit of leakage again, the odd machine based on some anecdotal evidence
provided by people such as the honourable member, indicates that that compliance may be weakening. So,
I think the timing will be just about right to get those new inspectors out in the field.



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



COMMUN. SERV. - FAMILY BENEFITS: POLICY - RESTRICTIONS



MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of
Community Services. The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, last year, struck down the arbitrary and unwarranted
spouse-in-the-house rule. It was being used against family benefits applicants. In defiance of the Supreme
Court ruling, the government justified the continuation of that policy on the basis that they were appealing
it. The government dropped that appeal about a month ago and yet the government is still applying this
discriminatory policy.



My question to the Minister of Community Services is simply this, why is the minister still using this
unconstitutional rule to deny family benefits, regardless of the actual financial needs and circumstances of the
applicants?



HON. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Speaker, quite simply, the court did not strike down the rule, it is not
deemed to be unconstitutional and the regulation is still in effect.



MS. MCDONOUGH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am quite taken aback that the minister
has now decided that the Supreme Court ruling did not render unconstitutional the government’s spouse-in-the-house rule.



Could the minister explain to the House why he decided to appeal that ruling and then turn around and
drop it, while at the same time continuing with that same policy that was regarded by the Supreme Court as
arbitrary, unwarranted and discriminatory?



DR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, as minister, I did not make a decision to drop an appeal and, as I said, the
regulation is in effect and that is the method of payment under the Family Benefits Act that we are currently
using.



MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the minister does not know what is going
on in his own department or whether he does not want Nova Scotians to know what is going on within his
department. We have been advised by his departmental officials that this arbitrary, discriminatory policy that
the government has chosen to continue to use in defiance of the Supreme Court, is still being applied. I would
ask the minister to explain to this House why that is so?



DR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have some problems with the line of questioning. It is my understanding
that the Supreme Court did not strike down that ruling. They had difficulties with (Interruption) Mr. Speaker,
do I have the floor?



MR. SPEAKER: Yes. This is your last answer to the last question that has already been put.



DR. SMITH: The prosecution was stayed on the concerns of the court. The appeal was dealt with under
Justice. There is also some consideration of a constitutional reference, I am advised by my legal department.
At this juncture, there are ongoing discussions between our department and the Department of Justice that
would see the regulation be compliant with the Charter. There may be concerns of the court as to whether the
regulation complies, but it has not been struck down.



Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that many provinces are dealing with. There are studies going on in
Ontario and other areas. We are trying to have the regulation comply with the Charter. (Interruption)



MR. SPEAKER: I might caution the House on this questioning. We have what is called the sub judice
convention which means that any matter that is before the courts is not an appropriate topic for Question
Period here in the House. I did allow the questions this afternoon and they have taken place, but I would
caution the House that matters that are either before the Supreme Court or that are under negotiation on a
constitutional reference or matters of that kind generally are not appropriate to be asked for questions.



MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.



MR. SPEAKER: There are no points of orders in Question Period. The honourable member for Pictou
West has the floor. The honourable member will be seated. (Interruptions)



Sergeant-At-Arms would you please ask the honourable member to be seated. (Interruptions)



The honourable member for Pictou West.



FIN. - CASINOS: REPORT - ANALYSIS



MR. DONALD MCINNES: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for gaming. On
the day the House opened, October 22nd, I asked the Premier a question regarding a socio-economic analysis
of the impact of casino gambling in Nova Scotia. (Interruption) The Premier indicated on Page 3619 of
Hansard, “This particular issue will be addressed when the commissioner presents his report to the Minister
of Finance and the action will be taken then.”. My question is to the minister, will the minister confirm if it
is his intention to order such an analysis when he receives the report from the Casino Project Committee?



HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to trespass on legislation and begin a
discussion of legislation, in Question Period, which is now before the House but I cannot really respond to that
question without referring the honourable member to those sections in that legislation which enables the new
gaming control commission to do precisely that and I would certainly anticipate that they will be doing an
ongoing assessment of those types of situations.



MR. MCINNES: Then I can rest assured that study will be done after the committee report. Is that the
answer?



MR. BOUDREAU: The new commission under the legislation, and I assume that the honourable
member will assist in the speedy passage of the legislation so that we may put the commission in place, but
once the commission is in place, I am sure that they will take that responsibility very seriously. I can
undertake to the honourable member that they will certainly have the financial resources and the budget
resources to do so.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings North.



HUMAN RES. - BERKELEY CONSULTING: CONTRACT - TERMS



MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources. The
Department of Human Resources has taken over the management of the Human Resource section of the
Department of Health and has given a $40,000 to $50,000 contract to an Ontario firm without giving Nova
Scotia firms an opportunity to bid.



Is the minister prepared, today, to provide details of the terms of reference for this contract?



HON. ELEANOR NORRIE: Yes, I can table those at a later date. In the fullness of time, I will.



MR. ARCHIBALD: Well, I wanted them today; however, I sort of suspected that the minister would
not be willing to do so. However, could you tell us why no one in Nova Scotia had the expertise that you and
your department were looking for, and could you describe to us the reason that you found nobody in Nova
Scotia qualified to do the work?



MRS. NORRIE: I have answered this question several times in the last few days. A canvass was done
across the province to firms that are involved with human resources and development management and their
expertise in health reform, and different ones we called felt that some of them may be in conflict of interest
because they had been involved with health, hospitals and health boards. We felt, because we could not find
someone with all the expertise necessary, that we would go outside the province.



MR. ARCHIBALD: I find that a difficult answer to understand or believe, Mr. Speaker. My final
supplementary is, this company, by the name of Berkeley, their philosophy is think simple and act small, well,
certainly, they are not acting small in Nova Scotia when it comes to submitting their bill, because acting small
at $50,000 is not small, would the minister be prepared to table in the House a summary of the work that they
have completed so far?



MRS. NORRIE: I can do that in the fullness of time, as well. I have to tell you that Berkeley
Consulting is doing a fine job. They are a very experienced firm and I am pleased with the work that is
happening within my department for the Department of Health.



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



MUN. AFFS. - HFX. METRO AMALGAMATION: DEP. MIN. - INVOLVEMENT



MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question, if I may, through you, sir, to
the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister is quoted in today’s paper as saying that her deputy minister’s
only involvement was to give technical briefings to Morash and two others contacted about the job.



My question to the minister is, quite simply, is that her position that that is the only involvement that
her deputy minister had?



MR. SPEAKER: I already ruled out of order a question similar to that from the honourable member
for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.



MR. HOLM: Is that is the only involvement of the deputy?



MR. SPEAKER: Do not ask her whether quotations from a newspaper are accurate or not.



MR. HOLM: I am asking if that represents her position.



MR. SPEAKER: It is rather borderline.






HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think the one area that we had a question was with regard
to the deputy minister and the possibility of Grant Morash as the individual who would be the coordinator.
With regard to the other individuals that we contacted, in actual fact Mr. Cramm did have more than just a
technical discussion with them.



MR. HOLM: So accordingly, with Mr. Morash, it was only a technical discussion. I will table, Mr.
Speaker, a copy of a news report, if I may, that was given on last Friday in which Mr. Morash is quoted as
saying that he was interviewed by the minister and the deputy minister. My question to the minister is quite
simply this, is Mr. Morash, when he is saying that he was interviewed by both yourself and the deputy
minister, speaking an untruth?



MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I have clarified this point a number of times, both in the House and outside
of the House. Mr. Cramm provided Mr. Morash a technical briefing on what would be involved in that job,
the time it would take, the amount of work that would be involved, the reports that had already been written,
and some of the direction that had already been taken on amalgamation. That was the involvement of Mr.
Cramm in the discussion with Mr. Morash.



[3:15 p.m.]



MR. HOLM: So the minister, in a roundabout way, has said that what Mr. Morash says is not correct.
My final question then to the minister is simply this, was (Interruptions) I suggest those who say that what
I am saying is not correct, they should read Hansard when it comes out, Mr. Speaker.



My final question then to the minister, is part of the reason why the minister decided to cancel the
contract she was going to enter into with Mr. Morash based on the fact that her view and that of Mr. Morash
do not coincide?



MS. JOLLY: No, Mr. Speaker. I think I stated quite clearly yesterday that I had, as an individual,
identified a number of individuals who I thought would be appropriate for this job. I have reviewed those
individuals, as I stated yesterday. Because there had been some concern about the process I felt it was
appropriate at this time to go back, to reopen, to do a complete call for proposals. I feel, at this time, that that
complete call for proposal will remove any shadow or doubt about the process that has been gone through,
particularly that the coordinator would have an opportunity to do the job in the fullness that is required. This
is a very important issue that we have on the floor, the amalgamation. We are trying to get a job done here
which will benefit all citizens in the Province of Nova Scotia.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings North.



HUMAN RES.: HEALTH DEPT. RESIGNATION (DEP. MIN.) - EMERGENCY



MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources.
Yesterday, the minister indicated that Berkeley Consulting - that think simple and act small organization -
was given the contract without competition because of the emergency situation that had developed in the
Department of Health with the firing of the deputy minister. The deputy minister, at that point, was not going
to be rehired until Christmastime because the minister said he would not need one until Christmas. However,
in the last few days, there has been a deputy minister appointed to be Deputy Minister of the Department of
Health so the emergency perhaps is no longer in existence. Since the deputy has been replaced in Health, is
there still an emergency existing over there?



HON. ELEANOR NORRIE: Mr. Speaker, I am having difficulty hearing the question. I think what
you are asking me, now that there has been a deputy appointed, it is an acting deputy new to the job and the
consultants have been there now for a length of time. Their job should be completed in a very short time and
I see no reason to stop them in the middle of their work that they have been asked to do.



MR. ARCHIBALD: My question is, is there still an emergency, as you said there was yesterday, is
there still an emergency in that department as existed when there was not an appointed deputy? Now that
there is a deputy appointed, is the emergency still in existence?



MRS. NORRIE: Under the tendering policy, there is provision allowed for going to one person without
tendering on the exceptional circumstances of an urgency and that was done prior to an appointment and it
was done two or three weeks prior to the appointment of the acting deputy. That has already been done. I do
not know if the member opposite is asking that these people not continue their jobs for the next couple of
weeks - I think that is what he is asking me and I do not see any logic in that happening.



MR. ARCHIBALD: I did not see the logic either when you appointed without a competition, just
arbitrarily appointed this Berkeley group from Ontario. I did not see the logic then. You justified it because
it was an emergency. Now what I am asking again, is the emergency situation still there or has it been cleared
up with the appointment of the deputy as I suspect (Interruptions)



Now look, if we want to talk, Mr. Speaker, I would love to have a reversal on Question Period and love
to answer the questions of the honourable minister from across the way. I would appreciate the opportunity
to do that but it is very difficult to have the minister hear the question and try to answer it when she cannot
hear over in the corner.



So, again, she justified the appointment without competition . . .



MR. SPEAKER: Is that the question?



MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. (Interruptions) The not-tendered appointment of a consulting group,
Berkeley, because of an emergency situation. She said it was an emergency to get . . .



MR. SPEAKER: This is not a final supplementary question. It is a speech. I ask for a question.



MR. ARCHIBALD: What I want to know is, is the emergency situation still existing within that
department? That is why she did it and is the emergency still there?



MRS. NORRIE: I think he is asking me if the emergency is over. I think if he had looked back, the
word I used was urgency, there was an urgency involved here. That is the reason I used for the appointment
of the consultants.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.






FIN.: EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS - AMOUNT



MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. About six weeks
ago the Minister of Finance had a briefing for the media with regard to the results of revenues for the first
quarter and expenditures. At that time he was quite proud of the fact that it looked as though the province
would come in with a deficit of some $25 million less than he had anticipated.



Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is this, is he aware that he has a further substantial payment
coming from the federal government, under the heading of equalization. In the budget he is estimating about
$918 million. I understand that the amount forthcoming from Ottawa could possibly be $70 million in excess
of that figure. Would the minister confirm that or deny that?



HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: I am aware that we will be receiving a larger payment in equalization
than we did originally project or anticipate. I can’t confirm the specific number that the honourable member
mentions.



MR. RUSSELL: Now, Mr. Speaker, when we had this press conference about six weeks ago, the
minister alluded to the fact that it was the superior management of the Premier that created this windfall that
the Minister of Finance was experiencing, because of the increased economic activity taking place in the
province.



I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, if, indeed, this figure is in excess of $70 million. He has picked up $25
million to date, that was the first quarter, and it looks very much like that figure now may be $60 million.
Would he attribute that $130 million decrease in the deficit for this fiscal year 1994-95 to the management
of his particular Cabinet?



MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, this is a question I am genuinely happy to answer. The good news
that we spoke of in that last consultation process with the media and the public did not take into account the
increased payments under equalization. When we give out our next quarterly statement, which will be early
in the new year, the news will be even better. (Applause)



MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I know that I am making the minister look good and I am sure that all
Nova Scotians will be delighted with that kind of news, but I hope that Nova Scotians do not believe that it
is because of this Minister of Finance or that Premier.



MR. SPEAKER: Well, if that’s the question, the honourable minister can respond.



MR. BOUDREAU: Yes, Mr. Speaker, both myself and, I think, the Premier, are the first ones to admit
that we don’t deserve full credit for the fiscal results. I think I have said that in virtually every public statement
I have made. What we did, I think, was provide a base with our expenditure reduction plan. We put a solid
plan in place and we have implemented that plan.



Now the results are better than we thought they were going to be and we can’t take credit that they are
better, to the extent that they will be better. I think as well, to be fair, the honourable member has to give us
some credit on the other side of the ledger, for putting a solid plan in place for the first time in many years
in this province and then sticking to it.






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



COMMUN. SERV.: CHILDREN’S TRAINING CENTRE: CLOSURE - PROCESS



DR. JOHN HAMM: This is a question for the Minister of Community Services. The minister is now
in receipt of a report on the Children’s Training Centres in Nova Scotia. This report contains a number of
goals and recommendations. My specific question to the minister is what process will the minister use to
implement the recommendations and achieve the goals that are contained in this report?



HON. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the process that we will use is to have members of our staff meet
with parents and outline programs specific to the special needs of their children.



DR. HAMM: Again, to the minister bearing in mind that the minister has indicated that it is his
intention to close the Sydney training centre although he has not set a date, the report identifies a special
nursing unit in that centre with seven occupants. These occupants are described in the report as being
medically fragile and will require many special services if this unit closes. When the minister announces the
closure of that training centre, how will he deal with these medically fragile patients after that time?



DR. SMITH: As the member has pointed out there is not a date set for the Sydney closure. The care
given at that nursing centre is really of a high standard and very difficult to duplicate in any other
surrounding. I think as we work over the next period of time with the parents in that area that we will see how
the situation does evolve. We have already had requests for small options which is encouraging because as
the member may know there was a lot of resistance in that area against moving into the community and we
have tried to demonstrate our support for those moves.



