MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We will commence the daily routine at this time.
PRESENTING AND READING PETITIONS
PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS
STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS
GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Human Resources.
HON. ELEANOR NORRIE: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Halifax-Cornwallis Progress Women of Excellence Awards honours women who have excelled in their professions; and
Whereas award recipients are worthy role models for young women in our society; and
Whereas the Fifth Annual Progress Women of Excellence Awards evening raises funds to help support the ongoing efforts of Phoenix House;
Therefore be it resolved that this Assembly extend congratulations to Pamela Birdsall, Myrna Slater, Marilyn Peers, Linda Hamilton, Louisa Horne, and Cheryl Gillett, the recent recipients of the Halifax-Cornwallis Progress Women of Excellence Awards for their commitment, hard work, and professionalism.
I would ask for waiver of notice, please, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: There is a request for waiver of notice which requires unanimous consent.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried. (Applause)
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill No. 115 - Entitled an Act to Reform the Environmental Laws of the Province and to Encourage and Promote the Protection, Enhancement and Prudent Use of the Environment. (Hon. Robert Harrison)
Bill No. 116 - Entitled an Act to Amend Chapter 1 (1992 Supplement) of the Revised Statutes of 1989. The House of Assembly Act. (Hon. John MacEachern)
NOTICES OF MOTION
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.
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, his Cabinet and all Liberal members were previously scheduled to be participating in a leadership review this weekend; and
Whereas although the Premier campaigned all summer long in an attempt to woo Liberal support across the province, forgetting in the meantime that there were some 900,000 Nova Scotians in need of attention, his executive decided to cancel the review; and
Whereas the Premier decided to revert to dealing with the business of all Nova Scotians by returning to the Legislature as his second choice;
Therefore be it resolved that the Premier, in his quest for democracy, prove through the conduct of this fall session that he is indeed working in the interest of all Nova Scotians and not just his own self-interest.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas loyal Liberals across Nova Scotia were preparing to assemble tonight and tomorrow for an annual meeting at which they would review their Party's leadership; and
Whereas that great democrat, the Leader of the Nova Scotia Liberal Party, squeaked into the leadership with support from his municipal colleagues plus the crucial backing of one Nash Brogan; and
Whereas the Liberals who placed the Premier in his seat of power, including my former opponent Randy Ball and dozens of other mayors, wardens and councillors, have now seen the Premier's preferred alternative to a leadership review;
Therefore be it resolved that this House urges the Liberal Party to stop wasting its previous trust fund money on a constitutional commission road show, and simply schedule a time and place where those who are the source of the Premier's power can execute their wishes regarding the dictatorial actions of his government.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Pictou Centre.
DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Provincial-Municipal Service Exchange plan released yesterday by the Minister of Municipal Affairs creates significant new costs for municipal taxpayers in many areas of the province; and
Whereas consultation before the minister bringing forward her revised position has not occurred; and
Whereas taxpayers, through their elected municipal representatives, have been denied the opportunity to provide any input into the government's latest position on service exchange;
Therefore be it resolved that the minister identify those areas and units which are negatively impacted and begin immediate dialogue to reach a satisfactory solution short of unreasonable tax increases.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas Conservative and Liberal Governments have spent the last 10 years claiming they have already begun to eliminate inequitable, Elizabethan, two-tiered social assistance; and
Whereas observers who still thought these Liberals could tell the truth reported as late as yesterday morning that amalgamation was being imposed because its claimed savings would pay for the long-promised one-tier social assistance system; and
Whereas legislation and financial tables presented yesterday don't even back up the Liberal promise of a single tier of social assistance in industrial Cape Breton by late 1995;
Therefore be it resolved that this House urges the government to explain to children and families forced to continue living in poverty the Liberal decision to perpetuate the inequity of the two-tiered social assistance system, forcing municipal governments to carry the recessionary load of short-term aid just when the Premier says the property tax base is about to collapse.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas today was to be a red letter day for Liberals gathering together to decide on the future of their Leader; and
Whereas the Premier and his Save Our Savage Team successfully jerry-rigged the democratic process to buy eight more months of leadership; and
Whereas . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member has the right to read his resolution. If it is out of order, I will say so. Please allow him to continue.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Whereas the Save Our Savage Team obviously has no faith that 30,000 good Liberals could not defeat 2,000 trade unionists;
Therefore be it resolved that the SOS Team immediately recruit high profile Liberals, like Randy Ball, Walter Fitzgerald and Gloria McCluskey, to assist in saving the Premier's hide.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Hants East.
MR. ROBERT CARRUTHERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to you and through you to all members of the House, members of the First Maitland Cub Pack who are here with us today. They are here with their leaders, Mr. Baker and associate. I wonder if all members of the House would give a warm welcome to the First Maitland Cub Pack. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was wondering if you would take a matter under advisement. A short time ago, during Introduction of Bills, the Minister of Education introduced an amendment to the House of Assembly Act. I would like you to take a look at that and see whether or not that is in order.
MR. SPEAKER: My understanding of the matter is that the bill relates to teachers employed in the Department of Education.
MR. RUSSELL: I would ask that you take it under advisement because I don't believe that a minister, regardless of whether or not there is some section of an Act that applies to his particular department, can amend an Act that belongs to some other department or some other ministry.
MR. SPEAKER: The Clerk and I will research the matter. If there is a point of order, we will report back to the House.
The honourable member for Queens.
MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the now member for Dartmouth South said on March 23, 1993, that he supported a working relationship between the provincial government and municipal leaders, not unilateral action; and
Whereas the members for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage, Sackville-Beaverbank, Timberlea-Prospect and Preston all vehemently supported their current Leader in the Liberal Party's fight against the creation of a unitary government for metro during the 1993 election campaign; and
Whereas these same four members have since beaten a hasty and ignominious retreat and are now supporting the creation of one super city for metropolitan Halifax;
Therefore be it resolved that those who spoke from one side of their mouth before May 25, 1993, and who now speak from the other side be castigated for practicing the worst chicanery and for playing fast and false with the people.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the so-called Liberal Government in this province has been notable for its stone cold silence about Lloyd Axworthy's social review, which would triple tuition fees and reduce federal efforts to alleviate poverty; and
[11:15 a.m.]
Whereas Nova Scotians see Ottawa ready to turn the clock back to the dirty 20's and 30's, when Maritimers either suffered exploitation for subsistence income or were forced down the road; and
Whereas a provincial government ready, willing and eager to join Lloyd Axworthy in the impoverishment of its own citizens would not want responsibility for the consequences: still higher social assistance;
Therefore be it resolved that this House condemns the "every man for himself - women and children last" policy whereby the government is abandoning ship before Lloyd Axworthy fires a shot, rather than joining a national coalition for the social and economic justice that have been hallmarks of Canadian citizenship.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton South.
MR. MANNING MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, through you to the members of the House I would like to take this opportunity to introduce three distinguished members of the Cape Breton District School Board, who are visiting Halifax this week-end, Anne MacKinnon, Peter MacKinnon and Vince Buckland. I would like the House to welcome them in the usual way. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings North.
MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the government has reneged on its election promise of community economic development, no new taxes and 63,000 jobs for Nova Scotians; and
Whereas Liberals broke their promise to Nova Scotians on patronage, on the EH-101 contract and CFB Cornwallis; and
Whereas as the Premier and his MLAs campaigned against municipal reform Nova Scotians should have expected the Premier's latest flip-flop;
Therefore be it resolved the government make one more flip-flop and reverse their casino decision.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Lunenburg.
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 Pamela Birdsall established Birdsall Worthington Pottery Ltd. in Mahone Bay; and
Whereas Ms. Birdsall's pottery has been shown in shows and exhibitions nationally and internationally; and
Whereas Ms. Birdsall has served on the Nova Scotia Designer Crafts Council;
Therefore be it resolved that this Assembly extend congratulations to Pamela Birdsall for having recently received the Halifax-Cornwallis Progress Women of Excellence Award in Arts and Culture.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if the House would be willing to waive 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 West.
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 government has promised to create a regulatory regime for casinos which ensures the social well-being of Nova Scotians; and
Whereas the Department of Community Services has confirmed this week, through a Freedom of Information Act request, that no social impact study has been done on casinos by that department;
Whereas the only consistent strategy employed by this government is that it will break any promise it makes with the people of Nova Scotia;
Therefore be it resolved that this government explain the rationale of proceeding with casinos when it has no idea what the social impact will be on increased addiction, crime, suicides and financial ruin of families.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member Pictou West.
MR. DONALD MCINNES: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas today marks the opening of the 1994 Nova Scotia deer hunting season; and
Whereas the Nova Scotia Safety Council is once again urging all hunters to carefully protect themselves by wearing `hunter orange'; and
Whereas the Nova Scotia annual six week deer hunting season is worth $32 million to the province's economy;
Therefore be it resolved that all members of this Legislature acknowledge today the importance of our annual hunting season and also to encourage each and every hunter to exercise extreme safety as they venture into the provincial woodlands.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if the House would be willing to waive 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 Queens.
MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas October 23rd to October 29th is Waste Reduction Week, sponsored by the Clean Nova Scotia Foundation; and
Whereas the purpose of this week is to highlight the waste management problem in Nova Scotia and to introduce alternative approaches to waste management; and
Whereas the foundation challenged all citizens of Nova Scotia, including households, schools, offices, hospitals, university, shopping malls, construction sites and municipalities to reduce waste;
Therefore be it resolved that all the citizens of Nova Scotia, from the students at St. Patrick's-Alexandra, Elizabeth Sutherland, Oxford Street, Holly Drive and Sir Charles Tupper Schools who developed and participated in Waste Reduction Olympics, to those taking part in the Olands Swap event on Saturday, be congratulated and encouraged to continue these good works into the future, a future which, after all, very much belongs especially to the young.
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 Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: 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, the man who is now Premier of Nova Scotia described as "tokenism" the fact that the Conservatives largely ignore the excellent reports produced by task forces; and
Whereas the only person who would describe the Premier as humble claims that public opinion surveys and task force reports justify the surprise imposition of metro amalgamation and abandonment of one-tiered social assistance; and
Whereas on the casino issue, three task force reports, public opinion surveys and a wide range of expert opinion have all come down against private, for-profit casinos in Halifax and Sydney;
Therefore be it resolved that this House reminds a humble man of his own words, that "there is a certain tokenism in expensive and high-profile efforts to consult, when you have a Premier like Donald Cameron.".
