MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We will commence the daily routine at this time.
The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, yesterday afternoon during Question Period I asked a couple of questions of the Minister of Supply and Services with respect to the costing analysis that was done, in particular as it related to cleaning and janitorial services to be contracted out. I indicated, in reference to the document that I tabled, that under Salaries and Benefits for the Johnson Building, the figure there, in fact, included salaries and benefits for all three government buildings. I also said that the square footage that was indicated for the Johnson Building also was for three buildings.
I inadvertently, Mr. Speaker, added to the confusion by misstating that the square footage was in fact for the Johnson Building alone. The salaries and benefits figure, even though it is attributed to the Johnson Building, was, in fact, for all three buildings. I just wanted to clear that up.
MR. SPEAKER: Very well.
PRESENTING AND READING PETITIONS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition signed by 851 residents of Kings West - the undersigned are opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia and oppose any legislation that would permit casinos in Nova Scotia. I, as well, have signed that petition.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition which has been signed by 1,938 residents of my constituency, Halifax Citadel, who are opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia and they oppose any legislative change that would permit casinos in the Province of Nova Scotia. I, too, have signed the petition agreeing to table it and agreeing with the sentiment expressed in the petition.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition signed by 463 residents of Hants West who are opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia. I have signed the petition and I endorse the sentiment.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Queens.
MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition of 411 people from Queens County who express their opposition to the establishment of casino gambling in Nova Scotia and their opposition to any legislative change which permits casinos in Nova Scotia. I have duly signed the petition.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in tabling a petition from 1,173 constituents in Halifax Fairview in opposition to the establishment of casinos in this province. I also take pleasure in signing that petition, indicating opposition to any change in the legislation that would permit casinos to be operated in this province.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I also take great pleasure in having the opportunity to table a petition signed by hundreds of residents in Sackville-Cobequid. Those who have signed the petition are certainly opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia and any legislative changes that would permit the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia. I also was delighted to have an opportunity to sign this petition and endorse it.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 1,190 constituents of Halifax Atlantic, I would like to table a petition that says, the undersigned are opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia and hereby oppose any legislative change that would permit casinos in Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling these petitions and I have signed them accordingly.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Kings North.
MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition from 906 residents of Kings North. They have said they are opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia and hereby oppose any legislative change which would permit casinos in Nova Scotia. I have signed a copy of this.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to table a petition on behalf of 395 residents of Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley. The undersigned are opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia and hereby oppose any change to the legislation that would permit casinos in Nova Scotia. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to affix my name to that petition.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Pictou West.
MR. DONALD MCINNES: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to table a People Against Casinos petition, signed by 351 residents of Pictou West. They are opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia and hereby oppose any change to the legislation that would permit casinos in Nova Scotia. I have signed the petition as well and ask that it be tabled.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Pictou Centre.
DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition on behalf of 2,119 residents of Pictou Centre who are opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia. I have signed the petition and endorse its sentiment.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS
STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Premier.
HON. JOHN SAVAGE (The Premier): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address this House on a matter that has concerned me greatly, particularly over the last few days. I am referring to the process followed by my Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to the selection of a commissioner for the amalgamation of the metro area. Since returning from China, I have taken pains to familiarize myself thoroughly with the significant facts which are contained in this issue. I have had careful and lengthy interviews with my minister, with the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, and others who have been directly involved in the process.
One issue that has been of great concern to me has been the suggestion that the potential for conflict of interest was not properly managed.
Mr. Speaker, while it is unfortunate that the deputy did not completely absent himself from the process, I want to make it clear that I have found no indication of wrongdoing on his part, nor any indication that he in any way acted to derive personal benefit from this situation.
This matter is before the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, and as I have said on many previous occasions, I welcome his guidance on this very important question, as does the deputy minister. I should add that the commissioner is away until the November 25th, on holiday.
I would also like to state publicly my concern for the way in which Grant Morash has been impugned by remarks made by members in this House. Mr. Morash is a man of integrity. He is a respected member of his profession with 40 years experience and I believe it is unfair that he has been subjected to the insinuations that have been lobbed from the Opposition benches.
With respect to the manner in which my minister handled the process, there is no doubt, as I have stated before, that some mistakes have been made. As the minister herself has acknowledged in this House, she announced the awarding of the contract prematurely and did not follow the process that I understood was going to be followed. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, there have been some misunderstandings during this process, but as soon as I became aware of them I acted immediately and directed my minister to take corrective action which addressed the process issues.
I have made my concerns known to the minister. I feel that the errors that she has made are as the result of over-zealousness in her desire to get a difficult job underway. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will not ask for her resignation. (Applause)
The Minister of Municipal Affairs has begun important reforms which will lead to the amalgamation of the metro area and the creation of a more competitive economic environment. This initiative, Mr. Speaker, will result in a more vibrant and unified metro area and will bring benefits to all the people of this province.
I believe that we can learn from this experience. However, I feel strongly that we must keep things in perspective and recognize the fact that there has been no wrongdoing, and where mistakes have been made, there were checks and balances in place, as well as openness and accountability on the part of this government. It is time now to put this matter to rest and get on with the important agenda of this government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I am, frankly, astounded by the statement made by the Premier today. It is clear, on the basis of the statement made here just now by the Premier, that ministers in his government do not have to follow any rules. It is clear that when the Premier waves the tendering policy around, as he has done here the last couple of days, and advertises it as his Bible, that the members of his Cabinet do not have to follow that Bible.
You might as well, as far as I am concerned, throw away the tendering policy. This minister, Mr. Speaker, and the Premier knows it and all Nova Scotians know it, has demonstrated her incompetence at every turn. The Premier has acknowledged this minister has made mistakes. The minister, herself, has acknowledged that she has made mistakes. I ask, how many times do Nova Scotians have to put up with the continuation of mistake upon mistake after chaos after chaos? (Interruption)
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that there is chaos right across the board in Municipal Affairs, in the Department of Health with the tendering policy, in Human Resources, Supply and Services, right across this government.
[12:15 p.m.]
In not showing any leadership in taking decisive action here today in relation to this vitally important matter, I sincerely believe that the Premier has sadly let down the voters of the Province of Nova Scotia. This Premier, Mr. Speaker, has assured the failure of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, as she goes forward like a lamb to the slaughter now to engage in the municipal service exchange and municipal reform issues.
I think, frankly, we are going to see a very dismal spectacle of her stumbling through those efforts as she has to this point. I don't believe that there will be a municipal councillor or a municipal taxpayer in this province who has any faith in her ability to carry through those vitally important reforms. There will be no confidence and no hope that municipal reform is in the hands of a person who is competent, in control and up to the task.
In the election campaign of 1993, the Premier's slogan was, let's move on together. It is now clear that he was referring to his own Party and to his own Cabinet, especially those who supported his own leadership bid. I say, Mr. Speaker, that today's lack of leadership is one of more impetus to the taxpayers of Nova Scotia agreeing that Dr. Savage and his government should move on together and move on to make way for those who will provide some decisive leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am not surprised that the comments made about Mr. Grant Morash are made by the Premier in his statement, because it shows once again that the Premier doesn't listen to what goes on in the debate in this place. At no point, did any member of this House malign or cast aspersions on Grant Morash or his competence. (Interruptions) At no point. Grant Morash was not the issue here. The incompetence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs was (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: The time is running out.
MR. DONAHOE: . . . at issue here. I simply say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a very sad day that we can see the spectacle of a Minister of Municipal Affairs, any minister, commit $225,000 of the taxpayers' money, break every rule which the Premier says pertains and then walk away from it glibly with the smile on her face that she is now still a member of the Executive Council of this province.
MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted has expired.
MR. DONAHOE: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier will rue the day that he has made this decision and the voters of Nova Scotia will have long memories and long remember this decision and this day.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, this issue is not about whether the Municipal Affairs Minister has made mistakes or has lost people's confidence. This issue is about whether this government has any ethical standards of conduct for its ministers and senior civil servants. This issue is about whether the explicitly stated policies with respect to public tendering and conflict of interest are worth the paper that they are written on.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier has stood up here and he has said, well, the minister has made mistakes and we have to move on. I don't know whether it is a case of egomania or whether it is just an honest admission on the Premier's part to say that the real problem was that the minister prematurely announced the awarding of the contract and that he hadn't understood it was going to be done that way.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that's not good enough. People want to know, what in the name of Heavens is going on within this government that a Municipal Affairs Minister, apparently, honestly believed that she had the Premier's authorization to publicly announce a contract that did not exist, that had not been approved through the proper process and that broke all of the rules with respect to public tendering and conflict of interest.
The Premier, quite predictably, tries to hide behind some claims and allegations that Opposition members have improperly impugned the reputation of Grant Morash. Let me make it very clear that there were no insinuations about Grant Morash from this corner. What there was was disclosure of some facts, that fact that Deloitte & Touche donated $10,000 to the Liberal Party in the last election. The fact that John Savage received $500 from Grant Morash in the last election. The fact that Grant Morash donated $200 to the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, those are facts. The fact that the wife of the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs is a managing partner of Deloitte & Touche and that quite improperly and in violation of the conflict of interest guidelines, her husband participated in the process.
Those are facts and it is those very facts that make this such a scandalous issue because those facts are precisely why extra care should have been taken, extra precaution should have been taken, that under no circumstances should this have been handled in any manner other than full public tendering. Under no circumstances should there have been any shadow of a doubt about the removal of that deputy minister from the process.
Those were facts and the fact is that this government today has shown and this Premier has clearly established that there are no ethical standards of conduct that count for anything with this government because when they are violated, not once, not twice, but three times, in a given deal with a particular minister, the existing regulations simply are not enforced.
I think it is a very sad thing. We need municipal reform in this province and it is a problem that any confidence in this minister is shot. But it is a bigger problem that any confidence that the public might have in this government's ability to manage the reform agenda of this province, simply does not exist and it is going to jeopardize what happens in this province for a very long time to come.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs.
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I also rise in my place to address the House on the matter of the selection of an amalgamation commissioner for the metropolitan area. The Premier has carefully considered this situation and I thank him for his cautious and thoughtful approach to a very serious matter and I am grateful for his support.
Ultimately, managing the process of metro amalgamation and municipal reform is my responsibility. It is one that I take very seriously. I also take seriously the urgent need to proceed with these important reforms. I believe that the time to take advantage of the economic and fiscal benefits that can come from metro amalgamation, is now. I am eager to begin the process of working with the metro municipalities, to cooperate and to consult with them, on how best to achieve these benefits.
I have been, arguably, eager to a fault. In my zeal to move forward on metro amalgamation, I moved too quickly and without a clear understanding of the process that I should be following in selecting and announcing a commissioner. My focus was on getting the job done, but in doing so, I compromised the process.
I regret and take responsibility for the errors and misunderstandings involved in this situation and I sincerely apologize for any embarrassment that I have caused. I am confident, though, that through full public tender, the proper process is now in place to select a commissioner.
Mr. Speaker, I am still eager about metro amalgamation, a little more cautious, yes, but nonetheless still eager to bring better services, lower taxes and more economic opportunities to metro residents. And I am very glad that we are able now to move forward towards those goals. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou Centre, two minutes.
DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for providing me a copy of her statement in advance of her delivering it. This has been a very unhappy time, the last two weeks in this House, in which issues of substance have been sidetracked by issues of process. This is a place where process is very important. Proper process has been breached in two areas; the area of public tendering and the area of conflict of interest, endangering what is a very important initiative, that is the rationalization of the delivery of local government in this province.
In this issue and its resolution, the tradition of ministerial responsibility has been ignored. The handling of this tender award and the response of the government has further eroded public confidence in political process in this province and I think that is extremely unfortunate.
This is an issue that will not go away; it will continue to cloud the delivery of a proper municipal system, in terms of government in this province. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to deliver words of condemnation in this place but this has been an unhappy time for the political process in this province in the last two weeks. It is hoped that whatever the ultimate resolution of this particular process is, the government will learn from its mistakes and will, in fact, do things and follow process that is laid down not only in terms of law but in terms of its own policies. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, this is not a happy day to be rising to speak. When I was asked earlier what I thought was going to happen, I predicted that what was happening was that the Premier was trying to get enough time so that he and the minister and his fellow Cabinet members could sing from the same song sheet, so they could cover their backsides for the mistakes they have made.
Mr. Speaker, we have, in this province and in this country, a system of parliamentary democracy in which ministerial accountability is crucial and fundamental. This minister, now obviously with the Premier's blessing, has violated the policies and principles of good, ethical government, something that this minister promised to uphold.
Instead, what we have seen, Mr. Speaker, is that Nova Scotia unfortunately is going to be the laughing stock of the rest of the country and that the policies - the tendering policies and the promises for high ethical standards - are, in fact, nothing more than a joke. We hear from the Premier, a former President of the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities, such a weak defence. We all know that municipal reform is essential and crucial.
I ask the Premier, by way of my statement, Mr. Speaker, how, as a former President of the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities, he expects that you can have any confidence in a process being able to proceed in a rational and open fashion when the minister herself has lost the total confidence of pretty well everybody, except the 40 or so members who are sitting on the Liberal government benches?
I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to reconsider her decision to stay on and to do what most Nova Scotians would say is the proper thing, that is tender your resignation so that the government can have some credibility restored.
GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
NOTICES OF MOTION
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas as many as 13,000 students marched on Parliament Hill yesterday over fears that post-secondary education will soon be far out of reach for the average Canadian; and
Whereas while Nova Scotia has the highest per capita concentration of universities in the country, the changes proposed in the Axworthy paper have many Nova Scotians wondering whether higher education will be within their grasp; and
Whereas the need today for an educated work force has never been so crucial to the economic growth and future of our province and for the future of its citizens;
Therefore be it resolved that the Education Minister commit to Nova Scotians that he will ensure the federal minister does not pursue policies which will cut off Nova Scotians from access to post-secondary education.
[12:30 p.m.]
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 it took one telephone call from a reporter to precipitate the Premier's instantaneous firing of Lucy Dobbin, for permitting her husband to attend a government meeting at her house; and
Whereas it took days of heavy thinking for the Premier to reach any conclusion about the Municipal Affairs Minister's subsequent, deliberate involvement of her deputy in decisions and meetings about an untendered contract to the firm where his spouse is a managing partner; and
Whereas such a double standard can result only when personal and narrow partisan considerations prevail;
Therefore be it resolved that senior civil servants, Cabinet Ministers and the people of Nova Scotia deserve better than a Star Chamber System whereby the rules are changed to fit the Premier's personal preference whenever his fairness in government policies are broken.
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 Westray explosion of May 9, 1992 resulted in a massive rescue attempt involving the entire community; and
Whereas 194 rescuers including draegermen and bare-faced miners placed their personal safety in peril in an attempt to save their comrades; and
Whereas on November 28, 1994 Governor General Ray Hnatyshyn will present 194 medals of bravery to those who went underground under very dangerous conditions to search for victims of the explosion;
Therefore be it resolved that this House pay unanimous tribute to these 194 draegermen and bare-faced miners involved in the rescue attempt at the Westray Mine and the Speaker convey this resolution to the organizer of this ceremony to be held at the Sharon St. John United Church, Stellerton on November 28, 1994.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver of notice which requires unanimous consent.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Is the House ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
I would like to ask you if you could indicate the address to which the message should be sent. Thank you.