I think the issue of the nursing home, which is more specifically addressing the question, is a more
difficult one. I think if you start at certainly some groups do, philosophically that every member can be
provided for in small options then we will have to pursue that route. It will be done cautiously and in ongoing
consultation with parents and as the member knows some of the children do not have parents as such and so
we look into the foster care system. So it really ties in with the whole system of respite care, foster parenting
and all of the other supports that we need.



DR. HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that answer because this is a problem that will
require a lot of special consideration. I appreciate that the minister understands that. My final supplementary
is the report recommends that all service workers in the options program will have pre-service training. My
question to the minister is what will be the educational requirement to enter the pre-service training to serve
in the small options program?



DR. SMITH: As I mentioned earlier in Question Period today, I believe we have a discussion paper
coming forward on standards within small options. I think this is very important, it is a good question and
I do not mind trying to answer it again and that will in turn spell out some of the criteria. The member himself
will have some input into that because we want to bring it forth for discussion and draw up standards that are
certainly needed within the small options homes in this province.






MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.



COMMUN. SERV. - FAMILY BENEFITS: POLICY - RESTRICTIONS



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a couple of questions to the Minister
of Community Services on a provision under the Family Benefits Act, normally or euphemistically called the
spouse-in-the-house rule. I am going to be referring to a decision by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia which
came down on November 26, 1993 just to allay any concerns you may have that we would be discussing a
matter that was before the courts at this particular time.



MR. SPEAKER: Is this matter before the courts now? You can assure us that it is not.



MR. CHISHOLM: I was just saying that this is about a decision that came down in November 26,
1993, it is not before the courts. Everybody happy with that? My question is to the Minister of Community
Services the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in rendering their decision on this spoke long and quite firmly
about the discriminatory nature of the spouse-in-the-house rule. In fact, and I will quote and I will be tabling
these documents here, let me just say that they say, “In its concept and in the effect of its application, it
challenges the affirmation that these women receive with the `concern, respect and consideration’ that they
are entitled to expect in Canadian society. No other group of recipients entitled to benefits under the Family
Benefits Act, such as the aged, the disabled, widows, married parents, etc. are faced with the same
restriction.”.



[3:30 p.m.]



My question to the minister is why, in light of the very clear decision that came through from the Nova
Scotia Supreme Court, is he and his department continuing to enforce this regulation which has been so
described by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia?



HON. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have some problems with the question in that the honourable
member refers to January 26, 1993, I think Hansard would show, and then maybe he could be more specific.
But however, he is referring to that, I think it may be 1994 that the member is referring but however, he does
read and I guess he has tabled documents on that.



I would only point out that the member maybe could review the full case and realize that it is relating
to fraud, the matters of fraud and cohabitation and that their regulation as of this date has not been struck
down.



MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, yes I am tabling it and I have reviewed the case and what I am talking
about here is that the Supreme Court on this decision made a very clear statement about the faults of this
provision under Family Benefits.



I would like to ask this minister what the justification is for he and his department to basically thumb
their noses at the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia and the clear interpretation they have of this particular
provision of the Family Benefits Act?



DR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, this issue of cohabitation, I am advised through other
jurisdictions across this country, is a very difficult issue that is trying to be addressed in different ways.



The regulation itself has not been struck down, I repeat. I am advised that it is quite legal and okay
to proceed with this. It is an issue of many tax dollars involving millions and millions of dollars within this
province and it is a matter that our department has been consulting with the Department of Justice and we
are now looking at matters that we can make this regulation compliant with the Charter of Rights, as other
provinces are doing.



MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I guess my final supplementary, let me say first of all that this is
clearly an issue of discrimination, it is an issue of need, it is an issue of fairness and it is an issue of equality.



My final question to this minister is, is the $2 million to hire deputy ministers a higher priority than
the need of people under the Family Benefits Program to receive the entitlement that they are entitled?



DR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the priorities of the Department of Community Services is to distribute
services and support services relative to the Acts of which are under our jurisdiction. We target those with
greatest needs and to justify our spending of the taxpayers’ money in Nova Scotia and we will continue to do
that.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Acting Premier.



HON. WILLIAM GILLIS: The honourable member offered to table the material. So the material was
put out, okay.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.



HUMAN RES.: HEALTH REFORM COMMISSIONER - SALARY



MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources. The
Minister of Human Resources has taken on the task of finalizing the contract for the Health Reform
Commissioner. Yesterday, I asked the minister to provide the people of Nova Scotia with the salary that is
currently being paid or in the contract for the new Health Commissioner. I know the minister has had time
to check with her department after yesterday’s Question Period because she indicated that she would find out.
Would she tell all Nova Scotians today how much they are paying the Health Reform Commissioner of Nova
Scotia?



HON. ELEANOR NORRIE: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that figure as yet. I will provide it when it is
available.



MR. MOODY: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough for me and the people of Nova Scotia.
When, I would ask the minister when will she provide that information and why is it so secretive? When will
I get that information, Mr. Speaker?



MR. SPEAKER: The salary of the Commissioner for Health Reform?



The honourable Minister of Health.



HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, if I could perhaps help the honourable member opposite
in saying that the contract is under development, Mr. Speaker, (Interruption) with Human Resources and with
the commissioner. It would be, of course, tabled as we are working on tabling the other issues and questions
the honourable member has referred to. So, we would be happy to do that as soon as it goes through the
process and that commissioner is satisfied that the contract would be signed. (Interruption)



MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Health for being helpful, but I wonder if the
Minister of Health then would tell us, for the last five months, how is she being paid and what she is being
paid? Never mind the contract that is being signed. Is she working now for nothing? If not, what is she being
paid?



DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, again, the honourable gentleman has asked these questions, particularly
about Ms. Hampton’s work and also others, we are trying to prepare in my department a resume of all of these
questions that he has asked. In respect to Ms. Hampton coming over from the Provincial Health Council, I
used the term secondment; it is not a true secondment as the honourable member suggested it was, not because
I was not aware of the intricacies of that term. However, she has come over and is working for her salary as
she had been paid prior to coming and we are working on her contract with her.



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



HEALTH: WESTERN KINGS HOSPITAL ASSOC. - PROPOSAL



MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I will switch gears a bit and I hope that I will hear the number
soon. I would ask the Minister of Health if he read, personally, or if he is aware of the proposal submitted on
August 10, 1994, by the Western Kings Memorial Hospital Association. Has he looked personally at that
proposal or is he aware of what is in it?



HON. RONALD STEWART: I have had some discussions with my department, Mr. Speaker,
regarding the proposal and we are examining it. I believe there is a meeting coming up shortly regarding that
specific proposal.



MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, I am a little disappointed the minister has not read it
himself, but I understand that he has been discussing it with staff and I am pleased with that. Does the
minister feel or his staff feel that the proposals put forth by the association and community are sound
proposals? Are they on the right track?



DR. STEWART: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would say quite categorically that we are very pleased with some
of the suggestions and the direction which the discussions have been taking with the proposals as received.
I would give an undertaking to continue to discuss them with both the individuals involved in Berwick and
also my staff.



MR. MOODY: I thank the minister for that and for agreeing to have those discussions. I would ask
the minister, I think his officials recently told the administrator of the hospital and the board that to perform
a needs assessment, I believe that is what they indicated should happen, and they will consult with the board
and do it right and slow or do it slow and do it right, I think was the quote. Does the minister believe that
doing it right means closing the hospital and having pink slips handed out prior to the needs assessment being
done?



DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, again, I am not, if the honourable gentleman opposite is quoting from
a document that perhaps has been in my department, I am not familiar, specifically, with the terms he uses.
However, our purpose in dealing with the facility to which he refers, Western Kings, was very much that we
had indicated early on that we would work with that community to develop a plan but that plan would not
include in-patient beds, which were readily available at the Valley medical centre. That was the basis of this.



However, in terms of the other needs of the community, we are absolutely delighted that that
community and its representatives have been very helpful and very thorough in developing its plan and
coming to us and we look forward to those further negotiations.



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



HEALTH - HOSPITAL (BERWICK): CLOSURE - SEVERANCE PACKAGE



MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister and I thank him for giving the
commitment to work with that group to find a solution in filling the needs of the community.



Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Health. Last May, when it was announced that
Western Kings Memorial Hospital would close - along with those in Pugwash and Wolfville - on March 31st,
at that time an intended severance package was outlined to staff. In other words, when the hospital closed on
March 31st, this was the severance package they would get; they would get four weeks for every year they
worked, up to a maximum of one year. That was the agreement that the Department of Health put out.



The workers are now told that as of this week the salary for their work from now until the end of the
year will be pulled from the severance package. In other words, someone who has worked for the hospital for
five years, because of the announcement this week, will get zero severance pay next March. They can’t quit,
they have to work.



I am asking the minister why they are changing at the last minute with the workers - this bombshell -
because the workers felt this was a commitment they had; for every year worked they had four weeks, up to
a year. Now they are being told that everybody is automatically losing five months’ severance pay between now
and March 31st. I would ask the minister why that was changed?



HON. RONALD STEWART: Again, Mr. Speaker, I would have to consult with the administration
and the board of that facility to determine the specifics of the honourable gentleman’s question. I will
undertake to do that. I think that the severance package was developed in regard to doing that institution’s
best to ease the pain of closure. I believe that some of those details to which he refers are somewhat standard
to such a severance package for facilities.



MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I know that the minister knows that for 160 workers, their lives have been
devastated by this announcement. I would then ask him today, would he give an undertaking that the
severance package that was explained to them last spring will still apply next March 31st?



DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I would, again, consult with the local board and the administrator to
determine that. I have some details on that and I will certainly review them and report back, if he so wishes.



MR. MOODY: I thank the minister and I do so wish. I would remind the minister that it was his
department’s directive that the board has now changed the severance package. I would ask the minister if he
would then have discussions or give direction to his staff that the commitment made in May to those workers
that that severance package will still stand? I think that is really what I am asking, on behalf of 160 workers -
plus all their family members - who have jobs at the hospital.



DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, certainly I will give an undertaking and commit to the honourable
member opposite that the Western Kings family would not be treated in any different way than other persons
who are undergoing the same pain of separation. Of course we will ensure that fairness is applied across the
board, to every institution in this province.



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



HEALTH - QE II HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE: BOARD - TERMS



MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to direct my question to the Minister
of Health. It concerns the QE II mega-hospital. In early July this minister announced the creation of the QE
II and yet four months later the interim board of the mega-hospital has not even met and, in fact, refuses to
meet because the minister has not yet provided clear and detailed terms of reference that would allow them
to know what their lines of responsibility, authority, communications and so on are to be.



My question to the honourable minister is whether or not his department is in such disarray and this
government so incompetent that it is incapable of coming up with the terms of reference that would guide the
operation of the QE II mega-hospital?



[3:45 p.m.]



HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, this matter of course is undertaken by an independent
board, a transitional board. It is progressing and it will progress. It is absolutely false to say or to suggest that
this board, composed of honourable citizens, have in any way relinquished their responsibility or are derelict
in their duty. I rather resent the honourable member, on their behalf, to suggest such a thing. Mercy me, be
reasonable and give them time.



MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, let me be absolutely clear that I said nothing about members of the
board being derelict in their duties. What I did say is that this minister in this department has failed to even
produce the terms of reference that will allow them to operate, which is so serious that the board and its
chairman refused to even hold its first meeting until those terms of reference are available.



My question is, will the minister today then table the terms of reference, which he says are in existence
and, in fact, he promised to provide and table in this House on the very first Question Period that was held
in this fall session when I raised this very question with him?



DR. STEWART: First of all, Mr. Speaker, that, of course, is absolutely untrue and it casts aspersion
in terms of saying that the board has not met. If the honourable member or Leader of the other Party wishes
to table some information that declares that the board has absolutely refused to meet, that would be absolute
news to me and I would like to see it. I challenge her to do so immediately because her question is based
entirely on the fact that this board has refused to meet. That is not the case.



MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I have asked on a previous occasion for the minister to table the
terms of reference of the QE II board and he said in this House he would do so. I ask again for him to table
the terms of reference of the QE II board.



I would ask the minister today, will he table those terms of reference here in this House today, unless
they simply do not exist?



DR. STEWART: You want me to discuss the terms of reference and table those. I would ask the
honourable member opposite to do the same, to table what she says, an absolute refusal on the part of the
chairman of the board and the board to meet. Do that, and I will do the same.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou Centre.



JUSTICE: MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT - LEGISLATION



DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Community Services. Mr. W. Brownell of
Northport has great concerns about deadbeat spouses. I want to know, as does Mr. Brownell, when is tougher
legislation going to be introduced to deal with this problem, the problem of deadbeat spouses?



HON. JAMES SMITH: The Departments of Community and Services and Justice have been working
on this issue. I think it would best be, with your permission, referred to the Minister of Justice who is the lead
department in this important initiative.



HON. WILLIAM GILLIS: Mr. Speaker, on the important matter of maintenance enforcement, I am
pleased to tell that honourable person through the honourable member for Pictou Centre, that the new, revised
and improved maintenance enforcement bill will be introduced tomorrow. (Applause)



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



TRANSPORT. - TRUCKERS: RATE CUT - EFFECT



MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, this question does not emanate from the newspaper. My
question is for the honourable Minister of Transportation. (Interruption)



Mr. Speaker, you know the bees are really buzzing in here. The trying-to-be’s are trying to get ahead
of the never-will-be’s and the wanna-be’s are being very quiet for once.



Seriously, Mr. Speaker, last night and this week I received some calls from some very angry members
of the Nova Scotia Truckers Association. The Minister of Transportation does profess to support and
encourage the Nova Scotia Truckers Association. The members indicated that the Minister of Transportation
has cut the rate for hauling salt from Pugwash to the various transportation depots across the province by some
21 per cent. It is worth oohing and aahing because that is a drastic cut.



My question to the minister is simply this, does the minister feel, as I do, that this will put many small
owner-operators out of business?



HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, I will try to “be’s” brief. I met with the Executive Director and
President of the Truckers Association of Nova Scotia the week before last. We discussed the rates for salt
hauling from Pugwash to all the Department of Transportation sheds in Nova Scotia. We have given a
proposal to the Truckers Association of Nova Scotia which they indicated they would be getting back to us
with a response.



To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened yet but we have given them a proposal.



MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker my supplementary goes again to the Minister of Transportation and
Communications. My question is more along the lines of how the message was delivered because I have been
told that the Truckers Association of Nova Scotia was given an ultimatum to take this rate or else it would
be going out to somebody else. Many members of my caucus have been told the same thing. I wonder if the
minister would mind clarifying this, please?