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Kings West.
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 Minister of Health yesterday smugly said that the merger of five medical institutions in Halifax, under the QE II board, was the result of a study; and
Whereas the real question was not whether there was a study, the question was whether it is economically sensible to initiate the merger; and
Whereas it has been suggested that costs like equalizing employee salaries and benefits associated with the merger could reach as high as $30 million;
Therefore be it resolved that the minister address the concerns that have been raised by the QE II hospital officials and release figures of the true cost of the metro merger seemingly designed purely for the Queen's visit, not for the taxpayers of Nova Scotia.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Kings North.
MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Mayor of Wolfville specifically wants to know why Wolfville is being treated differently than some other communities with respect to health care; and
Whereas the Eastern Kings Memorial Hospital was the first on the minister's hospital chopping block for closure; and
Whereas the mayor has repeatedly requested a meeting with the Premier and is still waiting a positive response;
Therefore be it resolved that the Premier commit today to call Wolfville Mayor Gwen Phillips at 542-5767 to set up an appointment so that he can explain to her why Wolfville is being treated differently than other communities.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas this month, Tearmann House in New Glasgow is marking its 10th Anniversary by establishing a bursary for women studying how to improve the lives of abused women; and
Whereas the Tearmann Society for Battered Women has established outreach services in Pictou and Guysborough Counties, in addition to dealing with more than 7,000 distress calls and sheltering thousands of women and children during those 10 years; and
Whereas the work of the society, its staff and supporters is more important than ever in a world where violence seems to flourish while family and community bonds are placed under terrible stress;
Therefore be it resolved that this House joins in commemoration of the Tearmann Society for Battered Women and all who have been associated with Tearmann House during its first 10 years, and offers encouragement for continued success and greater optimism in the decades ahead.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed that there be a waiver of notice?
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the federal-provincial Cooperation Agreement for Forestry Development is due to expire on March 31, 1995; and
Whereas federal-provincial forest resource development agreements have been critical to improving the productivity of Nova Scotia forest land while contributing to the economic health of many Nova Scotia communities; and
Whereas the Minister of Natural Resources has said himself, "without a federal government commitment to forestry development in Nova Scotia, the impact on the industry in this province would be dramatic;";
Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Natural Resources immediately provide Forest Group Management Ventures here in Nova Scotia with a detailed update on his discussions with the federal government as to the status of the new federal forestry development agreement that can be both beneficial to the taxpayer and to woodlot owners.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs has solid support from her own appointees and employees when she claims that Cape Breton amalgamation is going very well; and
Whereas elected local representatives in Cape Breton have publicly questioned the taxation without representation, administrative confusion and blank cheque approach to paying for that amalgamation; and
Whereas the minister yesterday sought even greater powers to dictate in Cape Breton what is decided by local democracy everywhere else;
Therefore be it resolved that the Premier and Minister of Municipal Affairs should wait to see if their top-down approach to Cape Breton amalgamation is really a great success before they take the same dictatorial approach everywhere else.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Pictou West.
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 Minister of Education and the Minister of Municipal Affairs as well as the Premier have both discussed their government's approach to involving the private sector in their various initiatives; and
Whereas residents from Ingonish, Victoria County are diligently working in an attempt to ensure their only winter industry, the Cape Smokey Ski Hill, is able to operate this winter; and
Whereas the Cape Smokey Ski Hill is a very large seasonal employer for a number of residents in Victoria County during the winter;
Therefore be it resolved that the Minister responsible for Nova Scotia's Economic Renewal Agency not let this matter drag on indefinitely but instead work towards a positive solution that might involve the private sector and in turn keep the Cape Smokey Ski Hill open while ensuring the employment of a number of individuals for the winter of 1994-95.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Hants West.
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 honourable member for Dartmouth South and Premier said on March 23, 1993 that no decisions concerning unilateral government should be made without restoring the consultative process; and
Whereas the Premier was prepared to go into this Legislature yesterday and announce the creation of a super city without so much as a phone call to any of metro's municipal leaders; and
Whereas a meeting between the Premier and the four municipal leaders in metro was only forced late Wednesday evening by the Mayor of Halifax County after the mayor caught wind of the Premier's flip-flop from a senior bureaucrat;
Therefore be it resolved that the Premier stop enforcing the philosophy of, don't do as I do but do as I say, and consult with Nova Scotians before imposing unilateral action upon them.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
I wish to deliver a Speaker's Ruling on the item raised by the honourable member for Hants West concerning First Reading of Bills. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, 6 Edition at Chapter 16, Proceedings on Public Bills. Paragraph 647 states, "There is no prohibition against a Minister introducing a bill dealing with a matter not within the administrative responsibility of the particular Minister.".
The House of Assembly Act falls under the jurisdictional responsibility of the Speaker and I certainly have no objection to the Minister of Education introducing a bill on my behalf but he did not do that, he introduced it on his own account. There is no prohibition against that procedure according to Beauchesne's Paragraph 647 and I so rule.
I have a request from the Deputy Government House Leader to revert to the order of business Tabling Reports, Regulations and Other Papers.
[11:30 a.m.]
TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Justice.
HON. WILLIAM GILLIS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the Annual Report of the Public Trustee for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1994.
MR. SPEAKER: The report is tabled.
The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.
MR. ALLISTER SURETTE: Mr. Speaker, would you please call, as well, Statements by Ministers?
STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Natural Resources.
HON. DONALD DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise members of the House that today marks the opening of the general season for deer hunting in Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, today until December 3rd, thousands of Nova Scotians will enter our woods to enjoy the great outdoors and wildlife that our province has to offer.
Mr. Speaker, it was back in 1894, 100 years ago, that white-tailed deer were introduced to Nova Scotia. Eleven were sailed from the Province of New Brunswick and they were set free at Lake Jolly in Digby County.
I would just like to remind hunters that hunting in Nova Scotia is a privilege and not a right and should be treated that way.
Mr. Speaker, hunters have responsibilities, responsibilities to respect the rights of private landowners who permit hunting on their property. Property owners and hunters also have a joint responsibility to help us enforce hunting regulations. I would like to remind all Nova Scotians that if they witness any type of illegal activity in the woods, such as deer-jacking, I encourage them to call our special phone line at 1-800-565-2224.
Hunters also have safety responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to remind all hunters that at all times during the hunting season, proper precautions should be taken when carrying firearms.
Mr. Speaker, last year, in this House, I called upon hunters to work harder to eliminate accidents in our woods. Well, Mr. Speaker, they heard my call. My department estimates that 1.2 million recreational hours of all types of hunting that took place last year, and I am pleased to report that there were only two personal injuries. While this achievement is significant, we must not stop until we have an accident-free hunting season.
Mr. Speaker, as members, we all recall, last year, our government introduced what we call the Buck Law. This law permits hunters to take only male deer during the season. Mr. Speaker, this law remains in effect this year as well. This is a measure that is necessary to help us manage and conserve the province's declining deer population. With this law, hunters must be sure to aim only at the deer with visible antlers. Conservation of our deer herd is critical to ensure the abundant population in future years.
Mr. Speaker, deer hunting is very important to Nova Scotia's economy. We estimate that there is as much as $30 million of economic activity that is generated by deer hunting in Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotians have a great tradition of respect of our natural resources and the beauty of our great outdoors. I wish all our hunters and their families good hunting and a safe and accident-free season. Thank you. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I welcome that statement from the honourable Minister of Natural Resources. I think, again, it bears repetition and deserves reiteration. (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite's bad manners are only exceeded by his bad manners.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Do not refer to the rabbit tracks. Let us keep on the big game, please. (Interruptions)
MR. TAYLOR: May I repeat that again, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: No.
MR. TAYLOR: I think, again, Mr. Speaker, it bears repetition that 100 years ago today, our then and now good neighbours from New Brunswick gave Nova Scotians 11 white-tailed deer, thus introducing the animals to our beautiful province. I think hunters are very responsible people. Hunters take pride in Nova Scotia's forests and have successfully passed different safety courses, respecting their occupation. I also think the minister's department made the right decision by sticking to their guns respecting the Buck Law. (Laughter)
Mr. Speaker, on my drive in here this morning from the beautiful Musquodoboit Valley, I saw and met many hunters. These ladies and gentlemen, as the minister mentioned, contribute greatly to our economy, something to the tune of $30 million.
AN HON. MEMBER: Before dawn?
MR. TAYLOR: No, Mr. Speaker, it was after dawn. I wish all of our hunters and their families a successful and safe hunting season. In doing so, I commend the minister for his comments. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few brief comments. One thing is, I would like to underline the remark by the minister in his statement that hunting in Nova Scotia is, in fact, a privilege and not a right, as evidenced, I think, by the cancellation of the big game hunt that was supposed to begin today for (Interruptions) (Laughter) That was initiated by thousands of Liberals across this province . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Stick to the text of the ministerial announcement.
MR. CHISHOLM: While people in the woods right now who are hunting for deer will be ecstatic, undoubtedly, given the weather and given the conditions and so on, there are thousands of Liberals, Mr. Speaker, who are unable to proceed with their hunt.
MR. SPEAKER: I hesitate to call the honourable member to order, but please stick to the ministerial announcement that has been made, in responding.
MR. CHISHOLM: I am just trying, Mr. Speaker, to underline a very important point about the fact that this hunt is, in fact, a privilege and not a right.
The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the statement, this year is a special year for deer in Nova Scotia, I would think that my daughter Jessica would take some umbrage with this. I don't think there are very many deer in Nova Scotia who think that this is a particularly special time of the year.
Anyway, one final comment, Mr. Speaker, is that we hear a lot about 1-800 numbers and I certainly hope that people interested in hunting and safety and the proper adherence to rules will pay attention to this 1-800 number. I hope that the Department of Natural Resources or whoever it is that is staffing this 1-800 number, will pay much more attention to it and respond to it much more greatly and promptly and more effectively and efficiently than does the Premier through his 1-800 number.
