The Nova Scotia Legislature

The House resumed on:
September 21, 2017.
























HALIFAX, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 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 will, at this time, commence the daily routine. The first item is
Presenting and Reading Petitions.



PRESENTING AND READING PETITIONS



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



MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition from the Enterprizers seniors
group. The operative clause is, essentially, that they are opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova
Scotia.



MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.



PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Premier.



HON. JOHN SAVAGE (The Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the Report of the Standing
Committee on Internal Affairs. Copies can be distributed by the Pages now. The reason for this is the meetings
that we have had recently and the belief I have that we should have some public information, in a public sense,
about the changes that may be here.



The Standing Committee on Internal Affairs met to consider recommendations from the RCMP and
the Department of Supply and Services respecting security at Province House. The committee recommended
that the Speaker give favourable consideration to several security measures.






3585

 

The Speaker - yourself, Mr. Speaker - attended the meeting and I think it is safe to say you advised the
committee of your support for the committee’s recommendations.



The committee recommended a pass system for entry into Province House while the Legislature is in
session. Permanent passes will be issued to government employees whose duties require access to Province
House, caucus employees of all political Parties, employees of independent members when there are such
members, and members, of course, of the Press Gallery.



Members of the Assembly and persons with permanent passes may enter Province House through either
the Hollis or Granville Street entrances.



Visitors will be issued with passes to the first two levels of Province House or to the gallery, as
appropriate. Visitors will be asked to enter Province House through the Hollis Street door and will sign in to
obtain their passes at the commissionaire’s desk. Passes will be returned when they leave through the same
door. The commissionaire will issue the maximum number of passes permitted by the fire marshal.



Groups which arrange tours in advance, for instance, schools and student groups, will not be required
to sign individually, but each visitor will be given a pass to be returned when leaving.



The staff of Province House will receive some training from the RCMP respecting security measures,
but the staff will not be asked to intervene in matters properly left to police officers.



The committee will meet again within the next month to consider specific proposals respecting the
installation of closed-circuit cameras and monitors in Province House, and recommendations from the fire
marshal.



I would add, Mr. Speaker, that similar measures have been adopted in other jurisdictions in Canada.
It appears to be a reality of public live today.



Respectfully submitted.



MR. SPEAKER: The report is tabled.



The honourable member for Queens.



MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts, I beg leave to table the Annual Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.



MR. SPEAKER: The report is tabled.



MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Just on a point of order. I did not rise instantly because I thought the
honourable member for Queens was going to rise on a point of order, in regard to the report which the Premier
has just given. This is not, in fact, a report of the Standing Committee on Internal Affairs. It is a report by the
Premier which I, as a member of that committee, saw for the first time about one and one-half minutes before
he stood up to give the report. I think it is important for the record that that be accurately recorded, because
the Premier referred to meetings held, the result of which is this committee report from the committee. In fact,
the last meeting of the committee that was held, was held on May 10th until 48 hours before this House sat.
Other committee members were given access to reports from the fire marshal and from the RCMP that the
Premier and some other government members had had, in fact, since May and June. For that reason, I think
it is important to have the report accurately recorded that this is not a report of the committee, but a report
by the Premier of his interpretation of events at a committee meeting that was finally held to consider these
matters less than 48 hours before the House sat.



MR. SPEAKER: I fail to find a point of order. The matter was not raised at the first opportunity in any
event and the report has already been declared tabled by the Chair.



TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS



STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs.



HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to make an announcement.
I am pleased to announce that a unitary municipality will be established to replace the present cities of Halifax
and Dartmouth, the Town of Bedford and Halifax County municipality. At present there are four municipal
units and 60 council members for a population of 330,846 people. A regional municipal government for the
Halifax-Dartmouth metropolitan area will be a single tier, all-purpose municipal authority. It will provide a
cohesive and unified approach to regional problems and services. It will replace the four existing municipal
units, the village and service commissions and all other boards, commissions and arrangements now in place.



The regional government for Halifax County will be similar to the regional government in Cape Breton
County, with a similar implementation process. Legislation to introduce this new structure will be introduced
at the spring session of the Legislature. The effective date for the new government is April 1, 1996.



The next step will be to meet with the mayors on a formal basis, to discuss how to proceed with
implementation.



There are a number of reasons why we are announcing regional government for the metropolitan area
at this time. Regional services can only be effectively provided and governed through a regional government.
A regional government is required to focus one level of decision-making, to deal with regional problems in
police, sewer, water and garbage. There is a demonstrated need to focus on one level of decision-making on
these problems, reflecting the interests of regional communities whose settlement patterns cross existing
municipal boundaries, as do shopping and employment patterns.



A strong united voice will assist in attracting new enterprise, Mr. Speaker, and will help in
maintaining existing businesses. I cite the blood fractionation plant as a clear example of what can be done
when there is a united front.



One of the decisions and directions we have had from the Metropolitan Economic Summit held last
fall was that government should amalgamate into a single metro unit. The summit also called for the
amalgamation of metro’s boards of trade and chambers of commerce. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this has
already been announced.



One of the concerns raised in the Halifax Economic Development Task Force Report was that unless
Halifax develops a stronger economic development focus and addresses a number of circumstances and trends,
the city’s ability to prosper will erode. The report stresses that Halifax must work in partnership with its
economic neighbours.



Mr. Speaker, the public is ready and wants amalgamation. An independent survey done last July
indicates that 67 per cent of metro area residents support combining their four existing local governments into
a single unit.



Another critical element, Mr. Speaker, is accountability. Regional government will ensure that one
council is held accountable for all decisions, without the numerous boards and commissions. Waste from lost
time, due to inter-municipal conflict, will be reduced. Recently the province acted as facilitator to bring about
an agreement between the municipalities on waste management and on policing.



Finally, Mr. Speaker, financial considerations require more efficient and effective government and
ways of improving our economy. Consolidation will mean savings which we believe can be realized in lower
taxes and higher service levels. Thank you. (Applause)



MR. SPEAKER: The minister took four minutes to deliver her statement. Each Opposition Party will,
therefore, have four minutes apiece to respond.



The honourable member for Pictou Centre.



DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the minister’s statement.
I had the opportunity to follow with great interest since last December, the course that the minister was
directing us in, in terms of service exchange. We all remember in the House in early June asking the minister
when her revised position statement would come out. She responded at that time, 15 to 25 days.



[2:15 a.m.]



We also remember that the consultation process was assured when the minister made the tour around
the province discussing her policy of municipal reform. I had no advance warning, as did anyone else on the
events that transpired over the last 24 hours, and have not had an opportunity to look at all of the information
the minister has provided at her press conference. But I would like to point out that certainly a brief look at
the figures that the minister has provided show that the road levy is gone. The revenue sharing is gone and
consultation is gone because the consultation that was supposed to have occurred before this revised position
and the legislation occurred has not occurred. I think that is unfortunate because I feel that there is a great
need for municipal reform. But the process will be important, the process that will ensure that the reform is
done correctly.



I guess on the one hand I am saying to the minister that I thank her for finally bringing out her
position. I think it is very unfortunate that we did not have the opportunity to examine it beforehand and that
the many recently elected municipal officials in this province would now not have the opportunity to comment
before it becomes enshrined in legislation. So, obviously, in the days and weeks to come, the minister’s plan
will be examined by many people.






I also noticed that there are other areas of concern created by the new figures provided for the various
municipal units. The plan, as it has been presented by the minister in terms of the service exchange, cannot
stand on its own feet. There are units here and areas here that will be subject to tremendous tax increases if,
in fact, other things are not done. I hope, Mr. Speaker, through you, to encourage the minister that those other
things that have to be done will be the result of consultation and that we will not be met with confrontation.
Thank you.



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



MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, the minister started off her remarks by saying that she is pleased to
announce and I have to tell you that, in all honesty, I am a little bit ashamed to be part of a House where the
government of the day would treat the residents and the elected representatives so shabbily as they have done
here today.



This government has consistently broken every single promise that it made. They promised
consultation and what do the people of this metropolitan area get? Only because there was a news leak, the
Premier let them know in a 15 minute meeting last night without even having let them in on the details as
a courtesy, Mr. Speaker.



The Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities has been trying since last spring to get a meeting of the
provincial-municipal fact-finding committee on the service exchange. That has not taken place. There was
no consultation here. Instead what we get is a top-down, autocratic, undemocratic, dictatorial approach being
imposed by this government. That is not consultation, Mr. Speaker.



We are told that there are going to be savings of $15 million to $18 million. Put it on the table. Let’s
see your plan, let’s see what you are talking about. Although they have broken the promise about taking over
general assistance, which was to be a guiding principle and a reason for municipal service exchange, instead,
of course, that has been abandoned. But the province was off by $23 million, at least, in their estimates about
what it was going to cost to implement that program. How can you have any faith in this government and in
these projections if they are not prepared to put their documentation on the table?



It is nice to know that after this government has already made its decision as to what it is going to do
and now says that it is going to consult with the mayors, how can anybody have any faith that there is going
to be any listening to that.



I might add, Mr. Speaker, that everybody recognizes that there is a need for municipal reform. I have
a paper, too, which shows that the municipalities have been looking at that very thing and that they have a
number of options that they wish to consider.



But, oh no, this government has decided that it knows best, that it can forget all of the promises that
it made, all of the commitments for consultation. Forget about the fact that they brokered, supposedly in good
faith, agreements with the metro municipalities on solid waste management and policing at the same time,
Mr. Speaker, that in their back pocket they are hiding the fact that they have their own plan that they plan
to impose without so much as one ounce of consultation.



That is the big stick approach and that is not what democracy is about and that is not what the people
of this province had elected this government for. Remember, I remind the current government that they
rejected and they defeated the former government that were trying to implement the same plan that you are
now trying to hoist as your new vision.  Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing is déjà vu all over again.



GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Labour.



RESOLUTION NO. 817



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



Whereas two years ago on May 9, 1992, 26 miners lost their lives in an underground blast at the
Westray coal mine in Plymouth, Nova Scotia; and



Whereas 192 draegermen placed their own lives in jeopardy and spent five selfless days underground
in an effort to rescue those miners; and



Whereas these men will at long last be honoured with medals of bravery for their heroism in the face
of great danger in a time of great sorrow;



Therefore be it resolved that this House pays tribute to the perseverance, professionalism and bravery
of these men.



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



MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver of notice. Is there 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. (Applause)



The honourable Minister of Human Resources.



RESOLUTION NO. 818



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



Whereas October has marked the observance of the third annual Women’s History Month in Canada
in recognition of the Persons Case of October, 1929, when Canadian women achieved formal legal status as
persons; and



Whereas Canada is the birthplace of some of the world’s pioneers of women’s equality, yet many of
their names go unrecognized today; and






Whereas female role models have shown through their strength, wisdom and vision that women can
progress into all areas of society and Canadian women today have greater freedom than even before in
anything they choose to be and the Government of Canada recognizes women’s contributions by the Governor
General’s Awards in commemoration of the Persons Case;



Therefore be it resolved that this House recognizes and salutes the contributions of the pioneers of
women’s equality past and present and extend its congratulations to this year’s winners of the Persons Awards.