MR. MANN: Mr. Speaker, again, I met with the Executive Director and the President of the Truckers
Association of Nova Scotia and I gave them a proposal. They indicated they were going to go to the truckers
associations throughout Nova Scotia in the same process we have used in virtually all our dealings since
truckers associations have come up to speed in all areas now in Nova Scotia. I again would indicate I have
not heard back from them yet on that.



MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I think any way you cut it, it is going to force many small operators out
of business because to haul for 21 per cent less than you hauled for a number of years is certainly going to put
you in a financial hardship.



I wonder if the minister will, at least in the future, put this contract out to tender as he indicated he
would during the Budget Estimates?



MR. MANN: Mr. Speaker, this is very interesting now. Let me first of all say that the proposal that
I gave to the Truckers Association of Nova Scotia would result in approximately $800,000 in savings for the
Province of Nova Scotia’s Department of Transportation.



Many studies have indicated that an open tender system for this hauling of salt would save
approximately $1.5 million to $1.6 million. Now he doesn’t want hardship to the truckers of Nova Scotia, he
wants to kill them all in one swoop, that is what he wants. He wants measures that clearly are twice as harsh.



This is interesting, three years ago the Conservative Government in this province went to the
Management Board and passed an order through Management Board indicating that they were taking $1.5
million out of the budget of the Department of Transportation because they were going to tender salt hauling.
Three months later they went back and they rescinded, they revoked that order through the Management
Board. The interesting thing is they never showed the money going back into the budget and check the budget
debates last year and the members of the committee, you will see, where they acknowledged they had done
that. But clearly, what he wants to do in this instance is to go out, what I am trying to do and what I indicated
to the Truckers Association of Nova Scotia, I know that in the Department of Transportation we can save
additional monies if we go to an open tender, one tender across the province.



I have indicated that I do not want to do that because I know and I recognize the importance of hauling
the salt by all the truckers. We are trying to meet them halfway in this, we are trying to protect the long-term
interests and the survival of the trucking industry. We are not trying to deal them the harsh blow that that
member is suggesting.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Queens.






FISH.: TAGS - IMPLEMENTATION



MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries. Monsieur
Gerard Martin of Pointe de l’Eglise has observed that in the media we hear much about agreements between
the federal government and the Government of Nova Scotia, more specifically, the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans and the Department of Fisheries and the CEIC on implementation of TAGS, that is The Atlantic
Groundfish Strategy. However, Mr. Martin advises that when he called CEIC that he was told the only
agreement is that the federal and provincial Fisheries Departments have agreed to talk to each other.



I want to know, Mr. Martin wants to know, Mr. Page in Yarmouth also wants to know after more than,
(Interruption) apparently you don’t because you keep interrupting the question. After more than five months
since TAGS has begun, how much talk must there be before somebody makes any decisions on older workers
program with respect to TAGS?



HON. JAMES BARKHOUSE: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the member opposite has
recognized this as a very important program. Just last week in Victoria the ministers from all the provinces
and the territories met with the federal minister and a program of discussion with respect to this program
along with all other programs of the rationalization of the fisheries is taking place. Mr. John Mullaly, Gary
Dedrick, Brian Geroux have been named on a committee, the HABS, it is called the Harvest and Adjustment
Board which has just been recognized about two weeks and they are now in the process of organizing and
establishing the criteria for eligibility for people to retire license. That process has begun, the federal minister
has initiated actions with our senior level of staff to continue the discussions on the implementation of a
PWAP program and for a license buy-out and for training programs and this is all underway and we expect
within a very few months the criteria for the PWAP will be well in place.



MR. LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, if people in Nova Scotia who want to determine whether or not they are
eligible to access this program are not receiving satisfactory answers from CEIC. Would the minister suggest
who in the provincial government those people could contact in order to get the information they need?



MR. BARKHOUSE: For the previous program up to December 31, 1993, the program that exists,
Janice Raymond on my staff is the contact person and who provides information. The program that has been
proposed for the early retirement of plant workers and fishermen is still in negotiation, the criteria has not
been finally established but that will be the same person, Janice Raymond will be the contact person in the
provincial Department of Fisheries who will be very delighted to help any of the fishing industry people find
their way through the maze and we expect delivery of this program in the very near future. Funding has been
budgeted for in the coming year and it is a matter of establishing which of those people in the fishing industry
by choice will decide that they want to take the early retirement program to sell their license, to decide
whether they want to remain in fisheries, or get out of the fishing industry.



MR. LEEFE: I thank the minister for his response. Finally, on the same subject as the subject of TAGS,
I am interested in knowing as is Harold Gavin of Weymouth what if any provincial and federal fisheries aid
will be made available to assist the herring roe fishery workers who have had a very difficult time this year?






MR. BARKHOUSE: Mr. Speaker, there was a program in the past, I think an emergency program that
was provided for the herring workers and presently as of last night, I discussed this issue with the Honourable
Lloyd Axworthy, the minister whose department I believe is the one that provides assistance in this matter
and it is under discussion and we would hope that a commitment that was made last spring would be brought
into force and provide the support and the assistance that the people in the herring industry so much need
because of the failure in the fishery this year.



MR. SPEAKER: We have approximately a minute left.



The honourable member for Hants West.



FIN.: GROWTH DIVIDEND FUND - REVENUE



MR. RONALD RUSSELL: I have a question for the Minister of Finance and I guess I will have to get
to the supplementary tomorrow. In the budget that came out in the spring the Minister of Finance made
allowance for the growth dividend fund of approximately 20 per cent. As I understand this growth dividend
fund works on the increase each year in revenues and amounts to 20 per cent of that revenue. Based on the
budget that was submitted the amount that would be available in this fiscal year would be $32.6 million. Mr.
Speaker, with the windfall that the Minister of Finance is going to have it is quite conceivable that that figure
of $30.2 million could now be $50 million or possibly even $60 million. Voluntarily planning, I believe I am
running out of time, (Interruption)



MR. SPEAKER: You are out of time, really. We are into overtime now. Possibly, this topic could be
canvassed tomorrow.



MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.



MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted then for the Oral Question Period has expired.



[4:00 p.m.]



OPPOSITION MEMBERS’ BUSINESS



MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS



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



MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to advise all honourable members,
as I did last night, that we will be calling for debate Resolution No. 945 concerning the issue of tendering and
calling for a tendering freeze. Then Resolution No. 915 concerning government policy with respect to casinos
and finally calling House Orders.



Mr. Speaker, I would first call Resolution No. 945 for debate.



Res. No. 945, re Gov’t. (N.S.): Contracts Consulting - Freeze - notice given Nov. 4/94 -(Ms. A.
McDonough)



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



MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of all members and anyone else who may
be interested, I would like to read the resolve which is as follows:



“Therefore be it resolved that this House urges the government to immediately freeze all consulting
contracts until the Auditor General reports on the value obtained for the money spent on consultants, the
methods used to evaluate and award consulting contracts and such untendered consulting contracts as that
awarded to Deloitte & Touche for work on metro amalgamation.”.



I think in order to put the events of the week surrounding the metro amalgamation Deloitte & Touche
contract into some kind of prospective, it is very helpful and instructive to go back to the government’s policy,
widely annunciated and circulated during the election campaign in the spring of 1993. I guess you would have
to say that the public was propagandized by the open tendering process policy cited by the Liberal Party during
the election.



It began with a statement of principle and that principle statement went as follows:



“. . . every business must have an equal opportunity to do business with the Provincial Government.”.
A legitimate and credible tendering process offers government a real opportunity to reduce both capital and
operating expenses. All bidders shall have reasonable notice and opportunity to tender, unless there is a valid
and publicly expressed rationale, the lowest competent tender will be accepted.



We have witnessed over the last 14 months to 15 months since this government came to office,
example after example where this government has flagrantly, totally, unapologetically violated the stated
policy on which they gained a mandate in this province with respect to open tendering. Within the first few
months we had hundreds of thousands of dollars of contracts into which this government entered with
individuals or businesses in this province without the benefit of public tender.



People will remember that one of the opening shots was the quite unbelievable contract with Lesley
Southwick-Trask’s firm, Proactive Consulting, to conduct the now embarrassing 30-60-90 process that was
to be the political springboard for this government’s term in office. We saw others. We saw the announcement
of a contract with IBM untendered, which the government was forced to backdown on. We saw, more recently,
the consulting contract with Berkeley untendered, out-of-province, with the unbelievable explanation that
because there has not been a lot of health reform going on in this province that we cannot find people with
any expertise and so we have to go elsewhere.



I have to say that is an amusing shot at the lack of aggressive health reform policies of the previous
government. But, when was it the position of the Liberal Party during the election campaign, or since, that
the practices, policies and standards of the previous government were going to be the practices, policies and
standards which would guide this government in office?



The government stated in advance of the election that there would be open tendering, unless there was
a very clear rationale for not doing it. Certainly it was never suggested that there would be a long list of
exceptions. Yet just this week, Mr. Speaker, we have heard the government try to justify the lack of tendering
in the instance of various contracts on the basis that we didn’t think there was anyone around here who could
do it, that an individual minister said I felt that I could pick the best person, on the basis that certain matters
were politically sensitive, on the basis that other matters were time-sensitive, a growing list of exceptions that
this government expects Nova Scotians to accept as justification for turfing the commitment to open tendering.



Mr. Speaker, I didn’t hear the minister say whether she agreed with the position articulated by Grant
Morash, with whom she was prepared to enter into a contract up to $0.25 million, untendered, when he stated
and was reported this morning in the paper saying that he basically didn’t believe in this tendering nonsense.
He went on to say that the province will save cash by putting the job to tender but may get shoddy work. I
guess we have yet to hear whether the government agrees with the stated view of Grant Morash on this.



He went on to say, “I, quite frankly, think you picked the best people for the best job.”. Well he
certainly liked the way the minister went about doing that untendered. When you go out to tender, you go up
against all kinds of ridiculous prices and all sorts of qualifications . . .



AN HON. MEMBER: . . . makes it competitive.



MS. MCDONOUGH: Well as my colleague from Sackville-Cobequid, who has been fighting for fair
and open and accountable public tendering since the day he entered this House, has suggested that isn’t that
a problem, that you go up against all sorts of qualifications? Well that is exactly the point of public tendering,
that you go up against all sorts of qualifications so that there can be some way of determining who is out there,
with what qualifications, before you make a decision about who is going to be awarded the tender.



Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the notion that all kinds of ridiculous prices end up having to be considered
brings us to what we thought was the whole point of public tendering, and that is to be able to make an
informed assessment of what the most cost-effective tender proposal is.



Mr. Speaker, as I say, we have heard all sorts of excuses from this government about why they have
entered into so many untendered contracts. We had actually, through access to information, applied for, and
I must say received the long list of untendered contracts from the time the government took office up to
November 16, 1993. Now it doesn’t seem to be completely comprehensive, even for the first five or six
months, because it certainly doesn’t include the Proactive Group of Companies consultant contract, for
example. What is clear is that in the first six months alone there were close to $500,000 of untendered
contracts that were not reported. We are beginning to wonder, and Nova Scotians are asking, how many more
untendered contracts have there been that are unreported?



Mr. Speaker, that brings me to the point which my colleague pursued earlier this afternoon in this
House, and that is, by the government’s own stated policy position, recirculated yesterday in this House by the
Deputy Premier, there is supposed to be a clear directive - let me correct that, Mr. Speaker - there is a clear
directive that has been given by the Premier, that has been circulated to members of this House and to the
public, that says that in the instance of a contract being awarded without the benefit of open, public tendering,
that the deputy minister of the department responsible shall given a written explanation for why the open
tendering policy has been violated or circumvented.






Yet, Mr. Speaker, when my colleague from Sackville-Cobequid asked the Minister of Municipal
Affairs repeatedly here in this House this afternoon, will the Minister of Municipal Affairs table the written
explanation given by her deputy minister for why the metro amalgamation contract did not go out to tender,
she engaged in a lot of mumbo-jumbo trying to create confusion, and ultimately, is saying in so many words,
certainly the intent of what she is saying is, well, we are just hoping that that will be all forgotten; I do not
intend to be accountable for the actions of myself and my department in regard to announcing a massive
untendered contract with Grant Morash at Deloitte & Touche because we have decided not to do it after all
under intense public pressure.



Mr. Speaker, what ever happened to the concept of ministerial responsibility? What ever happened to
this government’s commitment to a higher standard of conduct which supposedly carried with it the Premier’s
directive on tendering that said, there will be a written explanation given for why, in any given instance, a
contract is awarded without there being free and open public tendering?



Yet, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in this House, the Minister of Municipal Affairs continues to try to
get off the hook in regard to her unacceptable actions, her actions violating the public tendering requirements
by now saying, well, we have decided not to do it after all, therefore we do not need to be accountable. We
hear that even though the minister announced publicly, held a press conference to impress upon all Nova
Scotians the wisdom and the wonder of their selection and their appointment of this high-priced consultant,
this high-priced commissioner that they now say, we do not need to be accountable for the fact that we
announced that and we were proceeding with that because there was no contract after all.



Mr. Speaker, it not only raises the question of when is a contract not a contract, it also raises the
question of when is accountability going to be exercised and demonstrated by this government. I think the
minister cannot escape the Premier’s directive that that written exception be tabled and she cannot hide behind
the fact that the government eventually backed down.



This kind of blatant abuse of, not only taxpayers’ money, but these blatant violations of the Premier’s
stated policy with respect to tendering is what have led us to call for a freeze on all further consulting
contracts, both tendered and untendered, frankly, Mr. Speaker. What this government has clearly decided is
that it has so little confidence in its own stated policies, it has so little confidence in the professional Public
Service of this province, that it is going to put more and more money into consultants, more and more of them
untendered, more and more of them without the benefit of explaining why they are circumventing the
tendering requirement. In the process, we are going to have both unaccountable government and we are going
to have extreme waste of taxpayers’ dollars at a time that this government most often of all reminds us is near
bankruptcy and is in a very severe fiscal crisis.



Mr. Speaker, it seems to us we have an Auditor General, and the Auditor General surely cannot be
oblivious to what is going on in this province today with respect to consultants’ contracts, lack of tendering
and so on. It is high time, that there was some accountability brought to bear, that there was some means by
which the methods of the government in granting these contracts left, right and centre would be evaluated,
will be fully reported upon to the public before we witness any further flagrant abuses and waste of taxpayers’
money.



Mr. Speaker, this government has come a long way. It has come a long way in departing from all of
its words during the election campaign about how it was going to bring more accountable government and
more effective administration to the people of the province.



We heard the Premier go on and on all over this province about how he was going to work better and
smarter with the Public Service to deliver what Nova Scotians need and deserve. We have seen the opposite
of that taking place ever since the day this government took power, but especially through the disgraceful
antics and abuses that have been exposed in the last week that show the government standard of conduct is
dictated on the basis of what they are caught doing, not on the basis of what they committed themselves to
do. Thank you.