In conclusion, let me just say that I wish hunters the greatest of pleasure in their endeavours this weekend. I hope they enjoy themselves, they have a very safe hunting season and on behalf of my daughter, Jessica, I hope they have some bad luck in finding their prey, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aw.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Deputy House Leader.
MR. ALLISTER SURETTE: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the order of business, Government Motions.
GOVERNMENT MOTIONS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Deputy House Leader.
MR. ALLISTER SURETTE: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the order of business, Public Bills for Second Reading.
PUBLIC BILLS FOR SECOND READING
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Deputy House Leader.
MR. ALLISTER SURETTE: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 109.
Bill No. 109 - Tourist Accommodations Act.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency.
HON. ROSS BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this morning to rise in my place and introduce and move for second reading the Tourist Accommodations Act. This bill brings together the Hotel Regulations Act, the Camping Establishments Regulation Act and the Innkeepers Act, rolling them into one common bill.
This has the following impact, Mr. Speaker. First, all roofed accommodations in the province, regardless of their size, will be required to be inspected and licensed by the Tourism Nova Scotia. Currently, small bed and breakfast, one and two room bed and breakfasts do not fall under the category of being inspected. This has been asked for by the industry and now they will all be inspected by our staff, the same as all motels and larger inns are currently being inspected.
This has a couple of things that we consider very positive. First, because they are now inspected and licensed through our department, as is every other type of accommodation in the province, they will be able to be in all our information and materials that we publish as being approved and licensed facilities within the province. Previously, if they weren't licensed and inspected by us, they didn't fall within our jurisdiction and were not in our information and materials.
The second thing, and I think this is most important, is it helps the public who come to visit Nova Scotia to understand that this facility, whether it is a one or two bedroom facility, has met the standards and is accepted by the standards of the industry in the Province of Nova Scotia. I think it is going to enhance the activities of people who use bed and breakfasts.
The other thing, of course, is that we have brought in a section to the bill that there is now what we call reverse onus, regarding indiscriminate camping. This has been a very controversial issue in the Province of Nova Scotia; campground operators invest a lot of money and time in running good campgrounds and then they find that what happens is people are stopping their motor homes and travel trailers in roadways and parking lots and so on and are allowed to park, obviously without paying a fee and without having the services.
In an effort to enhance the campground industry in Nova Scotia, not just for the operators but for the industry as such because we regulate and make sure they are done and operated in a proper manner, we have brought in that it is now illegal to allow people to indiscriminately camp on your property.
What this means is, for instance, and I will use our tourism office in Yarmouth as an example, we are now forced not to allow people to park in our parking lot overnight, they have to go on the campgrounds and so on. We believe this enhances the industry and is something the industry has been asking for.
The industry wanted us to go even further on this and fine people who actually did the camping themselves. We said no, we don't think that is fair, what we want to do is make sure property owners are not allowing this to happen, if you want to run a campground then get licensed and run one, don't operate it as an unlicensed campground and allow people there.
Obviously we believe this bill is better for the industry, it brings them all under one Act. We believe it is something that has been requested by the industry itself and by the Innkeepers Association.
So, Mr. Speaker, with those few remarks, I am pleased to move this for second reading.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou West.
MR. DONALD MCINNES: Mr. Speaker, may I make a brief introduction first? I am very pleased to have a student from St. Mary's University in our gallery today. The student is in her third year of Commerce and has travelled back and forth with me considerably over the last number of years, from Pictou County. We are very pleased that Nancy MacEachern is here to visit and is very interested in the welfare and governing of the Province of Nova Scotia. So, Nancy, would you please stand and be recognized. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou West.
MR. DONALD MCINNES: Mr. Speaker, the bill the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency has introduced today, we just saw yesterday, of course, and did not have a lot of opportunity to talk to any of the groups involved. It would seem to me that it is a reasonable piece of legislation. Last year tourism was an $835 million industry in the Province of Nova Scotia and it is important to do anything we can to help keep our places up-to-date so that visitors will enjoy their stay here in Nova Scotia.
I am a little concerned about one and two bedroom places being inspected. Maybe the minister, when he sums up the debate, would tell me how many inspectors he is going to have to check this out. I would wonder. I would hope that most accommodations in this province are of high standards but, as I say, the question, too, if I stop on somebody's land and they don't want me there as a tourist, you ask them to get off, well, what happens if they don't? The next morning they are going to be gone anyway. I appreciate that there are sometimes people stopped in places they should not, that they should use the proper hook-ups, unless they break down, of course, and that is something else.
[11:45 a.m.]
I guess our caucus, Mr. Speaker, will be supporting this bill as it comes forward. Perhaps the minister might mention a little bit about the inspection, what and how he plans to do it. My one concern is about the one and two bedrooms, whether they really have to be included or not. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I rise and speak for a few moments on Bill No. 109. As the previous speaker said, anything that can be done to assist and continue to benefit the tourism industry in this province will certainly be applauded by us and by most Nova Scotians.
I have some question as to whether this is going to do it. I have to take some time to take a look at it and talk to people within the industry. But I reflect back on some of the things that have happened over the last number of years on some of these issues. In particular, the method of taxation between smaller inns, bed and breakfasts, motels, and larger hotels and the fact that that has raised some very significant controversy within the so-called industry. The relationship, I think, between the large downtown urban hotels and the motels and smaller bed and breakfasts in this province have sometimes been at odds, to say the least. I think that it is important that we understand who it is the industry is when the minister presents a piece of legislation and says that this is what the industry wants. I think it is important that we hear from, and we will have that opportunity, hopefully, in Law Amendments Committee to hear from the different interests that are clearly integral to the tourism industry in the Province of Nova Scotia and will be greatly affected by the changes made with Bill No. 109.
The questions raised about how these inspections are going to happen and how many staff are going to be put on and what are the quality ratings going to be based on and that sort of thing, Mr. Speaker, are quite important points and we will need to take some considerable time, I think, to review those specific concerns. I think many members in this House are aware that, for instance, the star rating system used by the tourism department to rate various establishments in this province has come under some significant criticism by those different groups that I have already identified.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think there are a lot of questions that still remain about this particular piece of legislation and about the objective of this minister with this piece of legislation. I think it is important that we understand and that all the people representing those diverse groups within the industry that are affected by this bill, that we find out that they, in fact, have been thoroughly consulted and that we understand what the concerns are that they had, that they still have and whether, in fact, those issues have been addressed or perhaps can be addressed in terms of whatever failings or weaknesses might exist in this particular piece of legislation.
So, on the face of it, Mr. Speaker, I will be, and on my own behalf, supporting this Bill No. 109, going through to Law Amendments Committee. But I would encourage the minister to make sure that there is a wide representation at Law Amendments Committee to ensure that the Law Amendments Committee and all members of this House understand just what the view of the industry is with respect to An Act Respecting Tourist Accommodations in the Province. Once that happens, then perhaps we will have a little more factual material to present with respect to the situation and the conditions that are represented and presented in this bill. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Queens.
MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, I initially had not intended to speak to this bill but upon reviewing it find that it has what appears to me to be a number of deficiencies. I want to bring them to the minister's attention so he can give consideration to them as we move the bill through second reading and look forward to amendments, both in the Law Amendments Committee and later on in Committee of the Whole House.
As I understand the bill from reading it, it will now require that any person who offers even one room in their home for rent as tourist accommodation would be required to be licensed. As I understand it, up to this time and until this bill becomes law, there was a provision which would cause persons who have one or two rooms in their houses which they offer for accommodation not to have to be licensed in the same way that, for example, the Halifax Hilton - that is a bad example - the Sheraton or White Point Beach Lodge would.
If, in fact, the bill does this, I think the bill will have an unfortunate application, particularly in rural and small town Nova Scotia, where accommodations are not necessarily as immediately available as they are in some of the larger areas. I hope I am wrong in that observation but I look forward to the minister responding to that when he wraps up.
I have a greater concern with the section of the bill that references that no person shall, within the province, use any land as grounds for camping or overnight parking of recreational vehicles unless there is a license that is enforced. Now, Mr. Speaker, something like three-quarters of the land in this province is owned by the private sector, a significant part of that owned by large landowners but most of it owned by relatively small landowners.
Again, the way I read this bill, it strikes me that any person who owns land, for example I have 10 acres in Broad River in Queens County and if I allow that land to be used by friends, family, people who may be travelling through our area, for camping, then it strikes me to believe that I may well be in contravention of the Act. If, in fact, that is the case, it strikes me that the proposal which is put forward by the minister is far too broad and that there should be a restriction built in the bill so that if a person chooses to use their land for a non-commercial venture with respect to camping and allow people to stay on it from time to time, they should not have to go to the minister's department and acquire a license to allow that camping to take place.
I can think of all kinds of instances, particularly in those parts of Nova Scotia which are wilderness areas, where land is owned but where the owner is clearly not anywhere near present and where people camp all the time. I think, for example, that whole area around the Tobeatic - part of which is owned by Bowater, some of which is Crown land, some of which belongs to small private landowners and so on - I wonder if somebody camps there, if the owner of that land is then liable unless they put out a prohibition, as their own policy, against anybody using that land for camping purposes. I think there would be a very negative reaction on the part of people who are campers, hunters, fishermen, naturalists, if this were to be the case. So, I look to the minister to clarify that for us.
I also notice that, and again with respect to this, there is a prohibition against any person using lands for camping that are not licensed. Right away I thought of the Scout camp in Greenfield, I don't think it is a camping facility licensed under the minister's department, yet it is very clear that people camp there. Scouts camp there. When Nancy and I used to go and help out with the Cubs from time to time we would take a tent trailer with us and put it up on the site, but it was not a licensed facility. Now is this going to interfere with the operation of campgrounds that are run by people like Scouts Canada, Guides Canada and other agencies throughout Nova Scotia? The Baptist youth camp up in the northern part of my constituency and so on, is this going to infringe upon their capacity to offer their campground so that it can work effectively on behalf of those who use it.