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



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



Is it agreed?



It is agreed.



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



The motion is carried. (Applause)



INTRODUCTION OF BILLS



Bill No. 109 - Entitled an Act Respecting Tourism Accommodations in the Province. (Hon. Ross
Bragg)

 

 

Bill No. 110 - Entitled an Act to Amend Chapter 339 of the Revised Statutes of 1989. The Peggy’s
Cove Commission Act. (Hon. Ross Bragg)



Bill No. 111 - Entitled an Act to Amend Chapter 164 of the Revised Statutes of 1989. The Fatality
Inquiries Act. (Hon. William Gillis)



Bill No. 112 - Entitled an Act to Amend Chapter 479 of the Revised Statutes of 1989. The Trustee
Act. (Hon. William Gillis).



Bill No. 113 - Entitled an Act to Amend Chapter 308 of the Revised Statutes of 1989. The Natural
Products Act. (Hon. Wayne Gaudet).



Bill No. 114 - Entitled an Act to Provide for Municipal Reform. (Hon. Sandra Jolly).



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



The honourable Minister of Community Services on an introduction.



HON. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to introduce to you and to other members
of the House sitting in your gallery, the Mayor of Dartmouth whom I believe has some special interest in
matters before this House today and I would like us to extend her the usual warm welcome of the House.
(Applause)



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Bedford-Fall River on an introduction.



MRS. FRANCENE COSMAN: I would like to beg the indulgence of the House to interrupt the
proceedings and introduce Councillor Ann Cosgrove, Bedford, who is seated by Mayor McClusky. (Applause)



NOTICES OF MOTION



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.



RESOLUTION NO. 819



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



Whereas the Premier not only has the arrogance to call the Legislature into session just as he is about
to embark on a lengthy trip to China; and



Whereas the Premier’s Education Minister will also be in Asia for an entire week within days of the
opening of this Legislature; and



Whereas the Premier also has the arrogance to decide that the government will whirl through a slate
of legislation that deals with workers’ compensation, the environment, maintenance enforcement, municipal
service exchange and casinos by Saturday, December 10th;



Therefore be it resolved that the Premier show a little more respect for the democratic process which
his Party has proclaimed it was enriching by legislating two sessions of the House of Assembly.



MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.



The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.



RESOLUTION NO. 820



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



Whereas on May 12, 1993, Liberal Leader John Savage declared, “A government that works in
isolation is bound up in its own limitations . . . a government that consults is able to draw on the expertise
and vision of the entire province”; and



Whereas Nova Scotians agreed when they overwhelmingly rejected the dictatorial, isolated, top-down
approach advocated then by Premier Cameron and today by the Conservative survivors; and



Whereas if Nova Scotians wanted the Cameron vision of top-down amalgamation, constant wage roll-backs and massive disruption of public services, Donald Cameron wouldn’t be working in Boston today;






Therefore be it resolved that instead of sticking with the threadbare ideas in the near-empty cupboards
of the “Bucameron” era, this government should provide what they promised, “a whole new approach to
governing which makes a commitment to accessibility, accountability and consultation, not just on an
occasional basis.”.



[2:30 p.m.]



MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.



The honourable member for Kings West.



RESOLUTION NO. 821



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



Whereas the dream of Nova Scotia’s world-champion figure skate Rob McCall will begin to be realized,
with help from his friends, through tonight’s “Skate the Dream” performance; and



Whereas the proceeds of tonight’s event will help fund an HIV research centre in his name in the
Victoria General Hospital; and



Whereas it is hoped that this centre will in some way support Rob’s greatest wish - to eventually find
a cure for AIDS;



Therefore be it resolved that on this day, almost three years since the untimely death of one of Nova
Scotia’s and Canada’s finest goodwill ambassadors and sportsmen, Nova Scotians show their support for the
fight against AIDS in Rob McCall’s honour and the continuing battle for a cure.



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



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



Is it agreed?



It is agreed.



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



The motion is carried.



The honourable member for Lunenburg.



RESOLUTION NO. 822



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 goal of every Visitor Information Centre is to exceed guest expectations in services
provided; and



Whereas the Town of Mahone Bay and the Mahone Bay Business Association operate the Mahone Bay
Visitor Information Centre; and



Whereas the Mahone Bay Visitor Information Centre has obtained the highest score of any information
centre throughout the province;



Therefore be it resolved that the Assembly extend congratulations to the dedicated, enthusiastic,
courteous staff of the Mahone Bay Visitor Information Centre for receiving the Award of Quality Program
for Visitor Information Centres.



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.



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 Kings North.



RESOLUTION NO. 823



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



Whereas Liberal Leader John Savage said on December 10, 1992, “the efficient delivery of services
should be put ahead of boundary changes”; and



Whereas John Savage said on March 22, 1993, “imagine if your doctor treated you by spooning
mouthfuls of nasty medicine down your throat, without discussing your problem first”; and



Whereas Liberal Leader John Savage said on December 11, 1992 that settling who will deliver such
services, “is far more important both socially and economically than the matter of boundary changes”;



Therefore be it resolved that Premier Savage, his Cabinet and members of his government caucus
today, go to the people of Metropolitan Halifax and tell them why their government is spooning mouthfuls
of nasty medicine down their throats before they consult with them about their illness.



MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.



I might say before I recognize the next speaker, that we should normally in such motions refer to
members of the House by their office or constituency and not by their proper names. In other words, the
honourable Premier, rather than the name of the Premier.



The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.



RESOLUTION NO. 824



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



Whereas Nova Scotia is too good to waste and October 23rd to 29th has been set aside as Waste
Reduction Week; and



Whereas Waste Reduction Week gives all Nova Scotians an opportunity to participate in activities that
help us rethink our buying and spending habits; and



Whereas Waste Reduction Week has enabled community leaders to develop waste reduction awareness
and action throughout our province;



Therefore be it resolved that this Assembly commend the efforts of Clean Nova Scotia Foundation and
all those involved in Waste Reduction Week for their efforts to improve the quality of life for all of us.



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 that notice be waived?



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 Sackville-Cobequid.



RESOLUTION NO. 825



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



Whereas during the noon hour yesterday, the Premier declared with a straight face that, “we are
engaged in a productive process of governing through consultation, planning and action,”; and



Whereas eight hours later, news reports forced that same Premier to hastily inform the metro mayors
that without prior notice or consultation he was about to impose amalgamation; and



Whereas this productive process of consultation was so impressive that the mayors’ responses can be
summed up in the words, “liar”, “dictator”, and “you know John”;



Therefore be it resolved that this House urges the Premier and those ministers who support him to
consider moving permanently to a motel in Panama if they intend to persist with an approach more consistent
with that of Papa Doc than with the consultative model they promised in 1993.



MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think that motion should have the word “liar” deleted from it. It is
unparliamentary. The fact that someone has said or done something outside this House which is not in
conformity with parliamentary rules does not make it admissible to be stated here in debate and I think that
term should be removed from that resolution.



The notice is tabled.



The honourable member for Halifax Bedford Basin.



RESOLUTION NO. 826



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



Whereas a large percentage of single parents, mainly mothers, are not receiving the child support that
the courts have ordered from the fathers and ex-husbands; and



Whereas all Nova Scotians pay when deadbeat dads do not because these women are often forced onto
social assistance to survive; and



Whereas the government is introducing legislation in this session which will put in place an effective
system of enforcing maintenance payments benefitting all Nova Scotians and especially children;



Therefore be it resolved that this Legislature applaud the government for proposing socially and
economically responsible legislation that will save taxpayers’ money, and support and protect vulnerable
women and children.



I request waiver of notice, Mr. Speaker.



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



Is it agreed?



I hear one or two Noes. (Interruptions)



The notice is tabled.



Do you want me to test the House again on that?



Again as requested, is there unanimous consent that the motion of the honourable member for Halifax
Bedford Basin be now dealt with without notice?



I hear a No, the honourable member for Queens.



AN HON. MEMBER: John Leefe for deadbeat dads.



MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.



The honourable member for Pictou Centre.



RESOLUTION NO. 827



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



Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs during her spring tour promised municipal councils the
opportunity to review and comment on her revised position on service exchange before legislation would be
introduced; and



Whereas the much-touted Cabinet committee which was struck to consult with municipalities has met
only twice; and



Whereas the May 4th and May 7th meetings do not, by any definition, represent intensive consultation;



Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Municipal Affairs not introduce further amalgamation
legislation until real and meaningful dialogue occurs with all municipal units.



MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.



The honourable Minister of Labour, on an introduction.



HON. JAY ABBASS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce and draw the House’s attention to the
presence in the east gallery of our MP for Halifax, the Honourable Mary Clancy. (Applause)



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.



RESOLUTION NO. 828



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



Whereas as a teenager, student and young man, Darren Watts has provided a model of community
service and involvement; and



Whereas Darren Watts won the admiration and respect of his peers and of his elders for the time and
skill he gave to a wide variety of causes; and



Whereas every parent and citizen can imagine how they would feel if their child, brother or friend was
the victim of a brutal attack;



Therefore be it resolved that this House expresses its heartfelt sympathy to Darren Watts and his family
and its best wishes for Darren’s recovery and that Mr. Speaker convey these wishes to them on our behalf.



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



MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed that notice be waived?



It is agreed.



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



The motion is carried. (Applause)



Before I recognize the next speaker, because today is the first day of the new sitting of the House, I
would like to ask all honourable members who want the Chair to convey congratulations or regrets or any
form of felicitations to anyone to please provide the address of that person so that they can be contacted.



The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.



RESOLUTION NO. 829



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



Whereas to date over 40,000 Nova Scotians have signed petitions opposing the establishment of casinos
in our province; and



Whereas the Nova Scotia Medical Society, the Provincial Health Council, a coalition of churches and
several municipal governments, including the City of Sydney, have come out firmly against casinos; and



Whereas Nova Scotians did not want casinos last spring and they will not be bullied by a Premier who
refuses to listen;



Therefore be it resolved that the Premier and the Minister of Finance commit to a full social, economic,
criminal, health and financial impact study done on casinos before legisation is passed and multi-year
contracts are handed out to casino operators out of the province.



MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.



The honourable member for Pictou East.



RESOLUTION NO. 830



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



Whereas Sanjeev Chowdhury has excelled as the executive assistant for the Honourable Ross Bragg;
and



Whereas Mr. Chowdhury was one of only 12 in Canada chosen to join the Canadian Diplomatic Corps
as a foreign service officer; and



Whereas Mr. Chowdhury has excelled as a representative of the Economic Renewal Agency in this
government;



Therefore be it resolved that this Assembly extend congratulations to Sanjeev Chowdhury in his new
career with External Affairs and International Trade.