[4:15 p.m.]



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.



MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I will have to ask a question, perhaps it is somewhat
embarrassing, but I understand we are debating . . .



MR. SPEAKER: Resolution No. 945.



MR. RUSSELL:  Mr. Speaker, we have had a long history in this particular session with regard to
untendered contracts, so it is no surprise that we must question the ground rules that were laid down by the
Premier last year with regard to untendered contracts. The latest one, of course, was with the Minister of
Municipal Affairs who placed a contract for $225,000 with Deloitte & Touche and when called to order on
that particular contract, decided that she was going to withdraw that particular offer to Deloitte & Touche and
place the matter out to tender under the process that the Premier had put in place.



Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that this is wrong. If a minister breaks a rule, at least the minister
should have the decency and the courage to come forward and say, I made a mistake. I am going to resign,
or at least submit my resignation to the Premier and then the Premier makes the decision as to whether or not
he would accept that resignation.



I think that the Minister of Health acted in a perfectly proper fashion when, indeed, a conflict arose
with regard to a policy of the government and submitted, or at least offered, his resignation to the Premier.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, of course, the Premier fired the wrong person and fired the deputy minister rather
than the minister. That is probably going to be also at some cost to this particular government, because I am
sure that that ex-deputy minister has a very clear case to make that she was the fall person and taking the rap
for something that the minister actually instigated.



Mr. Speaker, the contracting out, philosophically, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact,
I would encourage the government to do more contracting out. But, however, the process must be clear and
transparent and it must be fair. I think fairness is the bottom line of contracting out, that you go to tenders,
the tenders very clearly set out the terms of reference and that all Nova Scotians have an opportunity -
providing that they have the necessary expertise or the necessary equipment to carry out the task - to bid on
that particular contract.



But, Mr. Speaker, we have been told that the process of tendering in this province is slightly different.
If a minister considers the matter that she wants to contract out is such that there is some urgency and there
is some particular talent that he or she believes is unavailable or in short supply, then they can side-step the
process and without reference to the Premier or to the Minister of the Supply and Services or to the Minister
of Human Resources, can go out and let that contract. And that is wrong.



The Minister of Municipal Affairs told us that she did this because the individual that she wanted to
do the task was a very unique individual. I do not know what a very unique individual is, to be quite honest.
I always understood that a person or an object or anything else that was unique was one of a kind. How a
person can get 250 per cent on uniqueness is completely beyond me. But however, that is what the minister
said, she said that this was a very difficult task and that the gentleman, Mr. Morash, was a very unique
gentleman.



One of the former Premiers of this province in 1970, Mr. Gerald Regan, used to tell a story about
unique and it dealt with unique towns. He used to talk about “uni” being one, and “equinas” being a horse and
that therefore if he called a town unique, it was a one-horse town.



This directive from the Premier was put in place in 1993 and I am sure that every minister has had the
opportunity to read that and to question anything on that policy that they did not understand. So, I am at a
loss to understand why so many ministers appear to not understand the document that the Premier put out.



If it were just one minister, perhaps we could understand what the Minister of Municipal Affairs did
was an isolated incident and perhaps excusable. But we have had in this province approximately $400,000
spent to various consulting companies. The recent one, for instance, was the consultants who came forward
to screen the replacement deputy ministers for those who were fired when this government came into office.
Obviously, their screening has not worked out too well for them, but however, they spent that amount of
money. They went out to a firm, as I understand it, outside of the province to do that, we have the Minister
of Human Resources who went to Berkeley Consulting, another out-of-province consulting firm and paid them
$40,000 to provide a service to that department.



I think that what we are going to have to do when the Premier comes back to this province next week
sometime, is to obtain from the Premier a guarantee that he will put in place a new policy for tendering so
that every contract that is let over $5,000 which is the amount that the Premier has decided this policy should
be enforced for, so that every contract over $5,000 goes out to tender.



If, indeed, there is some urgency or some special circumstances and that policy is going to be
circumvented, well then I would suggest that the minister alone should not have the authority to do so. In fact,
in an ideal world, I would think that she should at least have the Minister of Human Resources agree, the
minister in charge of tendering policy in the province, the Minister of Supply and Services, the Minister of
Finance, who is going to pay for this anyway and the Premier, who is ultimately responsible, listen to the
argument that the minister puts up and agree.



If that was done, at least we would know that the system was vetted and we would have the Cabinet
and the Premier to blame for a minister circumventing the Act. And if a minister did not do that, well I think
there should be a very clear policy as there is in the Province of Alberta and that is the minister, if he or she
does not resign, they are asked to step down. Now, I do not think that that is a very difficult policy to enforce
and I do not think that the government should be operating without that kind of a policy.



We have had in the past, not only in this province but in other provinces and in the federal
government, ministers and other members of government who have, after they resign or are defeated in an
election, coming forward as advisors and consultants. I think finally, in this province anyway, we do not have
that any more because we have very clear directions under - I cannot think of the other particular piece of
legislation, the one that requires that all members file - The House of Assembly Act is one of them, but that
was not the one I was thinking of. I was thinking of the Act that set up the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.



MR. SPEAKER: Members and Public Employees Disclosure Act?



MR. RUSSELL: Yes, that is the one. If a minister or even a member thinks at sometime that perhaps
what they are doing is not quite, perhaps, cricket, not quite in accordance with the management manuals of
the government or the policies as put out by the Premier or in fact, by the Speaker, then that person should,
with common sense, be required to contact that particular office to determine that what they are doing does
not place them or some other public servant in a conflict of interest position.



Now for instance, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, I would
suggest that that gentleman is being placed in an intolerable position. He’s been placed in an intolerable
position because the minister was misguided and misdirected, the deputy minister. What I am saying is that
the minister is ultimately responsible and the minister should be prepared to stand or fall on whether or not
they subscribe to the directives of the government, the Premier, and of you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very
much.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants East.



MR. ROBERT CARRUTHERS: Yes, thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to address this
resolution. I have had an opportunity to read the notice of motion previous, and I would like to address just
that, the full notice of motion. It seemed to me at some point that the two previous speakers elected to
concentrate on some minor portion of it, but I want to address the content of the notice of motion, particularly
when it addresses that on September 9, 1993, the Premier said that he fired eight deputy ministers to revitalize
the professionalism of the Public Service of Nova Scotia, and whereas he flew to the relative safety of
totalitarian China, the Premier finally revealed the firings cost taxpayers $2 million.



AN HON. MEMBER: Totalitarian?



MR. CARRUTHERS: Now I don’t know why, whether China is totalitarian or not has anything to do
with the price of tea in China but, nevertheless, I want to address those two concerns.



MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don’t see that as part of the whereas clause, “totalitarian”.



MR. CARRUTHERS: Well, the copy that I have, it says, “Whereas he flew to the relative safety of
totalitarian China . . . “, that is the copy I have.



MR. SPEAKER: Do you have a Hansard copy?



MR. CARRUTHERS: It is the one that was delivered from the Clerk’s table. (Interruptions)



MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Just for the record, I think that term had been stricken from the notice
of motion and it reads “safety of China”, without “totalitarian”.



MR. CARRUTHERS: Well, that was excellently ruled on, the Speaker at the time, too, because that
was of some concern to me.



MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, and it is probably a fair question for
the member to raise, let me say that this was not a ruling of the Speaker, to eliminate the word “totalitarian”
from this resolution; this was a decision of mine to eliminate it for the very precise reason that it might allow
other members to become distracted from the real focus and the real purpose of the resolution.



So, Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right to have been concerned about the possibility that this would
be a distraction and, therefore, I accept it as an endorsation of my decision to eliminate any such reference
from the . . .



MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but I would also like to correct the honourable member.
The honourable member did table her resolution. In the tabling of her resolution, she does use the term
“totalitarian China”. That is the official interpretation, so the member is in error and I would ask that she
withdraw her comment.



HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to indicate that the member
was provided with a copy of that resolution by me. I obtained it from the Clerk’s Office. I wanted to indicate
that that is the official resolution that was tabled.



MR. SPEAKER: That is ruled as the official notice of resolution, accepted and tabled by the Speaker.
There is no further point of order. I have ruled on it.



MS. MCDONOUGH: . . . rule on my point of order until I raise it, Mr. Speaker. How can you rule my
point of order out of order until I have rasied the point of order?



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member on a point of order. You are impinging on the time of the
. . .



MS. MCDONOUGH: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that it is my understanding, and I would ask
for your ruling if this is not so, that the official Hansard record constitutes the official documentation of the
proceedings of this House of Assembly.



MR. SPEAKER: We will take your point of order under consideration and render a ruling at a later
date.



[4:30 p.m.]



MR. MANN: Mr. Speaker, I think that perhaps taking into consideration in the ruling is the fact that
resolutions do not have to be read; they can be tabled. I would submit, sir, that the official record has to be
the one that is tabled, not the (Interruption) The ones that aren’t read. I guess that would create a heck of a
lot of confusion there, now if you don’t read them, the one you table is not official, that really confuses.



MR. SPEAKER: I have just ruled on the matter. I have just been ruling that we will give you an
official, formal reading on our decision on which constitutes the official notice of resolution. At this point in
time I have ruled that that which has been tabled is the official notice and “totalitarian” is included.



MR. CARRUTHERS: It is nice to know that I can cause such an uproar but, nevertheless, I do have
a limited time allotted to me so I would like to turn to the particular issues addressed in the notice of motion.



I think what is important here, Mr. Speaker, is that what was first mentioned in this House and
tendered as the issue - not the one that the last two speakers have addressed for the majority of their comments
- but what was really the issue was this supposed $2 million that was wasted, supposedly, by this government
when it went into some study and some change to put us back on the right track.



I think that is the real issue here, Mr. Speaker, and I want to just point out, back in January 1994, the
Premier of this province came forward and he said, our goal is to assemble a team of senior administrators
with whom we can work in partnership to meet the challenges in bringing a new government and helping,
and to meet these challenges who are they going towards? The people of Nova Scotia. Now, that is who
elected us and they said, we want a new government. We want a new regime. We want to move to face new
challenges. Now, that is what the Premier announced.



The Leader of the New Democratic Party comes forward and says, well, no you should not do that, do
not do that. We do not want you to study. We do not want you to consult. We do not want you to bring in
auditing systems. What we want you to do (Interruption) now, Mr. Speaker, I do hope this point of order is
not going to take all my talking time. (Interruption)



MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Would the member please table any
documentation of where I have said, we do not want you to consult, we do not want you to study these matters
because he directly attributed those words to me.



MR. SPEAKER: There is (Interruption)



MR. CARRUTHERS: Mr. Speaker, they submitted a notice of motion, “. . . be it resolved that this
House urges the government to immediately freeze . . .”, and if freeze does not mean stop, I do not know what
it means. Freeze means stop, (Applause) “. . . all consulting contracts . . .”, not some consulting contracts, all
consulting contracts. (Interruption)



MR. SPEAKER: The resolution has already been tabled. There is no point of order.



MR. CARRUTHERS: Mr. Speaker, of course, this is what I am trying to address. It all depends on
what we are talking about, is it not? Now when we are talking about casinos, because I sat in this House and
listened to the other two Parties speak on the matter of casinos a little while ago - study, we got to study, we
must study this matter; how come you have not studied this matter? - as a matter of fact, they put before me
a study that was done that studied 14 other studies and we should do a study.



Now they tell us, we must stop studying. Listen, all consulting contracts do not consult. Is this not the
same bunch that told us, you arrogant people, you consult with no one, but they want us to freeze consulting.
We must freeze. Now, this is the kind of logic coming out both sides. There it goes. (Laughter) (Applause)



You know, Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the real issue here. Now, what exactly happened when
we spent some dollars on bringing in auditors and consultants. We took the bull by the horns, you are darned
right. It was not easy. Some people were not happy. Some people who should not have been happy, were not
happy. I, myself, was really glad to see some of those people not happy. (Laughter)






I can tell you, you can go out to the hinterland, go out to the regions because I will tell you what the
average person is telling us out there. The average person is telling us, we still have too many bureaucrats
making the proper decisions in this province and not enough from the people and through their elected
representatives. There is too much of that still going on. I have not heard one of them say, you should have
kept on a few of those deputy ministers. I have not heard one of them.



I would like to know if any of the members in the House of Assembly, 52 members, have been out in
their constituencies and they have had real problems with constituents coming up to them and saying, look,
you cannot fire those deputy ministers. We need them. They have been doing a really good job. Personally,
I never heard one.



The people are not mad at this; I don’t know who is. But I have really found it difficult to find the New
Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party agreeing on this. This is right back to the
progressive socialist. I don’t know what this is, but it makes no mix. There is no mix here. (Interruption) I
guess anything that we can do to try to embarrass the government is okay. If it is logical, if it is illogical, it
does not make a darned bit of difference, but that is what these characters are doing.



Let me go a little farther. What did we spend? Well, actually we spent $967,000 for the cost of the
audits. But let me tell you a couple of things. You know in the Transportation Department alone, we saved
$4.5 million. Not the $2 million or the $900,000 - the $967,000, the real cost - in one department we saved
$4.5 million. Does the New Democratic Party put a resolution forward that says, let the government be praised
for saving $3.5 million just in the Department of Transportation? No, no. None of that. That is only one
department.



How about the Economic Renewal Agency? Seven million dollars. Where are they to compliment us
on the $7 million? Education, $1.5 million alone; altogether, there was at least $13 million that we saved
doing these things, for $900,000 to bring in a study. People are not in the business of losing money. This
government is not in the business of losing money. We promised the people of Nova Scotia that when we got
elected, we were doing to clean up Dodge. Remember, we are a reform type of Party and clean up Dodge we
shall.



A couple of months into the second year, up comes the New Democratic Party and gives us the once-over for bringing in for reform for consulting, just one year after we all went to the polls and this is the
promise we made. If we had not done this, what do you think they would be saying? Oh, you did not honour
your promise, you did not honour your commitment. I am really shocked. I am shocked and appalled because
I am surprised that we have not got the full endorsement of the New Democratic Party and the policies that
we have taken to try to change what has happened over 15 or 16 years and I am surprised to find that a New
Democratic Party seems to endorse what went on for 15 years or 16 years instead of coming forward and
supporting us in trying to do the best we can for the people of Nova Scotia and keeping our promises.
(Applause)



The other two speakers in this matter spent all their time addressing this one particular question of an
untendered contract that has come to be somewhat controversial just in the last few days. I do not know how
that became to be so important to the resolution at the time. Nevertheless, I just want to mention something.
The minister has made her statement and has to pull that offer back. Good and I agree, I think she did the
right thing because we have to get on with the municipal amalgamation in the metropolitan area. We cannot
have anything sidetrack us, no matter who is doing it, so I support the minister in doing that.