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 petitions to the House may be presented by any member during the sitting of the house; and
Whereas People Against Casinos have circulated petitions in each of the 52 constituencies of Nova Scotia; and
Whereas the elected representatives were asked to individually present the petition from their constituency and, on behalf of the Liberal members, the Liberal caucus chairman has refused to present the petitions individually so that they may duly be recorded;
Therefore be it resolved that because the Liberal members will not present petitions on behalf of their constituents, it be duly recorded that the Official Opposition and recognized Third Party have acted on behalf of all Nova Scotians and presented the petitions individually.
HON. GUY BROWN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The members in this caucus, to the best of my knowledge most of them have not had any of their constituents bring any petitions to them that they wouldn't present. I want to make it clear to that honourable member and to the members of this House that when our constituents bring a petition those constituents and the petition will be dealt with under the Rules of the House as it would for anybody else. He is not my constituent. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: I want to echo the comments of my honourable colleague the Minister of Housing but I also want to say that if this is the game that's being played and what was referenced in a local newspaper this morning by an Ian Coll, who I have never met, never spoken to and if that individual who according to the newspaper article was huddled with staff of the two Opposition Parties last night then it is apparent what is going on here is a political game and members of this House have not refused anything their constituents have brought forward. (Applause)
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I would like to point out that there are petitions out there that the individuals should have the courage to present on behalf of their constituents, Mr. Speaker. They are on behalf of their constituents.
HON. RICHARD MANN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we to believe that those staffers, last night, dealt with petitions and that we are getting today what was sent by our constituents? Well, thank you but no thanks.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MRS. FRANCENE COSMAN: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that words like have some courage are really out of place. There is a petition in my Bedford United Church. If the minister, Reverend David Hart, gives me the petition, I will be more than happy to present it on the behalf of Reverend David Hart. In fact, this evening I will make sure, when I go home to my constituency, I will call him. Any other constituent of mine who wishes to hand me a petition, I will be more than happy to review it and deal with it. (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MRS. COSMAN: Mr. Speaker, there are opportunities for despicable game-playing in this House which demeans each and every one of us. When I get a little note handed to me from someone I have never heard of before, I am not going to jump like a trained seal to respond to this kind of note and if the rudeness of the members on the other side of the House is such that they have to out-shout me (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Order!
MRS. COSMAN: If the rudeness of the members on the other side of the House means that they have to shout in glee, say that we have no courage and all of the other demeaning, stupid things that get said in these silly debates, then I have to say I am not going to play their game. I will be more than happy to call the minister of my church tonight. I will be more than happy to call the doctor, whom I happen to attend on rare occasions with the flu, to see how his petition is coming, but I will not be sucked into this kind of a game that these people across the way are trying to play on a very important issue.
MR. SPEAKER: I have heard sufficient opinion, I think, to gain a representative sampling of the opinion of the House. I had never stated that the resolution was tabled. I would want to read it first before making that statement.
It is obvious from what has happened that there is a danger to the maintenance of order in the Assembly when members make injurious statements or engage in statements that appear to raise emotion in this way and that is why we have rules, to try to prevent that type of thing from happening.
I want to read the motion and I will rule on its contents at a later time.
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 it is a truism often expressed by those in serious difficulty that if we do not all hang together, we hang separately; and
Whereas gangs flourish on the basis of mutual protection and a code of silence that no member will squeal on another; and
Whereas these truisms and gang rules are not legitimate considerations when Cabinet Ministers breach or condone the breach of government rules or laws;
Therefore be it resolved that the Premier should place the public interest in fair government and open tendering above partisan considerations and any desire to protect himself and his Cabinet from the consequences of their own mistakes.
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 the Finance Minister and his colleagues have spent three days justifying the lack of documentation or approval for expensive sole-sourced contracts by claiming that Priorities and Planning approval is not required; and
Whereas the same ministers have denied the clear, unambiguous requirement in the Premier's open tendering directive that the respective deputy minister justify in writing each sole-sourced contract; and
Whereas the rules and guidelines circulated on August 8, 1994 by this government affirm the rule that Priorities and Planning must approve each and every sole-sourced, untendered contract;
Therefore be it resolved that this House condemns the careless, casual, ill-informed manner in which this Cabinet is wasting taxpayers' money on untendered contracts without even acknowledging the straightforward rules intended to prevent such abuses and political whims.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
I am now in a position to rule on proposed Resolution No. 1038, submitted by the honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley. I am prepared to rule it out of order, the reason being that it makes a charge against members of the House that they will not exercise a certain function, which several honourable members have vehemently denied and, thereby, would appear to constitute a breach of order.
The resolution, therefore, is not tabled.
The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: I understood that the objection previously was that it was inferring lack of courage on the part of other members of this House, those in government. Mr. Speaker, to me there is no words used in that petition that Beauchesne would not permit.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, I think the resolution truly does what you have suggested it does. In fact, the Chairman of the Liberal caucus requested that the petitions be turned over to him. That was refused by Mr. Coll because he wanted to attach a list of conditions to it.
MR. JOHN LEEFE: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, if your ruling stands with respect to ruling that motion out of order . . .
MR. SPEAKER: I have already so ruled.
MR. LEEFE: . . . because it imputes motives or impugns the reputation of some honourable members, then sir, very clearly, you should have ruled the Premier out of order when he made his statement and made references impugning the reputations of certain members of this House with respect to Mr. Grant Morash. What is sauce for the goose, Mr. Speaker, is sauce for the gander.
MR. SPEAKER: In reference to the observations just made, I would direct the attention of honourable members in the House to the contents of Beauchesne's Paragraph 486(1), under the heading of Unparliamentary Language, in which the learned author states:
"It is impossible to lay down any specific rules in regard to injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular Members, or to declare beforehand what expressions are or are not contrary to order; much depends upon the tone and manner, and intention, of the person speaking; sometimes upon the person to whom the words are addressed, as, whether that person is a public officer, or a private Member not in office, or whether the words are meant to be applied to public conduct or to private character; and sometimes upon the degree of provocation, . . .".
It continues along that line at some length. This is where the discretion of the Chair is exercised. It was obvious from what happened that the words uttered provoked a state of uproar in the House. It made a claim that Liberal members would not present petitions on behalf of their constituents and, thereby, in my view, tended towards a breach of order. I have ruled on the matter and I consider the matter closed.
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 all Nova Scotians recognize the need for government reform; and
Whereas the Public Service of Nova Scotia is prepared to work with this government to reduce government expenditures in a humane way, not in a dictatorial fashion; and
Whereas the latest slap in the face to Nova Scotia's public sector workers came with the immediate dismissal on Tuesday of a number of Supply and Services workers;
Therefore be it resolved that this government begin making decisions which greatly impact upon people's lives in a humane fashion, instead of the atomic bomb mentality presently being exercised.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Eastern Shore.
MR. KEITH COLWELL: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas I have requested that MT&T improve service along the Eastern Shore; and
Whereas our economic viability is dependent upon our ability to use information technology; and
Whereas MT&T is expanding its cellular phone coverage along the Eastern Shore to Lake Charlotte and Meagher's Grant, improving the business climate on the Eastern Shore and providing better service to the residents of the Eastern Shore;
Therefore be it resolved that the members of this House applaud MT&T for their commitment to improving service along the Eastern Shore.
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 Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: May I intrude on the notices of motion just long enough to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce to you and to all members in the House, a gentleman who served with us here some years ago with distinction, as the member for Colchester North and I refer, of course, to Mr. Jack Coupar who is in the west gallery and I would invite you and all members to welcome back Mr. Coupar in the usual warm fashion. (Applause)
[12:45 p.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the National Sea Products fish plant in Louisbourg, Cape Breton has been closed since the spring of 1992; and
Whereas National Sea Products Limited has enjoyed significant tax benefits from municipal, provincial and federal governments over the past 15 years; and
Whereas the transferring of processing equipment in and out of the Louisbourg fish plant over the past two years for tax advantage has become a source of irritation and frustration for laid-off employees;
Therefore be it resolved that in the opinion of this House the Minister of Fisheries convene a joint meeting with the Town of Louisbourg officials, NatSea Products Limited representatives and the appropriate provincial government ministries, to fully review any and all applications for a renewal of a fish processing license at Louisbourg's plant.
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 report by Dr. John Cowan, an independent out-of-province expert, indicates that this government's reorganization of teacher education carries a probable one-time, non-capital cost of $2,236,775; and
Whereas Dr. Cowan further reported that the annual operating costs of university-based teacher education will increase anywhere from $250,000 to $750,000 a year; and
Whereas Dr. Cowan was not mandated to consider the multimillion dollar construction and renovation costs of this decision;
Therefore be it resolved that the Education Minister should suspend his decision to reorganize teacher education until he can justify to this House and taxpayers why many millions of dollars are to be spent in an effort that will increase annual operating costs and reduce access to teacher education.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The time is 12:48 p.m., the Oral Question Period today will run for one hour to 1:48 p.m.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
ORAL QUESTIONS PUT BY MEMBERS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Yesterday in this House the Minister of Municipal Affairs said that she came to the conclusion that she could appoint Grant Morash to this $225,000 untendered contract and that she could do it without tender and in the fashion she did because she was using the precedent of the fact that Charlie Campbell was appointed the Commissioner of Cape Breton, which this minister said was done by way of Order in Council.
I wonder if the minister will tell this House the date of the Order in Council which appointed Mr. Campbell to that position?
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, in actual fact I went back and the appointment with Mr. Campbell was done by a memorandum to Priorities and Planning, and I will get that date for him.
MR. DONAHOE: So, the minister was in error, there was no Order in Council appointing Mr. Campbell. Well, I wonder then, if that is the case, if she will tell this House when it was that she sent the proposal to appoint Mr. Morash to be the commissioner, on what date did she send that recommendation to Priorities and Planning?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I have been in the process of putting that material together and as you are well aware, there was no contract awarded.
MR. DONAHOE: So, the minister is acknowledging that she did not prepare any document to be sent to Priorities and Planning to confirm the appointment of Mr. Morash, as is required by the rules that the Premier says apply. She didn't do that and she stands in this House today and explains that and suggests that everything is okay because he was not appointed.
In that event, I wonder if the minister will please tell us what she intended, as far as the message to the taxpayers of Nova Scotia was concerned, when she issued a press release on November 4th in which she said that Grant Morash, Regional Managing Partner for Deloitte & Touche, has been appointed coordinator for the amalgamation of the metro area municipalities into one unit? What message was she intending to convey to the taxpayers of Nova Scotia by that press release?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered that question yesterday.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. The Municipal Affairs Minister publicly announced a contract that did not exist, that had not been approved and broke all of the rules with respect to conflict of interest and public tendering. She stated that she honestly believed that the Premier had given her authorization to do that.
My question to the Premier, which yesterday he said he would address today, is what actions or statements did he make that gave his Minister of Municipal Affairs the impression that the Premier could give such authorization?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I confess that the issue is difficult to understand myself. It is difficult for us to see how we could have a meeting at which two different views were drawn, but that is what happened. The minister discussed with me the names of the three or four people who were part of it and the inference for me was quite clear. The inference that she took from it, you will have to ask her, I am afraid.
MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of a phone call, the Premier had no trouble coming to a snap judgment to fire the Deputy Minister of Health. His words were that Mrs. Dobbin's error in judgment leaves me with no other course but to ask for her resignation.
My question to the minister is that if he is not prepared to say that the Minister of Municipal Affairs' actions violated the public tendering policies and the conflict of interest policies, would he not agree that announcing a contract that did not exist, that had not been approved and that broke all the rules was at least a severe error in judgment?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I have already stated that mistakes were made here and I think the courageous statement of the minister herself indicates the way in which those mistakes were made. I really don't believe there is any need to comment further, other than to say she has acknowledged mistakes.
I suppose I can say that judgment comes very easily when you sit on the Opposition. It didn't come so easily for lawyerish statements made by members of the Conservative Opposition when they were over here, but criticism always comes easily and criticism is fair because, obviously, you need competent people.
In this case the errors that were made by this minister were judgmental, yes; they were done in haste, yes. But I do not believe - and I am a person who forgives like others - that the public interest has been threatened by any of her mistakes and I stand by that. (Applause)
MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, in the Premier's decision to keep the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the front bench and in his Cabinet, has the minister considered what the effect of this decision will be on the unjust dismissal case that Lucy Dobbin will undoubtedly file against this government and that he has considerably strengthened by the double standards that he has stood in this House today and proclaimed?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, that is, of course, a hypothetical question and hypothetical questions don't merit answers. I do want to say one thing, that Mrs. Dobbin, the Deputy Minister of Health, was a very valued friend of mine. She was a person who assisted us in the direction of health reform in no small way. I valued what she gave us. I appreciated it. The whole issue pained me very much. But the issue here is totally different. (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Yesterday in the House she said that there was an Order in Council for Charles Campbell. I am surprised she wouldn't have done her research before yesterday. Today she says she made a mistake, it was a memorandum. I would ask the minister was that memorandum signed by government prior to her announcement in May, in Cape Breton, that Charles Campbell was the commissioner?
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: The memorandum was signed prior to the announcement.
MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the honourable member if the memorandum was signed prior to the agreement what was the amount of the contract for Mr. Charles Campbell?
MS. JOLLY: The amount of money that was available for Mr. Campbell was up to a limit of $125,000.
MR. MOODY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would ask in my final supplementary, how the minister sees that that was the same. She had permission by memorandum to announce that Mr. Charles Campbell was the commissioner. How does she say that her announcement with Grant Morash was the same when in actual fact she had no permission to make that announcement, how can she say that they are the same?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I very clearly said yesterday that I had made a mistake in announcing Mr. Morash's appointment prior to having the contract signed.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. I wonder if the Premier will confirm that the tendering policy requires that all untendered contracts must be approved by Priorities and Planning?
THE PREMIER: That is not true, Mr. Speaker.
MR. DONAHOE: I wonder, by way of supplementary, if the Premier might advise this House then, and all Nova Scotians, what untendered projects, according to his rules, are required to be reviewed and approved by Priorities and Planning?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, if you have a truck that breaks down on the weekend, you obviously have to have the opportunity. So it is under $5,000. I am surprised that the member didn't mention it. The issue to which he refers is contained in the government procurement policy, which I filed yesterday.
MR. DONAHOE: I wonder if the Premier would indicate to this House whether the 30-60-90 untendered contract to Lesley Southwick-Trask was approved by Priorities and Planning?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I can honestly tell you, I don't remember. It is 18 months ago, but I am prepared to find out.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Yesterday, the minister sent across to me the names of the people who she had contacted with regard to hiring a commissioner for the metro amalgamation. The names were Mr. Grant Morash, Mr. John Morash, Mr. Bill Hayward and Mr. Harold Crosby.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, when did she contact Mr. Grant Morash, Mr. John Morash and Mr. Bill Hayward, on what dates did she contact those three gentlemen? She has given me the date for Mr. Harold Crosby only.