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



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



Is it agreed?



I hear a No.



The notice is tabled.



The honourable Minister of the Economic Renewal Agency on an introduction.



HON. ROSS BRAGG: Some things do not change. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity
to make another introduction in the House. Sitting in the gallery with our MP Mary Clancy is the MP for
Windsor-St. Clair, Miss. Shaughnessy Cohen. Welcome to the Legislature. (Applause)



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou West.



RESOLUTION NO. 831



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



Whereas the Pictou Waterfront Development Corporation has been recognized internationally by the
Waterfront Centre in Washington, D.C.; and



Whereas the Pictou Waterfront Development Corporation’s $5.5 million development is the sole
Canadian recipient of a 1994 award sponsored by the Washington based non-profit organization dedicated
to improving urban waterfronts; and



Whereas in the past five years, the Pictou Waterfront has been turned around from an unsightly,
unused area to a major tourist destination area that is home to some 20 businesses which has increased the
town’s tax revenue by approximately $3.6 million in the past five years.



Therefore be it resolved that all members of the Legislature commend those responsible for greatly
enhancing the image of Pictou, not only locally, but on an international level and wish them every success
in the future.



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



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



Is it agreed?



It is agreed.



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



The motion is carried.



The honourable member for Guysborough-Port Hawkesbury.



RESOLUTION NO. 832



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



Whereas the waters off Canso are world renowned tuna fishing grounds; and



Whereas sports fishing for tuna has become a major tourist attraction in the Canso area; and



Whereas a team from Nova Scotia recently won the Canada Tuna Cup, re-establishing Nova Scotia
as the best tuna fishers in the world;



Therefore be it resolved that the members of the House of Assembly congratulate the members of the
Nova Scotia championship team, Vince Cahoon, Eric Fiander, Art Livingston and Blaise Myatt.



Mr. Speaker, I would request 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.



MR. KENNETH MACASKILL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and to all members of
the House, seated in your gallery a councillor from Victoria, Gerald Sampson. I would ask Mr. Sampson to
rise and receive a warm welcome. (Applause)






[2:45 p.m.]



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



RESOLUTION NO. 833



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



Whereas Toronto based CHUM Limited has denied its standard seniority rights to 18 women
employees of its ATV/ASN subsidiary in Halifax and locked them out on July 11th, when the women would
not sign away their basic rights; and



Whereas every political Party in this House has declared its solemn support for the equality of men and
women and for the principle of equal pay for work of equal value; and



Whereas the sexist treatment of the ATV/ASN women employees, denying them the same seniority
enjoyed by others in the CHUM empire, violates that spirit of equality;



Therefore be it resolved that this House declares its support for the 18 women employees of ATV/ASN
who have been locked out by their employer and urges the Toronto owners of ATV/ASN to agree to the same
seniority rights for these Halifax women that all of their other unionized CHUM employees now enjoy.



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



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



Is it agreed?



I hear a No.



The notice is tabled.



The honourable member for Kings West.



RESOLUTION NO. 834



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



Whereas the Premier has chosen to ignore the conclusions of his own members who last spring rejected
the concept of bringing casinos to Nova Scotia, as well as advice from a majority of Nova Scotians; and



Whereas no government in my time in politics has proposed a policy with such a great potential for
harming the economic, social and physical well-being of this province, with as flimsy a rationale or through
as dictatorial a process; and



Whereas governments across this country are struggling with the challenge of reducing expenditures
and increasing revenues, to eliminate government debt;



Therefore be it resolved that this government look seriously at a recent decision by the Governments
of British Columbia and Newfoundland not to proceed with casinos, on the basis of finances and economics.



MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.



The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.



RESOLUTION NO. 835



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



Whereas residents of Upper Sackville has suffered for 17 years because a previous Liberal Government,
without consultation, imposed a metro landfill near their homes, on an environmentally sensitive site; and



Whereas today’s Liberals are trumping that disastrous exercise in dictatorial government by sweeping
away any and all consultation or consensus on metro solid waste management and policing; and



Whereas Upper Sackville residents can testify to the consequences when the province fails to be an
honest broker, as this one pretended to be;



Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Premier should withdraw their
pre-emptive strike to impose metro amalgamation and keep two-tiered social assistance and, instead, start a
genuine open process of consultation and verification before they decide to break any more promises.



MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.



The honourable member for Queens.



RESOLUTION NO. 836



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



Whereas Nova Scotia’s $157 million lobster fishery has for decades been successfully managed by the
fishermen, in cooperation with regional Fisheries and Oceans personnel; and



Whereas it is essential to ensure this regime, which is the singularly most successful management
regime in the inshore fishery, is continued at the local level; and



Whereas Herb Clarke of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council recently announced that the
council will impose recommendations for conservation and management practices on the lobster industry as
early as the spring of 1995;



Therefore be it resolved that the members of the Legislature demand the federal government, and
particularly the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, militate against this unwarranted and entirely unwelcome
intrusion by the Federal Resource Conservation Council into the Nova Scotia lobster fishery.



I seek 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 Kings North.



RESOLUTION NO. 837



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



Whereas Small Business Week, October 23rd to 29th, celebrates the dynamic growth of Nova Scotia’s
entrepreneurial sector; and



Whereas the trend toward smaller, more efficient export firms is driving economic recovery across our
nation; and



Whereas a number of activities are planned this week to help entrepreneurial Nova Scotians get started
on their first businesses;



Therefore be it resolved that members of the Legislature recognize this week as an opportunity to better
understand and support growth within the small business sector.



MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.



The honourable member for Hants West.



RESOLUTION NO. 838



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



Whereas the Town of Hantsport is steeped in rich heritage and home to a vibrant downtown core; and



Whereas the Town of Hantsport is home to numerous small businesses employing hundreds of
individuals; and



Whereas the Town of Hantsport has greatly enhanced its downtown image through recent significant
infrastructure improvements including the reconstruction of Main Street, along with the replacement of water
and sewer lines;



Therefore be it resolved that all members of this Legislature commend Mayor Wayne Folker, town
council, businesses and the residents of Hantsport for their interest and hard work in improving downtown
Hantsport.



I ask for waiver of notice, Mr. Speaker.



MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed that notice be waived on that motion?



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. 839



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



Whereas the provincial Finance Department has reported that, unlike the rest of Canada, employment
in Nova Scotia remains well below its pre-recession peak; and



Whereas this sad picture is not improving with September’s report of 2,000 fewer jobs and 6,000 more
discouraged workers than in August plus newer jobs appearing mainly in the low wage, no benefit ghetto of
part-time work; and



Whereas the Premier gloats that, “good lasting jobs”, are here despite the harsh reality and insecurity
that Nova Scotians feel, much of it fuelled by his own government’s arbitrary self-destructive actions;



Therefore be it resolved that this government should finally get going with the job strategy that was
its main election promise rather than desperately painting a false picture of unemployment melting away in
Nova Scotia.



MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.



We have concluded, then, the daily routine and we will advance to Orders of the Day. Before we do
that, I would like to note that the Clerk has conducted a draw for the Adjournment debate which will take
place at 6:00 p.m. today or at the moment of adjournment, whichever comes first.



The successful entry was submitted by the honourable member for Kings North. His resolution reads:
Resolved that the Minister of Health immediately address the lack of representation by population on the four
regional health boards before the negative effects of inadequacies are enshrined within Nova Scotia’s health
reform process.



So that matter will be debated either at 6:00 p.m. or at the moment which we adjourn, whichever
comes first. The time now is 2:54 p.m. The Oral Question Period on Thursday runs for one hour. It will
therefore run until 3:54 p.m.



ORDERS OF THE DAY

 

 

ORAL QUESTIONS PUT BY MEMBERS



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.



MUN. AFFS.: REGIONAL GOV’T. -

 

PREMIER’S VIEWS (02/05/93)



MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier and it deals with a statement
he made back on May 2, 1993. At that time, during the election campaign and with reference to municipal
reform, the Premier said: This crazy idea that they have of having one municipality governed by one council
just does not make sense at all. My question to the Premier, does he still agree with that statement that he
made back in 1993?



THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I do not deny that my position on this issue has changed.



MR. RUSSELL: That was a short question, Mr. Speaker.



AN HON. MEMBER: Flip-flop. (Applause)



MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, this is simply another flip-flop by this Premier. (Interruptions) My
question to the Premier is how can the people of this province believe anything that this Premier says, given
his record of flip-flops and prevarications?



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Premier. I hesitate to allow the word prevarications but in any event
. . .



THE PREMIER: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was interrupted by an urgent message. Would you like to
repeat the question?



MR. RUSSELL: Yes, my question was that in view of the flip-flops by this Premier, how can the
people of this province believe anything that he says?



THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, it is a humbled man who admits that sometimes they change views and
that opinions that we have differ from those as we move into different positions. One might, for instance,
think of the absent Leader of the Opposition whose enthusiastic endorsation of casinos on the day I announced
it, has now retreated into a hive of inactivity. (Applause)



MR. RUSSELL: I am glad that the Premier agrees with my statement in the first supplementary that
the people of this province can have no confidence in anything that the Premier says.



My final supplementary is, in view of the fact that the Premier was aware that he would be proceeding
with amalgamation in the metro area before the recent municipal elections, why in heaven’s name didn’t he
save the taxpayers of this area hundreds of thousands of dollars by cancelling the elections or at least
postponing them?






THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, what I have said in relation to the elections is that regardless of what
time any bill is introduced, the various municipalities in this area will need to be governed by an elected body.
(Interruption) That is a year later, get your facts right. We are talking there about May 1995 and in this case
we are talking May 1996. It may well be longer than that, who knows, but the point is we do need a
government and I trust the municipal government that is elected will be able to deal with those issues until
such time as the singular government to which we refer becomes operative. (Applause)



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



MUN. AFFS. - REFORM: PREMIER - CONSULTATION



MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to direct my question to the Premier.
These concerns are not just about flip-flops and changing one’s mind in a humble way but they are about
accountability and integrity.



This Premier criss-crossed the province during the 1993 election promoting himself as the champion
of consultation. With respect to municipal reform, in particular, he blasted the former Premier for slapping
municipalities in the face for proposing unilateral amalgamation of municipal units and said that it would
mire us in mud and emotion, instead of allowing us to get on with municipal reform.



My question to the Premier is simply this. When and why did he decide to abandon this commitment
to consultation and show such contempt for the voters of Nova Scotia who had rejected that Tory approach
to municipal reform in the election that brought him to office?



THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, my primary responsibility is to the people of this province and it is my
view at this time that given the different perspective that I have as Premier, given the fact that the economic
arguments are all in favour of, in effect, a major opportunity that is so compelling at the moment. I am
convinced as most people are that there are significant cost-savings.



I am convinced that local identity, (Interruption) Mr. Speaker, she asked for the reasons and I am
giving them to you, the reasons, for instance, I believe that local identity and the keeping of your name is quite
possible under this issue. I also believe that the need for a competitive Halifax-Dartmouth area, including the
county, is obviously important if we are not to lose ground at a time when we need to and also because I am
convinced that this is the best thing for the people of the metropolitan area. Those are the reasons that I give
which I think the people of Nova Scotia and of the metropolitan area will endorse. (Applause)



MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, during the 1993 election, the Liberals condemned the two-tiered
system of social assistance for its inherent inequities, its failure to address basic needs and its administrative
complexity. They claimed that dismantling that two-tiered system was a short-term goal to be undertaken in
the first six to nine months of election to office. My question to the honourable Premier is when and why did
his government decide to turn its back on the Nova Scotians who are suffering under this two-tiered system
and also on the municipalities who are sagging under the financial burden of this inequitable two-tiered
system?






[3:00 p.m.]



THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, that is a serious question and it deserves a serious and thoughtful
answer. This government has studied the issue quite conclusively, quite seriously for about a good year.
During that time we encountered major financial reasons why the takeover, in one gulp, of community
services by the province was not feasible. This indeed was an ambition that I had long before I even got into
municipal politics. It is still an ambition of this government and it will continue to be an ambition.



What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, in case the questioner has forgotten, is we are approaching at a time
of major financial difficulty, we are approaching it slowly, and cautiously, and the first phase of the takeover
will occur in Cape Breton, in the new Cape Breton municipality. That surely is an example of a cautious and
sensible approach to a major issue. The amount of money involved in taking over the entire structure of social
services by the provincial government is just not possible given the mess that we inherited from the Party
opposite.



MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has asked us to trust him that the question of unitary
government for metro has been studied and that the information indicates that this is the way to go. He has
indicated that detailed studies have indicated that this government has no choice but to retreat from its
commitment to a single-tier social assistance system at this time. My question to the Premier is whether he
will today, now agree to table all of those studies, all of that analysis that led him to those conclusions?
Because, at the moment, he is asking us to gamble based on his unilateral decision.



THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, that is what I would call - in her statement, not a question - a calculated
inexactitude. Do you want to check that for how it fits into the category? As the Leader of the New Democratic
Party knows quite well, we have accommodated many of the requests that her Party has made, including
information about my staff and under the freedom of information on others and we are quite prepared to deal
with these requests in time.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Labour on an introduction.



HON. JAY ABBASS: I would like to introduce, sitting close to the Speaker’s Gallery, Mrs. Inez Daye,
the Vice-President of the Halifax-Dartmouth Injured Workers Association, and David Wiswell.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou Centre.



MUN. AFFS.: AMALGAMATIONS - STUDY



DR. JOHN HAMM: A question for the Premier. Events of the last 24 hours certainly have disturbed
and shocked all municipal officials in the province, particularly those I think in Halifax County and Bedford,
Halifax and Dartmouth but also all municipal officials who listened to what the minister had to say in the
spring and now are faced with an entirely different service exchange package, one that retreats very
dramatically from the government’s original position. The last year, as Critic for Municipal Affairs, I had the
opportunity to speak with many elective municipal officials. Most have a very reasonable attitude towards
reform. Every area has its own particular profile in terms of what may be a reasonable municipal realignment
to improve services and reduce costs. My question to the Premier, will the Premier commit that no further
amalgamation legislation will be forthcoming without serious and complete consultation and study with the
areas concerned?



THE PREMIER: I should perhaps preface any remark by saying that our so-called retreat from the first
model is because of the excessive cost of the takeover of community services. The minister and the department
tried six and seven and eight various versions in an attempt to accommodate the takeover. What we have, in
effect, done is to do it slowly and cautiously, and we have adopted the model that we will introduce, in part,
therefore, for probably - and I use the figure advisedly - 20 per cent of the social service cost to the province
which will be in the area of industrial Cape Breton.



Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to give any guarantees to the member opposite. When this government
decides that municipal reform, that his Party prattled about for God knows how long, is necessary, this
government will proceed without the actual direction of the Opposition.



DR. HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, certainly, through you to the Premier, that further
consultation may have resulted in a much better plan than came forward today. The new figures provided by
the Minister of Municipal Affairs create some terrific problems regionally throughout the province in terms
of the new costs generated for the local municipal taxpayer. I look at my own area of Pictou County, where
now 6 of the 7 units are facing costs related to service exchange, a much bleaker picture than existed for many
of them before the change in the figures. My question to the Premier is, is he entertaining any thoughts of
amalgamation in Pictou County?



THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is exactly what I said before. If this government
decides that action is required, it will take it. I am not prepared at this point to give a statement one way or
the other because it is just not relevant.



DR. HAMM: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my second supplementary then to the Minister of Municipal
Affairs. In view of the minister’s reply to my question, my supplementary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs,
does she feel in view of what has happened and the seriousness, does the minister think that further action
in terms of amalgamation is required to solve the very considerable financial problems created by this latest
service exchange, has created for many areas in our province?



HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have been able to do under the service
exchange is to deal with the concerns that many municipalities presented to me when I consulted with them,
travelling the province in the spring. This particular piece of legislation that has come through that I have
introduced today deals with many issues and the service exchange deals with the concerns that had been
expressed to me by this municipality while we were doing our consultation.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.



HEALTH - QEII HEALTH SCIENCE CENTRE: ANALYSIS - TABLE



MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Earlier this year,
the Minister of Health announced that he would merge the VG Hospital, the Camp Hill Medical Centre, the
Nova Scotia Rehabilitation Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation of Nova Scotia into
a complex known as the Queen Elizabeth II Health Science Centre. Would the Minister of Health, today, agree
to table a detailed financial analysis that led him to make this decision unilaterally and which was contrary
to the Blueprint Committee? Would the minister be prepared to table that information to us today?



HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable gentleman opposite knows, we have
established a transitional board with proper people and very dedicated individuals who will be analyzing this
and also will be deciding on the structure of that institution.



MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed, surprised and shocked that a minister would make an
announcement before an analysis was done. I would ask the minister, would he, today, tell all the employees,
other than the VG, that their salary levels will be brought up to the VG level? Will he assure them of that?



DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, a major element of that analysis and of the work being done by that
board and by the regional health board will be an analysis of all labour issues pertaining to that merger.



MR. MOODY: In that case, when will the minister be able to reveal the actual cost to the taxpayers
of the salaries incurred and will he assure all employees that everyone will be treated the same when we talk
about pay equity?



DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate what I have said, that a regional board is in place,
will be analyzing the information from the transitional board and will make those decisions. The honourable
gentleman opposite fails to realize that a major shift in decision making has occurred in this province in
health, and that is that the decision making has gone back to the people where it belongs and not in the hands
of one minister. (Applause)



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



HEALTH: BLUEPRINT COMM. - ADVISORY COMM.



MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and I fail to know
or understand how people can clap for somebody who has not done an analysis but makes an announcement.



I would ask the minister, the Blueprint Committee recommended, and I am sure every MLA has read
the Blueprint Committee Report because they say that is what we are doing, that a provincial program
advisory committee, including representatives from each of the four regional health boards and the
Department of Health be established to plan, coordinate and deliver these programs.



Why did the minister proceed with this merger prior to the establishment of this committee and prior
to the establishment of the regional health boards?



HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, very simply because we were in the process of putting into
action the Blueprint Committee in stages. The committee to which the honourable gentleman opposite refers,
is part and parcel of that structure and that will follow in concert with the development of more equitable and,
also, I might say, more economical provision of health care services through hospitals in this central region.






MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I am sure disappointed. The Blueprint Committee recommended that
changes in hospital structure occur with the participation of the communities. I hope the minister understands
what we are talking about. We are talking about participation of communities, not him alone.



Can the minister indicate what consultation took place prior to his decision to proceed with the
merger? Who, Mr. Speaker, did he consult with?



DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I again refer the honourable gentleman opposite to the fact that we have
consulted widely in this province since 1972. We have taken advice, particularly advice from the previous
administration, in what to do and he knows very well, the honourable gentleman opposite, that some of the
suggestions made and lying on the desk of the Department of Health for a decade, have been included in our
plan and are being carried out, yea 10 years later.



MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, if he has consulted widely I want to see the report that told him that this
merger was best for metro.



I would ask the minister what evidence does he have that the establishment of a hospital with over 500
beds is cost-efficient, because I know in other provinces it was found not to be. Can he provide any
documentation or is he going to stand up again and say trust me, I have got all the answers?



DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I believe in this House, under the tutelage of the honourable gentleman
opposite while he was Minister of Health, a study was done on various aspects of health care delivered in
tertiary care facilities in this region and it made recommendations which included the consolidation of
laboratories, consolidation of programs and nothing was done with that report. It lay dormant on the shelf
until this minister came in and walked into the office and found it. (Applause)



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



MUN. AFFS. - METRO AMALGATION: STATISTICS - ACCURACY



MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that round of applause was necessarily for me. We
have seen that many of the government projections have been off by more than what you might call a country
mile. For example, when they talked about assuming social assistance costs, general assistance, they said that
it was going to cost approximately $23 million. Through that, my question is for the Premier. I am pleased
that they are all delighted they are off the hook.



My question to the Premier, and this has to do with the idea and the issue of the metro amalgamation
and given the fact that the record of rejections are not very accurate, why didn’t this government do with
respect to municipal amalgamation that you are talking about, as was done around the police amalgamation
and that was develop a number of options, then go to the municipalities who were involved, check to find out
if your facts and figures are accurate and correct and it was discovered, by the way, that they were not, and
then go to the public for input? Why wasn’t that approach taken?



THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, as far as I recall he said we have not consulted at all with the
municipalities. Here he is telling us we had 28 meetings, in fact, if the mayor is to be believed, so obviously
we have consulted. Let’s get one thing straight, on the issue of what we are doing with the municipalities now,
the issue is quite clear, you cannot proceed with real consultation until you know what you are consulting
about and doing.



[3:15 p.m.]



What we are proposing is that there will be one unitary government here. We are proposing that all
the ramifications of that will be discussed now, over the next six months at least. We have at least six months
before we even get to the next House of Assembly, when the legislation will be put there. Mr. Speaker, you
cannot have consultation and discussion until you know what the issue is. We are taking action because it is
timely.



MR. HOLM: You must have been awfully busy in the last hour or two, if you have had 28 consultations
in that period of time because nobody, particularly the mayors, were informed in advance of what the
government’s plans are.