I think, I would hope, that any person who is in government or any person who is in business should
understand there is a big difference between awarding contracts like hauling sand and hauling salt or even
doing studies and matters of personal service. You, surely, do not go out and tender matters of personal
service. Surely, you do not go out and say, well, now we need a new secretary to come work in the office. We
are going to pay her more than $5,000, so we will put a tender out. All you people who will work cheapest
as my secretary, come on, we will give you the lowest bid. That is not the concept of tendering. Personal
service contracts are not to be tendered.



What were they supposed to do with these nine ministers, put out a tender before they even told the
other nine, you do not have a job any more? Put the tender out in the paper today and say, I want you all to
apply for the nine jobs that we have not announced we have gotten rid of yet. Now what kind of logic is this?
No wonder these guys were running the show for 15 years or 16 years.



But, the NDP to stand up and endorse it, I am surprised and shocked, but I do thank you, Mr. Speaker,
for giving me the opportunity of pointing out these inconsistencies. (Applause)



MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.



Before I acknowledge the next speaker, I indicated that I would rule on the validity of the notice of
motion and I have been informed that the notice of motion was given verbally in the House, not tabled, but
given verbally. While it is not reflected in Hansard, the official notice of motion does include the term
totalitarian. That is my ruling.



The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.



MR. JOHN HOLM: I guess that means now that Hansard is not official, Mr. Speaker. I am going to
avoid those rabbit tracks in terms of a lot of the things that have been said.



I was thinking, however, as I was listening to my colleague in this House, the member for Hants East,
that I should be introducing a resolution tomorrow calling upon this House to pass it and give it unanimous
approval and to give the member the award for giving the most humorous speech of the year. In terms of
reality, in terms of addressing the important issues, it shows how little concern this government has for the
important issues facing the people of this Province of Nova Scotia.



The member who spoke before may not have any concerns about $2 million, the cost to replace a few
deputy ministers. Let me tell you that the people of this province who are having their services reduced, the
people in my community who are seeing Grade Primary education reduced because there are not any monies.
This province says it does not have enough money to provide full day Primary education. They are interested
in that, the people who see and who are concerned about the children, the most vulnerable children, where
we see this government bragging about where they are making certain kinds of savings. Well, I suggest to you
that those who are concerned about the security and well-being of children who are the most vulnerable and
who this government is saving money at their expense, they have some concerns.



I would suggest that when we are talking about consultation, that doesn’t mean and I don’t remember
this Liberal, any one of them in here, when they were running around campaigning for their current positions
and when they were promising that they were going to be cleaning up government, I don’t remember one of
them saying that what they meant by consultation was hiring high-priced untendered consultants. Hiring high-priced consultants is not consulting.



[4:45 p.m.]



This government and I suggest the ministers are also making a joke, not only of their tendering policy,
but I suggest also, they are making their own boss, the Premier, look a little bit like a joke. I will refer to the
tendering policy that was introduced in this House by the Deputy Premier yesterday which is different, I might
add, to the one that the Premier released publicly about a year ago and it is different in one important clause.
It says, “If not already being followed, the new policy must . . .” not may, but must, ” . . . be fully implemented
no later than December 1, 1993. In those instances where it is not possible to follow the policy, Deputy
Ministers must provide written reasons why.”. That is the Premier’s word, that is the Premier’s directive, with
those that he has trusted to serve on the front benches, many of whom have chosen to ignore.



He goes on to say, “If not yet implemented, you should take immediate steps to do so in your
departments, in conjunction with the Department of Supply and Services.”. That is the Premier’s directive,
it says so, it is a Directive From Premier on Tendering. So I assume since he hasn’t stood on any occasion on
a point of order in this House to say he disowns this policy . . .



AN HON. MEMBER: He might tomorrow, though.



MR. HOLM: . . . he might tomorrow or whenever it is he comes back or maybe the minister will get
a message beamed to her from somewhere through the electronic highway saying he is taking back what he
said, then.



It is interesting that in this note it started to say please pass on to employees, the please was scratched
out. It now reads and it shows clearly on this note, “pass on to your employees . . .”. In other words, clearly
the Premier has given a directive. Now maybe behind the scenes the Premier has gone and said, wink, wink,
that you don’t have to follow my directive but quite certainly the Premier, when he comes back, is going to
have some answering to do. I would suggest, if we live in a province that still believes in the principles of
parliamentary democracy and ministerial accountability, that there are a number of members who are sitting
on the front bench whose seats should be vacated and some of those wannabes on the backbenches may get
their chance, if the Premier does what he properly should do.



AN HON. MEMBER: We will get a chance long before you do.



MR. HOLM: Yes indeed, I would suggest to the member for Cape Breton South that maybe you will
have a chance long before I will to be in one of those seats but I want to tell you that I am not prepared to
compromise my principles, . . .



AN HON. MEMBER: Buy your way into . . .



MR. HOLM: . . . buy my way into the front seats by turning around and violating the basic principles
that I stand for and that certainly is one of them.






It is interesting because in that same note it says, “It is an important principle that every business must
have an equal opportunity to do business with the Provincial Government.”. Now this government has
obviously decided that if you don’t support that, if we aren’t going to follow that, some businesses are more
equal than others. This government is prepared to play favouritism with businesses, if that policy is not
followed.



I also feel a bit of sorrow for the Minister of Supply and Services because he is charged with the
responsibility of administering the tendering Act, Mr. Speaker. From what we see it appears quite obvious
that this government and these ministers don’t even consult with the Minister of Supply and Services. So not
only are they ignoring the Premier and the Premier’s directives, but they are also skirting around the proper
process and the person and the department that is challenged, in fact, to enforce it.



We heard the previous speaker going on . . .



MRS. FRANCENE COSMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would really urge members of this
House not to use a form of sexism in their language. Earlier today we heard the Leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party address a minister using the words, skirting around. Now the honourable member for
Sackville-Cobequid is using the words, skirting around again.



All these members know that in today’s thinking, in 1994, that perhaps skirting around is a form of
sexist language and I don’t think it is appropriate in this House.



MR. SPEAKER: Well, it is debatable whether there is a point of order . . .



MR. HOLM: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word skirting if that is offensive, and, quite
truthfully, I had never thought of that as a sexist word. If it is, I would certainly apologize for using that word.
Therefore, I would substitute the word ducking, Mr. Speaker, or running around in circles, or any other
adjective that has the same meaning as the word which has offended the minister, or the wannabe minister,
Mr. Speaker.



My next comment has to do with this whole idea that we have, as the previous speaker said, going on
and criticizing the public sector and saying how we have too many bureaucrats and that we need to be going
out, to be hiring these high-priced consultants.



You know, Mr. Speaker, the list that the Leader of the New Democratic Party referred to at the very
start, and this just goes up until October 1993, that had about $500,000 in it. Obviously, they didn’t learn at
all from their fiascos last fall and the Premier’s directives. But, you know, this member and the government
members are slapping the public sector workers in this province in their faces suggesting that they, the public
sector workers, don’t have, within the public service, the personnel, the staff, to be able to be doing much of
the kinds of research and so on. It is a direct lack of confidence that this government is expressing in the
people.



It is interesting that when we had to spend about $0.5 million for consultants to replace the deputy
ministers, that the Minister of Agriculture and Marketing is able now to use the Department of Natural
Resources to be looking for a new deputy minister. So now, obviously, Mr. Speaker, one minister has
confidence in the minister’s staff, in the Department of Human Resources, but before that, nobody did. Of
course those who feel like Mr. Morash, who is quoted in the papers today as saying that it is quite frankly that
you pick the best people for the best job when you go out to tender, you go up against all kinds of ridiculous
prices and all sorts of qualifications. Well, those, Mr. Speaker, who can benefit from these untendered
contracts, I am sure they support the government, and maybe the next election will show that, in that the
dollars from some of these consultants may flow into the coffers of the Liberals.



I suggest, Mr. Speaker, and I have been doing some research as well, I would suggest that people
should look back at the comments, for example, of the current Minister of Housing and Consumer Affairs,
when he was talking about how you increase the bang for your buck when you go to tender. He was making
those comments while he was on this side of the House. In fact, the current Minister of Municipal Affairs is
quoted as taking some shots at the former Conservative Government when they were talking about selling off
the electronic toilet seats saying how obviously the government was involved in a seat sale. Well, I would
suggest to the Minister of Municipal Affairs who referred to the fact that the former Conservatives were
involved in a seat sale that there are many Nova Scotians who would like to see a seat sale on Cabinet seats
right now because of this government’s total and flagrant abuse of the principles that it supposedly stood for
and supposedly still stand for. (Interruption) Thank you for the concern for my health, I’m also concerned for
yours and your long-term well-being. I am talking to the member for Cape Breton West who asked questions
about my health.



MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.



MR. HOLM: Mr. Speaker, if this government and if the ministers expect to have any credibility then
we must have an open and a transparent process as was promised for tendering; spending not $50,000,
$60,000 or $80,000 but hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fact millions of dollars. I heard it
being said that people are raising questions about Mr. Morash’s ability. I am not questioning his abilities at
all. What I question is the ability of this minister and of this government to engage in a fair, open process that
does what the Premier’s policy states - give every business an equal opportunity to do business with the
Government of Nova Scotia. What is so unreasonable or impractical about that?



If that means according to, as the article in today’s paper from Mr. Morash where he is quoted about
ridiculous price, if that means Nova Scotians are able to obtain services for less money then maybe the
Minister of Community Services will be able to get some dollars from his colleagues to provide adequate
levels of assistance. Maybe those children, those vulnerable children who are having services cut and
programs eliminated, maybe there will be some dollars for them.



Consultation does not mean, as a member for Hants East would indicate, hiring private consultants.
He gave a very amusing and a very interesting speech and I am sure the Premier will be amused by it. If the
Premier does what many people would feel is a reasonable thing, tell certain ministers to hit the highway, join
the member for Cape Breton West in the back seat, if he does that then some of these members may have a
chance to move up. Maybe. Maybe the wannabes are going to become actual full-fledged front bench
members. How much time do I have left, a minute left? Well, time is running short and I haven’t gotten into
all the quotes that I wanted.



I just want to read some numbers. This goes back to the freedom of information request that came back
dated October 29, 1993 and doesn’t include the hundreds of thousands that have been planned for the
minister’s choice for the metro amalgamation. Doesn’t include Berkeley, doesn’t include the Minister of
Health, Cynthia Martin and many others. Anything from that time but just amounts, Economic Development,
these are all untendered $26,000, Education $44,600, Education $47,500, you want to table this, this is a
freedom of information reply, no problem. Education $50,000, Environment $54,000 and the list goes on, it
is time that this government starts to do what it said, clean up its act. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.



MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid table the
document from which he cited, please?



The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.



[5:00 p.m.]



MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, as it is already indicated, we would now like to call for
debate, Resolution No. 915.



Res. No. 915, re Fin.: Casinos - Consultation - notice given Nov. 4/94 - (Ms. A. McDonough)



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



MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: The resolution reads as follows:



“Whereas the Finance Minister has led this House to believe that he has relied heavily upon
Saskatchewan as a model for the introduction of casino gambling; and



Whereas the wide public consultation, discussion and study in Saskatchewan means that the earliest
date for a proposed Regina casino is November 1995; and



Whereas respect for the democratic process and local government is such that a suggested Saskatoon
casino has been halted by the overwhelming verdict of a municipal referendum and by city opposition;



Therefore be it resolved that the Finance Minister should either refrain from creating false impressions
or else follow Saskatchewan’s lead, by careful public study, wide consultation and discussion long before any
casino opens, including local referenda and municipal council decisions on whether or not a community must
accept a casino and regular public reports by an advisory committee on the social aspects of gambling, as
Saskatchewan has set up.”.



MR. SPEAKER: Before the honourable member launches into her debate, would she yield the floor
for an introduction?



The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.



MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I shan’t let the Leader of the Third Party down, it will be a
brief introduction. I would like to introduce to you and members of this House, a former Halifax County
colleague and still a Halifax County Councillor, Reg Rankin from Timberlea, District 2. I would ask the
House to give him a warm welcome. (Applause)



MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I want to just say a word or two about why we chose to call this
resolution for debate tonight. I think it is fair to say and if it is not, I am sure the Minister of Finance will
correct the record in this, that the one and only specific report that the Finance Minister has brought forward
to justify his decision to open Canada’s only privately-owned casinos, which is what we will have if the
minister gets his way, regardless of public opinion, the only specific report that the minister has cited is this
report from Saskatchewan, entitled Economic Feasibility of Casino Gambling in the Province of
Saskatchewan.



We have tried and tried to coax out of the government, to tease out of the government, to provoke out
of the government the specific studies, reports, analysis on the basis of which they have made the completely
unacceptable decision to barge ahead and introduce casino gambling in this province. No reports have been
forthcoming from this Minister of Finance that the government itself has conducted. Neither have they
brought forward other reports on the basis of which they came to the conclusion that somehow the health of
Nova Scotians and the economic health of Nova Scotia would benefit and prosper from the introduction of
casinos.



Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important that we look closely at the only report that the minister has
referred to to try to justify his actions and put that report in context so that there is not a deception and a hoax
being perpetrated on the people of Nova Scotia by the implication that this report justifies what the Nova
Scotia Government is doing, shoving casino gambling down their throats.



Let me say, first of all, Mr. Speaker, that this report is one of many reports that have been carried out
in Saskatchewan in advance of any casino legislation being brought in. Secondly, it is paralleled by a
ministerial advisory committee on the social impacts of gaming, which is extensively consulting with people
across the province, which is doing a great deal of detailed study of its own and which is reporting regularly,
both to the minister and to the people of Saskatchewan.



Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Saskatchewan has declared the absolute opposite of what the
Government of Nova Scotia has declared, that it will not set up a casino against the wishes, against the
opposition of any community. It specifically indicated that it would respect any community’s desire not to have
a casino imposed upon them and, consistent with that, Mr. Speaker, when the people of the City of Saskatoon
conducted such a referendum, came down on the side of rejecting a casino for their community, the
Saskatchewan NDP Government said we will respect their wishes and we will not proceed with such a casino.



Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Government enunciated the same policy; they said we will not introduce a
casino into a community unless that community wants that. I don’t know why, Mr. Speaker - I don’t live in
Windsor - but apparently Windsor said, we will go with the casino. Personally, I would have been fighting
on the other side of that policy whether there was an NDP Government, a Tory Government or a Liberal
Government.



The Province of British Columbia declared the same policy; they said if the people of a community do
not want the casino, there will not be a casino and, on that basis, in direct consultation with the municipal
government in Vancouver and the people of that community, they decided against the introduction of a
private, commercialized casino in that province and in that city.