Another example leapt to mind, last July when we were celebrating Privateer Days in Queens County, the Royal Highland Immigrants came to our community to provide us with a recreation of British military life around the time of the American revolution. They camped on the lands that belonged to Lane's Motel; Ron Lane, of course, being the Mayor of the Town of Liverpool and former president of the Tourist Industry Association of Nova Scotia. That is not a registered campground, the hotel is registered, but the lands around it are not registered for camping. Those people who were re-enacting military life of the 1770's, 1780's were camped there, they had their campfires there, they had their tents set up, it was a regular campground.
My fear is that this bill may cause that kind of activity to be illegal. If that is so, it is a very serious shortcoming in the bill. I am sure that the minister would not want to cause that to happen and I look forward to his response with respect to that. There are many good things in the bill that I would like to support but I would very much like the minister to review the bill with respect to some of the shortcomings that I think I see in it. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of points that I would like to make -some of them are very similar to those that have been raised by other speakers - and a number of concerns that I would hope to get the opportunity to get some clarification from the minister. I say at the outset that the thrust of what I believe the minister is trying to do and the industry is trying to do, I very much support.
As we travel around this province we have many areas that are indeed very scenic, very beautiful areas, and the potential for tourism in small components is very great. Certainly, they would not be economically viable areas, quite probably to build a larger hotel or motel but they would be very viable opportunities for those who wish to develop bed and breakfasts as we have seen occurring around the province. I have stayed in bed and breakfasts, Mr. Speaker, and I found them to be indeed very pleasant, very enjoyable and the service and accommodations of the highest standards. On many occasions it is a far more personal type of accommodation than staying in some hotels. I certainly very much support the trust of the government to try to have the bed and breakfasts around the province being registered, being licensed so that those who are using those facilities can in fact be assured of a level of standards and that when they check in when they go into them, that they will receive that. So, that is indeed very positive.
I think, however, that the bill does go in some areas a little bit further than the minister really covered and touched on when he gave his remarks. I confess that since this bill was only introduced yesterday afternoon and we sat yesterday, I haven't had the opportunity to examine in the kind of depth that I would like some of the aspects of this bill, but, one of the things that I am wondering in reviewing the bill, is that it seems to be placing or should I say, placing limitations on the liability and responsibility of some of those who are operating, as are referred to in the bill, roofed accommodation. For example, just as a principle and we are on the principle of the bill, it says that, Clause 11(1) "A manager of a roofed accommodation is not liable to make good to any guest of the manager any loss of or injury to goods or property brought to the manager's accommodations except . . . " and there are some exceptions here, "(a) where the goods . . . have been stolen, lost or injured through the wilful act, default or neglect of the manager or any staff in the employ of the manager; or (b) where the goods or property have been deposited expressly for safe custody with the manager.".
[12:00 p.m.]
Well, I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, does this mean, and I don't know the answer to this and I am posing it for clarification, that the operators of such facilities would no longer be required to carry, for example, liability insurance so that in the case where it is not a wilful act or not necessarily neglect, that they could not be held accountable for that? I don't know the answer. I am posing it as a question and the minister, I caught his attention now. I am referring to Clause 11, so possibly the minister can address that.
There are several other sections. I also note that the bill does give power, or pretty great powers, to the minister and I am not sure exactly where I see the checks and balances to those powers where, for example, Clause 5, "The Minister may attach to any licence such terms, conditions or restrictions as the Minister considers advisable and the Minister may . . .", it goes on, Mr. Speaker, to add different conditions and so on in writing, Clause 6, "The Minister may, at any time, cancel or suspend any license for any reason that the Minister deems sufficient . . .".
Well, I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, if there are any kinds of appeal processes, any checks and balances. Here the minister would have and I am sure this minister would not use that irresponsibly but certainly the minister's have pretty extreme powers over the operations and certainly should be in accordance with set standards to ensure that the standards of the accommodations and so on are up to that which are expected and accepted. But there is nothing in this that would specify any restrictions or restraint on the powers of the minister.
The previous speaker had raised some questions about campgrounds. I can't remember the exact area that he was talking about and I am sure this is not the intent of what the minister is trying to do and so I would ask, because I was thinking of not the same area that the member for Queens was talking about, but, for example, around the Miller's Lake area, just out by the airport, a major area where camping is done by the Boy Scout movement and so on and, also, in parts of Upper Sackville there are camps used by the Girl Guides and so on. I am sure, as I say, that is not intended but maybe the minister could indicate where the clarification is to make sure that they are exempted.
The other one that I want to touch on and I appreciate what the minister is trying to do in controlling the campgrounds for the good of the industry, but you know there are some areas where there may not be, for certain kinds of larger caravans, the campground facilities. We do have coming into the area every summer, go to certain shopping centres and you will see what some people refer to as the grey parade, you have these caravans of the Airstream campers where large numbers of tourists like to travel together and tour groups organize these Airstream.
AN HON. MEMBER: There is no campground big enough to handle them.
MR. HOLM: Well, the member for Queens points out to me and he may well be correct, there may not be any campgrounds large enough to handle and certainly it is in the advantage to the realtors who operate certain shopping centres where these caravans pull in from time to time. I know I have gone to some very large shopping centres in the metropolitan area and had a hard time parking because the parking lot was filled up with a normal number of customers in the close range and then you had literally hundreds, it appeared, of the Airstream campers.
So I am curious if there are, or where in the bill, there are the provisions to accommodate this kind of camping excursion because, certainly, those tourists who are coming in these cavalcades, these caravans, are not only bringing themselves, Mr. Speaker, but they are bringing tremendous economic spinoff effects to the entire community as they are leaving behind their dollars in the business establishments around the province. I would suggest that, for example, in the metropolitan area we probably do not have the campgrounds that are able to handle that number of such camping excursions.
I certainly could touch upon a number of other items up here in the bill. We haven't had the opportunity to do the detailed review, or I personally have not had the opportunity to do the detailed review that I would like to be able to do. Certainly this, like so many other bills, gives the Governor in Council tremendous power to make regulations, to basically do whatever they want or set whatever terms and conditions.
I may have missed it, I don't wish to be unkind, but there has to be also a way to ensure that there is a process built in for the dialogue with the industries that are affected by these regulations, and I think that needs to be built in. I have no hesitation at this point in time to say that I will certainly be joining my colleague, who is the critic for the area, to say that I will be supporting the bill to go to second reading but I hope the minister will address - and I am very hopeful that the concerns that I have raised are, in fact, silly concerns that don't need to be considered because they are covered, but I haven't seen the areas in the bill where that is the case - I look forward to the minister clearing up some of the confusion that is hopefully only appearing in my own mind because of my inability to have had more time to review the bill that is before us. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. RUSSELL MACNEIL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce through you and to you and to members in the House, a gentleman in the gallery who has been involved in municipal politics for many, many years. He has recently retired, but it is the former Mayor of New Waterford, Mr. Gerry Marsh. I would like him to stand and receive the applause and warm welcome. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: I certainly would like to welcome former Mayor Marsh to our Chambers here this afternoon. He is a long-time friend with whom I had many dealings over many years. I am glad to see you here this afternoon, sir.
The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise and speak on the bill respecting tourism accommodations in this province. I think I heard the honourable minister say during his opening comments that he had the support of the various stakeholders so to speak, the various people in the tourism and accommodation industry. He had the support of those different groups.
Now, because of the considerable number of letters and correspondence we have received, the large number of negative correspondence this caucus has received respecting the requirement that bed and breakfast operators are to collect the provincial sales tax for the first time ever, Mr. Speaker, you may know that since this government came to power and for the first time in history, bed and breakfast operators are required to charge and collect the PST to and from their guests.
One particular operator suggested, on average, the amount that his small operation would remit to the province probably wouldn't be much more than $300, or roughly the cost of a meal for the Finance Minister and his federal Public Works counterpart. So, I am quite concerned about the consultation process and I really hope that the minister will, during the appropriate time, relate to members of the House just how extensive this consultation process was.
Also, from going through the bill, I note where the minister has an opportunity and he may attach to any license such terms and conditions and restrictions as he deems fit. Mr. Speaker, that considers me a certain amount of consternation when the minister has that type of power.
I do understand that he is a powerful minister, I just hope that it doesn't go to his head. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Are there any further intervenors? If I recognize the honourable minister, it will be to close the debate.
The honourable Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency.
HON. ROSS BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, I just want to clear up a few of the points that were made during this. Let me express it this way, if there is any concern about this impacting on the Boy Scouts, Girl Guides and camping and so on, it is not our intention and we will ensure that the right provisions are made, so it doesn't affect those kinds of organizations.
This is entirely in response to the campground and tourism industry. Someone asked if we consulted with them. This bill is as a result of consultations with the tourism industry, the campground owners, the Innkeepers' Guild, the various components in the industry. This is in response to what they have told us they wanted.
Let me get to the nub of the problem of indiscriminate camping and I will give you a good example of that. In Cumberland County, and I will give you two examples, we have a well-run, well-kept campground at the Fort Lawrence border entry point into Nova Scotia, within one-quarter mile of our tourist bureau. I believe it would be wrong for us to allow people to park for the sole reason of avoiding paying an overnight fee in a campground, in the parking lot of our tourist bureau overnight and allow them to escape supporting our campground industry, where there are proper facilities for garbage disposal, sewage, water and so on, that is secured and has staff and so on, and to allow them to do that. We believe this enhances the campground and the tourism industry in general in Nova Scotia. That is one example, because that was happening in the past.
In Yarmouth, and I have been corresponding with campground operators who pay good money to run a good campground, they pay money to have good services and upgraded facilities. Why should we allow them to park in the local service station yard overnight, waiting for the ferry, instead of going half a mile down the road and parking in a campground?
Now the issue is not just indiscriminate camping that well, we want to force them to pay. We want to make sure that the quality and standards in Nova Scotia are such that you have a level of standard and we have to support those. You know so many times you will see where somebody has camped on the side of the road or whatever and they have left either garbage or they didn't have a place to dump their waste water and so on. This is going to make sure that they use campgrounds that have the proper hook-ups, that are licensed and approved for that matter.
We are not after somebody who lets their friend park their trailer in their back yard for the night, this is not what we are after. We are after the parking lots of shopping malls, in the case where there are facilities nearby.