I would like to ask the Premier a very specific question then. Why did the government decide to play
games with the municipalities by pretending to try to broker arrangements on solid waste management and
on amalgamation of police forces when the whole time you knew you had in your back pocket a plan to
amalgamate the municipalities that will make all of those void, in any event? Why did you play games and
waste the time of the municipal leaders?



THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the honourable member opposite that much of the
information obtained in the policing discussions will be of considerable value. It will be of value when we
proceed with the amalgamation, in a general sense.



On the other issue, I only acted because the municipal politicians said there is nothing to do, we are
going home. They left the Metropolitan Authority and, in effect, there was nothing happening. That is when
I acted on that issue and that is pretty well known.



MR. HOLM: Well, Mr. Speaker, as usual, I don’t get a straight answer to that. I am sure that those who
have had their time wasted and their good intentions of trying to resolve problems . . .



MR. SPEAKER: This is commentary, it is not a question. Please ask the question.



MR. HOLM: My final question then, which I will insert on the whole issue, since the government has,
in effect, voided all of these agreements and the goodwill that was worked out, is the Premier now prepared
to instruct his Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Municipal Affairs to identify and find a new
solid waste management site for the residents of the metropolitan area, as he has apparently thrown out the
window and voided the agreement that they, in good faith, negotiated.



THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to assist in whatever way necessary and possible.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Queens.



MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, my question this afternoon is for His Honour The Premier. Mr.
Premier, Mildred Conrad of Liverpool suffers from Dupuytren’s contracture. You would know, as perhaps
many members of the House would know, that causes her fingers to contract towards the palms of her hands,
which makes her hands very difficult to use and also is very painful.



She first saw a specialist in Halifax around March 1, 1994, and two months later she received a call
for admission to the Victoria General Hospital. Two days before that date she received a call from her
surgeon’s office cancelling the surgery and was given a further appointment for October 13, 1994. On October
11th she received another call from her family physician who told her that the surgery was again being
cancelled and she was told by the doctor’s office that this is because of cuts made by the government in
operating time at the Victoria General Hospital. She was also told the doctor would not be calling her to give
her another appointment at that time and Mrs. Conrad says, believe it or not, they told her they could not
guarantee that the cancellation would not occur again, even though another appointment was to be made.



Mr. Premier, the question that Mildred Conrad has asked me to pose to you, through me, she wants
to know if you were in her place, how long would you have to wait for that surgery to be undertaken?



MR. SPEAKER: I don’t believe that question to be in order. It violates about five different standards
laid down by Beauchesne, including that a question ought to be as brief as possible. I quote from Beauchesne,
“A preamble need not exceed one carefully drawn sentence.” That is a preamble to a main question, not a
supplementary. It states, “A supplementary question should need no preamble.”.



Now that question is altogether too long and it does not relate further to the administrative
responsibilities of the Premier, but rather would come under the Minister of Health, I should think.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.



HEALTH - HFX. METRO: BOARDS (2) - CHAIRMEN ROLE



MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health was shaking his head. He is not
responsible either. I would (Interruption) You cannot have a point of order.



MR. SPEAKER: There are no points of order during Oral Question Period. I am sorry.



MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. It is my understanding the
chairperson for the Board of the Queen Elizabeth II Health Science Centre reports to the Minister of Health
as does the chairperson of the Central Regional Health Board, both here in metro. Could the minister briefly
explain how their separate roles will work?



HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the transitional board and the mandate of
the regional board are well defined. They have been published and well defined. The mandate of the chair of
both boards is well defined and their mandates are quite different.



The transitional board has been given a 12 month mandate to define the structure and to define the
relationships of the four institutions coming together as the QEII. The regional health board has a mandate
to begin the development of community health boards and the objectives that were laid out on the Blueprint
Report.



I would suggest to the honourable member opposite that they are quite well defined and that indeed
is on public record.



MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the answer. It is the first one I got today and I
would ask the minister if he might provide me with those details of the roles because I do appreciate that they
have been done. He sort of briefly outlined them and I would ask him for a copy.



I would ask the minister, will the Central Regional Health Board run the rest of the hospitals in the
central regions like the IWK and the Grace Maternity Hospitals, which really are tertiary care hospitals? Will
they be reporting to the Minister of Health or will they be reporting to the chairman of the Central Regional
Health Board?



DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, that has been made clear in our public pronouncements and in the
Blueprint Report that hospitals, as regional facilities, will respond to the regional health board.



MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that answer. I would ask the minister, I heard
Mr. Cowan say on CBC that there would be trustees appointed to hospitals and that is not in the Blueprint
Report. I would ask the minister, who will appoint the trustees, the Minister of Health or the chairman of the
regional boards?



DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, again the regional health board will determine the structure under
which hospitals are managed and under which governance is applied. I would have to check, of course, and
I would appreciate if the honourable member would give me the quote from the chair of the board and I could
more definitively answer his question.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.



FIN. - CASINOS: EXCO - RELATIONSHIP



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Premier. Last night
in an interview with First Edition’s Jim Nunn, the Premier said, with respect to the casino project team and
its relation to Cabinet, I have said to every Cabinet Minister, if you go near any of those you’re fired. This has
been an arm’s-length process. My question to the Premier, is it his policy that, as reported, if any of his
Cabinet Ministers go near members of the project team that they will, in fact, be fired?



THE PREMIER: What I established with that commission was an arm’s-length commission for which
integrity, honesty and the ability to make decisions at a distance from government were, by me, considered
very important. I emphasized to all members of the caucus and to the Cabinet that this arm’s-length nature
was very important and except for administrative details concerning budget, various small items relating to
the budget that obviously fell through the Department of Finance, every single member of the caucus
understood what I said. That, Mr. Speaker, remains.



MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it is important because the Premier said last night
that if that happened then they would be fired. My supplementary to the Premier is, what measures has he
taken to ensure that no Cabinet Ministers have had contact with committee members? Such members, I think
of the deputy of the Department of Transportation, the Executive Director of the Taxation Department. I
would like to ask the Premier what measures he has put in place to ensure that there has not been any contact
between those members and Cabinet Ministers?



THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that I cannot follow every Cabinet Minister around for 24
hours a day, seven days a week, to make sure they do not contact. I would have thought that the warning that
I gave people in Cabinet, carrying with it the instant pain of dismissal, might have given sufficient emphasis
for people to take me at my word. That is exactly what we did, obviously some of the deputy ministers who
work on that have had to do that but that does not imply that there has been any contact with any Cabinet
Minister at all.



MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, all I am trying to do is find an answer to a question that most Nova
Scotians are. Will the minister, when he makes a statement, will he act in a manner which will give Nova
Scotians some kind of assurance that they can appreciate, they can understand and they can accept them at
his word when he makes that kind of statement?



THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, it is not clear to me what the question is but I will attempt to answer
it by saying that if the questioner does not answer and does not accept the conditions of integrity, distance and
honesty that I requested from that, then I suspect that the fault is his and not that of the commission.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou Centre.



HEALTH - PICTOU CO.: BOARD - REPS.



DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. During the past month I
have made several attempts to alert the Minister of Health about the lack of representation of Pictonians on
the Northern Regional Health Board. I did this in an attempt that the oversight could be corrected before
training and work of the boards began. With the resignation of one of our three appointed representatives,
Pictonians are now represented by 2 out of 15 members on the Northern Reational Health Board, a mere 13
per cent of the board, although we represent 37 per cent of the population of that region.



Pictou County has two members, we are the largest county in the region, Colchester County has seven,
Cumberland County, six. My question is, will the Minister of Health agree to replace the resigned member
and appoint four additional members to the board from Pictou County?



HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member opposite for raising this
issue and as the honourable member perhaps recalls, my deputy has had a conversation with him recently
regarding this and in fact, we have taken the urgings of our honourable MLA from that area as well as others
who have been making representations regarding this. We have, as I have reiterated, not made geographical
representation a priority in appointing boards although we certainly appreciated the rather persistent
reminders from the honourable member from that local area, Mr. Fraser, for reminding me of this. I have had
conversations with the board Chairs regarding their ability to appoint more members whenever they feel there
may be an inequity or something that requires them to increase the representation. I want to ensure the
honourable members opposite in all Parties that this is a serious issue particularly with the resignation of one
of the members from that particular region and we will give it due attention, in fact, that is being worked on
as we speak.



DR. HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I understand from the minister’s response that he has turned over the
responsibility to appoint new members, to the regional health board Chairman. I would like to suggest to the
minister that many Pictonians are enraged and angry that we are not being properly represented on the
northern health board. The discrepancy in terms of population versus representation is not one that we can
tolerate.



I am asking the minister, would he be prepared to sit down with the three MLAs in Pictou County to
discuss additional representation on the northern health board for Pictonians?



DR. STEWART: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the honourable member opposite, I would remind him that
I have made a commitment to address this issue quite a bit prior to his making representation to myself. Yes,
indeed, the regional health boards have the ability to appoint further members but I did not say that I would
turn over the replacement of members who perhaps have resigned. I believe that I could do that because that
is only fair and we will, indeed, do that. We have taken that under advisement, because of the representation
made by the members from that region. I have given commitment to that and I do so again, to the honourable
member opposite, that we will, in concert with the regional health board, make adjustments that appear to be
necessary. Again, I would give him my commitment, as well as I have done so, to the honourable member,
Mr. Fraser.



[3:30 p.m.]



DR. HAMM: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he thinks it is fair and
equitable that members appointed to represent Cumberland and Colchester Counties should be able to decide
who will represent us in Pictou County and, in fact, will be making the decisions that this board will make,
in terms of the institutionalization of care in Pictou County and what will be the community health board
boundaries in our area.



MR. SPEAKER: Well, before the honourable minister answers that question, I note that Beauchesne
requires that a question not seek an opinion. To ask a minister whether or not something is fair, in my view,
appears to be seeking an opinion. However, if the minister wishes to respond, he may.



DR. STEWART: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was just going to respond that I will not play one region of this
province against the other, one community against the other. That is not in keeping with what we have said
in this House and that is unfortunate. (Applause)



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



HEALTH - HFX. CO. (EAST): BOARD - REPS.



MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the honourable Minister of Health. In places
such as eastern Halifax County, which takes in roughly one-half of the central health region’s geographic area,
there is only one member representing the health interests of several thousand. This area is served by our three
hospitals and homes for special care. Unfortunately, in a community that the minister indicated in June may
be a regional centre for health, the people are left with one representative for their large population.



On the advice of the Liberal branding-iron committee, alias the Human Resources Committee, I wrote
the minister on September 20th . . .



MR. SPEAKER: This is getting much too long. I asked for a question, not a speech.



MR. TAYLOR: I will transpose that, Mr. Speaker. I wrote the minister on September 20th, asking for
additional representation on the regional board. While the minister did respond by sending me something that
I needed like another hole in the head, he sent me a copy of the Blueprint for Health Reform . . .