So, Mr. Speaker, it is very important for people to understand that if the Saskatchewan model is the
one that the Government of Nova Scotia is going to cite to justify their decision to shove casinos down people’s
throats, that they tell people the truth about what the situation is in Saskatchewan. The fact of the matter is
that tens of thousands of Nova Scotians have said clearly that they are opposed to casino gambling going
ahead in this province and, on the only occasions when they were consulted, that was the overwhelming
expression of sentiment.



Mr. Speaker, this government has decided that the express wishes of tens of thousands of Nova
Scotians, as individuals who have signed petitions and spoken out publicly and the official policy positions
of dozens and dozens of community organizations, religious institutions, recreational associations, community
service agencies, their views count for nothing. They have decided to ignore the positions put forward in
opposition to casino gambling by the Lutheran Church, by the Anglican Diocese, by the Atlantic Ecumenical
Council, by the Diocesan of Antigonish Council of Priests, by the Cumberland County Council, the the
Industrial Cape Breton Board of Trade, by the Industrial Cape Breton Council of Churches, by the Innkeepers
Guild, by Lunenburg Town Council, by the Maritime Conference of the United Church, the Nova Scotia
Association of Unique Country Inns, the Nova Scotia Medical Society, and the list goes on and on.
Furthermore, the list grows every day. The reason it grows every day is because this government is making
unsubstantiated, exaggerated claims about the economic and social benefits of casino gambling to the people
of this province and it has yet to bring forward any substantive basis for those claims.



Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance cited the Saskatchewan study as the justification. Well, it is worth
noting and perhaps the minister omitted mentioning that despite the somewhat larger Saskatchewan
population, the Saskatchewan projections for total casino revenues are in the order of $6.4 million to $16.1
million annually. I believe that was a projection based on the assumption of there being a casino in both
Saskatoon and Regina, and Saskatoon has said no to casinos so the NDP Government of Saskatchewan has
said they will not impose the casino.



Mr. Speaker, they have projected that net employment gains coming from such casinos would be in
the range of 113 to 228 jobs; hardly the jackpot that the Minister of Finance tried to persuade the people of
his community, and the people of Nova Scotia, were going to be the net job gains and the economic benefits
to Nova Scotians when he talked in June so expansively about all the great things that were going to result
from casino gambling being imposed upon Nova Scotians.



Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace, it is a betrayal for a government that said it was going to consult with
Nova Scotians to completely fail to conduct its own studies to bring forward any evidence, other than by
waving this report from Saskatchewan, believing, I guess, that somehow we would not bother reading the
report, we would not bother doing our homework on how the actions of other governments differed from this
government in proceeding to ram casino gambling down our throats. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.



MR. SPEAKER: Time.



The honourable member for Queens.



MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this matter forward for
debate tonight. I would hope that Nova Scotians who are watching the channel will feel themselves to be
better informed as a result from hearing from all three Parties tonight than perhaps they were in advance of
this debate taking place.



I think the first question that one would want to ask is, who wants casino gambling in Nova Scotia?
Well, we have heard from my colleague just a moment ago, all of those who do not want them, and it would
seem that the list of those who do is rather shorter. One must assume, and I will be generous in this, that there
are at least 41 Nova Scotians who are identifiable by name who are in favour of casino gambling. Those would
be the 41 members of the government in the House. (Interruption) When third reading occurs and the vote
is taken, we will then know precisely where those people stand.



Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the three companies which are vying for the two spots would be very much
in favour of casino gambling in Nova Scotia. We have the ITT-Sheraton group, headquartered in Boston.
Well, that will be very nice for Boston that the significant profits that flow out of gambling here will be going
to there. We also have the Casinos Austria International group, which I have to assume probably is
headquartered in Vienna. Well, I am sure the Viennese will be delighted that their company will be getting
profits out of Nova Scotia. Of course, then there is the largest of them all, I think probably the largest in the
world, Harrah’s of Reno, Nevada. Perhaps to twin with the gambling, the Minister of Justice might negotiate
with the federal government and arrange for us in Nova Scotia to be able to offer quickie divorces, as well,
to go along with the new gaming policy of the province.



Mr. Speaker, who will advantage? The casino owners themselves, certainly, will advantage. There is
no doubt that, at least in the short term, those who have provided professional services to these companies will
advantage as well. I, like most members of the House, I suppose, happen to recognize some of the names of
some of those who have been providing professional services to those gamblers. The name Jim Cowan leaps
off the pages of the paper, John Dickey, George Unsworth, Ted Flinn, Bill Mingo. I have never seen any of
them at a Progressive Conservative gathering. I would guess that probably the Leader of the third Party has
not seen any at the New Democratic Party gathering, but I suspect they may well have been seen at many
gatherings, with doors both opened and closed, with respect to the Liberal Party. Certainly, those people will
advantage.



Mr. Speaker, in the short term, the government may advantage as well. The minister, I believe, has
told Nova Scotians that he expects a net profit of between $40 million and $70 million annually from the two
gambling casinos which will be in place here in Nova Scotia.



Mr. Speaker, who disadvantages from the creation of casino gambling in Nova Scotia? It is widely
believed by many, and I am one of those who has come to be convinced that these are very serious concerns
which have not yet been addressed by the government, are the communities in which the casinos will be
located. It is said, widely, and I believe there is proof to demonstrate, that casinos have the capacity to increase
prostitution, theft, loan-sharking, fraud and to invite money-laundering just to mention a few things.



Who else will disadvantage, Mr. Speaker, if in fact all of those things, to one extent or another, do
occur as a result of casino gambling here? Certainly, the taxpayer will disadvantage. The taxpayer will
disadvantage because it is the taxpayer who will pick-up the tab through social services, through health and
through justice for dealing with the negative aspects of casino gambling.



[5:15 p.m.]



We have heard a little bit tonight about what is done in other jurisdictions. I took a look at a few
newspapers and I would like to share some comments from those newspapers with our colleagues in the
House. I am looking now at a British Columbia newspaper, the Vancouver Sun. It says, the government has
prudently ruled out - this is the New Democratic Party Government in British Columbia - joining the North
American stampede to allow the operation of large casinos for private profit. This policy will not please either
supporters of the proposed Seaport Mirage Casino on the Vancouver waterfront, or those who oppose any
increase in gambling, in particular, the introduction of computerized video lottery terminals. However, the
government has given sound reasons for both decisions.



Mr. Speaker, we might take a look at the kind of divisiveness that can arise in communities as the
result of decisions taken with respect to casino gambling. Here, I refer to the Vancouver Sun again, by one
single vote, by the slimmest of majorities, the Kamloops Indian Band passed a referendum during the weekend
allowing the construction of a controversial, high-stakes casino on reserve land. The final total is 106 to 105.
It’s proponents see a source of income for the band, it’s opponents see a quick fix that down the road could
saddle the band with debt and social problems. Of course, that is what very much concerns us here.



Mr. Speaker, we also know that in Saskatchewan, casino gambling is going to become a fact of life as,
no doubt, it will be here in Nova Scotia, at least for some time. The Leader Post in Regina, in a column by
Don Curren, has this to say, last week during Saskatchewan’s municipal election, the people had one of their
rare opportunities to do the speaking. It refers to a plebiscite in the City of Saskatoon where 80 per cent of the
people who took part in that plebiscite said that they did not want casino gambling in their city. The point that
the columnist makes is that isn’t it nice that at least in one jurisdiction in Saskatchewan, that people were
given the opportunity to have their say. That is one more site than has been the case here in Nova Scotia.



Mr. Speaker, Vancouver City Council has undertaken a study that I think would be well worthwhile
us considering. That study says that: 1.5 per cent of the adult population of the lower mainland is made up
of pathological gamblers. For every pathological gambler in the province, 10 to 17 other people are affected,
including his or her spouse, children, extended family, employer, employees, clients, consumers, creditors and
insurance agencies. Finally, the study says that each pathological gambler costs society about $40,000 a year
in lost wages and costs associated with health and family breakdown and police problems.



Mr. Speaker, it is not too difficult to extrapolate those figures and apply them to Nova Scotia. I have
endeavoured to be fair in doing this. This one study says 1.5 per cent are pathological gamblers. There is
another study in British Columbia that says as many as 3.5 per cent are pathological gamblers. If we apply
that to the adult population of Nova Scotia, which is 672,700 people, it means that there are about 10,000
people in our province who would be deemed to be pathological gamblers. If we take a look and see that 10
to 17 people will be affected by each of those, then that means that there would be a total of 100,000 to
170,000 Nova Scotians who would be affected as a result of the pathological gambling of that 10,000.



Then, Mr. Speaker, we take a look and see that it will cost, by this study’s estimate, $40,000 a year for
each of these pathological gamblers and we apply that $40,000 to Nova Scotians, the 10,000 people here who
would probably be pathological gamblers and we find the bill is $400 million annually. That makes the profits
that the Minister of Finance has brought before the House of $40 million to $70 million look pretty puny
altogether.



Now the Minister of Transportation says this study like all of the others is no good. But the unfortunate
thing in Nova Scotia is that we have not been given the opportunity to see any studies. We have not seen any
studies because the government claims that it has not carried any out. Perhaps the reason that those have not
been carried out is to be found in the Saskatchewan example.



I quote here sir, from The Star Phoenix, the Roy Romanow Government is sitting on a bombshell and
desperately trying to figure out how to diffuse it just when it thought the gambling issue was subsiding. Afraid
of the political damage that could result, the government has been withholding a report while it tries to find
a way to save face and, Mr. Speaker, that is why this government has not done any reports, that is why this
government has not done any studies because it would rather say that it has none than run the risk of telling
the people of this province the truth.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Finance.



HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, if the last two contributors to this debate have
demonstrated anything, I think they have demonstrated the need for some moderation and common sense in
this debate.



Let me tell you what Nova Scotia did, I am going to go back and comment specifically on the wording
of the resolution to point out a problem which recurs with the NDP. But let us look at exactly what Nova
Scotia did, Nova Scotia went out and benefitted from the experience of six provinces, including those
provinces they mentioned, who have already decided to proceed with casino gambling and in fact, are
proceeding with it, are operating casinos.



So, we are not talking about some study somewhere by some academic, we are talking about actual,
hard, experience. Now common sense tells you that has got to be the best evidence, common sense would tell
you that. But we also had the benefit of all sorts of studies that were done and those studies are all public, they
are available to everyone, they are available to all the Opposition members. As a matter of fact, the only one
they have managed to quote from apparently is the one I tabled in the House yesterday and the one in which
they claim we are so heavily relying. I will comment on that in a moment.



But look, from a practical, common sense point of view, we have this experience before us, we have
the benefit of all sorts of reports. As a matter of fact, the Goodman Report which I think may have come up
in the House earlier, the honourable member for Hants East pointed out that report took an interesting
approach. It looked at 14 other reports and suggested that of the 14 reports that this report reviewed, it
disagreed totally with 10 of those reports, it disagreed partially with three of the reports and only agreed with
one of them.



There are reports coming out of your ear and they are all available publicly. So, if the honourable
members want to look for reports, I invite them to do so. They have a very well staffed research department,
highly-paid, perhaps some might say overstaffed. They have the opportunity, these reports are public. They
also, the NDP caucus, has the advantage of three governments in this country that are actually running casinos
and are of the same political persuasion, I think they would probably talk to them. They could probably get
all of the information we did from any one of those governments. They could get it from Ontario, they could
get it from Saskatchewan, they could get it from British Columbia, we did and I am sure they can.



Now one of the problems that I have with the NDP resolution and it is a perennial problem, is they
adopt an approach, a debating approach that I think is taught first at the junior high debating society level and
that is, that what you do is you mis-state the opponent’s position and then you attack the straw man. You mis-state the position and then you attack your statement of the other person’s position. That is an old debating
society trick, it is not in much use any more beyond junior high school but there are certain examples of it that
you find at every level. That is, in fact, what they do constantly.



Now let me look at this resolution. There is a lot of background noise from the NDP corner.



MR. SPEAKER: Yes, order please.



MR. BOUDREAU: “Whereas the Finance Minister has led this House to believe that he is heavily
relied upon Saskatchewan as a model . . .”, when did that happen? I quoted one quote in response to a
question from them and indicated that the Saskatchewan proposal said that 25 per cent of the revenue comes
from out of the province. When they asked me to table the report, I tabled it. Now, does that make sense? It
is the only report that you have tabled. It is the only report that came up in my response to which I was asked
to table, but all of those other reports are available, many of them from NDP Governments, which apparently
they do not want to talk to. Somehow I have led somebody to believe that we heavily relied on that one report.



Now, let us go on with this resolution because this is typical. “Therefore, be it resolved . . .”, and here
is the serious part, Mr. Speaker and honourable members, “Therefore be it resolved that the Finance Minister
should . . . follow Saskatchewan’s lead, by careful public study, . . .”, presumably, they mean, careful public
study before you make a decision to proceed with casinos. Let me quote from the Fox Consulting Report,
Saskatchewan, January 1993, that is the one I tabled yesterday and they have obviously read it last night.



At Page 14 of that report, “The Province of Saskatchewan is planning to introduce 3,500 VLTs over
the next two years.”. Now that was a decision that was made prior to them receiving that report which was
dealing with that issue. It seems to me that they made that decision prior to receiving the report. Then you
go on at Page 18 and they were talking about the Regina and the Saskatchewan exhibition casinos, “The two
casinos reported gross gaming revenue of $4.98 million in 1991.”. The report is dated 1993, sounds to me that
they were running casinos in Saskatchewan before that report came.



I do not want to deal with the misimpressions that might, of course, inadvertently result from the NDP
resolution and their comments. I want to deal with the substance of this issue.



There are Nova Scotians who honestly believe, that for moral reasons, they are not in favour of casinos
in Nova Scotia and I respect those views. They cannot form the basis of public policy, but I respect them and
those people who honestly hold that view. There are those who oppose casinos for purely political reasons and
I will tell you, among them I suspect anybody who comes up and supports casinos, as the honourable Leader
of the Opposition did, when the announcement was made and then does the reverse later. That, to me, is very
suspicious of a person who has designed his principles around some politically motivated realities.



What really sometimes annoys me, is the reference that the Conservatives and the Opposition
sometimes make to all those Liberals that are associated with the three casino bids that are still in the running.
They do not talk about the Honourable Gerald Regan, who was a Liberal Premier of Nova Scotia who was
associated with a bid that was cut and some other prominent Liberals that were associated. I suspect that
anybody who looked at the way you did business in this province over the last 15 years, might figure you
should have somebody of the ruling Party on your side, on your team. I can understand how they would get
that impression in Nova Scotia. (Applause)



I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, those days are over. We have set in place an arm’s length process and we
will stick with that arm’s length process. (Applause)



Now that we have legislation before the House, legislation which, by the way, provides for ongoing
study and monitoring of social impact of gaming. Now that we have legislation, I trust that we can restore a
sense of balance to this debate. Publicly sanctioned gaming has been a fixture in Nova Scotia for 20 years. The
VLT program which will yield more money than any casino ever will was sanctioned by the former
Conservative Government. The volume of bingo would, literally, humble the volume of most casino
operations.