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, some of the individuals were contacted on the Tuesday, which I believe, and I would have to double-check, was November 8th and some of the individuals were contacted on November 9th.
MR. RUSSELL: That is passingly strange, Mr. Speaker, since I believe it was November 4th when she actually let the contract, so she let the contract and then phoned the people. Already in her own mind, she had decided who was going to be the person.
MR. SPEAKER: All right, question now, question.
MR. RUSSELL: My question, yes, Mr. Speaker. My question to the honourable minister, she has dated her telephone call to Mr. Harold Crosby as being made on November 7th, which is made after the fact of the awarding of the contract.
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I just was looking at my calendar here. In actual fact, the dates, according to the sequence of the way the events had followed through, the contacts were November 1st and November 2nd.
[1:00 p.m.]
MR. RUSSELL: Well, accepting that just for the moment, Mr. Speaker, if she contacted the final person on November 2nd and she made the announcement on the 4th of November, who was involved in the process of selecting the successful tenderer on the 3rd of November?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I had made the decision on the successful coordinator.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, my question, through you, sir, is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I am wondering if the minister could tell us when and how it was decided to proceed by way of a contract with Deloitte & Touche, rather than by way of a Cabinet appointment, as was done for the Cape Breton commissioner?
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think as this honourable member has noted in some of his comments, even as of yesterday, there was no contract awarded.
MR. HOLM: I did not say when it was awarded, I said to proceed by way of. Talk about lawyerish, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister, was Mr. Morash consulted and, if so, by whom on the details of the contract that the minister announced was to be given to Deloitte & Touche?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think, as I have stated on a number of times in Question Period, there was a technical briefing that was done by both myself and the deputy minister to Mr. Morash.
MR. HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the minister and, for clarity's sake, say that I am not talking about technical details. I am talking about financial details and employment details. My question to the minister, maybe that was all that was technical that was decided, who was it that contacted Mr. Morash, or was Mr. Morash, I should say, consulted at all and if so, by whom, over the financial arrangements of the contract that she intended to award to Deloitte & Touche?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think as I have stated a number of times in Question Period, as well, in actual fact, the discussions were held with Mr. Morash, not with Deloitte & Touche.
MR. SPEAKER: Before I call another question, I would like to ask that the signs stating, she says, and, he says, be removed from the desks of the two honourable members in the front bench.
The honourable member for Queens.
MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. On November 10th, the Minister of Municipal Affairs informed the House that the name of Grant Morash had been provided to her by the Minister responsible for the Economic Renewal Agency. For sake of clarity, I will quote from Page 4250 of Hansard:
"MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, the name of Grant Morash came up from any number of sources and as I said one of them came from the honourable Minister of the Economic Renewal Agency.".
Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is this. With what other ministers, including the Premier, did she discuss hiring Grant Morash in the days preceding her announcement of November 4, 1994?
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think as the honourable member read from Hansard, I talked with any number of individuals.
MR. LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, my second question to the minister, since she refuses to answer the first, is this. In the period preceding November 4th, was the minister required by government policies to take the Grant Morash matter to Priorities and Planning, before announcing Mr. Morash's appointment on November 4, 1994?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think, as I have stated, I made that announcement in error and I was in the process of putting together some material for a contract.
MR. LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister, who would not answer my first question, is this. Did the minister get approval from Cabinet before her November 4th announcement of the approval of the Grant Morash arrangement, as she did with the appointment of Mr. Charles Campbell which, according to her yesterday, was done by Order in Council, but today she admits, in error, it was done through another instrument?
MS. JOLLY: No.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I would like to ask her very clearly, who was it who spoke with Mr. Morash and discussed and was negotiating the financial compensation that would go with the contract that was to be awarded? Who, specifically, did the discussions and negotiated the figures with Mr. Morash?
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, as well, I stated on a number of occasions in Question Period that I advised Mr. Morash of what the payment would be under this particular contract. I think I have stated on a number of occasions that, in actual fact, we had set an upper limit which was $225,000. That was an amount I had come up with in the department that would be available to be paid for this particular job.
MR. HOLM: Was the contract that was to be signed - yet not signed - to be signed directly with Mr. Morash or was it the intention to sign the contract with the firm of Deloitte & Touche?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, as I have stated on a number of occasions, there was no contract, and as the honourable member has said in a number of his responses, the planned contracts, in actual fact there is no contract.
MR. HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister for doing an excellent job at stonewalling and hiding behind that red curtain of secrecy that she and her colleagues have brought down around themselves to try to protect them from what they have done.
I want to ask the minister very specifically, see if we can get a straight answer or an answer, period, rather than more stonewalling. I want to know from the minister, did she get any separate, independent financial advice as to what the financial benefits would be if the payments were made directly to Mr. Morash or to Deloitte & Touche? Could the minister advise, did she get any independent advice?
MS. JOLLY: No, Mr. Speaker, there was no contract.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou Centre.
DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Yesterday in the House the minister said that her deputy minister did the right thing when he expressed and revealed a conflict of interest that he would have regarding the awarding of an untendered contract to Mr. Grant Morash of Deloitte & Touche.
My question to the minister is, when the deputy minister told his minister that he had concern over a conflict of interest, what did the minister do and to whom did she turn for advice, in terms of this obvious ethical problem?
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think as I have stated on a number of occasions as well, the deputy minister was not involved in the decision as to who the coordinator would be.
DR. HAMM: Mr. Speaker, in previous questioning and in the media, it has been obvious that the deputy minister did attend and provide a technical briefing to Mr. Morash. My question to the minister is, did the minister ask the deputy to attend and give the technical briefing?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, yes I did. As I explained yesterday, this particular contract is one that will take a fair amount of time. There were an awful lot of reports that had already been done over the last four years particularly but, as well, there had been reports that had been done up to the last 20 years.
One of the indications we wanted to give the individuals was an opportunity to look at what the job would entail, the amount of time it would take, the material that was already on file within the department, so we could have an idea of what had already been accomplished, decisions that had already been made, directions that had been looked at. As you know, we have Mr. Hayward's report, an interim report, which lists very much a guideline or a blueprint of what the metro amalgamation could look like, identifying savings that are available, identifying how departments in the various municipalities could come together and all of that information. It was important in order for the coordinator to make a decision as to whether they wanted to take on that job; that that type of information and the detailed, financial information in some of the reporting sections was important for a coordinator to have an understanding of what the job would entail.
DR. HAMM: Mr. Speaker, by way of final supplementary to the minister, did the deputy provide his concerns over his obvious conflict of interest in writing to his minister and if so, would she be prepared to table that document in the House?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, no. In fact the concerns expressed by the deputy were expressed verbally to me, as were the concerns expressed by Mr. Morash.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I would ask the minister when it was that she wrote to Mr. Morash to advise of his appointment as commissioner?
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I did not write to Mr. Morash and advise him, as the commissioner.
MR. DONAHOE: In what fashion then, if I may, by way of supplementary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in what fashion if at all did the Minister of Municipal Affairs communicate to Mr. Morash, prior to her press release that he was, in fact, appointed the commissioner?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Morash.
MR. DONAHOE: And I take it then that since we have heard this minister say so frequently and colleagues screaming in her support of her contention, I take it she believes then that it is acceptable public practice and carries no potential legal implication for the taxpayers of Nova Scotia that she can stand up and say publicly to the taxpayers of Nova Scotia, that a person has been appointed to a position that is worth $225,000, that it is calculated on the basis of $1,225 a week for a seven hour day and she can stand up and make such a statement and not believe that there is any potential legal liability to the taxpayers of Nova Scotia?
MR. SPEAKER: I must rule that question out of order because Beauchesne states that a question seeking a legal opinion is out of order. A question should not require an answer involving a legal opinion. I can recognize the member on a new question.
The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister has just said that she contacted Mr. Grant Morash by phone to advise him of his successful, for want of a better word, application. I wonder how she contacted Mr. John Morash and Mr. Bill Hayward and Mr. Harold Crosby and advised them that they were unsuccessful? Was that also done by telephone or was that done by letter?
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think as the honourable member is aware that, in actual fact, Mr. Crosby was not contacted on that week of November 1st but he returned a call on November 7th. Mr. Morash was contacted by phone by myself, I had called Mr. Morash's office and Mr. Hayward was contacted by phone as well.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, after deciding that Mr. Grant Morash was the very unique person she was looking for, did she contact one or all four of the metropolitan area mayors and speak to them about her selection of Mr. Morash?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think it is well-known that on Friday, November 4th, I had a meeting with all four of the metro mayors. We went through a number of questions and concerns about the amalgamation that had been announced the week before. During the meeting there, I was able to inform the metro mayors that it was my intention to have Mr. Grant Morash as the individual who would be the coordinator to assist the department and to assist those individuals in bringing forward the metro amalgamation issue which they were very keen on sitting down and talking about and discussing.
[1:15 p.m.]
MR. RUSSELL: My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, and I will return to this subject again shortly. Did the minister advise those four municipal mayors, or three - whatever the number were - on that particular day that she had also contacted Mr. John Morash, Mr. Bill Hayward and I guess Mr. Crosby didn't come into this. Did she advise them of her other two choices for this particular job?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, in actual fact, no, I did not advise them of the other individuals who had been considered for the appointment and, so, I guess they hadn't been advised by me of the other individuals that I had contacted. A couple of them were concerned with some rumours that had been going around the week or two before, some individuals who might be considered for that job of which they would have preferred not to be the individual. But, no, I just advised them of Mr. Grant Morash.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.
MR. JOHN HOLM: My question is to the Premier. On November 4th our Minister of Municipal Affairs had indicated, when asked, that she had involved her deputy in the decisions that were being made in the appointment of the commissioner. If the Premier hasn't seen it I am also prepared to table again a copy of the interview that was aired on the November 5th, in which Mr. Morash states quite clearly, and I will read the one very short sentence: I was interviewed by the minister and the deputy minister.
My question to the Premier is quite simply this, why is it that the Premier has chosen to condone the actions of a minister, when she is involving her deputy minister in a situation that can certainly be perceived as a conflict of interest?
THE PREMIER: I understand from speaking with the deputy minister, from speaking with Mr. Morash and in speaking with the minister that the only contact the deputy had with Mr. Morash was on the technical side, the length of time the contract would take, the boundary issues, et cetera. At no time - and I am satisfied with this - was the deputy minister involved in the selection of the candidate at all and I have made that quite clear.
MR. HOLM: So, I guess that means that Nova Scotians are now expected to believe the word of the Premier from the private interview that he had rather than the public comments that were made by Mr. Morash in that interview.
My second question then to the Premier is quite simply this, the Premier did not accept the resignation of the Minister of Health because the Minister of Health was unaware of the potential conflict that involved his deputy and his former deputy's husband, Yet, in this situation where the Minister of Municipal Affairs herself, knew of the conflict, directly involved the deputy minister, I would like to ask the Premier, why it is he sees that this conflict that the Minister of Muncipal Affairs is involved with is less serious than the one that involved the Minister of Health?
THE PREMIER: Because it was recognized from the very first - and where there is a potential conflict of interest or perceived, people are going to make their own judgments on that - I believe that it was managed. I believe it was managed properly by the deputy, I believe it was managed properly by the minister and I believe it was managed properly by Mr. Morash. This is where these imputations all the time about people are so unfair. The management of confict is the issue here. As I said in my statement, the deputy minister should have been better advised not to participate. The only participation that he had was on the technical side, it was never in the selection of the subsequent candidate, and that better get through to them. (Interruption)
MR. HOLM: It would appear to many, I am sure, that the Premier does not understand what a conflict of interest is and that the key is to manage it so that you do not get caught.
My final question to the Premier is quite simply this. If the Conflict of Interest Commissioner discovers or rules that there is a conflict situation, will the Premier promise that he will fire the Minister of Municipal Affairs?
MR. SPEAKER: That question is out of order because it is hypothetical.
The honourable member for Queens.
MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister has already confirmed to the House, through Hansard, that the Minister responsible for the Economic Renewal Agency brought Mr. Morash's name forward in conversation with respect to the position which he, for a very brief time, held.
My question to the minister is this. In the days leading up to November 4, 1994, did she discuss with the Minister of Finance the possibility of appointing Mr. Grant Morash to this position or did the Minister of Finance, in fact, discuss it with her?
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I very clearly have said a couple of times - its been asked of me today and was asked of me yesterday - that I talked to a number of individuals about a number of people who I was going to be looking at for the coordinator.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why they keep asking the question. Certainly one of those individuals I talked to, as the Minister of the Economic Renewal Agency had stated in the House as well last week when we received this question, in actual fact he was one of the individuals. Mr. Morash had been in charge of the review of that particular department and had done an extremely good job of it. The Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency was pleased with that work and was certainly one of the individuals who thought that if Mr. Morash was the person who was appointed to be the coordinator for the merger of the metropolitan area, that he certainly would do a good job of it.
MR. LEEFE: Again, the minister refuses to answer which suggests to me, sir, that there is an answer to that question and she deliberately is avoiding giving that information to the House. Again, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, was the minister required by government policy and/or process to take the Grant Morash appointment to Cabinet prior to her announcement of November 4, 1994?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, as I have explained on a number of occasions, I had inappropriately, or through mistake, had had the announcement of Mr. Morash prior to that contract going through to Priorities and Planning.
MR. LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, in the days preceding November 4, 1994, did the minister receive approval from any Cabinet colleagues or Cabinet committees for appointment of Grant Morash?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I have conversations with my colleagues, with the ministers, and I am involved in a number of committees. Certainly it is my understanding that the information or the discussions that we have in those committees are confidential.
AN HON. MEMBER: The veil of secrecy.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I wonder if the Minister of Municipal Affairs could clarify for me some of the events of November 4, 1994. It is my understanding that on that date, after the announcement of the contract with Mr. Morash, there was a meeting involving the minister and the mayors of the four metropolitan units in Halifax-Dartmouth metro, and that at that meeting, the Minister of Municipal Affairs announced to those municipal leaders that there would be new legislation coming in the spring and that there would be a new set of municipal elections in 1995. Did, in fact, the minister advise the municipal leaders to that effect at that meeting?
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, yes. I had a meeting with the four metro mayors on November 4th. We met in my office at the Department of Municipal Affairs. I believe it was at 9:00 a.m. We talked about a number of issues. One of them that we talked about was the coordinator. In actual fact, yes, I did a press release on it but, I think, in actual fact, it was the four metro mayors, when they did their press conference with the press individuals after the meeting we had that they put out the name of Mr. Morash as the coordinator.
We discussed a number of issues. One of them was the fact that as I had announced when I did the briefing on Bill No. 114, that we were going to be bringing legislation forward in the spring session to actually deal with the metro amalgamation, similar to a piece of legislation that I introduced in the spring of 1994, into that session, on the Cape Breton Regional Municipality.
During the meeting we discussed that that was a piece of legislation that had been approved by this House and had gone forward and we would certainly be drafting the legislation to merge the metropolitan areas in that very same vein.