MR. SPEAKER: I will have to call the member to order. Is there a question?



MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister agree to now address this concern?



HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to add to further holes in the head of the
honourable member opposite. I would not be so bold. May I again reiterate what I have said, that this is
insidious in the extreme to suggest that we play one region against the other region that we represent on
boards, according to geography, according to the whims and fancies as he has suggested.



I have again asked him to read the blueprint report. They do not say geography is the criterion for
representation on the board. So that is why I have sent the report to the honourable member opposite because
obviously he either had a very short memory or needed to reread it.



MR. TAYLOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to play one region of the province against another
region of the province and I don’t submit that the Minister of Health is trying to. What I am asking for is fair
and equal representation.



I am asking the minister again, will the minister assure the residents of eastern Halifax County that
these individuals who will be placed, the additional appointments, will come from the eastern Halifax County
area?



DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, again I would remind the honourable member opposite that geography
will not be the criterion upon which we make appointments. I might also remind him that these are interim
boards which will create community boards which will be the criterion upon which we make appointments.



I might also remind him that these are interim boards which will create community boards which will
be true representations of their communities and that is what we are aiming for. Then the decisions will be
taken out of this place and placed in the hands of the citizens of this province and we all should be glad for
that fact. (Applause)



MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, regardless of what the Minister of Health says there are many citizens
of this province distressed over the fact that their area is not represented well at all on these boards. So again,
I will ask the minister will he assure communities like Pictou County and eastern Halifax County and Kings
and Digby Counties that any available positions will be filled by those currently not adequately represented?



DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I will give undertaking to the member opposite and to all honourable
members in this House and to the citizens of Nova Scotia that representation, fine and good representation,
will be a facet of the boards’ activities. They are good boards, they are solid boards and they will continue in
changing the health care system and returning the decision-making back to communities where it belongs.



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



HEALTH: LBR. ADJUSTMENT SUBCOMM. - STATUS



MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the Minister of Health as well and
also concern the health reform process. As the minister well knows, an absolutely critical element of the
health reform process stressed by the Blueprint Committee is the whole aspect of labour adjustment. A very
definite recommendation was made that a labour adjustment subcommittee should be set up so that it could
address the displacement of workers that would inevitably occur, could deal with the necessity of, in some
cases, retraining, re-allocation, re-orientation of those workers to ensure that they are treated fairly and also
that Nova Scotians have the benefit of their continuing service.



My question to the minister is why the labour adjustment subcommittee has not yet been appointed and
when we can expect that announcement to be made?



HON. RONALD STEWART: I thank the honourable member for this question because this is a very,
very important issue related to health care renewal in the province. We have within the government itself and
within the Department of Human Resources, a Labour Adjustment Committee and policies to deal with this.
But more specific to your question, it is the intent that each regional board will have within its mandate and
within its structure, a labour adjustment committee and addressing the specifics to that particular region.



So I would suggest that rather than one full group, smaller groups in the region would be more
effective dealing with local issues.



MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask about another aspect of the health reform
process and that concerns the health reform commissioner’s efforts. As the minister well knows, there was
a good deal of concern generated, in some cases I think crises generated by the announcement of some
reduction in services, in a couple of instances closure of facilities and, yet, I think it has been very welcome
that communities have mobilized, that citizens have tried to come together to work on what kind of
appropriate response there would be. The minister has said that decision-making power has been reallocated
to communities.



My question is whether the minister could inform the House what resources in terms of personnel
resources and budgetary allocations have been made to ensure that those community efforts are supported
during this transition period which communities are now faced with, and to ensure that the efforts of the
health reform commissioner are in fact supported in the way that was intended by the minister when he
announced the establishment of such a position?



DR. STEWART: Again, Mr. Speaker, the question is a key one and relates to our planning process
and indeed the implementation process which is now getting into gear. One of the chief things is to budget
for those changes and up to $700,000 has been set aside for the work of the reform group and the
Commissioner for Community Development, Ms. Hampton. We have, in addition to that, hired on several
people to give that particular group of community development support. Office space, of course, has been
allocated but we are expanding that within the next several weeks to include several other seconded positions
from within our own department.






MS. MCDONOUGH: The minister has several times referred to the community having more control
over the decision-making in the health system from now on. There was considerable concern - I think the
minister is aware of this - about the creation of the QEII mega hospital transition board with really no prior
consultation with the community as such. So the community is wondering at this point, I think, what the terms
of reference are for the conduct of that transition board of the QEII mega hospital. I wonder if the minister
could agree to table the terms of reference which are now guiding the efforts of that transition board so that
the public can be aware of what they are and the community can look forward to the kind of involvement that
the minister purports to be welcoming?



DR. STEWART: I will indeed do so and repeat what I have stated publicly and on that issue I would
be happy to table those.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Premier on an introduction.



THE PREMIER: If I may just crave your indulgence for a moment, Mr. Speaker, in the middle of
Question Period to introduce a former distinguished Mayor of the City of Halifax, a lawyer, bon vivant and
well-known, Leonard Kitz who has disappeared! He was there when I started.



MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We are all a little embarrassed here. The gentleman had just left at the
time the Premier rose to his feet.



The honourable member for Kings North.



HEALTH - EASTERN KINGS MEMORIAL HOSP.: CLINIC - FUNDING



MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: He was perhaps the most embarrassed, maybe that is why he left.



Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Health, through you of course. It is with regard
to the Eastern Kings Memorial Hospital and correspondence that has been taking place between Mr. Murphy,
the chairman of the board and the Minister of Health. Mr. Murphy and the Eastern Kings Memorial Hospital
Board - and that is the hospital that was closed - have written several letters requesting a meeting concerning
the closure of the Eastern Kings Memorial Hospital. In the response the minister indicated that he was sorry
about the feeling of frustration that the board was having. The minister indicated that he had been speaking
almost daily to the local MLA. They want answers to some very specific questions. Will the Department of
Health fund in whole or in part the clinic which is currently being maintained with the assistance of the
Wolfville physicians?



HON. RONALD STEWART: I want to reiterate here - and I have said this frequently in this place -
that communities are participating in the formation of health care systems with the assistance of my
department and we have done this from the beginning when we announced the changes that were to occur
in the hospital budgeting process. I will commit again to the local community and also to the honourable
member opposite that my staff and indeed the commissioner from community development, and those who
are helping in this process, will continue their work in that community as well as other communities. I might
remind the honourable member opposite that some very good and productive things are coming out of those
dialogues that have developed.



MR. ARCHIBALD: The people wanted a meeting and they wanted an answer to a very simple question
and we certainly didn’t get the answer at all. The second question they want to know, will the Department of
Health fund in whole or in part the Palliative Care Program that is currently being offered out of the hospital
now?



DR. STEWART: Again, Mr. Speaker, I would say that those decisions will be made in concert with
the local community and the groups that are formed there and that is going to be a very productive process
that has been ongoing. As soon as the groups that are there will make those decisions we will get on with the
job of providing needed services in that region.



MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, Mr. Speaker, we are disappointed with double-talk and no answer. The
third question that they have asked, would the Minister of Health send a team of experts to help facilitate
integration of the various needs assessments currently being carried out by the different groups? They are
asking for your assistance, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Health, they are asking for his
assistance, not his words in Halifax. He won’t meet with them and all he will give them is words.



[3:45 p.m.]



Will you dedicate a team to help and assist some people who are in need?



DR. STEWART: Such a team has been in place and working in that community for some weeks now.
They are planning needs assessments which are very important to the process and I would commend those
team members to the honourable member opposite.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou West.



FIN. - CASINOS: IMPACT - STUDY



MR. DONALD MCINNES: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Mr. Premier, Tom Austin,
from Head of Chezzetcook, Nova Scotia, wants to know: When will the government study all the direct and
indirect impacts associated with legalized casino gambling? When will the Premier do a study on legalized
casino gambling - the impact?



MR. SPEAKER: All right, I will allow the question but the question should come from the honourable
member for Pictou West, not from Tom whoever. He is not a member of the House.



THE PREMIER: We understand their difficulty in getting enough questions to ask. Obviously they
have gone to the public to get them and we appreciate that. (Applause) However, there is a serious point to
the question and I don’t deny that. This particular issue will be addressed when the commissioner presents
his report to the Minister of Finance and the action will be taken then.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.



FIN. - CASINOS: REVENUE - PROJECTED



MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I would ask the
Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Speaker, will he explain or tell us today how much revenue he
anticipates the casinos will generate in their first year?



HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member no doubt is already
aware, because he has been a close follower of the process, a number of proposals are now before the Casino
Project Committee. There were originally seven proposals and there are now three; each one of those three
proposals no doubt has varying economic ramifications and impacts on the province, both what is claimed
and what might be tested by the committee and its administrative structure. So it would be overly simplistic
to try and speculate now on what the return might be. In fact, it would be very unwise since a negotiation
process is underway.



I can assure the honourable member that the presentations and the claims attached to each of the
proposals will be solidly tested by the Casino Project Committee and their staff and will be made fully public
when the decision is presented.



MR. MOODY: I thank the honourable minister for his answer. I wonder if he would be kind enough
to share with us today what the sharing formula will be? In other words, if $200 million is taken in by the
casinos, what is the revenue sharing formula? I am sure that he has given that to the groups that have come
in. What kind of formula is he proposing? Is it 60/40? Is it 20/80? What formula is he giving those
companies?



MR. BOUDREAU: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member will know, part of the mandate of
that Casino Project Committee was to negotiate with the ultimately successful proponent. Those discussions
are ongoing now and they have not been concluded.



Obviously the mandate, which was made public when we made the original announcement, instructed
the Casino Project Committee to make the best deal possible for the people of this province. In fact, I am
confident they are proceeding in that direction.



MR. MOODY: I wonder if the minister could assure us that a bigger portion of the profits will come
to the government and stay in this province? In other words, the company is going to have costs and then they
will end up being profits. I would ask the minister if he could assure us in this province, even though the
majority of people may be opposed to the casino, if he is going to go ahead can he assure us that 80 per cent
to 90 per cent or better of the actual profits that are made will actually stay in this province to be used for
programs?



MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I think that what we will do is make available the final arrangements
when they have been concluded and then the honourable member and the people of Nova Scotia can see in
great detail exactly what those projections will be. I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to make any
undertakings at this stage but as the honourable member knows, there will be substantial revenue available
from the casino operations and that will be, in large measure, directed toward the social programs and fiscal
recovery of the province.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.



FIN. - CASINOS: FACTS - DEBATE



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Premier and it is
regarding casino gambling. I want to make sure as we engage in the debate on this issue, we do what the
Premier suggested yesterday in his press conference, that we deal with reality, that we talk about facts.