If there are not facilities, and I think that is a different story and we will have to deal with that, maybe through Law Amendments Committee or whatever, we can talk about how we deal with that area.
Our concern is, that we don't want to allow campgrounds and the people who invest their hard-earned money in them to suffer because people are not abiding by the rules. That is all it is. We are not after the Girl Guides or the Boy Scouts and we will ensure that provision is in there some place to protect that.
The consultation has taken place and I just wanted to deal briefly with the indiscriminate camping issue. If there is a suggestion that comes along, as this bill goes through the process, of a better way to regulate that, or adjust it, or some items that need to be brought up, we are certainly more than welcome to hear them and we will take them with great advice.
MR. JOHN LEEFE: I wonder if the minister would answer a question. I will take the minister's comments at face value with respect to consultation. I do wonder if the minister can advise the House whether the consultative process has included the Recreation Association of Nova Scotia, for example, who would have a rather different point of view, perhaps, than the commercial campground owners would, with respect to an appropriate form of regulation and statutory regime to govern camping in Nova Scotia?
If the minister has not had the opportunity to consult with them, I would ask that he do so in advance of us getting into further consideration of the bill, that is in the stages beyond second reading, so that we do have their input.
MR. BRAGG: I don't know the answer to that question. I will find out, I will make sure that we do and make them aware of what we are doing and invite their input. I can't imagine that they wouldn't be supportive of it.
[12:15 p.m.]
I guess just the closing point that I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that we encourage people to run good campgrounds and I think we should be supportive of the efforts they make. They are investing money and so on, I just think it is so important that for the same reason we have regulations in other areas of the hotel industry and so on, I think this is entirely appropriate if we are trying to make this a professional tourism industry in Nova Scotia and I certainly will make sure that the recreation association is contacted. I move second reading.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: I have a question, Mr. Speaker. It is a question based on my own ignorance, I admit that absolutely freely. I think everyone agrees that the bed and breakfast component of the tourism industry is really a fabulous part of our tourism infrastructure and I am not aware of whether there is a bed and breakfast operators association separate and apart from the Innkeepers' Guild and the other associations.
The minister did not mention that association, I don't believe, and if it is in existence which I would have thought was the case, I think I can remember having been contacted by them on a couple of occasions, then I just wanted to ask the minister, first, can he confirm that there is such an association and secondly, that such consultation was in fact conducted? Around the crafting of regulations that are suitable to the bed and breakfast industry, it seems to me there needs to be a good deal of sensitivity because in many instances bed and breakfast operators are certainly trying to operate in a very professional way.
If faced with unduly stringent regulations, you might not only make it impossible for them to meet the standards and operate but you might also risk eliminating what it is that makes bed and breakfast facilities attractive to that segment of the population that really opts for them and prefers the homey atmosphere of bed and breakfasts. I wonder if the minister could address that question?
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency to close the debate.
HON. ROSS BRAGG: That is a good point because the member for Pictou West brought that point up and I forgot to respond to it. Yes, there are various associations of B&Bs. I think there are country inns, which is a B&B group that is sort of the smaller facilities. I think Cape Breton has its own B&B association. They have been consulted. I didn't mention them because it wasn't in my notes. Let me give you the same undertaking that I did for the member for Queens. I will check and see what that consultation was and make sure that it is there. We are trying to help them. This shouldn't be perceived to them as being - it is not expensive, we don't impose serious regulation but it is a standard that we are trying to set and we will make sure that before this bill comes back to the House that I have that information.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is for second reading of Bill No. 109, the Tourist Accommodations Act. 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 Deputy House Leader.
MR. ALLISTER SURETTE: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 110.
Bill No. 110 - Peggy's Cove Commission Act.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency.
HON. ROSS BRAGG: This bill is amendments to the Peggy's Cove Commission Act, and I won't make the same mistake I made last year about a bill when I said this is just housekeeping, we ended up being two days. This transfers the responsibility for the Act from the Department of Municipal Affairs to tourism and it ensures adequate representation by Peggy's Cove residents on the Peggy's Cove Commission.
One of the things that happened in the past is the way that it was written, is that it wasn't necessary for somebody from the community of Peggy's Cove that lived there to be a member of the commission. Sometimes somebody was but sometimes they weren't. What we have done, we have changed the make up so that it is required in the bill that so many members be from the community in Peggy's Cove. The reason for this, this is a very sensitive area, Peggy's Cove is probably the number one tourist attraction in Nova Scotia. It has a very sensitive ecosystem, if I can call it that. The community has very strong feelings about where they live and work in the community, of making sure that the community has the right kind of input. I want to give you just a little example of that.
Recently, we undertook a major project that we took over after the government changed, it was initiated by the former administration, on to the DeGarthe Gallery and some washrooms and so on. There was a great concern by the public that lived in Peggy's Cove about how we were going to handle this project. In fact, they said, look, we have some ideas of our own. We agreed with them that we felt it was important that not all of the commission but part of the commission have representation from the people who live in the Village of Peggy's Cove. So, this is the other change that we have made to this. We believe that it is in the best interest of preserving that very special spot, Peggy's Cove, and looking after the interests of the people who have the most vested interest there, the people who live and work in the community.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I move second reading of this bill.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou West.
MR. DONALD MCINNES: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak very briefly on the Peggy's Cove Commission Act, the amendments, Bill No. 110, as introduced by the Minister of the Economic Renewal Agency. I guess we don't want to say that it is a housekeeping bill but it is changing, as the minister pointed out, the authority of the commission from Municipal Affairs to Tourism. In fact, I guess that was done maybe a year or so ago and this bill actually makes it effective so that funding can be authorized correctly. I think that is true that it was actually done April 1, 1993.
The fact that the amendments stipulate that there have to be three members from Peggy's Cove, would speak for itself. Certainly, the people who are involved in the community are the people that should be on the commission. I think it is probably well that they have somebody from the Economic Renewal Agency, from the department, to sit in with them to make various comments and suggestions to the commission.
I was looking for the member for the area and I did look for him, anyway I didn't see him but I would hope that he is supportive of the bill. Unless there are some other points raised that I am not aware of, we will be supporting this amendment of the Peggy's Cove Commission Act. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on Bill No. 110, An Act to Amend Chapter 339 of the Revised Statutes, 1989, the Peggy's Cove Commission Act. I understand that I think it was last year that the commission was moved out of Municipal Affairs into Tourism and this is another step as a result of the merging of those two departments.
Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that around the province I have heard from some people a concern that at a time when our province and the country and the world are talking about the importance of tourism, we suddenly don't have a tourism department or a department that doesn't have a name, the Department of Tourism. I think that is in part a concern that is underlined when you have a commission like this that is specifically put in under the Nova Scotia Economic Renewal Agency and its division of tourism because of the nature of the attraction of Peggy's Cove and the integral role that Peggy's Cove plays in the tourism industry in this province.
The fact that there is a guarantee put in here that there would be three members from the community is, I think, certainly a good idea. I understand that the community has been fairly well-represented in the past few years.
There is one particular concern, I understand, that comes out of this and that is to a clause that relates to the purpose. The purpose clause now reads that the purpose of the commission is to preserve the unique scenic, beauty, character and atmosphere of the area and this piece of legislation adds at the end of that, for the enjoyment of both residents and visitors. Some concern has been raised as to why that addition was made, what is the rationale behind making that addition to the purpose clause?
In the run-up to the federal election, I understand that there was some considerable debate over whether, in fact, there was going to be an initiative to enhance the facilities and the infrastructure at Peggy's Cove to make it a bigger tourist attraction. That was fought, I understand, tooth and nail by the community and the federal and provincial governments backed off and I believe, since the federal election both the province and the federal government have supported the commission and the community in their defence. Their defence, as you can appreciate, is a defence of the community itself, that they maintain the scenic quality, the pristine nature of that particular site.
In that regard, when there is that addition or expansion made under the purpose clause without any explanation, at least to the commission, I have heard from people on the commission who have said that they weren't consulted, the people in the community were not consulted about this change to the purpose clause and that those people are concerned about that, because it was, in fact, the definition under the purpose clause which the community used so effectively to fend off the possible encroachment through an enhancement program for Peggy's Cove.
Mr. Speaker, it makes perfect sense, I think, that because of the fact that the Departments of Economic Development and Tourism were amalgamated under the Nova Scotia Economic Renewal Agency, that the Peggy's Cove Commission would then have to follow in under this new merger, this new definition.
I think that that question about the purpose clause has to be addressed in order for us and other people who are concerned about this, in order for us to have full confidence, that the integrity of Peggy's Cove cannot be maintained because of the fact that those additions have been made.
So, with those few brief comments, I will certainly be supporting the bill moving forward to the Law Amendments Committee but we will continue to consult with people on that particular issue and hopefully we will get some representation at the Law Amendments Committee and perhaps we will hear an explanation from the minister that will address some of the concerns that have been raised. With those few comments, I will take my seat and indicate that I will be voting in favour of this bill moving forward to the Law Amendments Committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to delay the House on this bill because it is a straightforward bill. I was wondering if the minister would be so kind in his remarks at the end of the debate on this bill to let the House know whether or not the Peggy's Cove Commission is at the present time at full complement. I see by the original Act that consisted of seven members. Whether or not the three members of the four additional members on that commission will be going through the process of being appointed to the commission through the Human Resources Committee, and I am sure the minister listened to what I had to say. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[12:30 p.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: If I recognize the minister it will be to close the debate.
The honourable Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency.
HON. ROSS BRAGG: I apologize to the member opposite for not listening. I am sure we will have an opportunity before the bill is completed and if he has anything that I miss out on, I would be delighted to talk to him at another time, maybe before it goes through to the next stage.
The community was very concerned and this is the whole reason for the changes. To the member for Halifax Atlantic, his concerns about why we changed that final clause was to address the needs of the community, the concerns of the community. The community is very supportive of this bill and we feel it is important to recognize the input the community has made to the success of Peggy's Cove over the last number of years.
This bill is something that is going to be good for the Peggy's Cove community for years to come. I appreciate the support the members opposite have offered in moving this forward.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is for second reading of Bill No. 110. 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 Deputy Government House Leader.
MR. ALLISTER SURETTE: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 111.