As well, Mr. Speaker, one of the items that was discussed, as the member has brought up, is the date for elections, in order to have the new councils selected prior to the amalgamation of April 1, 1996. That was one of the issues we talked about in order to have that council in place and for a period of time that they would be able to put together some of the necessary rules and regulations and budgets and all those things for the amalgamation which would have taken place April 1, 1996.
So, Mr. Speaker, in actual fact, all of those things were discussed at that meeting and the metropolitan mayors were aware of from that discussion, some of the procedures and directions we would be going through with the metro amalgamation.
MR. DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would tell me when she had informed the Premier that she would be advising the municipal leaders that she would be telling them on that date that the municipal elections would be taking place in the fall of 1995?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think, as I have suggested on a number of occasions and I believe that the Premier has as well, in actual fact the announcement of the amalgamation was made with the Premiers and the four mayors. He talked directly with those individuals and then that announcement was in the press. Following that, I made the announcement in the Red Room, the actual statement confirming that in both the Red Room and here, in the House of Assembly.
The procedure that was to follow after that was up to myself and the department to put together, as I have done in the Cape Breton area, the nuts and bolts of how the amalgamation would go forward.
MR. DONAHOE: So, then it is the case, I take it from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that the first knowledge the municipal leaders received of the fact that there would be municipal elections in November 1995, just having had municipal elections here a few weeks ago, was the day that she made her public statement. There was no prior consultation with the municipal leaders, that they would face municipal elections 12 months hence?
MS. JOLLY: Well, Mr. Speaker, that was one of the questions that came up in the meeting I had with the four mayors. One of the questions they had was the possibility of what the date would be to go to the polls and that was the date I gave them.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the honourable Premier. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has said that she honestly believes that the Premier had given her permission, the authority, to proceed as she did in regard to announcing the contract, untendered, to Grant Morash. Nowhere in any of the government documentation, not the government procurement policy, not the tendering policy, not the Priorities and Planning transaction guide, nowhere in any of the government documentation do I see a role for the Premier to grant authority to violate those rules.
My question to the Premier is, would he explain in what instances he sees himself as having the authority to violate the public tendering provisions set out in the government documentation that has been fully disclosed here?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows full well that the Premier does not have that mandate and I have never claimed it.
[1:30 p.m.]
MS. MCDONOUGH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I first listened carefully to the ministerial statement and then I have sat here reading it very carefully and the main explanation that the Premier has offered for his condoning of these violations of tendering policy and conflict of interest is that he understood that there was a misunderstanding about the process. How can this Premier expect Nova Scotians to interpret that as anything but a condoning of a decision that violated both the public tendering requirements and the conflict of interest requirements?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I think I have made it abundantly clear that I did not condone it and that was perfectly obvious in the remarks that I had made. What I have also said is that it was quite clear that there was a misunderstanding in the interpretation between the two us, that two people could leave with different interpretations. However, the important thing is, just as clearly, that this was cleared up by the subsequent decision to go to a full tender. So, the issue is cleared up, no harm has been done and that is why, under the circumstances I did not feel that it was a resignation issue.
MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is aware that during his absence, there was also some concern expressed about the violation of the requirements, in this case, the tendering requirements and the requirement to disclose fully the reasons for not going to tender but sole-sourcing the contract in the instance of Berkeley Consultants.
Is the Premier indicating that that doesn't in any way break with the tendering requirements and by not dealing with that issue is the Premier not actively condoning such an untendered contract?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Berkeley contract was given because there was an urgency about the matter, the recent resignation of the deputy, and that fits in under the very code that is drawn up here on Page 11.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The Minister of Municipal Affairs talks at great length about the technical briefings that were carried out. I would like to ask the minister when was the technical briefing with Mr. Grant Morash carried out? Was that before or after November 4th?
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, the technical briefing for Mr. Morash was conducted on Wednesday, November 2nd.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister then, if she accorded Grant Morash a technical briefing, why was that same courtesy not offered to the other people she had contacted, Mr. John Morash and Mr. Bill Hayward?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, in actual fact Mr. John Morash as well on November 2nd had a technical briefing and Mr. Hayward was contacted by phone at his winter residence or a residence that he has on a part-time basis. So, Mr. Hayward and Mr. Morash were both given technical briefings on November 2nd, that Wednesday, the same day as Mr. Grant Morash. I will just clarify that Mr. Hayward, having been the individual who had done a number of reports for the previous government on the amalgamation issue, really a technical briefing for Mr. Hayward was limited because Mr. Hayward was well aware of the additional steps that would have to be taken.
Mr. Hayward, for the honourable member if he recalls, had just recently done a report with the metro mayors on the amalgamation of the police force and therefore he was well aware of the time and the implications and the amount of work that would need to be done.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my question too is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The Minister of Municipal Affairs said that the contract for Grant Morash was turned down by Priorities and Planning. I would ask her on what date that Priorities and Planning dealt with the issue of a contract with Grant Morash?
MR. SPEAKER: With deference, the honourable Minister of Finance answers for Priorities and Planning but if the minister wishes to respond, she may.
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think that is part of the difficulty that we have here. The honourable members opposite are continually suggesting that I have stated facts or stated particular things, in actual fact, which I have not stated. I believe what he stated was that I had been to Priorities and Planning and had a discussion with Priorities and Planning on an actual contract there.
Mr. Speaker, what I have said all along is the fact that there has been no contract issued and I think that is one of the points that we have to continue to be aware of, that in actual fact, a contract has not been issued.
MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I know she used the word contract in a paper, but I will not use it, even though she used it. I will ask the minister, through you then, when the proposal that was turned down by Priorities and Planning, that she took to Priorities and Planning to get approval to proceed with Grant Morash as the commissioner, what date was that proposal turned down by Priorities and Planning?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think, as I have answered on a number of occasions, there were a number of discussions that had gone on. I spoke with the Priorities and Planning people on Tuesday, November 8th and it was discussed at that time.
MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs is, was there written documentation that went to Priorities and Planning regarding the issue of hiring Mr. Grant Morash as commissioner for the metro area?
MS. JOLLY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there had been work that I had done on a contract, some work that I had done on a report, some work that I had done and I had had a discussion at Priorities and Planning on November 8th.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West on a new question.
MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the honourable minister, if she is indicating if she was at the meeting on November 8th, and if she was at the meeting of November 8th, if she would table in this House the documentation that she prepared for that meeting on November 8th to deal with the issue of Grant Morash?
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member is well aware that material and discussion that goes on in the inner workings of the Cabinet are confidential.
MR. MOODY: I did not ask the honourable minister for the discussions that went on in Priorities and Planning. I asked the honourable minister for the documentation, not the memorandum, I know the rules, sometimes better than the House Leader. Mr. Speaker, through you, I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs if, in fact, there was some written documentation, not a memorandum, that went to Priorities and Planning and if there was, would she be prepared to table that documentation?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, the memorandum, the documentation that was presented at Priorities and Planning is confidential information.
MR. MOODY: I would ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs if she is aware if the Premier was at the Priorities and Planning meeting?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, in actual fact, the Premier was not at the meeting on November 8th because, if the honourable member will recall, the Premier had been out of the country for, I believe, ten days or more, having had a very successful trip on dealing with a number of the issues that are important to this province, such as the Sydney Steel issue. So, in actual fact, no, the Premier was not at that meeting.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I want to go to the minister responsible for Priorities and Planning. Could the minister advise if a document, as is required whenever sole-sourcing is to be done be presented, regardless of the amount, that is required by the Priorities and Planning, could the minister indicate if the minister or her deputy minister provided that on November 8th or at any time prior to that to justify why they had to go to sole-source?
HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member might remember that November 8th was the date on which I made the announcement to the House of the sale of Sydney Steel and, indeed, introduced the Gaming Control Act on that date, so I was not in attendance at that meeting and I will certainly take the question on notice and provide information to the honourable member.
MR. HOLM: The minister wasn't present. I wonder if the minister could indicate who would have chaired that meeting in his absence?
MR. BOUDREAU: Yes. It is my understanding that it was chaired by the honourable House Leader.
MR. HOLM: Since the honourable House Leader is in the House but I still have to direct my questions to the minister, will the minister promise that he will speak with his colleague, maybe get up and walk across the House and get the information and then when he has that information, which is required to be made public, will the minister agree that he will table that information - and it is required and if the Premier questions it I will be happy to show him his own government's documentation that says that it has to be made available to the public - will the minister agree to table that information on the floor of the House this afternoon?
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I said previously I would take his question on notice and attempt to provide him with the answer as to whether or not any information had gone and that is the extent of my undertaking on this point.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Queens.
MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, my question also is for the Minister of Finance. I wonder if the Minister of Finance would tell the House if, in advance of November 4, 1994, either he discussed the possibility of appointing Mr. Morash to the position of commissioner or if in fact the Minister of Municipal Affairs had discussed with him the possibility of appointing Mr. Morash?
HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member I am sure is aware, being an experienced veteran of not only this House but of the Executive Council, any discussions which took place on a matter of government business between Cabinet Ministers, I regard as confidential.
MR. LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, knowing that information is widely available through government, I wonder if the Minister of Finance would indicate to the House whether he was or was not aware in the days before November 4, 1994, that the Minister of Municipal Affairs was considering appointing Grant Morash as commissioner?
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I was aware that that issue was before the honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs, yes.
MR. LEEFE: My final question, again to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as Chairman of the Priorities and Planning Committee. How long after the November 19, 1994, announcement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs of the appointment of Grant Morash did he contact the Minister of Municipal Affairs and advise her that she had seriously breached a vitally important government policy?
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, let me just indicate to the honourable member, as he well knows, that any discussions which were had with the honourable minister or any minister of this government in the conduct of their responsibilities and, indeed, the conduct of my own responsibilities is confidential.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: My question is also for the Minister of Finance and it is a slightly different tack and I am sure he will be delighted about that. On a couple of occasions the member for Kings West has asked the Minister of Health and the Minister of Human Resources for information regarding the salary paid to the Commissioner of Health Care Reform. I was wondering if the Minister of Finance could make that information available in view of the fact that the other two ministers will not do so?
HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I have sufficient difficulty running my own department and I wouldn't presume to enter into another minister's responsibility.
MR. RUSSELL: Well, that is fair enough. I understand however that the Minister of Finance is responsible for the pay cheques and all he has to do is to dash out here, phone across the road and he can get that information in nothing flat. However, if he wishes to hide, that is fine. With regard to the Commissioner of Health Care Reform, I would ask the Chairman of the Priorities and Planning Committee, was the contract for this lady processed through Priorities and Planning?
MR. BOUDREAU: I think the honourable member is referring to the Priorities and Planning Committee. I am not completely sure who he is referring to with respect to this lady. I would certainly take the question on notice but I am not in a position to answer it at this stage.
[1:45 p.m.]
MR. RUSSELL: I am looking for the contract that was agreed to by this government with the Commissioner of Health Care Reform, Mary Jane Hampton. I would ask the Chairman of the Priorities and Planning Committee if he will make that contract available to the House, say, by tomorrow noon?
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, the contract between that individual, Ms. Hampton, is a contract between herself and the Department of Health, I presume, and should be dealt with by that department.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Having just now acknowledged, as he did a moment ago, that he knew prior to November 4th that the Minister of Municipal Affairs was contemplating the appointment of Mr. Grant Morash to this position as commissioner, I wonder if the minister might be able to advise the House as to whether or not the Minister of Finance cautioned or explained to the Minister of Municipal Affairs the technical and procedural requirements, by way of paperwork having to be filed with Priorities and Planning, in light of the fact that an untendered contract was being contemplated?
HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, I was aware that this matter was under consideration by the honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. The details of any conversations I had with any minister on this matter or other matters, as I have already indicated, will remain confidential.
MR. DONAHOE: I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs as to whether or not prior to November 4, 1994, she, in conversation with the Minister of Finance or with any other Cabinet colleague, was alerted to the facts - since she obviously did not know of them herself - by any other Cabinet colleague of the rules that she was under a requirement to file papers with Priorities and Planning, in connection with an untendered contract for $225,000?
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think I have stated on a number of occasions that on November 8th, I went to Priorities and Planning and had a discussion. Certainly my understanding is that I have followed that procedure to deal with Priorities and Planning on the possible contract that might have been awarded to Mr. Morash, as the coordinator of the amalgamated area.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The time allotted for the Oral Question Period has expired.
I would like to advise the House before we proceed to Government Business, that the Clerk has conducted a draw for the Adjournment debate at 6:00 p.m., which I neglected to mention earlier. The draw today was won by the honourable Leader of the Opposition. His submission is that a resolution be debated:
Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Natural Resources put forth a position paper on behalf of the Province of Nova Scotia, so that a serious negotiation can begin and a consensus be reached with the federal government on a new federal Forestry Development Agreement for Nova Scotia.
We will hear on that matter at 6:00 p.m.
MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency rose and took exception to some comments I made, indicating that I was trying to mislead the House by sticking up for the way he was trying to protect the resource centre that is closed in Amherst.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I just have to reinforce that I do have documented proof that I will table in this House. One quote said, let there be no mistake, Ross Bragg supports keeping the school here, not just this year but for many years to come.
The point that the honourable minister was complaining most vigorously about was from a new item that appeared on October 21, 1993, "Economic Development and Tourism Minister Ross Bragg says as long as he and Guy Brown are in the provincial Cabinet, the Atlantic Provinces Resource Centre for the hearing impaired won't be moved from Amherst.". That is exactly what I said to this House, Mr. Speaker. If there is an error in that, that error certainly would not be my intention to make.
I would like to table these documents so that the minister can review exactly what he did say and the commitment he made to the people in Amherst.
MR. SPEAKER: The documents are tabled.
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the order of business, Public Bills for Second Reading.
PUBLIC BILLS FOR SECOND READING
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 120.
Bill No. 120 - Gaming Control Act.
MR. SPEAKER: Now on Bill No. 120 the honourable member for Kings North has the floor.
The amendment under discussion was, "That the words after `that' be deleted and the following substituted: `in the opinion of the House, the introduction and enactment of Bill No. 120 will destroy the essential and fundamental belief that government acts only with the consent of the governed.'".
The honourable member had adjourned at 7:59 p.m. and had used approximately 40 minutes of time. I will allow him 20 minutes, beginning at 1:50 p.m.
The honourable member for Kings North.
MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: I appreciate the opportunity to continue this debate, particularly today when the very thrust, the importance of this amendment, where it says the fundamental belief that government acts only with the consent - Mr. Speaker, the fundamental of this amendment we say in action today, when 40,000 signatories to petitions were not accepted by the government members of this House. The MLAs who represent those people refused to take those petitions and bring them into the House.
MR. SPEAKER: I have already ruled that line of argument out of order in the resolution.
MR. ARCHIBALD: I am not arguing it, Mr. Speaker, I am merely stating a fact and that is exactly what happened.
MR. SPEAKER: It was objected to by several honourable members on the grounds that it was not true.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are varying degrees of agreement on that. Certainly I accepted the people and I didn't ask for their political belief. But we will not talk about that anymore.