Back on April 20, 1994, the government made an announcement that they were going to license casino
gambling in Nova Scotia. They said that this decision comes after a great deal of study and debate by
government, the benefits to taxpayers of the casino operations in Nova Scotia will be substantial. I would like
to ask the Premier if he will finally agree to provide those reports on which that statement was based here in
the Legislature, immediately?



THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a question for the person who has looked after casinos
since they started. I am going to ask the Minister of Finance to answer this.



HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the
honourable member.



The Government of Nova Scotia through its staff at the Nova Scotia Lottery Commission and other
staff examined the question in great detail. In doing that we reviewed reports, we had discussions, we had
meetings, we reviewed operations and we were fortunate in that the Province of Nova Scotia was the seventh
province in this country to reach the decision to license casinos. Six other provinces had gone down this road
before us and we benefitted very greatly and I might add that in provinces of all political persuasions, the New
Democratic provinces, Conservative provinces and Liberal provinces, we benefitted a great deal from their
work and from their information. Ultimately we exercised our judgment on the collective information and
recommendations that we had to deal with.



MR. SPEAKER: We have time for just one supplementary.



MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, my second supplementary to the Minister of Finance who was handed
this one is, would he then confirm for me and for all Nova Scotians that the statement made in the address
to Nova Scotia on April 20, 1994 that said, after a great deal of study and debate by this government, that in
fact what it should have said was, after we decided that we were going to follow other provinces, in other
words, is this an untruth that was spoken to the people of Nova Scotia on April 20, 1994?



MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I have difficulty with this line of questioning. You are trying to
decide on the issue and it is a very difficult issue, the issue of casinos, where is the best evidence that you can
seek? Provinces who have already operated casinos. We could have gone to a university professor and asked
him to give us a report but the best evidence that we have is from actual casino operations in this country in
the six provinces. We have benefitted from that information and from the studies that some of those provinces
have done.(Applause)



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



GOVERNMENT BUSINESS



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.



HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the order of business, Public Bills for
Second Reading.






PUBLIC BILLS FOR SECOND READING



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.



HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 103.



Bill No. 103 - Pharmacy Act.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Health.



HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to advance to second reading or to move
advance to second reading of Bill No. 103, amendments to the Pharmacy Act and I would like to, in doing
so, make some comments regarding this bill and its importance to the profession within the province.



To summarize very simply, this bill, these amendments, have three basic requirements or purposes and
the first is to increase the lay representation upon this board. We have had for some time now concern that
this board has not been able to properly function. By properly function, I mean that proper lay representation
be available for each of the sittings of the disciplinary committee since only two representatives from the lay
public were on this particular board. We believe by increasing the membership on this board, it will permit
a lay representative to be, in fact, available for every disciplinary hearing.



So increased lay representation is a key issue with many of the professional boards that we see and this
government has made a commitment to increasing the public’s participation in professional boards and
commissions and we believe that this amendment would carry through that policy.



Secondly, the bill seeks to increase continuing education requirements in this profession and it will
mean that if there is a failure of these practising pharmacists not to reach the agreed-to education
requirements, there will automatically be a loss of license.



Now I might say as an aside, Mr. Speaker, that this is an encouraging development since we have in
this province and in society in general, professions that are required to have certain standards. We expect of
them certain standards and we believe that this profession is well honoured by its inclusion of continuing
education requirements and re-certification. I might suggest that other professions might copy this.



May I also say that it is important to note that my ministry and this government, particularly, supports
mandatory requirements for re-certification and we see this as some evidence of our commitment to this in
the professions in the health care sector in this province. I want to underscore that particular item within this
bill and within these amendments.



Finally, the third amendment deals with the so-called lock and leave issue respecting the requirement
for pharmacists to be present when the pharmacy is in operation. At present, it is unclear from the wording
of the bill, according to both the profession and the considered opinion of our legal experts, whether or not
a pharmacist must be physically present when the pharmacy is open. This policy has always been in that the
interest of the public is served, if a pharmacy is open, the public should have a right to access those services.
The change proposed in this bill will clarify the language of the Act to specifically require a pharmacist to
be present if the pharmacy is open.



We do, however, recognize and this bill reflects it, that some communities would have difficulty if
there is but one pharmacy within its bounds. Accordingly, these amendments will permit the society to allow
pharmacies in such requirements to be opened at specified times without the requirement of the pharmacist
actually being present.



But I might say that while this would allow pharmacists in small towns, small communities, to perhaps
go home for lunch or whatever without closing the full pharmacy down, that exemption will apply only where
the society has by regulations specifically permitted a pharmacy to remain open.



[4:00 p.m.]



Two special requirements, however, will be required or will be undertaken by this if a pharmacist is
not present, or under this Act. First the hours when the pharmacist is available must be posted in the
establishment. Secondly, there will be requirements to secure those areas in which prescription drugs are
dispensed and stored and those are very tightly drawn up and will be announced to the public by signs
restricting the area in which these drugs are available.



I would commend to this House and to the honourable members this bill as amended and I would again
move it to second reading.



MR. SPEAKER: The motion is for second reading of Bill No. 103.



The honourable member for Kings West.



MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I want to stand in support of these amendments. I think these
amendments are positive and are sort of housekeeping amendments, but they are clarifying and they are very
positive. I agree with the minister in trying to increase the number of lay people. I know we are only going
from two to three, but it would have been nice to go from two to five or two to four to double the number. I
am sure the minister agrees that in all these professional groups and associations we need more lay people
to bring that balance and that perspective of the lay people.



I hope the minister maybe down the road will consider even more lay people in that area. The
continuing education and the clarification on when pharmacists should be present are also very positive. I
think, Mr. Speaker, so often we assume when a pharmacy is open that there is a pharmacist available. I think
that the minister, by bringing in this amendment, helps clarify that and people will be aware. I’m not going
to take very long, I just want to tell the minister I support this amendment and this bill. Our caucus will be
voting in favour of it. I think it is housekeeping, but still good legislation and it is very progressive. Thank
you very much.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak very briefly on this piece of
legislation brought forward by the Minister of Health. I would agree with the previous speaker. I think that
there is no question that this is an important step forward. The representation of lay persons on this particular
board is extremely important and I think will add some legitimacy and some counterbalance to the
professional interest. Not to suggest that there is any problem with that but I think the experience has been
with professional boards or committees like this that representation from consumers, from the lay public tends
to bring an important perspective to the discussions, to the debates. Certainly, the government, I think, should
be applauded for this move to enable the council to function more satisfactorily by making it open to all
disciplinary hearings.



The question of continuing education, I think, is important. The mandatory requirement for re-certification, and as I understand, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of professional groups that are affected
by this particular piece of legislation that have certainly spoken in favour of it and do support it. At this point
in reviewing this particular piece of legislation, I think that not wanting to speak for my colleagues, but in
my initial review of this particular piece of legislation, I would certainly be voting in support of the legislation
moving forward to the Law Amendments Committee. Again, my commendation to the minister for having
brought this progressive piece of legislation forward. Thank you.



MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question? The motion is for second reading of Bill No. 103.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.



The motion is carried.



Ordered that this bill be referred to the Committee on Law Amendments.



The honourable Government House Leader.



HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 29.



Bill No. 29 - Power Engineers Act.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Labour.



HON. JAY ABBASS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to second reading of Bill No. 29,
an Act Respecting Power Engineers. In brief, this is one of two new Acts which will rise out of the bringing
up-to-date of the Stationary Engineers Act. The Stationary Engineers Act becomes two new Acts, one of
which is Bill No. 29, the Power Engineers Act, the other of which will be Bill No. 30, an Act Respecting
Crane Operators, which will be up next on the agenda.



In brief, what we are doing is taking an Act, the Stationary Engineers Act, which is at least 14 years
old, I believe it was proclaimed in 1980, and simply bringing it up-to-date, so that it does a few main things,
one of which would be that it regulates the operation of high pressure boiler plants, that is those operating at
pressures over 15 pounds per square inch gauge; low pressure boiler plants, those operating at pressures up
to 15 pounds per square inch gauge. It regulates the operation of refrigeration plants, air and gas compressor
plants, it determines the minimum level of qualification required by those people who would operate those
types of plants and it would determine the qualification, it would administer examinations and deal with
certification of operators of those plants.



Certain advances in technology have been made which this Act will reflect. Again, it is simply an
attempt, not so much at housekeeping but bringing the Stationary Engineers Act up-to-date. I would be happy
to answer questions, following other submissions.






MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.



MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill No. 29 and, as
the minister has correctly said, this Act replaces an old piece of legislation, not so old in years but old insofar
as the advance of technology since the introduction of that previous piece of legislation.



I do have some questions on this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, which will probably not be answered
until we get to the Law Amendments Committee or into Committee of the Whole House because as I
understand it, the regulatory powers accorded to the minister under this new Act are much larger and more
all-encompassing than under the previous Act which it replaces. It is also my understanding from the Act,
and when he wraps up the minister might just very briefly speak on this particular aspect of the legislation,
that is that it affords to certain types of installations the ability not to have a stationary engineer or a certified
stationary engineer to service that piece of equipment while it is operating.



I can understand that if that is so, then the advance in technology does, indeed, provide that kind of
absent management, if you wish. The stationary engineers themselves have some reservations, and I know
they will be speaking in the Law Amendments Committee again on certain aspects of the bill.



As I say, my primary reservations deal with the matter of safety under this new Act. However, I agree
with the principle of the bill, which is to bring in a piece of legislation that more truly reflects the type of
equipment we have in 1994 and the types of controls we have over that equipment in 1994, which were not
in place in 1980. So, we will be supporting the bill for second reading.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.



MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak very briefly on Bill No. 29.
You may recall that this particular piece of legislation was put on the order paper back last spring and when
we first saw it and began to make contact with people that would be affected by it, there was some
considerable concern expressed from different areas that they didn’t know about it, they hadn’t been consulted,
there hadn’t been adequate discussion, that there were questions in there and concerns about safety and about
governance and so forth. I think those concerns got to the minister’s attention and I would at this point want
to commend the minister for having taken the time over that period from the spring when this piece of
legislation was first tabled to now, to establish I believe, at least one committee, a working group that had
representatives from, as I can tell, pretty much all parts of the industry that they would be affected, the people
that do the work, the people that have this work carried out in their premises, the regulatory board
representatives in terms of the Institute of Power Engineers, and so on and so forth.



What they have done as I understand it, is that they have worked through this legislation and over a
number of meetings have recommended changes to the minister in order to make this legislation more
appropriate, more effective and more responsive. The minister has agreed to those particular changes, that
is my understanding and if that in fact is the case, I would certainly like to take the opportunity to commend
the minister for having engaged in such a responsible and obviously a constructive approach.