Surely, Nova Scotians are capable of taking advantage of what will be an economic opportunity and
if they want to use the Saskatchewan report, I invite somebody out there to read it. It is now tabled; it is
available; read what they said in full, Mr. Speaker.



[5:30 p.m.]



I think we are capable of taking advantage of this economic opportunity the same way that Canadians
in six other provinces have done so in Manitoba, in Alberta, in Ontario, in Quebec, in British Columbia, in
Saskatchewan. Surely Nova Scotians are no more susceptible to social ills, real or perceived, than these other
Canadians.



Mr. Speaker, gaming can be managed, controlled and regulated in a manner that significantly reduces
the possibility of social disruption. We have made the decisions responsibly and we will proceed with
implementation at an arm’s length process from government.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak on
this resolution. Let me just say before I start that . . . (Interruptions)



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



MR. CHISHOLM: . . . again an opportunity is provided to the Minister of Finance, the minister
responsible for this decision in Nova Scotia, to provide the people of Nova Scotia with some explanation for
why he was doing what he was doing. He again laughed in the face of all Nova Scotians and said trust me.



Mr. Speaker, I am sure people asked themselves while watching this debate and the debates that have
been around this House for the last couple of weeks, why are the Opposition and, in particular, the NDP
caucus, continually pushing the Finance Minister and the government for these reports, for these studies, for
the reasons why they went forward with this decision to license gambling casinos in this province? That is
a fair question, I think, and quite an appropriate question.



I go back to the State of Province Address by the Premier on April 20, 1994, where he said that this
decision comes - this decision, by the way, to license casino gambling - comes after a great deal of study and
debate by the government. The benefits to taxpayers of casino operations in Nova Scotia will be substantial,
said the Premier, and a significant portion of those benefits will be directed to the province’s health, social
and education systems. There you go, there you have it, right there.



On April 21st, Mr. Speaker, in a meeting with the editorial board of the Cape Breton Post, the
minister, who was just in oratorical flight a few moments ago, said back on the 21st of April that casinos
could employ anywhere from 100 to 500, with higher than average incomes. He talked about jobs, salaries
that would exceed $300,000. He talked about the benefits; he talked again about the studies and so on and so
forth.



That evidence continued and so we thought it was important to find out what it was. You might
remember that some of us in this House were members of standing committees that looked at some of these
questions. I was a member of the ill-fated Kimball Committee back when the former administration was in
charge. We took a look at this issue across the province, specifically focusing on VLTs, Mr. Speaker.
Anything that we did find out about gambling, we said that overall people were suggesting that in terms of
casino gambling, Nova Scotia was not ready for it.



Mr. Speaker, the other committee, headed by the member for Halifax Bedford Basin, studied this issue
in some detail and they made a couple of recommendations with respect to casinos. Number 7 said, “not
permit the establishment of a commercial casino operation at this time.” (Interruptions) Just try and stay with
me there, Bob, I know your attention span is limited. Number 8, “review the regulations for licensing
charitable casinos.”. Okay, so those were the two references, Mr. Speaker, so we said okay. (Interruption)



MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order.



MR. CHISHOLM: It indicates here, not at this time. Maybe the government undertook some studies
or they had some kind of insight, they saw the light one night. I do not know what it was, but we asked them
for that, Mr. Speaker. We applied through freedom of information for some of the studies, background
information that might have provided some indication to us to what the grounds were for this decision.



We got back that they did not have any studies. The only thing they had was the Report of the Standing
Committee on Community Services dated February 19, 1994; the committee to whose recommendations I just
referred; and an initial report in recommendation to the Government of Nova Scotia from the Nova Scotia
Lottery Commission dated June 28th which also made some recommendations that now is not the time for
commercial casinos in this province.



We asked the government for information and they did not have it. It is clear they did not have it. So
the reason why this resolution was brought forward about this report from Saskatchewan is because the
minister every time we would ask him questions would get on his feet and he would say, well, seven other
provinces have done it, seven other provinces have studied it, and we are going with what they said.



Mr. Speaker, a number of those provinces did do studies, thank goodness. They did evaluate because
they are responsible for policy decisions on behalf of the taxpayers of their province and they did studies to
determine what the impact, economic and social, was going to be on their population and they went forward
with those decisions based on that information. One has to ask what does that have to do with Nova Scotia?
British Columbia and Nova Scotia are not the same, a lot of differences. We do not share a direct border with
the United States of America for one. We do not have population concentrations as they do in British
Columbia, the same as in Saskatchewan, Ontario, Manitoba and on and on it goes.



One must ask, if the minister and the government members around the Cabinet Table made this
decision based on other studies, what studies, Mr. Speaker? Did they do an evaluation? Did they do an
assessment of all the studies that were done by those other jurisdictions? Did they say, taking into
consideration the following factors in terms of the different population densities, the fact that there is a direct
border with the U.S. and so on and so forth, this applies to Nova Scotia, this does not apply to Nova Scotia.
This is the basis upon which we are going to make the decision to go forward with casino gambling in Nova
Scotia, by the way, Mr. Speaker, the only jurisdiction that is going forward with privately-owned casinos,
despite public opinion.



The minister cites Saskatchewan. Well, Saskatchewan as it has been discussed here (Interruption) If
Saskatchewan was to support, one of the jurisdictions that they based their support to go forward, but what
about the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Government of Saskatchewan said to the City of Saskatoon, who voted
in plebiscites, that they did not want a casino in their vicinity. The province said, (Interruption)



MR. SPEAKER: Order please.



MR. CHISHOLM: All right I am going to listen to what the people of Saskatoon have to say and we
will not go forward. We will not shove this down your throat, Mr. Speaker. What about those concerns?



This minister has the audacity to dismiss all the Opposition as being based on moral grounds or based
on faulty studies. Yet, he does not have the courage, he does not have the commitment, and I would suggest,
Mr. Speaker, the clarity in terms of saving his position with the people of Nova Scotia, to cite the studies that
he is supporting, that he says, support his issue and to provide reasonable and rational and argument with
some base to it, as to why it is that all the church organizations, the tourism association, Board of Trade and
on and on and the 40,000-plus Nova Scotians who are opposed to this issue, he has not taken the time and
shown the respect to the people of Nova Scotia that oppose this initiative, to stand in his place and try to
justify, with any reasoned argument, based on study, based on analysis, based on reason, he has not taken the
opportunity at all to consider the concern of those people and to put a halt to this fiasco.



Mr. Speaker, let me just say in closing that there are a lot of reasons why people are opposing casinos
in this province and until this minister and until this government has the courage to come forward and debate
some of these questions and to listen to some of the arguments against, then we are going to continue to have
a population in Nova Scotia that is totally disgusted and holds this government in contempt because they will
not listen to any opposition in this province, to anything they do.



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



MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, we are going to use the rest of our time on this Opposition
Day to call House Orders. I am going to be absenting myself, as I think some other members are as well, to
participate in the Dignity Day Ceremony marking Kristallnacht. So my colleague the member for Halifax
Atlantic will be calling the House Orders.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I believe the NDP House Leader has called for House
Orders. I would like to call House Order No. 104 and on behalf of the member for Sackville-Cobequid, I so
move.



H.O. No. 104, re Priorities & Planning - Contracts Untendered (16/11/93 on) - notice given Nov. 4/94 -
(Mr. J. Holm)



[The House Order was read by the Clerk.]



MR. SPEAKER: The Deputy Government House Leader.



MR. ALLISTER SURETTE: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I would ask that
House Order No. 104 be stood.



MR. SPEAKER: The motion is for House Order No. 104 to be stood. Would all those in favour of the
motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.



The motion is carried.



House Order No. 104 stands.



The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, can I ask then if the Minister of Transporation and the
Minister of Supply and Services are also away from the House until 6:00 p.m.?



HON. GUY BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the honourable Minister of Supply and Services told me before
he left the House that he wanted his House Order approved.



MR. SPEAKER: Rather than debate this across the floor, call the House Order and we will determine
whether or not an appropriate government minister wishes to respond. House Order No. 105?



MR. CHISHOLM: No, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transportation is not here, so I will not waste the
time of the House by calling that one. I would call House Order No. 106 and on behalf of the member for
Sackville-Cobequid, I so move.



H.O. 106, re Supply & Serv. - Contracts (11/06/93 on) - notice given Nov. 4/94 - (Mr. J. Holm)



[The House Order was read by the Clerk.]



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Housing and Consumer Affairs.



HON. GUY BROWN: On behalf of the honourable minister, I so move the passage of this House
Order.



MR. SPEAKER: The minister has agreed to supply the requirements of the House Order.



MR. BROWN: Yes.



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



The motion is carried.



The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I would call House Order No. 107. On behalf of the member
for Sackville-Cobequid, I so move.



H.O. No. 107, re Mun. Affs. - Contracts (11/06/93 on) - notice given Nov. 4/94 - (Mr. J. Holm)



[The House Order was read by the Clerk.]



[5:45 p.m.]



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs.



HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, they have asked a number of different questions here. We will
be pleased to go back to the department and look at addressing all of the questions that we can, and we would
certainly be happy to put the material together in the best form possible for the honourable members opposite.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable minister has indicated a positive response. Would all those in favour
of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.



The motion is carried.



The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, would you please call House Order No. 108 and on behalf
of the member for Sackville-Cobequid I would so move.



H.O. 108, re Housing & Cons. Affs. - Contracts - notice given Nov. 4/94 - (Mr. J. Holm)



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Housing and Consumer Affairs.



HON. GUY BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I already read the House Order today, earlier, and am in total
agreement for the approval.



MR. SPEAKER: House Order No. 108 has been approved by the Minister of Housing and Consumer
Affairs.



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



The motion is carried.



The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, would you please call House Order No. 109 and on behalf
of the member for Sackville-Cobequid I would so move.



H.O. No. 109, re Environ. - Contracts (11/06/93 on) - notice given Nov. 4/94 - (Mr. J. Holm)



[The House Order was read by the Clerk.]



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of the Environment.



HON. ROBERT HARRISON: Mr. Speaker, just a point of clarification we have no trouble complying
with this. I would ask the honourable member, in the absence of his colleague to define consulting contract.
Would he be specific as to exactly what he means by that term?



MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member of Halifax Atlantic wish to give a brief definition of
what he means by the term “consulting contract.”.



MR. CHISHOLM: How about if the minister would agree to comply as he understands the House
Order, then I am sure that will be acceptable to the member for Sackville-Cobequid.



MR. SPEAKER: Well, we are not really clarifying the point because the minister is asking for
clarification because he doesn’t understand the term. Does the minister now understand the term?



MR. HARRISON: Not at all, I am perhaps even more confused. I think it is important to recognize that
departments will take, obviously, some time and effort to put together a legitimate response to a question. The
question is, a consulting contract - there are personal services contracts, there is information - just what is it
that the members of the New Democratic Party are looking for, in specific terminology. I am asking for a
definition of consulting contract.



MR. SPEAKER: We can’t extend the time of the House in resolving what appears an irresolvable
difference. Either the members get together to resolve the difference on definition or we vote the House Order
down.



MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I guess I can just offer that those are contracts for work, for services,
for some type of action that are to be done by someone outside the minister’s department. If further
clarification is required, then maybe the Minister of Housing and Consumer Affairs, who didn’t seem to have
any problem with that definition, might be able to be helpful.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of the Environment, is that a satisfactory definition for you
for clarification?



MR. HARRISON: Well, not at all but perhaps the member opposite could undertake to have his caucus
provide what he considers to be a reasonable definition tomorrow. In the meantime, we will undertake to
comply, as best we can, with what we think the definition means.



MR. SPEAKER: On that basis the minister has agreed to comply. The honourable member for Halifax
Atlantic will forward to the minister what his definition of the term is. 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 Halifax Atlantic.



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call House Order No. 110, and on behalf of
the member for Sackville-Cobequid, I so move.



H.O. No. 110, re Educ. - Contracts (11/06/93 on) - notice given Nov. 4/94 - (Mr. J. Holm)



[The House Order was read by the Clerk.]



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Education.



HON. JOHN MACEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, my memory indicates that such a request has already
been sent to our office several months ago and was provided for. I think most of the information the
honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid quoted today, that our staff very willingly provided the
information, so if the honourable member would accept the information since the last provision, because we
provided that information already, I wouldn’t want them to go back and rewrite that. But if we provide the
difference between then and now, we would be pleased to do that.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Well, I guess, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Sackville-Cobequid, in complying with the House Order, if the minister or his staff decides that they have already
provided part of the information, then they can provide the additional and then, of course, the House Order
will be complied with.



MR. MACEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t want the honourable members opposite to suggest that
we withheld information. I have just got this sympathy for killing more trees so I don’t want to provide a list
of information they already have. So we will take what we gave already and we will provide the rest of it.



MR. SPEAKER: Satisfactory. The minister has indicated compliance with the House Order, in terms
of giving that information which has not already, up to this point, been provided. 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 Halifax Atlantic.



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call House Order No. 112 and I so move.



H.O. No. 112, re Human Res.: Employees - Breakdown (1993 : 1994) - notice given Nov. 4/94 - (Mr.
R. Chisholm)



[The House Order was read by the Clerk.]



The motion is carried.



The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, would you please call House Order No. 114 and I so move.



H.O. No. 114, re Lbr. - Contracts (11/06/93 on) - notice given Nov. 4/94 - (Mr. R. Chisholm)



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Labour.



HON. JAY ABBASS: I will happily have my department look into that, Mr. Speaker.



MR. SPEAKER: 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 Halifax Atlantic.



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, would you please call House Order No. 115 and I so move.



H.O. No. 115, re Human Res. - Contracts (11/06/93 on) - notice given Nov. 4/94 - (Mr. R. Chisholm)



MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the honourable Minister of Human Resources, does she wish to have the
House Order read?



HON. ELEANOR NORRIE: No, it has already been read several times under other departments so I
will agree to that.



MR. SPEAKER: 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 Halifax Atlantic.



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, would you please call House Order No. 116 and I so move.



H.O. No. 116, re Fish. - Contracts (11/06/93 on) - notice given Nov. 4/94 - (Mr. R. Chisholm)



[The House Order was read by the Clerk.]



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Fisheries.