Mr. Speaker, the people in Nova Scotia are very vigorously speaking to all of us. They want the legislators, the people they had the opportunity to vote for, they want to be able to talk and communicate to them and indicate their actual beliefs with regard to a casino.
Now I have asked many people on the government benches to tell me, personally and from this vantage point, for one reason, one study that indicates we need a casino in Nova Scotia, one scintilla of evidence that a casino is the type of a venture that Nova Scotia should be going down. The only indicator I have received from any member of this Cabinet, this front bench, both from the Minister of Finance a few months ago and the Premier from an earlier conversation, was, well, the people who want to build the casinos have told us they are a good thing to do. And we sent a member on a trip.
Mr. Speaker, one member on a junket across Canada that lasted two days has decided the fate of casinos for Nova Scotia. I just don't find that to be very enhancing. The people of this province are entitled, I think, to expect more from their elected representatives. I think the voices of the people should be heard.
What could be wrong with it, Mr. Speaker? Look at Bishop Colin Campbell from Antigonish, a great Nova Scotian and we all agree on his credentials, he would like to be heard and I know we would like to listen to him. The member for his area should vote the way Bishop Colin Campbell is urging him to. He is urging him not to support casinos in Nova Scotia. Now that is the very spirit of representative government, to represent the opinions of the people who sent you here.
I know Bishop Colin Campbell has probably supported the honourable member for Antigonish because everybody else in Antigonish has supported him for the last 25 years, so I think we would be safe in assuming that he has the support of the church as well. But there is a division, a wall, and suddenly the supporters are saying, listen to us, they are begging, 40,000 strong.
The moral ground, perhaps, is disappearing because we have an amalgamation of many church groups coming forward and saying we want to be heard. We want those governing us to listen to the governed. We want to know, why are we having casinos? Most people in Nova Scotia, I think you will agree, are reasonable and if the Minister of Finance, the minister of casinos and lotteries, I am sure if he was interested, he could stand at his place and tell us, well, this study done by this austere organization has indicated that if we have casinos it will provide employment or the group over here did another study and this group did another study. But he cannot furnish one single study.
Even the member for Hants East, who they sent on a taxpayers' expense paid junket across Canada, did not file a report so he cannot even wave that at us. He told him verbally that he enjoyed the trip and he learned how to gamble and he thought it was great. The people in Montreal liked it and he said the people in British Columbia probably like it and he said I think that Nova Scotians would like it, too.
Mr. Speaker, why doesn't the member for Hants East stand in the House and tell us about it? We paid for his trip. Maybe he should give us all a report, all the taxpayers, and then we would know why we are in the casino business because he is the authority that the Minister of Finance and the Premier have indicated they based their (Interruption)
Mr. Speaker, the senior citizens of Nova Scotia, there is one group of people I think we all can concur and we would all agree have experience and the calmness to sit and look objectively at an issue, and the seniors from Cape Breton are saying no. The delegates to the Cape Breton Council of Senior Citizens and Pensioners said we do not want anything to do with a casino in Cape Breton. That is the senior citizens. Now that is not the senior Progressive Conservative council or the senior New Democratic Party or the senior Liberal or the senior Labour Party, it is the Cape Breton Council of Senior Citizens, a non-partisan group. They said we do not want anything to do with a casino in Cape Breton.
Mr. Speaker, why aren't we listening to what the people are saying? I think that we should. I think they deserve it. Fourteen clubs have grave concerns. Are they not those who are being governed by the government? Are they not losing their faith in the political process? Well, I think we should have listened to them. The people against casinos, they have questions. They deserve answers just as the rest of us do.
We have heard that we were in the casino business to help the economic development of our province. So far, the only economic development that has happened has been with Lucky Laszlo who got $50,000 and more to come. That is a pretty good win. There is not many people that are going to go to the casino and win $50,000, but he did and he has not even been in it yet. So he is, indeed, fortunate.
Mr. Speaker, there were people that thought it sounded like a good idea at the time, but now they are turning around and saying it is not a good idea. MLAs should vote their conscience is something that I am hearing more and more about around the province. In fact, I think it would be a good idea. What is wrong with a free vote? What would be wrong with a free vote on casinos? Now the Premier would have to authorize it because you know what happens if you have a free vote around here without his authorization. (Interruptions)
[2:00 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker, do we have interrupters over here who would like to rise in their place? Do we have people who would like to rise in their place? We have to look forward and we have to adopt new rules. That is what we need for this place.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I find amazing - I wish I could just lay my hands on that report that the honourable member for Halifax Bedford Basin - he signed the report indicating no casinos. You see, he has done what you call an about-face. He has changed his mind. He now says casinos are good. That is the perfect argument for a free vote. He changed his mind. I think free votes should be held more often in this Legislature and if the member for Halifax Bedford Basin can change his mind, why can't anybody else?
Do you see what the problem is, Mr. Speaker? The government members are too narrow. They cannot see anything except their own opinion and that is a real basic tragedy that we have.
So, we are drifting along, Mr. Speaker, and we are hearing from TIANS and TIANS are saying, we want to be heard, we want to be listened to. TIANS originally said we support casinos but like the member for Halifax Bedford Basin, they changed their mind. They have turned around and now TIANS have seen the light and they say, look, on first blush this looked like it would be helpful to tourism but now we are seeing it will be bad for tourism. Just like the member for Halifax Bedford Basin, he said it would be bad for tourism, now he is saying it is good for tourism.
I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I believe in the TIANS people when they tell me what is good and what is not good for tourism because the Tourism Industry Association of Nova Scotia knows a heck of a lot more about tourism than the member for Halifax Bedford Basin. I do believe him when he tabled his report indicating casinos would do harm to the great Province of Nova Scotia. Why he has changed his mind, why he submitted to the pressure from some of his Cabinet colleagues and why all of the Cabinet colleagues have submitted to pressure from a few, is beyond me. That is why we need a little bit of freedom, a little bit of democracy within the ranks of the governing Party. There are just a few people who have a stranglehold on what this province is doing. It is like a dictatorship. One man gets an idea and he can persuade the whole works.
The coalition of health and church groups have formed to fight Nova Scotia's casino gambling. Is there one single group, Mr. Speaker, and I challenge any member of this House to find me an organized group in the province who say they want a casino.
HON. RICHARD MANN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. He asked for someone to indicate what organization would be in support. Based on the comments and the corrections, I might add, made by the Minister of Tourism of this province, TIANS is in support of this as indicated subsequent to the meeting on the weekend in a letter from the President of TIANS. In fact, 23 members had made a decision to be against but the majority of the TIANS members were in support. That was corrected in this House. It is on the record of Hansard and the minister indicated he had a letter from the President of TIANS indicating that.
MR. SPEAKER: It is an enlightening response but not a point of order.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Look, I thank you for your interjection but you see, that does not really lend the credence that he was hoping because TIANS are having a real problem with casinos. There are a few who want casinos and the majority do not want casinos and that opinion is the one that is important.
MR. SPEAKER: The time of the honourable member has expired.
The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the members for Kings North had a lot more to say on this very important issue and really on this amendment that talks about the acts of this government with regard to what people are saying. You know, a number of us have spoken a number of times. I want to say, last night there was a public forum, an open house in Halifax, a town hall meeting not far from here. As the casino critic, one of the issues that came up during that meeting in the City of Halifax, was the issue of casinos. They asked questions about this legislation and what they were amazed to find out, they asked questions like, how come municipal leaders have no say, how come they don't have to get a permit. One lady went to say that she had a fence that blew down. In order for her to put that fence back up, she has to get permission from the City of Halifax to put this back up.
This legislation allows a proponent to come in and put up a casino without any permits, without any care to any city, without any permission whatsoever. They couldn't believe that that in fact was in this kind of legislation. So, they said, how are we going to reach this government of today? Because they said, of all the issues that are in the Legislature, this is the issue that we fear the most. And we fear it the most because of what we are hearing about the high-handed approach by this government and about the secretive way in which casinos are being developed but yet we, as citizen Joe, don't have any say.
In other words, there can be petitions signed by 40,000 people, there can be calls to MLAs and there can be letters written to MLAs and the government writes back and says, we are doing this for economic and fiscal reasons. You know, if you are doing something for fiscal and economic reasons, don't you have to look at the price you have to pay. Because what the people of this province are saying is, there will be a price for casinos in this province. I can't understand a government who will have to go back to the people at some point, although they are governing today like they will never have to go back to the people.
What people are saying is, what avenue do we have of drawing our attention to this government that we do not want government to proceed with casinos at the present time? We want to know more. We don't think, with the information we have, that casinos are good for this province. They asked me and I said, I can't give you all of the good things that a casino will provide and all the rationale, I can't tell you the socio-economic benefits of a casino, I can't. I said, maybe you could ask the government members to go to public meetings and they could answer at public meetings some of these very good questions, very legitimate questions by citizens of this province who have a real concern for this province.
Well, you know, I don't have to speak to the converted, they are gone. The ones that aren't converted are still left because they are going to vote for this bill. I doubt very much if I will convert these people because unless the Premier gives the word, this government isn't changing any direction because he very clearly indicated that he is the one in charge, there is no question. So, what I probably should have been telling these people is do not call your local MLA, they don't count. Call the Premier, he is the only one with the big heavy hand that can change anything. So, maybe I did make a mistake.
I know that whether you go from Yarmouth or whether you go straight across this province, and it is funny, at every social event or any event I go to, or whether it is on the streets of the little Town of Berwick, from the streets of the Village of Waterville, the question comes up about casinos. They say why is this government proceeding with casinos when it is clearly demonstrated that the majority of Nova Scotians don't want them? I say well, I don't know why. This government promised during the election campaign that they were going to be different. I am always amazed when they yell over at us and say, well you did that. Obviously, what we did was wrong. We ended up here, so why would they copy us because they say, well you did it, we are going to do it. I can't imagine, I haven't been able to rationalize in my mind, why it is so great to follow a group that got defeated. I have yet to understand that when that is shouted by this group and by that group. I just can't understand that reasoning, that doesn't make sense.
If this government is going to be different and going to next time win the support of the majority of people in this province, then obviously don't do the things the way that the previous government did them. If you are not going to do the things the previous government did, then you wouldn't proceed with this legislation without the proper consultation, because clearly what I felt in the days leading up to our election, that we didn't consult enough. Clearly, the people at the polls told us that and clearly they voted against us. So, if that was the case, I have yet to understand what is wrong. First, the House Leader said we are not in a rush to ram this legislation through, if it is 6 months or 12 months, it is not the end of the world. I thought that is good thinking, because by not rushing it through this process will go along better. If you don't rush something, you go step by step and you consult step by step, you will end up in the end with a good product. What this government has said - even though they are not in a hurry - we will not allow any consultative process to take place prior to the erection of casinos in this province.
Now, if you look at that, Mr. Speaker, you would say well that doesn't make sense because this government represents a government that wants to consult, that feels it is very important that everybody in Nova Scotia, no matter where you live, what your profession is, or what, you have some sort of a say in the democratic process. And we are here to listen because good government is a government that does listen and works with the majority of people. That is good government, that is responsible government and that is not listening to the whim or listening to a few, that is allowing a process. A process whereby Nova Scotians have an opportunity to weigh. You know, I have to think the smartest 19 people in Nova Scotia or 18, whatever, aren't sitting at the Cabinet table, we have a lot of intelligent people. A lot more intelligent people probably than the 52 sitting in here. A lot of people worked hard to make this province a good place to live in. A lot of people who have given a lot of their free time to volunteer to make this a better province to live in.
A lot of people have given their weekends, their nights, to volunteer in this province to make this province a better place in which to live. I ask myself, why is it we can't allow those good people to have some say in a process that is going to affect their lives, their families' lives and the future of this province? I can't for the life of me understand, why something that is going to be here for so many years has to be built in such a hurry. I can't for the life of me understand that. I have given this a lot of thought and, as I have said before, it is not my personal views on casinos that really count. What really counts is the views of Nova Scotians and their understanding of what casinos are going to do and not do for them and for this province.
You know, Mr. Speaker, if that is too much to ask any government because casinos whether they are built in 6 months or 12 months, aren't going to defeat this government if they say the timeframe isn't that important; it isn't going to destroy their four year fiscal plan if they do it in 6 months or 12 months. I plead with the government, don't listen to us in the Opposition, because you will say that we are partisan and we are only here to always oppose.
You know, we didn't oppose the environmental bill; I voted for the municipal reform bill; and I will probably vote for the workers' compensation bill because it is good legislation. But when it isn't good legislation and I hear the people tell me out there that it is not good legislation, then I think it is my responsibility to stand up in this House and say so. So, here we have a case where, very clearly, I can demonstrate that I do not stand up in this Legislature and oppose every piece of legislation this government produces. Not true, Mr. Speaker, and I would be glad to support good legislation and this government has brought in good legislation.
[2:15 p.m.]
Here we have legislation that is going to have far-reaching effects. This legislation allows casinos to be built in any community in this province. The people in that community, whether it is Berwick or whether it is Yarmouth or whether it is Bedford or Truro, they have no say. This legislation does not allow a process whereby any citizen or groups of citizens or citizens of that community have any say whatsoever whether a casino is built in their community.
I have to ask you, Mr. Speaker, we are 52, we don't live in all of the communities of this province. Some of us don't have to live in Halifax or Sydney, where the casinos are going, obviously. So, we might sit back and say, oh well, we live somewhere else, so we will let this go through. But by letting this go through, that can allow this government to set up a casino in my constituency and nobody has any say. I say to myself, is that fair? We live in a country that we are all proud to live in; we live in a province that we are all proud to live in; and we have always had, in this province, a fair and open democratic process and we are proud of it. Here we have an issue that we say, no matter what level of government you are at, municipal or whether you are a village or whether you are citizen Joe, here is a case where your voice doesn't count.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, this I cannot understand because if this government did allow people to come forward and, after the government allowed people to speak out, then they could weigh what was being said; they could weigh whether that information being said by individuals had merit or not. It isn't too much to ask. Every one of us have people come to us on an issue. We weigh that person's presentation. Does that person have in his or her presentation some merit or not that applies to the principles of whatever the issue or discussion may be before this House?
Here is an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, on this bill, for this government to indicate to the public that we don't only talk about openness, that we don't only talk about fairness, that we don't only talk that we are listening, that we don't only talk that we share that everyone in this province counts and contributes; we don't even talk those words, we deliver on those words because we are going to allow some public hearings and a public process to take place. If they are going to go ahead with the casino, and that is fine, maybe there should be a process where some individuals have a say on where it goes, on how it is structured, on how it is run - is it run seven days a week, is it run on Sunday - maybe people could have a little bit of say at least on how it is operated, if you can't have any say on whether we are going to get them.
So, Mr. Speaker, this amendment and other amendments that would have allowed this government a process to take place whereby Nova Scotians would feel that they have a say in the future of this province, and this government has missed those opportunities by voting against amendments and I expect the government will vote against this amendment.
If the government wanted to make their own amendment, Mr. Speaker, that allowed an open process and allowed the general public to participate in a fair and open process and to deal with the issue of casinos, I would support it. I would support it and I would vote in favour with the government on such a process.