Of course, that having been said, you never know what will come up or what has come up and we will
certainly hold our final approval to the point where that particular piece of legislation has gotten to Law
Amendments and we see the amendments that have been brought in by the minister but we have received a
very positive response from a number of people whose opinion we respect and who have participated in this
review and I don’t think that we have any problem, certainly I don’t, in supporting a positive vote to see this
piece of legislation moving forward to Law Amendments.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Labour to close the debate.



HON. JAY ABBASS: In just reviewing then, especially in response to the acting Opposition House
Leader’s comments, yes, there are regulatory powers vested in me under the new Act and as the member from
the NDP caucus mentioned, regulations are being now worked upon by an advisory or working group I would
call it, much in the same way that working groups are helping the Advisory Council on Occupational Health
and Safety in its work.



Just for the record, I would like to name the people who are on that working group. Six members
representing employees, Brian MacDonald and Jim Langley of the Communications Energy and Paper
Workers Union; Terry Williams of the International Union of Operating Engineers and just for the record as
well, it was one of the key things which compelled me to ask that this legislation not go forward at the last
sitting, was that I received a letter from Charlie Weir of that same union expressing some concern over the
level of consultation; Jude Rankin of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Robert Cameron
and Mike Gillis both of the Institute of Power Engineers. Also, six members representing employers, Dave
Boston of the Nova Scotia Saw Millers Association; David Yetter of the Canadian Manufacturers Association;
Gary Mingo of Trenton Works; Gerry Roussy of Nova Scotia Power Inc.; Blanchard Fralick of Scott Maritime
Limited; and Harry Freeman of the Nova Scotia Forest Products Association. Also, we have two members of
the Stationary Engineers Board and Ray McNab and Clifford Burgess and two members representing our
department are Eugene Chown and David Steele; finally one member representing the Association of
Professional Engineers, Peter Mitchell.



I want to thank all of those members of the new power engineers Act working group. I can only assure
members opposite and the House that I would find compelling any consensual recommendation which came
forward from that working group but I would reserve a certain discretionary power to insert myself where the
working group fails to arrive at some form of solid recommendation.



[4:15 p.m.]



On that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move second reading of this bill.



MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question? The motion is for second reading of Bill No. 29.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.



The motion is carried.



Ordered that this bill be referred to the Committee on Law Amendments.



The honourable Government House Leader.



HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 30.



Bill No. 30 - Crane Operators Act.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Labour.



HON. JAY ABBASS: Mr. Speaker, I will keep this one brief because as I have previously explained,
the new Crane Operators Act flows from the old Stationary Engineers Act. In brief, what this Act does is
regulate the operation of mobile cranes, boom trucks, tower cranes, overhead travelling cranes. It determines
the minimum level of qualification required by the people who operate those cranes and it determines the
qualification and administers the examination and certification of the operators of those cranes.



What we have again is a somewhat outdated Stationary Engineers Act. The truth is things are so out
of date that the old Act did not even recognize that cranes are no longer operated by steam engines. Crane
operation must be recognized as a unique trade and therefore government must recognize and create this new
legislation. I would welcome comments from members opposite.



MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.



MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, again I am pleased to speak on Bill No. 30, a new piece of
legislation as the minister has explained, to replace the licensing arrangements under the old Power Engineers
Act. My question to the minister that I would ask him just in his summation on second reading to comment
on is are there regulations or are there items within the Elevators and Lifts Act, I believe it is called, and
under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Are there aspects in those two particular bills that deal with
crane operators that are not reflected in this bill that require referring back to those two Acts for some aspects
of the implementation of this particular Act?



That is one question, and the second is and I think it is explained in the bill that all existing crane
operators who hold a certificate will be grandfathered into a certificate under this new piece of legislation?



The third thing I suppose is once again, I will look with interest to see the regulations pertaining to
this particular piece of legislation because as the minister, I am sure is well aware, that to some extent this
is a very dangerous occupation and we have had a large number of very serious injuries occasioned by some
of the practices of those who are engaged in using particularly mobile cranes.



We will be endorsing this legislation in second reading and we look forward to it progressing to the
Law Amendments Committee and then back into the House for perhaps a more detailed look at some of the
regulations that the minister intends to introduce. Thank you.



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



MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few brief words in reference to Bill
No. 30, the Crane Operators Act, to say that we will be supporting this bill to go to the Law Amendments
Committee. I certainly wouldn’t presume, nor would my colleagues, to be any kind of expert on the issues that
are addressed in this bill but I agree with the previous speaker that the occupation of crane operator is indeed
one that can be potentially very hazardous and it is therefore extremely important from an occupational health
and safety point of view that the kind of joint labour-management process has gone on to address this whole
matter of necessary amendments.



I think I am correct in saying that the amendments that have been brought forward by the minister are
not major. There are several that I think would be accurately described as minor amendments and I would
frankly commend the minister for having recognized the merits of having a joint labour-management
committee sit down and collaborate on the amendments that are needed and come together, I understand, to
achieve a consensus on those amendments.



Having said that, I think I want to also acknowledge that because there has been a joint labour-management committee come to a consensus does not necessarily mean that there may not be other
viewpoints, divergent views, differing views. That, of course, is why the Law Amendments Committee process
is important. If there are some who are affected by the Crane Operators Act, either labour or management
representatives who are not satisfied that the amendments go far enough or who feel that some of the
amendments are misguided, then I think it is extremely important for all of us and incumbent on every
member, both in the Law Amendments Committee and back in the House to give careful attention to any
concerns that may come forward. But I want to say that to date we are not aware that that is the case and so
we have no hesitation about recommending that the bill go on to the Law Amendments Committee.



I just want to say again to the minister that I think he is to be commended. It is my understanding -
although I may have missed the introductory comments the minister made on this and there may be some
information that I don’t have in regard to the process - that Bill No. 29 and Bill No. 30 were both brought in
in the spring, and that there were, in fact, some concerns being voiced. Certainly we were contacted by several
people who had some concerns and a joint labour-management committee sat down and addressed these
issues. The Minister of Labour saw the wisdom of that approach and, in fact, saw that it was appropriate to
delay dealing with these matters until that process had taken place, until there could be further consultation,
ideally consensus achieved so that it could be brought back before the House with the benefit of that kind of
consultation having taken place.



Having seen the wisdom of doing that in regard to these particular bills, I hope the minister will
remain open to the same possibility with respect to even more major labour legislation, and I speak
particularly with respect to the Workers’ Compensation Board, that Workers’ Compensation Act that the
government has indicated that it will be bringing in. I know that it has been suggested that there has been
massive consultation on the need for workers’ compensation reform and I know that there has indeed been
a lot of discussion, but what there clearly has not been is consultation of any kind around the actual bill,
around the actual provisions of the bill. All I am saying is that if the minister could see the wisdom with
respect to Bill No. 29 and Bill No. 30, of having further joint labour-management consultation once the bill
is brought in, then surely he can see the wisdom of doing the same in regard to the Workers’ Compensation
Act and I would commend the minister’s own chosen approach, in this case, to him in regard to workers’
compensation as we proceed.



I also want to note one other feature of the bills that we have before us and that is the provision for an
appeal committee that would be set up and that would, very clearly, specify that members who have taken part
in earlier decisions of the examining committee would not be free to participate in decisions at the appeal
level. Again, I draw that to the minister’s attention because I think it is a sound principle. It is certainly a well-established legal practice and yet it appears - unless the minister has seen already how ill-conceived it is - that
this government is prepared to consider wiping out any external appeal process with respect to workers’
compensation without even considering the injustices that that can perpetuate.



So, Mr. Speaker, I would complete my comments. At this point, I look forward to any further
submissions to the Law Amendments Committee. But we are prepared to support the bills, in their present
form, to go forward to the Law Amendments Committee. Thank you.



MR. SPEAKER: If there are no further intervenors, I will call upon the honourable Minister of Labour
to close the debate.



The honourable Minister of Labour.



HON. JAY ABBASS: I want to thank both members opposite for their constructive comments. I will
try to answer a couple of questions which arose. There is a grandfathering provision. Perhaps I could meet
at a different time and actually go through the grandfathering provisions with you.



There was actually a very good question about how this applies or does not apply to elevators and lifts
and to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The way that is dealt with is at Clause 3(1)(d), “This Act does
not apply to a worker’s hoist or material hoist within the meaning of the regulations made pursuant to the
Occupational Health and Safety Act; or (e) an elevator or a lift within the meaning of the Elevators and Lifts
Act.”. So, we are trying to harmonize with both those other Acts.



While I have the opportunity, I want to thank the members of the Crane Operators Act Working
Group. Four members representing employers: David Yetter, the Canadian Manufacturers Association; Jim
DeYoung, Nova Scotia Power; Gary Mingo, Trenton Works; Roy Clarke, Irving Equipment. Four members
representing employees: Craig Blatz, International Union of Operating Engineers; Brian Burgess of the Nova
Scotia Council of Labour; Lorin George, an employee; Kenneth MacDonald who is also an employee member.
Two members of our own department, Eugene Chown and David Steele. One member of the Stationary
Engineers Board, Ken Estabrooks.



Again, I want to thank the members opposite for their comments. I look forward to this going to the
Law Amendments Committee. I want to move second reading of Bill No. 30. Thank you.



MR. SPEAKER: The motion is for second reading of Bill No. 30, the Crane Operators Act.



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.



Ordered that this bill be referred to the Committee on Law Amendments.



The honourable Government House Leader.



HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, that concludes the government’s business for this afternoon,
so I would ask that we consider this to be the moment of interruption.



I indicate that the hours tomorrow will be 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The order of business will be Public
Bills for Second Reading, in the order they were introduced to the House today. I move that we adjourn to sit
tomorrow morning at 11:00 a.m.



MR. SPEAKER: The motion for adjournment has been made. I have just been informed that the
member chosen by lottery for the late show, the honourable member for Kings North, must leave by
compulsion, so the debate will be cancelled.



The House now stands adjourned and will sit tomorrow morning at 11:00 a.m.



[The House rose at 4:29 p.m.]



NOTICES OF MOTION UNDER RULE 32(3)



HOUSE ORDER NO. 90



By: Mr. George Moody (Kings West)



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



(1) The contracts issued by the Department of Health for all term, contract and full time employees
hired since June 11, 1993; and



(2) If hired on contract, the amount and length of time; if hired part time, the amount and length
of time; and if hired full time, the amount and length of time.



HOUSE ORDER NO. 91



By: Mr. George Archibald (Kings North)



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



(1) How many persons were on contract with the Province of Nova Scotia on May 31, 1993;



(2) How many persons have been hired on contract with the Province of Nova Scotia since June
1, 1993 to date;



(3) How many of the above noted contracts were hired through the tendering process;



(4) If the contracts were not let through tendering, how was the successful applicant determined;



(5) How many casual employees were there in the Province of Nova Scotia on May 31, 1993; and



(6) How many casual employees have been hired from June 1, 1993 to date?