Bill No. 111 - Fatality Inquiries Act.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Justice.
HON. WILLIAM GILLIS: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak on Bill No. 111 I would like to move that this bill be now read a second time. As we know, it is an Act to amend the Fatality Inquiries Act.
As all members would know, it is a straightforward amendment which provides that the Chief Medical Examiner for the Province of Nova Scotia not only be a duly qualified medical practitioner but also would be required to have training and qualifications in pathology, and such standards that would be prescribed by regulations that the Governor in Council will make. For example, some might argue he might need to be a forensic pathologist but at present the incumbent does not have the pathology qualifications and the justice community in the province in general feel we should upgrade it. That is what the bill is doing.
The regulations will be drafted to ensure that the Chief Medical Examiner has the training and qualifications to do the required job at a level that is expected by the citizens of the province.
I believe it is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that there has been growing recognition that the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner should have those specialized qualifications. This has come up a number of times and, as I recall, the present Minister of Community Services a couple of years ago, when in opposition, introduced a bill to this general effect. The commitment was made that the new government would do this and I am doing it at this time.
It is the feeling of the government that the confidence of the people of the province in the office and the justice system in general will be increased if we increase the qualifications and that we have a better program and better standards for the office.
I think it is important to note that as technology and the forensic field move forward, we want to make sure we are on the forefront of change and following modern practices and I think it is time for this particular change. So, Mr. Speaker, I commend this bill to all honourable members of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Minister of Justice and the government in bringing this bill forward. I have just a couple of questions and primarily they relate to the present incumbent. As I understand this bill, it states that, "Clause 1(2) The Chief Medical Examiner for Nova Scotia, whether appointed before or after . . ." must have these qualifications in forensic medicine. I was wondering, the present medical examiner, is he coming up to early retirement or what are the arrangements made, once this bill is assented to, for the continuation of a medical examiner with these qualifications and what happens to the previous incumbent.
With those couple of questions, Mr. Speaker, that is all that I have to say on this particular piece of legislation. We will be supporting it in this particular caucus and we applaud the government for coming forward with this legislation.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of brief comments and I guess I, too, have a couple of questions. If I had the benefit of hearing the Minister of Justice's response to the earlier questions posed, I might not have those questions but since the legislative debate does not go that way, I will raise a couple of the concerns that I have at this point and the minister may already be preparing to address the very same issues already brought to his attention.
I want to say at the outset I have absolutely no trouble supporting what I understand to be the intent of this bill and I can't imagine why anyone would have difficulty if, as stated by the minister, it is really to ensure that we have the best possible standard of contemporary medical services available as it relates to the functions of the Chief Medical Examiner. The minister himself has made the point that the bill, as it is currently worded, does not actually spell out what qualifications and training are intended or will be set out in the regulations. That makes it a little bit difficult to do anything more than say that we support the intent because whether or not the regulations are reasonable would determine whether the government's action in this regard is in fact supportable.
I think the general principle is a sound one. Obviously there are new developments in forensic sciences, in forensic medicine all of the time. We want to ensure the best possible qualifications and expertise are available in carrying out these important services.
The questions that arise are really around the issue of what is the current status of the Chief Medical Examiner and what would be his status in the event of his not meeting the qualifications set out in the newly prescribed regulations. I believe I saw comments attributed to the minister. I don't want to unfairly attribute them but in referring to this bill, in trying to separate between the principle here and what the government is trying to attain from any issues surrounding the incumbent in the position and while I think that is a reasonable thing to do when you are talking about the purpose of the bill, I think that there is a responsibility on the part of all of us to try to determine what that will mean to the current incumbent in that position.
In other words, is it the government's intention to do what I think would be reasonable in this situation. I frankly don't know whether it is easily achievable but, in any situation where one's job is upgraded, the training or qualifications required for the job, in fact, are increased, especially in the instance where someone has given long service in a particular job, it is surely the fair and reasonable thing to give that incumbent every opportunity to seek additional training that would allow for that person to upgrade their qualifications to meet the newly prescribed standard.
I guess my first question is whether such provisions will, in fact, be made. I don't know how many years Dr. Roland Perry has been in that job but it is my impression for a very long time. I don't believe that he is near retirement age but perhaps that is also relevant to ask in terms of the transition that might be envisaged by the implementation of not just the bill, because that does not really deal with the specifics, but the regulations themselves.
So my question would be, what would his status be under the new regulations? Will the government be in some way grandfathering the current incumbent while providing for some kind of transition period, or will there be some other way of addressing this issue?
I think that we know there are many instances in which people don't happen to have the formal qualifications to do a particular job, but it is hard to argue with the proposition that if someone has been in a job, performing a job, for a very long time, coming along behind that person and putting in new, higher standards really seems to miss the point that this person obviously has great experience beyond what would be the entry qualifications to be hired in a new position.
So I think it is extremely important how this matter is addressed, both from the point of view of the fairness to the incumbent and from the point of view of making sure that we don't just get caught in the sometimes phony trap of credentialism without giving appropriate consideration to the qualifications and the extensive experience that one has already obviously obtained as a person in the job for a very long period of time.
I raise that question because it has always seemed to me that there is something a bit perverse and insensitive about the way that this issue has been handled over a period of several years. There has, I think, on numerous occasions, been concern raised about whether, in fact, Dr. Perry has the qualifications that one would obviously look for if one were hiring someone anew in that position. I would think that the prerequisite would probably be that of pathology training, and the issue of whether additional forensic medicine, specialized training, is required or not, I would not be competent to comment. Obviously you need the experience of forensic medicine, but whether the Chief Medical Examiner needs to be the person in whom that resides, I am not in a position to know.
There have been concerns raised from time to time and I guess it has always concerned me a bit that if there are really serious problems about the competence of an individual in a job then I think you have to deal with that issue. I am not in a position to know whether that is the case in the situation of the current Chief Medical Examiner, but it seems to me that if that is the case that it needs to be dealt with and it needs to be dealt with in a forthright manner. If that is not case, then it seems to me that this matter has to be handled in a very sensitive way and it has to be understood that just raising the level of the training and qualifications that one would apply upon hiring someone new in the position is not an appropriate way. It seems to me a bit of a back-door way or a roundabout way perhaps to deal with problems that some people feel exist or some may want to try to argue is a reason for raising the qualifications as such.
So I hope the minister can address this question. I frankly understand why he might resist this being called the Roland Perry bill because I don't think that is appropriate. But I don't think that the government can sidestep the questions about what the implications of bringing in the new higher standards will be for the current incumbent. I think it is appropriate for the minister to address that question, in order for us to know what the actual outcome will be of this bill being adopted and regulations being put in place.
[12:45 p.m.]
So, I just say in conclusion that we have no difficulty supporting the stated purpose, the principle of the bill, but would want to know what the government's intention is with respect to what the status will be of the incumbent and how that will be dealt with if, in fact, the qualifications stipulated in the new regulations exceed the current level of training and qualifications of that incumbent. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: If I recognize the minister it will be to close the debate.
The honourable Minister of Justice.
HON. WILLIAM GILLIS: I think both members raised some of the same questions as was suggested . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Those wishing to carry on separate conversations, please leave the Chamber.
MR. GILLIS: I will try to deal with both members as they raised some of the same questions as the second speaker suggested, so I will try my best to outline in relatively short compass, the answers.
In terms of qualifications, I think it may be a little confusing in the bill but I think it is pretty clear that the qualifications are of a pathologist not a general practitioner, which Dr. Perry is in this case. Dr. Perry is not a pathologist and although we are going to give the detail whether it be forensic or otherwise, you are going to have to be a pathologist, so that is the first point.
To go on from there, the bottom line behind this bill is that the justice community is demanding a person with pathology qualifications, that is the bottom line. It is the Bar, it is the police, maybe even the bench. They feel that in Nova Scotia in 1994 it is time that we have a trained pathologist in the job of Chief Medical Examiner, so we have to start with that premise.
I am personally sympathetic, we stray into discussing the incumbent, I am sympathetic to Dr. Perry, he served Nova Scotia for a long time and given his training, I think he has done a relatively good job. But the incumbent just didn't have the pathology training so that is the situation. The justice community is virtually demanding that we have a pathologist in the job and then we have to go from there.
I might go on to say that Dr. Perry is represented by a solicitor in all of this and again it gets difficult. I don't want to jeopardize the discussions going on between representatives of my department and Dr. Perry's solicitor, I don't want to trespass on that, they are having discussions. You get into the matter of grandparenting the job, well you cannot grandparent the job given the fact that you need a pathologist, it is impossible. As sympathetic as anybody might be to the incumbent, an incumbent that doesn't have the qualifications that are needed, it is just not possible.
So, we go from there, I mean if it were possible, I am sure that it is theoretically possible that the incumbent could upgrade the qualifications to become a full-fledged pathologist but again, I think we are talking quite a bit of time. I think that is a specialty in medicine and I don't think that is a practical approach to it.
I guess what I will say is that my department is handling the matter in as sensitive a way as possible and that is why maybe we could have tried to get it in before the end of the spring session, the end of June but discussions were going on even then. But the time has come and this is why the bill is before us now. All I can say is the bill is subject to proclamation, Dr. Perry is carrying out the job. If, once the bill is proclaimed and if he is not qualified, we will certainly see that a qualified person is available either on an interim basis and eventually on a full time basis. But we want to handle this in a sensitive way and those discussions are going on and I can assure all honourable members that we will deal with it in the best way possible. But the bottom line is, based on the demands of the justice system and in fairness to accused persons in Nova Scotia and victims in Nova Scotia, too, the change has to be made and that is why the bill here. I commend it to all members to send it on to Law Amendments Committee and there may be some comments there.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is for second reading of Bill No. 111, the Fatality Inquiries 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 Deputy Government House Leader.
MR. ALLISTER SURETTE: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 112.
Bill No. 112 - Trustee Act.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Justice.
HON. WILLIAM GILLIS: Mr. Speaker, I have some brief comments on Bill No. 112, An Act to Amend the Trustee Act. In so doing, I want to move second reading of Bill No. 112.