But I do not believe, in the next number of days, that this government will change its mind. That is very unfortunate. We are going to get into a time around Christmas, Mr. Speaker, when this bill will probably finish in this Legislature. A time when people are concerned about family and Christmas celebrations and so the issue will sort of die until the new year. I do not know whether or not people coming forward at any level, whether Law Amendments Committee or whatever, will have any effect on this government.
I was asked by a CBC reporter today who said, Mr. Speaker, if an independent poll was taken do you think this government would change its mind, if the people were allowed? I said, well, it would have to be very independent because if it wasn't we obviously could not do it. The government would say that we arranged the poll. If the government arranged their own poll, would they feel that was independent enough to decide such as issue?
They might say, Mr. Speaker, we cannot govern by polls and that is fair enough. But you know, all I am asking for them to do is try to think of a process, a process in the legislation that would allow the people of Halifax, allow the people of Sydney, just one little bit of say in this process. I do not think any one of us would want to be at City Hall in Halifax or Sydney and all of a sudden the government comes down with this legislation and it says, we do not care. You were elected, but you do not count, what really counts is what this government wants to do with casinos. Your rules and regulations that you apply to everybody else in this city do not apply to the building of a casino.
I, for the life of me, cannot answer the question why. Why don't the rules apply for building a casino that would apply for building a hotel or building anything else. That, to me, makes a lot of sense. Now, you might say, well, Mr. Speaker, and the government might say, that will be okay. The government will see to it that everything is okay when it is being built. You know, that does not allow for local input, does not allow for people at the local level to voice their views.
I was reading an article, Mr. Speaker, I think either yesterday or today, the article said, the addiction of the 1990's is going to be addiction to gaming or gambling. It is predicted by a number of people that that is the addiction that is going to reach a high level. Probably the reason is that as more and more gaming becomes available to people and people have access to it, obviously the numbers are going to go up. So, are we ready to deal with those kinds of issues? If the addiction of the 1990's is gambling, then why is it in Nova Scotia we want to be up in front and allow and promote more opportunities for people to become addicted to a very dreaded disease.
Because gambling addiction is no different than alcohol addiction. I know that when people are addicted to smoking we say that we have to do all kinds of things to prevent people from having access to cigarettes. But we are not preventing people from access to gambling, which will become a dreaded addiction in this province. Mark my word, we will have a lot of families that are affected by this. We will have young children affected by this because their family member will become addicted. It is not that persons fault.
But when the opportunity is there, none of us in this Legislature know what addiction we may have to anything. None of us know whether or not we may become addicted to gambling. Unfortunately, the person who does become addicted does not know that until they have gone to that casino, probably too many times, ruined their lives and those of the members of their families. Then what, Mr. Speaker?
You know, health and social life could be ruined. We talk about health goals in this province, we talk about creating an environment of healthy living and we all said in order for health reform to work, we have to promote and we have to have an environment whereby we allow our people the opportunity not to become ill.
Well, here we are, the government on one hand says we want health reform, we want to prevent those things, we want to prevent gambling addiction and what do they do? They open up casinos that obviously will promote addiction. So, I have not realized yet how this great health reform is going to work when, on one hand, the Minister of Health is supportive of casinos. I can't understand that.
It is going to create financial hardships and we are going to see welfare costs increase and we can't allow families to go without because someone in that family who is a wage-earner, spends the money. We have to help.
You know, Mr. Speaker, we heard many cases, and I think the RCMP said this, where somebody who becomes addicted ends up committing a crime, to get the money to continue to gamble. So, that person who ends up committing a crime would never have committed a crime if they were not addicted to gambling. It is like any other addiction, people try to get money to feed that addiction. So, by opening up these casinos, we are going to create an opportunity for people who otherwise would never break the law, who have respect for the law, end up breaking the law to feed their addiction, and we are not concerned about that.
I know that the Health Council and others have said, look, we would like more information on casinos before this government proceeds. You know, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of unanswered questions. I think that the government's success on legislation has been legislation that has the answers. I think if you look at the environment legislation, a lot of consultative process went into that legislation . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: It is a good Act.
MR. MOODY: Yes, it is a good Act but it was done in the right way. You understand that if it is done in the right way, you will be successful.
Here is legislation that hasn't been done in the right way and it hasn't been done in the same way at all that that other legislation was done. When you shut people out from the opportunity to participate, or shut people out from understanding the benefits of legislation, then sure, people are going to be opposed to it.
I have to tell you, if you walk down the street, I spoke to another reporter just yesterday, I think it was an ATV reporter, who said we will get into the issue about gambling and I said you are talking to people about casinos, are they for them or against them? Most of them are against them. Now if this government wanted to turn that around, what is wrong with holding public sessions and answering the questions? Maybe there is good reason, Mr. Speaker, in a public forum for the government members to get up and say, you don't need a building permit to build a casino in any municipality and we will tell you the reason why, because the municipality might say no. Well I, for the life of me, can't understand, if it is such a good deal and it is such a good thing to have a casino, that this government doesn't have the capability of convincing any municipality to vote yes for casinos.
Mr. Speaker, you and I both know if you have good logic, if you have a good argument and you can demonstrate that something is good for somebody, they will support it. If you can't demonstrate that you have something good for somebody and you can't demonstrate that it is good for the community, then obviously they won't support it.
[2:30 p.m.]
So, here is a case where this government has the opportunity to do, if what they believe is true. But we don't know what is true because we don't hear anybody on the government side standing up and saying, here are headlines, here are people, here are municipalities that are in favour of having casinos in this province. I haven't heard it. Now, I may be missing something and I would be pleased to sit and listen to any member of the government get up and talk about the areas of the province that are so supportive of these casinos.
We will have a number of people that will get rich off these casinos and they may or may not be Nova Scotians. We do know a large amount of money of the casino operation is going to leave the province. And you know, that money is going to come from hardworking Nova Scotians. I don't believe for a minute that we are going to have a lot of people from out of this country come to Nova Scotia to play at a small casino that will be set up in Halifax and Sydney.
You know, the question keeps coming back to me, once these casinos are built and it is a proven fact that they are not good for Nova Scotia, what happens? I don't know what happens, I don't know how long a contract this government is going to sign with these proponents. I don't know what kind of an arrangement they have with these people, is it for 20 years, 10 years or 50 years? You know, what kind of arrangements are going to be made? You have to understand, Mr. Speaker, we should know what kind of arrangements are being made. Is that too much for Nova Scotians to ask on something that is going to affect them for how long or how many years that they are not allowed to know, that this government says, this is all secret. You, as Nova Scotians, don't understand. We, as government, don't have to explain to you what it is we are doing.
Yes, this government has 40 members now and the word on the street is that they are so arrogant now they think that nothing can stop them. They are just going to roll through and they are going to roll on and they are never going to be touched by the people of this province. I would dare you to call an election, I would challenge anyone to call an election in this province today because I have to tell you, that would be a welcome challenge for me, one I would dearly love. I know that that is not going to happen.
Nova Scotians have made personal appeals to the Premier of this province. They have asked the Premier of this province to show the kind of leadership that he was elected to show. That is not a kind of leadership that dictates, that is one that consults and listens. I am afraid that this Premier has not shown (Interruptions) Well, you know they keep bringing up the past. Yes, Donald Cameron lost. The member for Cape Breton South, the former mayor of Sydney, when he was mayor of Sydney he loved the government to come and give him some assistance.
This government makes fun of the previous government and that is fair ball but when we criticize this government it is, you are not to do that. I will tell you this, if this government is not smart enough to learn from the previous government's mistakes, then they are not as wise as I thought they were. Every day I sit here and I watch the Premier, he hasn't learned a thing.
AN HON. MEMBER: Have you learned anything?
MR. MOODY: Oh, I have learned a lot, that is why I have been around this long. Some other members here have, too, they have learned to listen.
AN HON. MEMBER: We have lots that were here as long as you.
MR. MOODY: I learned from your members; I learned from the Minister of Housing and Consumer Affairs. That is where I got to understand that listening to people was important.
AN HON. MEMBER: I have a cheque book here . . .
MR. MOODY: Well, I have to get back to the bill. (Laughter)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I am sure the honourable member also learned to ignore rabbit tracks.
MR. MOODY: Yes, especially when it comes to signing cheques.
I wanted to say that Nova Scotians have made a lot of personal appeals to Premier Savage about casinos. I know, Mr. Speaker, that what they are asking the Premier is to take some time with this very important issue. Let's take some time to make sure that all of our homework is done and that the majority of people in this province understand what casinos will do for them and understand why the government is going ahead.
I guess, in summarizing, what I have had to say in support of this amendment is that I challenge the Premier and his government to take a little time to listen, to return calls and listen to what people are saying about casinos. If the majority of people who are calling and contacting you are for casinos, I have no difficulty with that, not at all. But if they are calling and contacting you not in support of casinos, I just hope that you would say to them, we will listen; we will re-evaluate our position; and we will have another look at how we are dealing with the area of casinos.
So, Mr. Speaker, in wrapping up, I want to say that I will be supporting this amendment and hope that this time the government will make strides to do something very simple. Just take time to listen to what average Nova Scotians are saying about a very important issue that not only affects them, it will affect our children and our grandchildren and the way of life in this province for a long time to come. A decision that will not go away immediately after; it will be here and have long-lasting effects. I am worried about whether those long-lasting effects will be really good in the long run for the way of life for the people of this province and for the people who like to live here.
A lot of people are very proud to live in this province. I think we have a special province; I think we have a special way of life and we have to be very careful that we don't get on the bandwagon and try to be like everybody else with a fast way of life because we think that is where the bucks are. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there are more important things than dollars in life. A lot of values in life are much more important than trying to turn a quick dollar. I have to think that we have to consider that long and hard before we quickly say, casinos we will vote for.
So, Mr. Speaker, I thank you and all members for listening and I will be supporting the amendment.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise in my place this afternoon to make a few comments on the amendment before us, dealing with the Gaming Control Act. What the amendment, of course, says, as others who have spoken before me have indicated - and this, of course, is the amendment that was moved by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Halifax Fairview - would say that you are removing all of the words that appear after that, and then insert in it - and I think this is an important principle - the words that would go in are, "in the opinion of the House, the introduction and enactment of Bill 120 will destroy the essential and fundamental belief that government acts only with the consent of the governed.". That is a very important principle, that governments should be acting with the consent of those who it is professing to govern. In other words, Mr. Speaker, in a respectful way, a way which respects and listens to the concerns and the interests of its citizens and which respects the rights of citizens to know information, facts, figures, data upon which government decisions are made.
It is not good enough, with respect, to government members. I am sure some government members might inwardly be cringing at the thought that they will be forced to vote for this legislation when it finally comes to the vote because I am sure some others must have concerns. They cannot be restricted to this and the Opposition caucus. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, some members opposite must share some of the concerns of those many thousands of Nova Scotians who took the time and energy to sign the petitions in opposition to the casinos. Some of them did, indeed, go well out of their way.
I am reminded, Mr. Speaker, although this government seems bent on ignoring and destroying any confidence that people have in it - today we saw another example of their arrogance - but I am sure that many members remember the ad. I remind them by showing it to them and they might even, from across the floor, and I believe this is pretty well a full sized duplicate because I remember it was a very large ad and it was red and white. It has got a picture of a gentleman who now occupies the Premier's chair.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member realizes that . . .
MR. HOLM: I am on the amendment, yes.
MR. SPEAKER: . . . yes, but he also realizes in the House he cannot demonstrate or use any visual aids or any trinkets or any devices of any kind. He can read and cite from documents, but he cannot project to the House any other form of visual aid to emphasize his point.
MR. HOLM: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought that some members, and I appreciate your ruling. All I was trying to do is let government members refresh their memory with the information that is contained within it. (Interruption)
Mr. Speaker, I am ignoring their request.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member has the floor.
MR. HOLM: But you know, there are some key words in this advertisement that I am not allowed to show to people.
MR. SPEAKER: You can cite.
MR. HOLM: But I can cite some key words. Do you know, one key word that government seems to have forgotten once they got behind that red curtain was the word, together. Interesting concept, together. Now we did not know that when the government was talking about together it meant that what they were going to do was when they get into office, they are going to hang together to make sure that they cover each other off and to protect each other.
What they promised was that, together we will start to climb back to prosperity. We can make Nova Scotia work, they said. We start planning our lives together and start rebuilding our economy so that our children will have a future here at home. Maybe the future is going to be - the high-tech jobs, maybe - jobs repairing the one-armed bandits or greasing the roulette wheel. Maybe that is what the government is talking about. I don't think that is what the people of this province thought that they were talking about when they said, let's move on together.
Let's move on doesn't mean back to the future. They talked about teamwork another key word in that advertisement. Together the Liberals were going to work together with the people of Nova Scotia and there was going to be teamwork. Teamwork according to the ad was not implying that there is going to be a 17 member team and that that is everything. Teamwork according to the ad was implying, the way it is used, is that the government was going to be working with the citizens of this province to move forward in the best interests of the people of this province.
[2:45 p.m.]
They invite Nova Scotians to participate in setting goals for our future. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you when I saw the ad, when I read that ad, when I saw that, I, too, even though I was running on a different Party's ticket, was optimistic. I, too, was hopeful that when the government changed we were going to have a change not only of players on the team but I thought that at least in the first term that the government would be trying to honour its commitments that they wouldn't get so arrogant in the first number of days that they would disregard everything immediately. I believed and even though the process was seriously flawed and even though the process showed that they didn't have any plan when they did talk about 30-60-90 at least they did make an attempt even though it was done by an untendered contract they did at least attempt to create the facade if not the reality to give people an opportunity to participate in setting the goals for our future.
Well, I wonder did those who (Interruption) I thank the member for his offer but I will pass on that. I challenge the government to ask the people to participate in setting the goals for our future and I challenge the government to ask the people, they can do it by way of a referendum if they want, Mr. Speaker, as has been done in other places, in Florida, in Saskatoon and elsewhere, ask them, do you see as an important part in our future, as a step forward, the establishment of casinos in the Province of Nova Scotia? I would suggest to you that people would tell this government loudly and clearly the answer is, no. The answer will be no and the government is afraid, they don't have the intestinal fortitude to put it to the test. If they were to put a question plebiscite to the people in the metropolitan area on what the people know now I have no doubt whatsoever that the people will say, no.
I would suggest further that if they were to ask the same question in Cape Breton where the second casino is going to be built, from the information I have seen and received from that area I suggest that again the people would say, no. Now, it appears that the wannabe minister who didn't get to be today has some different information and so afterwards I would invite the member for Cape Breton South to get to his feet and take part in the debate and put forward his evidence, his information that would show that the people in that community support the establishment of the casino in that area.
I know I shouldn't be doing free advertising for the member. This is one way that he gets his name in the Hansard so the people will know that he is here but I would invite him to take his place and to speak. You know, when it was talking about gambling in Nova Scotia the Premier, of course that was before the election that is when it is wink, wink, nod, nod. The government members I guess had their fingers crossed in the back pocket, but anyway the government or political Party can't be sued for false advertising to the best of my knowledge otherwise, that trust fund would be gone in a hurry. There would be so many suits against this government for breach of commitment and false advertising that those trust funds would be long since gone.