HON. JAMES BARKHOUSE: There are several items there under (1), particularly (e), the
comparative cost of performing the work within the Public Service. The reason we have gone out to public
tender on contracts is because we normally may not have the staff available to do this so it may not be quite
possible but where it is possible, I will provide the information. It is just that in some cases, it may not have
been possible for us to do it, we need more staff.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: It is certainly appropriate that the Minister and his department provide
what they can.



MR. SPEAKER: 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 Halifax Atlantic.



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, would you please call House Order No. 113 and I so move.



H.O. No. 113, re Nat. Res. - Contracts (11/06/93 on) - notice given Nov. 4/94 - (Mr. R. Chisholm)



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Housing and Consumer Affairs.



HON. GUY BROWN: In the absence of the honourable minister who told me earlier today that he had
checked it and he approves it and asked for it to be moved.



MR. SPEAKER: Speaking on behalf of the minister, the honourable Minister of Housing and
Consumer Affairs has agreed to the supply of the information required in the House Order.



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



The motion is carried.



The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, would you please call House Order No. 121 and on behalf
of the member for Halifax Atlantic I so move.



H.O. No. 121, re Health - Contracts (11/06/93 on) - notice given Nov. 4/94 - (Ms. A. McDonough)



MR. SPEAKER: House Order No. 121 has been duly moved. Does the honourable minister wish to
have the House Order read?



The honourable Minister of Health.



HON. RONALD STEWART: No, Mr. Speaker, I have read it and meditated on it. I have some
difficulties in terms of the agencies reporting to the minister. I am not sure whether the honourable Leader
of the NDP requires that we include hospitals and other agencies that, while not directly responsible to the
minister, certainly would come under our purview and funding and budget. If that is the case and it is $5,000
on the nose, then we are going to have to include some temporary office help and other things that may have
been brought on other people. This would be very extensive I would advise.



MR. SPEAKER: For clarification, the honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, let me just say on behalf of the Leader of the New
Democratic Party that looking for agencies reporting to the minister and in light of the concerns that he has
expressed, if he would agree to do the best he can to to meet the requirements of the House Order, that would,
certainly be appropriate.



[6:00 p.m.]



MR. SPEAKER: Although we have exceeded the normal time of adjournment, we are in the process
of a vote, the honourable minister has agreed to supply that information to the extent required by the member
or has the minister not agreed?



DR. STEWART: I agree to our department, and those responded that there be very few above $5,000,
particularly on the nose at $5,000 might be more, but no, I have no problem with that.



MR. SPEAKER: It has been agreed to supply what is available. Would all those in favour of the motion
please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.



The motion is carried.



The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.



MR. ALLISTER SURETTE: I would like to advise members of the House that we will meet tomorrow
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. as was agreed by the other two Parties last Thursday, I believe.



Following daily routine, the order of business will be Public Bills for Second Reading and specifically
Bill No. 120.



I move that we adjourn until 8:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.



MR. SPEAKER: The motion for adjournment has been made and carried. We now turn to the
Adjournment motion which has been won by the honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage. The
resolution is as follows:



Therefore be it resolved that the Nova Scotia Government should be commended for the success of its
four year fiscal plan.






ADJOURNMENT



MOTION UNDER RULE 5(5)



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.



FIN. - FISCAL PLAN: SUCCESS - COMMEND



MR. DENNIS RICHARDS: I want to take this opportunity here this evening to address this particular
resolution in the following way and I want to say at the outset that I am very proud to stand here as a member
of our government which has the courage and the foresight to take control of this province’s finances. I am
proud to be a member of a government that has finally had a realistic and workable plan to lead this province
out of a sea of debt and into prosperity.



Shortly after our government took power, we realized that this province was on the brink of fiscal
disaster. It was that disaster that was the result of the previous government’s practice of spend, spend, spend,
with no plans and no thoughts for the consequences. We also realized that the solution would have to come
primarily from government spending cuts and not from further tax increases.



In September 1993, we introduced, for the first time ever, a four year fiscal plan which cut operating
spending by 10 per cent over the next four years giving us a balanced budget by the year 1997. As I have
already indicated, that is the first time we will have a balanced budget in 20 years, the last 20 years that this
province has seen. We believe so much in this fiscal plan that we just did not say the words, we made it into
law and we passed a bill in this House which holds us to that. We made the government accountable for the
results by publishing and circulating our targets and producing detailed progress reports in the Government
By Design publications.



As well, for the first time, we involved the public through an unprecedented level of pre-budget
discussions and ongoing consultations. We acted, as well, in the Liberal way. We acted with compassion, with
reason and with a very carefully thought out plan. We undertook major government reform creating a cost-effective, streamlined system which preserves, in many cases, and improves services for Nova Scotians. We
used independent audit systems to government departments to find areas where we could achieve cost-savings
by eliminating waste and duplication. We took steps to shield the vulnerable from the impact of these
reductions, wherever possible.



Mr. Speaker, we think this is a more effective and a more compassionate approach than the slash and
burn tactics of other governments, which hurt people and throw the good out with the bad in untargeted
across-the-board cuts.



I cannot say that our fiscal plan has always been popular. Major spending cuts never are, which is why
we are in the mess to begin with. I know that Nova Scotians are sensible, responsible people who will live
within their own means and who expect the government to live within its own means as well.



This government and Nova Scotians are willing to ignore the necessary pain to achieve a balanced
budget because they recognize it is the only way to secure government services for their children and to win
back Nova Scotia’s economic sovereignty.



Mr. Speaker, it is not an exaggeration to say that our economic sovereignty was at risk when we
assumed power because of the disastrous levels of debt accumulated by the previous government. This fiscal
plan pulls back this province from the very brink of that disaster and sets us on a path to economic sovereignty
and prosperity.



Mr. Speaker, this is not just hypothetical talk. The fiscal plan is already having very positive results.
For the first time in recent history, a Nova Scotia Government has met its fiscal targets. It has gone one step
better than that, it has even bettered its fiscal targets.



Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the members of the House and the public that in the final two years of
the Tory Government, they ran up in excess of $2 billion in reckless spending. In the last year alone, 1992-93,
of the Tory Government, the deficit hit an all-time high of $471 million. When we assumed office in June
1993, the deficit was on the way through the roof. Through great effort and vigorous spending control, we
kept that deficit down to $342.2 million for the 1993-94 fiscal year, $54 million below the target. This year
we budgeted a deficit of $297.5 million and later revised that amount downward, downward not upward as
in previous administrations, to the amount of $272 million. Now the Minister of Finance is reporting that we
will probably be well below that particular figure.



I was interested earlier today, Mr. Speaker, when the Opposition members were giving praise to our
Minister of Finance for the great job that he was doing and, hopefully, will bring in that deficit even lower
than what we are now estimating.



Mr. Speaker, this is incredible news for Nova Scotians. In less than two years, the government has
taken this province from a record high deficit to a plan that will see the budget deficit under control by 1997
at the very latest. This is good news for every single Nova Scotian. Those who think the provincial debt is just
a government problem are wrong. It is a problem for all of us. It is a problem for every man, woman and child
in this province. Unless we take the action we have started, the legacy to our children is disaster.



Let me tell you about some of the positive effects this plan will have on our province and every citizen.
First, the fiscal plan means that after living with a large debt acting as a drain on our resources and a drag
on our economy for a decade or more, we can see the day when we will be able to start reducing that debt. The
accumulated debt is so large that it is almost beyond imagining at this point. A figure of about $9 billion, that
means well over $8,000 for every man, woman and child.



It takes $1.1 billion, in other words 25 cents on every tax dollar collected just to pay the interest on the
debt. This $1.1 billion, we cannot use to educate our children. It is $1.1 billion we cannot spend taking care
of our sick and elderly. It is $1.1 billion we cannot spend helping the most vulnerable individuals and families
afford food and housing in our communities. It is $1.1 billion we cannot spend stimulating new business
investment and job creation. It is $1.1 billion more we must pay in taxes if we did not have a debt. Instead,
our $1.1 billion goes straight out of the profits. It goes to the pockets of investors elsewhere in Canada and
overseas. It drives precious dollars away when they provide absolutely no benefit for Nova Scotia.



Mr. Speaker, this $1.1 billion debt payment is now more than the total revenue from all personal
income tax collected in this province. It is more than we received from the federal transfer grants. It is more
than we received from any single revenue source for Nova Scotia.



The plan of action that we have taken that will reduce our deficit by the year 1997, at the latest, which
will then start working away at the big debt is going to mean Nova Scotia will recapture its economic
sovereignty and put this province back to where it should have been 20 or more years ago. With that, Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank you for this time in addressing this very important fiscal issue.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I thought I would stay back this evening and take an
opportunity to respond perhaps for a few moments at least to what is a fairly familiar refrain from the member
opposite and members of the government benches. That is that we, as a government, are taking charge of the
financial reins of this province. We are going to fix all the ills of the past and we are going to put everything
back together, and, yes, it is a tough decision, but we are going to do it anyway.



Mr. Speaker, and let me not forget, they have a copious amount of back-patting included in those
speeches as they go about this province and try to convince Nova Scotians that they in fact are doing
something that they might be committed to.



Mr. Speaker, I have a problem, not with the fact that we have some financial difficulties in this
province because we know that. All Nova Scotians know that. We knew that before the election and we know
that now. But some of us talked about it before the election. Some of us talked about it beforehand when we
went to the people of Nova Scotia and said, we think that we have the right plan for fixing the ills that face
the Province of Nova Scotia and we want the opportunity to do that.



Some of us talked about the fact that there may need to be tax increases, there may need to be some
changes in the way things are done in this province because of the fact that there is a real fiscal crisis facing
us,. an enormous debt that was obvious to anybody that had one iota of intelligence well before the election
that was called in the spring of 1993. But some people, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, chose to ignore that, went
to the people of Nova Scotia and sold them a bill of goods. That is the most pleasant and polite way that I can
say that.



The people of Nova Scotia were sold a bill of goods by the Liberal Party, by the Liberal Government
of today. They were told that, number one, we are going to put 57,000 to 61,000 Nova Scotians back to work
immediately. Number two, we are not going to engage in the same kind of fiscal slash and burn policies that
the Cameron Government had been engaged in over the past two years. We are going to grow the economy.
We are going to stimulate the economy. We are going to work with the public sector in order to generate jobs,
in order to make sure we do things better, do things differently or we do things better, Mr. Speaker. That is
what they said.



We do not blame the public sector, Mr. Speaker, what was said before the election on May 25th, this
Liberal Party said, we do not blame the public sector for the ills that face the Province of Nova Scotia, but we
are planning to work with you. We are not going to decimate your ranks, we are not going to expect you to
carry the burden for all the problems here. We are going to work with you hand in hand. They said that to a
few other people, labour and some others.



But, clearly, the priority and the understanding that all Nova Scotians had when they went to polls on
the May 25, 1993, was that the Liberal Party was going to create jobs, Mr. Speaker, and they were going to
work with all Nova Scotians to generate the economy, to grow the economy and to try to clean up government
and correct the ills that have been created over the past 15 years. Well, what have we seen since?



The first and only ill-conceived and poorly organized and poorly executed effort at consultation was,
you may recall, the 30-60-90 initiative, which was where the government went out to the people of Nova
Scotia and held a bunch of town hall meetings and tried to get an idea of what it was that Nova Scotians
wanted to do, in terms of creating jobs, and what it was they could do, as a government.



[6:15 p.m.]



Well, Mr. Speaker, that big initiative that was going to be their focus and that would be community
economic development, has fallen through the cracks. They failed to follow through with that and they are
following along with the same policies, that the former government would put it into place.



What did they do after that? Well, they began to increase taxes. In fact their first budget in the fall,
their first sitting here, they brought in a budget which increased taxes. Not only did it increase taxes and fees
and licenses and everything else that people had to pay in this province, but it also went into the public sector
workers’ pockets and yanked out in the area of $51 million or $52 million, Mr. Speaker, completely in
opposition to what they said they were going to do in the election.



But remember, they said at that time that this is a one-time deal. The Minister of Finance said to the
leadership of the public sector unions, we are going to do this only once, we have a plan, we just need a year,
we want that money, it is a five day furlough. Do you remember? We just need a year and we are going to roll
back these wages just until the end of October 1994.



Well, Mr. Speaker, people were not happy about it, they were not consulted and so on, they were not
happy about having to give up but they understood how bad things were. Less than six months later the same
government was at the same group of people, taking more money out of their pockets and not only that, they
took away all of their rights, in terms of collective bargaining in the province, for six months, for nine months,
for a year; no, no, for three and one-half years collective bargaining was outlawed in the public sector in this
province.



What else has this group of folks done? Well, now we have a bill tabled in this House of revisions to
workers’ compensation. What does that mean? Well, Mr. Speaker, what that means is that the Workers’
Compensation Board has a very serious unfunded liability. Who is going to pay for it? The injured workers
are going to pay for it because anybody who is injured, once this bill goes through and once this bill comes
into effect, is going to receive less compensation than they would have received beforehand. Who else is
paying for it? Not very many. The bulk of the responsibility for this unfunded liability is going to be borne
by injured workers, completely contrary to a promise made by the Premier and other members of the Liberal
Party, leading up to the election.



Millions of dollars are being spent on outside consultants; millions of dollars are being spent - what
was it, $2 million was spent to get rid of nine deputies and hire new ones, Mr. Speaker. Is that this
government’s priority? They are awfully quick. We had it here just last week, a contract that was let without
tender, to an individual, to come in and organize the amalgamation of the super-city here in metro, $220,000.
You know this government, this member here, talked about controlling the purse strings and being fiscally
responsible. Well, that doesn’t sound like it to me.



The other thing, of course, is that their shelter allowances for the people on family benefits are being
cut back; Pharmacare is being cut back, Mr. Speaker; dental programs in the schools are being cut back. What
do we have in return? What is the idea? What is going to be the job and the economic generator in this
province? It is going to be casinos. This government is going to come forward with an initiative; without
consultation with the people of Nova Scotia, they are going to come forward with an initiative that is going
to effectively pull out of the pockets of Nova Scotians more and more money, in order to fund their consultants
and their other contracts.



Why don’t we see this government coming forward in Cape Breton with an initiative to try to expand
and promote the development of coal in this province, something that would have a long-lasting impact on
jobs and the economy in Cape Breton? But instead, Cape Bretoners have to be satisfied with Dingwall dollars,
they have to be content with whatever Minmetals is going to do with Sysco and they have to be content with
a casino.



Well, Mr. Speaker, this member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage may feel pretty good about what
this government has done in terms of dealing with the finances of this province but as far as I am concerned
and as far as a lot of Nova Scotians are concerned, his government deserves an absolute failing grade for their
ability to carry forward with the promises they made leading up to the election in 1993. Thank you.



MR. SPEAKER: The time allocated for the Adjournment debate has expired. The Adjournment motion
has been made and carried.



The House will now rise to meet at 8:00 a.m. tomorrow.



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