This bill is a parallel bill to amendments to the Provincial Finance Act that happened last spring. Some members, I am sure, most members would recall that in the spring we amended the Provincial Finance Act for the purpose of replacing the investment criteria with discretionary investment strategy based on what is called a prudent investor rule or test. In other words, to give the persons, in this case covered by the Trustee Act, a little more flexibility rather than Canada Savings Bonds, in terms of investments - a little more flexibility so they can invest in something a little broader. We amended the Provincial Finance Act to do that in the spring. We have, in fact, certain other amendments that have been recommended for other Statutes where there are very conservative investment criteria.
So this is what we are doing now, bringing in amendments that are similar to the Provincial Finance Act, to allow a little more flexibility in terms of the types of investment that can be invested in, under the particular Trustee Act.
I think that this is done, in part, to reflect contemporary investment markets and to provide for more effective administration of trust investments by the trustees, for the trust beneficiaries. I tabled today the annual report, it is right up-to-date, I am really glad to have it, until the end of March 1994 if the trustee, and Ms. Theriault in that job is doing a good job looking after the interests of people who are not able to look after their own interests. That would give the trustee and any other trustee arrangements just that little bit more flexibility.
I guess that is really all I need to say, it is just to modernize it, bring it up-to-date. It has been quite a while and we think it is time for the change and, Mr. Speaker, I commend the bill to all honourable members.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, with reference to second reading of Bill No. 112, I have very few remarks to make on this because we did, indeed, as the Minister of Justice has stated, amend the Provincial Finance Act in our earlier session. We were certainly aware at that time of why those changes should be made. As the minister suggested in his remarks, this applies to trust companies.
However, as the minister has pointed out, there are other instruments in which the government invests and other pension funds, et cetera, where a wider spectrum of investments is certainly to the advantage of that particular trust or pension fund. So I don't know if there are any remaining to be amended. I am not sure in my own mind whether the Workers' Compensation Fund has been amended as yet but that would certainly be another one that should be following the lead established by the Department of Finance, as I say, in providing, I should not say a looser criteria but a broader criteria for investing and certainly to the advantage of the particular fund.
Just in passing, Mr. Speaker, I took a look at the Act itself, the Trustee Act and reading through that it is quite obvious that it has not been amended for some considerable time. We are talking about the Dominion of Canada and we are talking about the Young Women's Christian Association of Halifax bonds bearing the date of March 1936, et cetera, and you can go through this and look at the different investments and certainly they are not investments that reflect the financial picture in 1994. So we will be pleased in this caucus to pass Bill No. 112 through second reading and perhaps listen with interest to any representations that are made in the Law Amendments Committee.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, my comments at this stage in debate will be very brief. The minister has said, on introducing these amendments to the Trustee Act, that it merely brings the provisions of the Trustee Act in line with the changes made to the Provincial Finance Act in the spring session of the Legislature as it relates to the whole issue of restrictions on how money is invested. That may very well be the case, but I would have to say at this point that we had some considerable concerns about the provisions that were introduced in the spring and frankly have not had sufficient time - this having been only introduced yesterday - to look more carefully at whether the same kinds of concerns are attendant to the amendments that are now before us with respect to the Trustee Act.
For that reason, I guess the honest thing to say at this point, is that it is really not clear to us whether this is nothing but a straightforward kind of common-sense change or whether in fact the same kinds of concerns that we had with respect to changes to the Provincial Finance Act would apply. I know the minister has said that this really just brings it in line - I don't want to misrepresent him in any way - but basically that the amendments reflect the trend in other Canadian Provinces over the past decade. Well, some trends in other Canadian Provinces are things that may be improvements from some people's points of view and then some trends may in fact be very ill-advised. So, we would like, frankly, to have more opportunity to really look at this more carefully.
Since we are faced with this bill being before us today and not having had sufficient time to really consult, I think it is fair to say for the record that we reserve the right to consult with people. We will certainly be open to hearing any concerns that are brought forward at the Law Amendments Committee that may speak to some of those concerns that we had with respect to the earlier amendments. I think at the very least it has to be said that the changes introduced to the Provincial Finance Act - and I assume here as well - give a great deal more discretion and power to the minister in making decisions about how to invest money than has been the case in the past.
I guess that very often sends up some alarm signals, or at least raises the concern that if a case can be made for greater discretion - and that may be a reasonable proposition - then it also, I think, very often brings with it the necessity to be sure that the checks and balances are in place. If you are going to have greater discretion then you have to have a system to ensure that there isn't the possibility of greater abuse. Although this government would like us to believe that patronage practices for example are a thing of the past, I think one does not have to be unduly suspicious, paranoid, skeptical, or cynical to raise the question of whether in the instance of there being a great deal of greater discretion with respect to how a minister can invest money that there is the potential - I am not saying that it necessarily results in ugly, old patronage practices rearing their head - but the potential is there, it seems to me, for those highly discretionary decisions to be made on the basis of considerations other than what is necessarily and always in the public interest.
[1:00 p.m.]
It surely cannot be the view of this government that there does not still exist the need to ensure that the best possible protection of the public interest is in place and that where there is the potential for abuse, where there is the potential that a minister, in exercising her discretion or his discretion can in fact be exercising favouritism, can be making decisions about investments that will benefit a friend or a relative or a colleague or whatever then, at the very least, there is a heavy onus for there to be every check and balance in place to try and cut down on potential abuse.
For that reason it may be said, the minister may argue, that the provisions that are being introduced here for greater discretion in the amendments to the Trustee Act are reasonable. But I would say in return that if that is the case then it may also be true to say that we need to be concerned about the fact that we have in this province, still, a conflict of interest Act that is not nearly as stringent as it ought to be, that does not provide as much protection of the public interest as it ought to.
So it may be that the government needs to be persuaded that in the instance of introducing greater discretion around investment decisions by this government and its ministers, that we should also be using that opportunity and using that as an excuse to tighten up on our conflict of interest legislation in the ways that would provide for greater protection of the public, greater assurance that ministerial discretion will not be used in instances where family or colleagues of a minister can benefit in ways that are clearly discriminatory and unwarranted.
I know we are not here debating the conflict of interest legislation but I think we are looking at the implications of a situation where surely the concern cannot be dismissed, that we have to be careful about how ministers exercise that greater discretion when it comes to investment decisions because we have a lot of ministers that have active contact, perhaps in many cases have formerly been employed in the investment community, and may have very definite situations that arise where there are interests that will impinge upon them, which will influence them, other than what is strictly in the best interest of the taxpayer or the general public.
So, Mr. Speaker, with those comments I would simply say again that we are prepared to see it go to Law Amendments Committee at this point but we will be looking further for indications that there is every possible check in place on that greater discretion which this clearly does give to ministers and may or may not feel in the final analysis that the legislation is reasonable to support. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: If I recognize the minister it will be to close the debate.
The honourable Minister of Justice.
HON. WILLIAM GILLIS: Mr. Speaker, just briefly I want to thank the speakers on the bill and I appreciate the comments. To start with, the member for Hants West and the references to the fact that the bill has not been changed for some time in the past. I thank the member for that and we think it is an updating.
With regard to the member for Halifax Fairview I think it is only reasonable that the member hasn't had much time to look at it, it has only been introduced as of yesterday. I understand where she is coming from on that but I appreciate the cooperation so we can move the bill on to Law Amendments Committee. If there are interested parties or organizations, I am sure they will make their views known there and of course, we always have the safety valve of a couple of more stages in the House, Committee of the Whole House on Bills and later a third reading. I am sure if there is anything on that, it can be checked out. I will check out Hansard and the debate on the Provincial Finance Act especially as it relates to giving more freedom on investments to learn more of the concerns that were raised at that time.
The only other thing I want to say before I sit down is by perspective, I guarantee the House as best as I can humanly do, that nobody will take any partisan or any kind of advantage in rewarding friends under investments under this bill. We have a trustee who carries out her job very honourably and conscientiously. I am sure that that person would have no part - and I am not suggesting that the member was implying any malfeasance on her part - but any connection that I have, and I think I can speak for the government too, that we are making an effort to get the best people and the best value. The matter of friends and family benefitting is out the window, as far as I am concerned and for whatever time I am in the job, I will certainly keep a careful eye on my part of the jurisdiction. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is for second reading of Bill No. 112. 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 Deputy Government House Leader.
MR. ALLISTER SURETTE: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 113.
Bill No. 113 - Natural Products Act.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Agriculture and Marketing.
HON. WAYNE GAUDET: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few remarks and to explain to members of the House the proposed amendment for second reading.
The Natural Products Act provides the authority for the establishment of marketing boards to assist in the orderly marketing of natural products at the provincial and national levels. The bill provides as well for the collection of levies in support of marketing boards' activities, including initiatives for marketing and production research. Currently, there are marketing boards established in Nova Scotia for 10 commodities.
Industry is becoming more actively involved in funding research in marketing initiatives at the local and national levels in partnership agreements with agencies such as agriculture in Agri-Food Canada, and the Nova Scotian Agriculture College.
At present, non-marketing board groups such as the Canadian Horticulture Council, the Canadian Cattlemen Association and their provincial counterparts, have no effective legislated authority to collect levies in support of research and marketing. These organizations have approached Ministers of Agriculture at the provincial and national levels, requesting that the marketing board authority for levies be extended to include other non-marketing board agencies. So Ministers of Agriculture have agreed to this request and have begun the process of amending their respective legislation as required to provide for this authority. The bill, An Act to amend the Natural Products Act, incorporates this authority into legislation for Nova Scotia.
Clause 1 of the bill provides the authority for Nova Scotia to enter into agreements for the implementation of national programs of research and promotion. Two existing examples of the types of programs we are talking about are the milk and beef promotion ads that we see on television. Apple producers in Canada are currently discussing a national promotion campaign as well.
Clause 2 of this bill extends the existing authority for the collection of levies and support of research and promotion to those non-marketing board commodities which do not presently have this authority, Mr. Speaker. Examples of non-marketing board groups would be the blueberry, apple, and sheep industries.
I should point out that this is enabling legislation only. Should a commodity group decide to develop a program, they would then further . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The noise level in this Chamber is excessively high, please.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Speaker, they would then submit their plan for approval to the Natural Products Marketing Council, as well as their request to collect levies in support of the program.