Anyway, the toll-gated money probably would be better spent if they were used to pay for the, well, maybe they should have been used to pay for the trip for the only research that has been done by this government so far and that was to send one member across the country to look at the casinos without giving any report back. Anyway, I will ignore the Minister of the Environment. I will come back to him a little later on in another matter maybe, Mr. Speaker. But anyway, the Liberal Leader, John Savage, that is before he became Premier, then he had principles. The government had ethical values that they were going to support. They were saying that Nova Scotians must decide whether they wish to have a gambling casino in Nova Scotia. It wasn't whether the Minister of Finance, the Government House Leader, the Premier, the Minister of the Environment or anybody else personally wanted to have a casino in this province, but Nova Scotians must decide whether they wish to have a gambling casino. That sort of goes along with the ad about how Nova Scotians were going to be invited to participate in setting goals for our future, working together, all of this was going to happen.
But then what do we get? We get a different reality, despite the fact that many thousands of dollars have been wasted by governments appointing commissions. Remember, Mr. Speaker, we all know and might have had disagreements I certainly did on many occasions, with Mr. Morris. But, certainly some would question Mr. Morris' ability, whether or not we agreed with some of the philosophies and so on that he had expressed when he was a member of government. But I certainly would never question for a moment his ability. I am also not going to question those who worked on the Kimball Report. Many of them are members of this government today. They were in Opposition at the time and you will know, that because of the dispute between Mr. Kimball and the former Premier, Mr. Kimball ended up sitting as an independent. The Conservative members of that committee pretty well withdrew but there were enough members for the committee to continue. That was, therefore, a largely Liberal, and certainly Liberal-dominated report.
Mr. Speaker, we had the report most recently done by the member, that was chaired by the member for Halifax Bedford Basin, commonly referred to as the Fogarty Report. Now it is amazing, here we have, and I am not holding this up as a prop for the members to see, but in that ad - I am not allowed to show it to members, it is not show and tell. It may be tell and it may be trying to show the truth but it is not show and tell. But despite the fact that the government said they want to work together with the people, that they were going to be involved in team work and that they were going to invite Nova Scotians to participate in setting our goals; despite the fact that the Premier has also said that Nova Scotians must decide if they want gambling casinos in Nova Scotia; despite the fact that many thousands of dollars - I don't know if anybody has figured it out but it would probably be $200,000, at least, have been spent on the reports done by the committees, the Morris Report, the Kimball Report and the Fogarty Report; all of which were opposed to what this government is doing; all of which had public hearings where the public was invited. In other words, they were attempts to involve Nova Scotians in setting goals in our future and the majority of those who appeared before the committee were opposed.
Why else would the member for Halifax Bedford Basin, I don't question his integrity at all, and I am sure he would not have placed his signature on that report as chairman had he felt that what he was saying in recommending that casinos not go forward did not represent the wishes of the majority of those who presented for the committee. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are many, I don't know if that particular member is, I cannot speak for him, I certainly would not attempt to, but I am sure that there are a number of people who inwardly are feeling very uncomfortable about what this government is doing. But I am sure that they are also afraid, or they may have reason to be afraid, to express their opinions publicly because then, too, they may find themselves sitting as an independent member of this House. So maybe the heavy hand has come down.
You know, Mr. Speaker, we are told to have confidence in the commission and the chairman of the casino project that they will be setting the proper framework and standards and that the proponents who want to build the casinos will be judged, in part, upon what kind of measures and steps that they would be putting in place to try to eliminate or reduce the problems that are often associated with gambling. Of course, we still do not have a clue what the social impacts in total are going to be because this government has not had the courage to do a social impact study. Nor do we have any idea what the financial complications or implications will be because this government has not had the integrity to do a financial impact study. Instead, we are being told that we don't want any academic studies, we are going to wait until they are built and then we will assess it.
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that I would not take a baseball bat and intentionally hit myself over the top of the head to see if it hurts so I can assess it afterwards, not as an academic exercise, but to see what the reality is. I am sure the Minister of Finance is not going to suggest what he should do is ask somebody to hit him over the head with a hammer to see if it will hurt, to find out what the impact will be. I think he would probably take some more rational approaches than that, rather than having that kind of action done because it makes a little bit more sense. According to the minister's logic, if you don't get hit over the head, it is an academic argument.
[3:00 p.m.]
Well, the Chairperson of the Nova Scotia Casino Project Committee , Mr. Lichter, is quoted by the editorial writer of the Cape Breton Post on October 17, 1994 as stating, it is "`nothing more than guesswork' to try to weigh the social costs of legalizing casinos against their economic benefits.", it is nothing but guesswork. Supposedly there is no question that casino gambling is a complex issue, but surely that should not deter us from carefully analysing costs and benefits.
If one takes a look under the request for proposals, one of the mandated requirements is that specific sites are to be proposed by the proponents in sufficient detail for the committee to be able to assess the economic, social and overall impact on the host communities. Well, according to the Minister of Finance, if he says doing that is sort of a waste of time because that would be an academic exercise and according to the chairperson, doing that would be nothing but guesswork.
I would suggest that the citizens of this province, based on what we have seen and what we have heard not only from those in this province who have concerns, but those who are knowledgeable in other areas, would dictate that before this government would play Russian roulette with the future of Nova Scotia, that they would do the social and economic impact studies that are required, to find out what the long-term costs are going to be, before they rush down this road.
I want to refer because according to the minister, there really is no information available and according to the minister, there are all kinds of studies in other places, for example, in the United States. In his opening remarks, the minister said that while they haven't been done here, there are all kinds of other things from other provinces and a lot from south of the border. Well, I want to refer to somebody who is in the know, somebody who probably in many ways would espouse the same kind of principles that the Minister of Health does and that is that we should be promoting healthy lifestyles and that we should be trying to avoid creating new health problems. Health problems can be both of a physical and a psychological nature as you, I am sure know, and the Minister of Health would know, as would many others.
I want to refer to a statement by a Valerie Lorenz which was made before the Senate House of the Small Business Committee. Valerie Lorenz is the Executive Director of the Compulsive Gambling Centre, so she is somebody who is knowledgeable and would have done a great deal of research.
Now, the Minister of Finance, said of course that we have been involved so far in a one-sided debate, that all we have done is heard the negatives and that what we have to wait for is the other side of the debate where the positives are going to come forward and that now, when those who are proponents of the casinos, are able to speak, which they now can, the other side is going to come out and, as predicted, they said exactly, the one who had the press conference the other day that was pretty well closed to anybody but those who they wanted to try to get the propaganda across to, they said pretty well exactly what was expected, that oh no, of course, Mr. Speaker, the problems associated, the social problems, are not very severe, that we control and we will be able to control the problem gamblers and of course it is going to be attracting thousands of new tourists to Nova Scotia and encouraging them to stay longer, which, of course, is totally contrary to what has been the experience everywhere else where those casinos have been established. Anyway, (Interruptions)
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Education - I know he taught physics but I wonder if he would know if there is any difference between the population of Nova Scotia, where it is approximately 900,000, and the location where the casino is being built in Ontario, where the population in the immediate vicinity is well over 18 million. (Interruptions) Well, maybe the way they do some of their finances and their accountability, they don't notice those minor differences.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member has the floor.
MR. HOLM: Yes, we are talking about problem gamblers, aren't we, Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about problems in the House, so I will try to ignore the problems in the House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, Valerie Lorenz, the Executive Director of the Compulsive Gambling Centre, says when she appeared before the committee, and this was on September 21, 1994, so it is recent, that the number of compulsive gamblers has been increasing at an alarming rate in the past 20 years, ever since the spread of casinos and state lotteries, which have turned this country into a nation of gamblers.
Well, of course, this government likes to take the American model on a lot of things, apparently, Mr. Speaker, because they are interested in having the number of compulsive gamblers here increasing by an alarming rate. That is their goal, I guess. Also pointed out, that those gamblers spend many billions of dollars, money that was not spent in local shopping centres, pizza parlours or corner groceries, monies that in seven years could have paid off the national debt. That is the amount of money that was spent on gaming in the United States in seven years, enough to have paid off the national debt.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this government is modelling itself after the American model. They are interested in having all these people become compulsive gamblers, to put their dollars into the casino machines, instead of putting it into small businesses within this community and other communities, instead of them spending it in restaurants and bowling alleys and movie theatres, at the theatre, in shopping centres for buying clothing and groceries and other things, they want the money to go to the casinos so that about 20 per cent of the profits can come to the province, an amount that is calculated at about $16 million.
That means that 80 per cent of those profits, a percentage of the shares, of course, of all these companies appear to be in the hands of some friends of government, but most of the profit, is going to be siphoned out of the province. So, maybe this is what you might call a transfer payment. The Province of Nova Scotia is interested in establishing a transfer program, a transfer of funds from Nova Scotia to the United States or to Australia or Austria or wherever.
The same person, the director of the Compulsive Gambling Centre said, that the profile of today's compulsive gambler is truly democratic. One thing about gambling is that the profile of those who gamble is democratic, all ages, races, religious persuasions, socio-economic levels and education. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is not selective. It does not discriminate. You can be hooked as a compulsive gambler, regardless of your race or colour, your religion, (Interruption) your height the Minister of Education throws in to help out, your education, it does not matter.
It was interesting that the same person, which I am sure that the Minister of Education who is concerned about the well-being of young people would want to know, he is the gentleman, of course, that is reforming the education system in such a way that, of course, the quality of education is not being hurt and that is why Primary programs are going half-day, that is why the Halifax County-Bedford District School Board is having to look for ways to eliminate $4 million more worth of programs. Anyway, that is off the topic.
On the topic that we are on, the New Jersey Casino Control Commission regularly reports that 25,000 or more teenagers are being stopped at the door or ejected from the floor of the Atlantic City casino. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the casinos are very much an attraction and the students are enticed to them. We hear, you know, isn't this great. They are stopped at the door. They are not allowed in. But you know, even some of us, I will admit that when I was younger, under the age of 21 (Interruption) - this may come back to haunt me, the drinking age in the province was 21 - occasionally, I, slightly under that age, was able to and did enter a premise that I should not have been in. (Interruption) On the odd occasion . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member's youthful indiscretions are not part of the matter of the question on the floor.
HON. DONALD DOWNE: On a point of order. Just for clarification for the record. The honourable member indicated that he illegally drank before his age of 21 when the legal drinking age of the province was 21. I just wanted to clarify that the honourable member, Mr. Holm, in fact indicated that he was illegally consuming alcoholic beverages before the proper age. (Interruptions)
MR. HOLM: I had two pieces of help, Mr. Speaker. I had one piece of information that said that I didn't swallow and the other one that no, it wasn't my fault. It was just that the government was slow lowering the drinking age to 19 when I would have been legal, as they have done before. (Interruption)
I am trying to make things germane here. I want to make it germane. (Interruption)
MR. SPEAKER: . . . governing the procedure of debate. So, would the honourable member please stay within the context of the bill and the amendment as related to the bill.
MR. HOLM: The point and you are right, it is indeed a very serious matter and sometimes we have to maybe relieve the tensions a little bit with some humour. But the point is, and I was trying to use myself as an example, that sometimes people did things under age and got caught as I had. Sometimes they did it and did not get caught. So, if 25,000 were thrown out, did not get into these casinos, the question, Mr. Speaker, is how many did get in and were not thrown out? Obviously they are a major attraction to those who are under age.
Today's research, not according to me, but according to the Executive Director of the Compulsive Gambling Centre, as she spoke before the U.S. House Small Business Committee. According to her, and this was September 1994, "Today, research indicates that as many as 7% of teenagers may be addicted to gambling.", and members wonder why so many Nova Scotians signed petitions opposing the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia, 40,000-odd, 41,000, 42,000 - I can't remember the exact number of Nova Scotians - thousands.
[3:15 p.m.]
Gambling addiction for adults has increased from less than 1 per cent, in fact just a little over 0.75 per cent of the adult population in 1975 to as much as 11 per cent in some states in 1993. I would suggest that government bears a large part of the responsibility for that because government has said that gambling is fine and they have said that by licensing it without having proper controls or even knowing what they are doing. American Governments, some of them, like the Minister of Finance have the visions of massive numbers of dollar bills bouncing through their head. They have this vision about massive numbers of dollars coming to them. They're sugar plums that they are looking for without having first had the common sense to look at what the consequences are and what is going to be needed in the Province of Nova Scotia to counter what they are doing.
But, oh no, we are told by government members we don't need to worry, all we have to do is look at the Americans, the American model. Availability leads to more gamblers which leads to more compulsive gamblers; casino gambling now in 21 states is particularly onerous because of the allure of escaping into fantasy, the fast action, the emphasis on quick money, all of which are basic factors in gambling addiction.
Well, I would suggest that this government is living in a fantasy world. They aren't facing reality, living up to their responsibilities. They have shown that again today in the Premier's decision, that it is a fantasy world where they think that they can say something isn't so and then, of course, it isn't so. They think that they can somehow after the fact go back and rewrite history. They live in a fantasy and they are hooked, I would suggest, on the quick money that they see for themselves coming from casinos. In other words, this government has become addicted to the revenues of gambling.
Gambling addiction increases social and economic costs far greater than any amount of revenue generated for the government by the gambling industry. It is not me saying this, I am referring again to the same article which is a verbatim transcript from somebody who knows. Talking about the American situation where the Minister of Finance said we have all kinds of good examples to look at.
It talks about in here that the total cumulative indebtedness of Maryland's - that is one state - compulsive gamblers is $4 billion. Which, of course, means that many of the small businesses and also large businesses are not getting paid because the money that is being owed to them is instead going into slot machines and one-armed bandits and the roulette wheel and on the card table. But is the government worried about those small businesses or the families? If they were, they would have looked at the Nova Scotia situation and they would have looked at asking the people, what are you interested in, are you prepared to accept this. But the answer from this government is a stone wall; it is like around the Municipal Affair's issue, the red curtain has dropped, secrecy is maintained, this government will not give any answers on anything.
What's wrong with treating people with respect by saying, what we are going to do is pull back from our bill. We are not going to withdraw it, we are just going to leave it sitting there on the table and we are going to put the regulations - the Minister of Finance had indicated, I believe, it was in December they are supposed to be ready - we will put the regulations on the table too and we will put those both out to the people, to the community. Let them have a look at it, let them evaluate, let's have some public meetings. Here is a chance for the Minister of Finance and the Premier to increase their profile and to appear as if they are truly consulting. They can go out and have public forums, hear what the people have to say.
If they do that and the people endorse what it is this government is proposing, once they have the information, certainly we in our caucus, and I will speak for myself, would not be trying to be obstructive. But I do firmly believe that something as fundamental as establishing casinos in the Province of Nova Scotia, which has tremendous potential for negative harm, I should say that the government has a responsibility to air all of that information and not just to be depending upon what the proponents, who want to come in and set up and manage the casinos here, so they can take our money somewhere else, have to say.