The Natural Products Marketing Council is a five member agency appointed by government to oversee the workings of orderly marketing systems. A similar watchdog group exists in all provinces and at the national level. Industry has come to government with this request and I am pleased that my government has agreed to cooperate with industry in accommodating their wishes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou West.
MR. DONALD MCINNES: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on an Act to Amend Chapter 308 of the Revised Statutes, 1989, the Natural Products Act. I think the minister, in his opening remarks on Bill No. 113 has explained very well the purpose of having this bill before the Legislature today. It is my understanding that the various groups had expressed concerns to the Ministers of Agriculture from across Canada to ask that this enabling legislation be put in place in each province.
As the minister did explain, the Natural Products Marketing Act covers, I believe it is 10 commodity boards now but there are some natural products that are not covered. The previous legislation, gave authority, of course, to those boards for it to do research and promotion. I think it is important, I think the minister mentioned blueberries, the cattlemen's association and a couple of other groups that were interested in being able to levy their own producers or their own members to levy funds so they could do research and also promotion for their particular products.
I must say I was pleased to have the opportunity to sit on the Natural Products Marketing Board in Nova Scotia for quite a number of years prior to my having the honour of coming to the Legislature. I think it is an excellent board that they have and our caucus is very pleased. Our Agriculture Critic is not here with us today, but I know that the member for Kings North would also be very supportive of this legislation. We will certainly be supporting it on second reading.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few brief comments on Bill No. 113. Unfortunately, I don't have the same level of information or experience on this issue as do the current and former Ministers of Agriculture and, for that reason, for a change I will limit my remarks and wait for us to hear more about this bill at the Law Amendments Committee stage.
Certainly in respect to the remarks made by the minister and the former minister, it appears to be a change that has been promoted by a number of agencies within the industry and, therefore, makes sense in terms of promoting their ability to better represent their members, represent their industry and promote their products and develop new products and so on. So I think it would be very hard, therefore, to not speak in support.
But as sometimes happens, when you don't know all that much about it you have to leave yourself with the option of having a little bit of time to consult with people in the industry. We are commencing to do that and leave ourselves the opportunity to participate in the Law Amendments Committee and find out whether there are any concerns that may be raised by various parties and at that point perhaps in combination or whatever we may be able to comment further and work with the minister, if there are any inadequacies in this legislation and we can perhaps see that those are addressed but I think having had the opportunity over the last two sessions to deal with legislation brought forward by this minister, he usually does his homework and generally covers all those bases so we don't anticipate any problems. With those few brief remarks I will be voting in support of this legislation moving forward to the Law Amendments Committee stage.
[1:15 p.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: If I recognize the minister if will be to close the debate.
The honourable Minister of Agriculture and Marketing.
HON. WAYNE GAUDET: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the honourable members for their supporting comments, and I move second reading of Bill No. 113.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is for second reading of Bill No. 113. 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 Deputy Government House Leader.
MR. ALLISTER SURETTE: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 114.
Bill No. 114 - Municipal Reform Act.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs.
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to move second reading of Bill No. 114 and I would like to make a few comments prior to making that motion. This bill that we are dealing with, Bill No. 114, is the municipal reform bill. It is a major piece of legislation. Since assuming government 16 months ago, we have pursued an unprecedented reform agenda. We are committed to providing relevant, efficient programs and services to Nova Scotians at a price we can all afford. We are radically changing the way we do things to bring government in line with what Nova Scotians need and want. Municipal reform has been talked about by nearly every provincial government for the past 50 years.
After extensive consultation this government is now taking action. Our commitment has always been to work towards a Nova Scotia made up of economically strong, safe and viable municipalities. Mr. Speaker, we are living up that commitment, we are putting in place a comprehensive strategy for municipal reform. We are taking a number of major steps forward towards a provincial, municipal relationship that will provide the backbone of a revitalized Nova Scotia well into the 21st Century.
We committed to a process of consultation and we have kept that promise. Nearly one year ago, within six months of taking office, we released a comprehensive discussion paper on municipal reform. Since that time, we have consulted widely on that discussion paper. Earlier this year, I along with senior staff of my department met with each and every one of the 66 municipalities in the Province of Nova Scotia. (Applause)
Mr. Speaker, we asked for the municipalities' input, we listened to their comments, we heard their concerns, and we have now acted on them. We committed to a logical process of service exchange and we have kept that promise. This legislation, the Municipal Reform Bill, provides for the first phase of reform. We committed to a cost-effective solution and we have kept that promise. There is only one taxpayer. We cannot shift the blame or the financial burden from one level of government to the next. We are all in the same boat. There are two major elements in the Municipal Reform Bill, the exchange of a number of government services between the province and municipalities which includes the first step of a social reform system in Nova Scotia and there are significant reform measures and municipal legislation that further empowers municipal governments in their ability to act independently of the province.
Let me begin with the provincial-municipal service exchange first. Service exchange involves a reallocation of services between the provincial and municipal level of government and a restructuring of a financial relationship between them as well. This restructuring will reduce the number of cost-shared programs. The objectives of provincial-municipal service exchange are: (1) to create a strong financially viable local government; (2) to develop a fair, clearer provincial-municipal partnership and (3) to rationalize services delivered by all governments.
The service exchange plan is both financially feasible and controllable. It enables many of the government's reform initiatives to occur. For example, responsibilities transferred to the province in the areas of home care, licensed nursing homes and homes for the aged are required to advance the Minister of Health's reform. The plan also helps to level the playing field in terms of service responsibilities. For example, under service exchange, rural municipalities will assume financial responsibilities for police protection. Under service exchange, as well, the province will assume responsibility for all existing municipal cost-sharing on child welfare, licensed nursing homes and homes for the aged, court houses and justice expenses, registry of deeds, home care and boards of health.
The province will assume 80 per cent of the cost, up from 66.67 per cent, for homes for special care such as adult residential centres, which are under the jurisdiction of Community Services. In keeping with government's efforts to integrate into the community individuals who are mentally handicapped or mentally disabled, the province will contribute an additional $6 million to offset municipal expenditures for alternative placements.
The municipalities will assume responsibilities for policing and suburban subdivision roads. The following grant programs to the municipalities will cease: public transit; planning; building inspection; recreation; emergency funding and operating grants. An equalization grant to assist poorer municipalities will be established.
Service exchange will be phased in over a four year period, as requested by the municipalities and this is what we heard when we did our consultation around the province. This will help minimize the impact on the municipal units. In this bill, Mr. Speaker, we are proposing as well, to amend 31 different Statutes. Many provisions are not to come into effect until April 1, 1995. The majority of these are sections that relate primarily to the service exchange.
Major elements of service exchange covered in the Municipal Reform Bill are court houses in Clause 19, registries in Clause 96, the equalization grants in Clause 66 through to 71, the transitional provisions in Clause 76 and Social Services Act changes in Clause 102 and Clause 103. Policing is covered in Clause 86 and Clause 87 and roads, in particular, are covered in Clause 84 and Clause 92.
The Municipal Reform Bill deals with improvements in general municipal legislation. A number, Mr. Speaker, of new powers are introduced and included at the request of the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities in this bill. These include the power to regulate exotic pets, more enforceable provisions covering dangerous and unsightly premises, broader dog control provisions, detailed noise controlled authorities and specific powers for major tree sanitation programs.
Mr. Speaker, this bill also includes several provisions to increase final decision making to the local municipal level. These include: removing the requirement for ministerial approval for most by-laws; requirements to notify the public concerning by-laws; making some by-law powers into a simple procedure; decreasing the number of land sales that require the minister's approval; and other deregulation in many instances.
Rural municipalities, of course, are given the power to deal with the roads that they will become responsible for. Municipal units as well, Mr. Speaker, are also given the opportunity to be free of liability for claims arising out of sewer and water system problems, unless neglect is shown. This is another request from the municipalities.
In these changes we have arrived at meeting municipal requests to decrease provincial control over municipal actions and increase local independence and accountability. This bill will enable more control on the local municipal level, which is what was requested of us by the UNSM and the municipalities when we travelled around the province. In actual fact, some of these are as many as 10 to 15 years old.
Further consultation with municipalities, with specific municipal units and with municipal administrators will be held to deal with the implementation of service exchange and with the need for further reform of all municipal legislation. While service exchange will alleviate many municipal problems, Mr. Speaker, and it will produce a fairer and more rational municipal system, it will not solve all the problems. Work on municipal reform will have to continue as both the province and municipal units struggle to deal with the financial problems affecting all levels of government.
Mr. Speaker, there is a need for municipal reform and municipalities have requested it. We listened and now we are taking action. The service exchange is a good package which addresses many of the concerns we heard when we consulted with the municipalities over the last 18 months. Suggestions by municipalities have improved fairness and acceptability.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill to go on to the Law Amendments Committee. I know that due to the lateness of the hour today, I would also suggest we adjourn the House to sit another time. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion for the adjournment of debate has been made. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The House is now adjourned to sit again on Monday at the hour of 7:00 p.m.
[The House rose at 1:27 p.m.]
By: Mr. George Archibald (Kings North)
I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return showing, with respect to the Department of Justice:
(1) The total number of inmates sentenced to time in Nova Scotia correctional centres now on temporary leave because there are no beds for them in the correctional centres;
(2) The total number of inmates on temporary leave who have been sentenced to prison time of two years or less for sex offences; and
(3) A copy of studies done or public reports reviewed by Justice Department officials relating to the electronic monitoring of prisoners in Nova Scotia.
By: Mr. Brooke Taylor (Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley)
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 Natural Resources:
(1) A copy of all correspondence between the Office of the Minister and the Federal Minister of Natural Resources concerning discussions on a new federal/provincial forestry agreement to replace the one which expires March 31, 1995.
By: Mr. Donald McInnes (Pictou 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 Economic Renewal Agency:
(1) A copy of all correspondence between the Board of Directors for the Ski Cape Smokey Society and the Office of the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency for the year 1994 up to and including today, October 28th.
By: Mr. Donald McInnes (Pictou 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 Economic Renewal Agency:
(1) A copy of the agreement signed between the Province of Nova Scotia and Captain Donald Barr.