The issue of crime alone, virtually all compulsive gamblers sooner or later resort to illegal activity to support their gambling addiction. Money is a substance of their addiction and when legal access to money is no longer available, these addicts will commit crimes. That means that not only are those who are going to be the direct victims of the crime going to have to pay a cost, whether that be from a violent crime, whether it be from fraud, but so, too, will the businesses where that money may be taken, so, too, will the taxpayers because if they are arrested for crimes because of their addiction, then the court system and the correctional services will bear costs as they make their way through the courts and into the correctional centres and prisons. So, too, will the social service agencies who then have to provide more financial assistance to the families of those who are no longer being productive in the work force, Mr. Speaker.
The cost can be tremendous and we have absolutely nothing to show that this government has looked at any of these things. The people of this province are not unreasonable, the people of this province are prepared, I believe, to give this an open and honest viewing. They want facts, figures, honest projections on the table, not airy fairy dream pie type of material.
I don't mean to be unkind but you know this government doesn't have one heck of a lot of credibility . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: Especially not after today.
MR. HOLM: Even before today, but now, Mr. Speaker, they are very heavily in debt on that end. So I don't think the government can go to the well and say, hey, Nova Scotians, you know you can trust us, you know we are going to make only the best decisions that we possibly can for you, we have a plan.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, if somebody wanted to sit down and write a soap opera, that they could not write a more bizarre plot for a program, maybe we could call it As Your Stomach Turns, than that which would be based on what this government has done over the last 18 months. (Interruption) I have had another suggestion, instead of calling them As Your Stomach Turns, maybe it could be As They Twist and Turn.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that what this government is doing is actually hanging Nova Scotians out to dry because they are not prepared to do those things which are responsible, before they rush on this headlong race to establish casinos, with record speed, in the Province of Nova Scotia.
Near the end of her comments Ms. Valerie Lorenz, the Executive Director of the Compulsive Gambling Centre, said, in short, ". . . the greed of the gambling industry is matched only by its lack of concern for its customers or the community in which it operates. That is not good business.". It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, pretty heavy words. But, of course, in Nova Scotia it is going to be different. We know it is going to be different because the Minister of Finance said so; the Premier said so; and I guess 40 other members said so. Forty members of the Liberal caucus said so. It is not going to be a problem here, trust us. We don't need to do our research; we don't need to do our homework; we don't need to answer the questions and the concerns that are put forward by those thousands and thousands of Nova Scotians who expressed their opposition. We don't need to do that because we are perfect, or almost, we make the occasional mistake. We heard about a mistake being admitted today. I suggest that is only but one mistake; only but one.
[3:30 p.m.]
This is another serious mistake. Once this province is casinoed - if I might use that term - it is going to be pretty hard to un-casino. Once somebody gets hooked and addicted on something, it is pretty hard to get over your addiction. This government should, I would suggest, get in touch with Drug Dependency; maybe they can get some help for their addiction to gambling because this government is in need of treatment. They are in need of treatment. The Provincial Health Council, responsible, credible, and competent people, in the letter signed by the chairperson, Mr. Bauld who is concerned about the well-being, not taking a moralist view, taking a position and asking questions as they properly should, expressing concerns for the well-being of the people in this province.
In dealing with this, and this was a letter to the Minister of Finance so I am sure he will remember this because it is quite recent, it was only October 3rd, and it has been referred to a number of times and while he may not remember about certain things from Priorities and Planning, I am hoping that he will remember about this, probably.
AN HON. MEMBER: A dirty shot.
MR. HOLM: The Minister of Transportation says that was a dirty shot. He is probably right, so I will apologize to the Minister of Transportation. But, I don't know if anybody has apologized yet to Mr. Bauld because in his letter he wrote that in spite of the numerous enquiries we have made on their behalf and the assurances from you and the Premier that the benefits of casinos outweigh the negatives, we have yet to receive any supporting data, which shows of course that there is one thing that this government is doing and that is treating everybody equally - equally shabbily - because they as well have not provided to the Provincial Health Council any data that would show that casinos outweigh the negative consequences, that the benefits outweigh the negatives.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the government doesn't have it because there isn't any doubt in my mind that the Minister of Finance, the Premier or any other members of this government caucus would sit there day after day being beat up on by not only ourselves, but by the general public in Nova Scotia, if they had any proof that the benefits outweigh the negative impacts . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: We are not beating up; we're trying to inform and educate.
MR. HOLM: I challenge them, put it on the table.
They asked, release all studies, reports and analysis conducted to date that show how the benefits of casinos outweigh the costs. Responsible, reasonable question. Conduct a comprehensive assessment of the health and social impacts of casinos if more information is required. I would have thought that the Minister of Community Services and the Minister of Health would both be prepared to put their jobs on the line, if that wasn't done. (Interruption)
Psychologists have come out expressing their very real concern. The Psychologists Association of Nova Scotia, in fact, suggests - Mr. Bauld, the Chairperson of the Provincial Health Council did - the government should encourage the public to review and comment on the short list of casino proposals and the draft enabling legislation for casino gambling. Has that been done, Mr. Speaker? No. Does the government plan to do that? No.
He went on to say that Mr. Laszlo Lichter of the Nova Scotia Casino Project Committee told us in his letter of August 15, 1994, that the casino project is not responsible for assuring the public that the benefits of casinos outweigh the costs, so it is not his responsibility. This statement contradicts those made public by you - that is to Mr. Boudreau, the Minister of Finance, and the Premier, who indicated that the casino project is, indeed, responsible for all aspects of the casino operation, including socio-economic impact studies and mitigating potential social costs.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I remember hearing them say that, too. But no, according to Mr. Lichter, it can't be in his terms of reference, it is not his responsibility. Then whose responsibility is it? Maybe the minister is hoping that Santa Claus will come along on the 24th and drop something down his chimney or that Tinkerbell or somebody else is going to come up with some story that they will be able to use to sell to the public.
Nova Scotians should know more about these plans and about the percentage of people whose lives will be negatively affected by the introduction of casinos. Mr. Speaker, I can go on, but I can't, (Laughter) because as you are indicating, I have less than a minute left. But I want to assure you that I will take the opportunity at another stage in the debate to enter in the second reading process and hopefully, some members of the government will actually listen to their head and to their heart, instead of to the Premier and the Minister of Finance, unless they are your head and your heart, and to be willing to stand up and demand, as thousands of Nova Scotians are, that the government act responsibly before it continues on its mad rush to establish casinos.
Tell your colleagues who are pushing this to get some treatment, so they can get over their addiction to gambling and to start being more concerned about the best interests of the Province of Nova Scotia. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid has tabled the documents, particularly the one from the American Society on Gambling Addiction, has that been tabled?
MR. HOLM: I am not sure it was before, Mr. Speaker, but it has been.
MR. SPEAKER: If it has been tabled, that is fine.
The honourable member for Queens.
MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to rise in support of the amendment that is before the House, an amendment moved by my colleague, the member for Halifax Fairview, an amendment which speaks to good governance and, by virtue of speaking to good governance, raises the kinds of questions that should be answered with respect to the implementation of casino gambling in Nova Scotia and speaks to the absence of public participation to date in Nova Scotia, with respect to the decision as to whether or not casino gambling should be introduced in this province.
Mr. Speaker, we know that casino gambling has been introduced or is being introduced in various forms in a number of cities and other locations across North America. We know, for example, that the City of Winnipeg now has a gambling casino, as do the Cities of Windsor and Montreal. We also know that the City of Vancouver has taken the opportunity, among other cities, to consult with the population of that city with respect to whether or not gambling casinos are appropriate to that locale and, indeed, a very deep seated discussion it was.
Why is that a government which is countenancing the implementation and introduction of casino gambling into a province should listen to the people, give the people an opportunity to take part in informed discussion on the impacts, the relative merits and demerits of introducing casino gambling in the province? Well, Mr. Speaker, there are very deep seated community values in Nova Scotia which I believe, if tested, would come to the fore and would provide the government with an opportunity and, indeed, one would hope that the government, through a transparent process, give the people of Nova Scotia an opportunity to understand exactly how the people of this province feel and what their aspirations and their concerns are with respect to casino gambling.
There are all kinds of opportunities for the testing of public opinion. There is public opinion polling. We don't know if the government has done that. It would be very interesting for all members and for all Nova Scotians to know, if they have conducted polling, what the results of those polls are. It also might be very interesting to know who conducted those polls.
Community meetings, Mr. Speaker, there have been community meetings around the province as a result of the deliberations of the Community Services Committee, the Kimball Committee, both committees of this House, and also as a result of consideration by the Morris Commission. We also have the opportunity to work telephone hot lines. Now the Premier has a 1-800 number, which I suppose one might deem to be a hot line. I suspect it is a little hotter these days than it used to be. But what has been the result of calls coming into that hot line? We have not had any definition by the government with respect to the calls that have been coming into the Premier's 1-800 number.
Mr. Speaker, we have, in this day of modern telecommunications, the opportunity to test a very significant portion of the public opinion through freenets and, of course, also there is the opportunity, if the government so chooses, to invite Nova Scotians and indeed perhaps other interested and knowledgeable parties, to make written submission, written submissions which certainly it is in the public interest to make part of the public file with respect to casino gambling.
Basic social and community values are absolutely essential to bring to this discussion. To date, virtually all of the argument put forward by the government and by the minister who is promoting casino gambling in Nova Scotia, the Minister of Finance, has been on the economic side. Again, I believe that the minister has stated that the net revenues which will accrue to Nova Scotia as the result of the introduction of casino gambling here will be somewhere in the vicinity of between $40 million and $75 million.
I will talk a little bit more about that later on because that is on the revenue side and I want to talk a little later on about the cost side. Because any cost-benefits analysis must take into consideration not only the profits to be realized, but the expenditures that must be made with respect to the whole business, the whole regulatory regime, the whole idea of policing, the whole idea of dealing with the cost side of casino gambling here in Nova Scotia.
[3:45 p.m.]
Just yesterday I was speaking with a constituent on a matter entirely unrelated to casino gambling and the constituent brought forward to me his great concern that the introduction of casino gambling in Nova Scotia will have a very detrimental image on this province. This province has always prided itself on being Canada's Ocean Playground. This province has prided itself on providing a great natural experience to visitors. That is not a new phenomenon, Mr. Speaker, you are familiar with the history of this province. Indeed as we grow older, we are more and more part and parcel or part of the warp and woof of the history of this province. Our memories should cause us to reflect on the past not only as we have experienced but the past that has been told us by our parents and our grandparents.
Nova Scotia, back in the 1800's was widely known literally as a Valhalla for those who wanted to enjoy an outdoor experience. Certainly, around the turn of the century, the Nova Scotia Government spent significant sums of money, invested significant sums of money and successfully too, in attracting what we called American sports to this province, for fishing, for hunting. Now, in these days where people enjoy the out of doors for non-consumptive reasons, we attract them here to enjoy our pristine environment, an environment that the Minister of the Environment is hoping to further protect with Bill No. 115 which is currently before the House.
So, the province's image is very important to Nova Scotians, it has an intrinsic value but it also has a very important market value which has been stressed, underscored, and bold-faced typed by the Department of Tourism, now part of the Economic Renewal Agency in efforts to attract people to Nova Scotia. They are casting now a broader net than was so in previous days because we are looking very much at the European market and particularly to the German and perhaps to a slightly lesser extent, the Swiss markets to draw people to this province.
One can't help but wonder why Germans and Swiss and indeed even Americans, could be lured here to a relatively small casino operation when, in fact, in the United States and in Europe there are very large and very well-known casino operations. I do have to suggest to members that in likelihood, the casinos along the French Riviera, probably will be more likely to attract a well-heeled clientele than will casinos in Sydney and in Halifax. So, that is a very important factor insofar as Nova Scotians are concerned.
We also do have to address the question of what the potential economic impact of a casino would be on these two cities. Well, there is no doubt that there will be some economic impact. That economic impact, in part, will be realized in the flow of dollars into the coffers of the Department of Finance. The Minister of Finance has suggested some ways that he is going to use that money to smooth the feathers of his clientele who happen to be the voters of this province.
Also, it is very clear that casino gambling will result in the creation of some jobs. I think it is very important that we understand that the vast majority of the jobs, 85 per cent to 90 per cent will be low-paying jobs in the service sector. It strikes me that the people who are most likely to be scrambling for these jobs are the young people between the ages of 18 and 30, the people who have come to be dubbed as Generation X. Those are the young Nova Scotians who have invested significantly in their own education to complete community college, complete technical college, to complete university degrees. Today we find, one need not walk more than a couple of blocks from this building, people working in the same kind of service sector which will be further enhanced by the creation of casinos. Young men and young women with degrees in education, engineering, science, psychology, and people with graduate degrees, indeed, people with post-graduate degrees who are unable to find employment in their fields.
If ever there was a need for investment by government it is not an investment in casino gambling, it is an investment in those young people who have so much to offer and who are being given so little opportunity to exercise what should, in fact, be a right of purchase because of the tremendous investment they themselves have taken in accruing debt as a result of pursuing educational goals that are not only in their own best interests, but in the best interests of the province as well.
There will be some positive sides to the introduction of casino gambling, yes, and that will result in certain revenues and in certain jobs being created. That is probably the easier side to compute, and I have every reason to believe that it is probably for that reason, among others, that the Minister of Finance has chosen when he has talked about the impact of the commencement of casino gambling here, to talk about the revenues that will flow and the benefits that will accrue to the province with respect to job creation and so on. There is a downside to casinos as well and that must become part of the equation so that we understand entirely what it means for us before we get into an arrangement with two foreign-owned casinos, and they will be foreign-owned whichever two they are, and locked in for a very long time indeed. Consideration must be given to the social costs, many of which are difficult to measure in dollar terms. The impacts that have been identified include the social costs related to these kinds of problems.
The effects on adjacent communities. All the impact that a casino opening in Halifax has on Dartmouth, on Bedford - they will both, of course, be part of Halifax, being bludgeoned into the new city in the next not so many months - what will the impact be on the areas of the South Shore, on the Eastern Shore, the Annapolis Valley, and up towards Truro, all of which are within the general area which will be affected by casino gambling? What will the impacts be, not just in industrial Cape Breton but, indeed, beyond industrial Cape Breton, places like Richmond County and Victoria County and Inverness County?
Will there be social costs that will accrue to those areas even though they will not benefit directly from any of the positive flow out of casino gambling? What will be the impact on charitable gaming? We know that there are a wide number of charities in Nova Scotia which are dependent on bingo for example, and I think of the fire departments in my own constituency. Were it not for the opportunity to earn some money through bingo - and this is true of the Kinsmen Club in my constituency as well - they would be hard-pressed to raise the dollars that go into our community and in the case of the fire department, to pay for new fire equipment, to help to underwrite the cost of training and retraining for new firefighters and firefighters who have been of long-time service in the department.
In the case of clubs like the Kinsmen Club putting hard-earned dollars through charitable gaming to work in the community, one of the things, for example, that the Kinsmen Club does in our community is to assist people who are in need of economic assistance to purchase eyeglasses. What will the impact be on charitable gaming? What will the influence be on families and on young people? What will the influence be with respect to any increase in compulsive gambling? What about victimization? What will the impact be with respect to those who become victims of casino gambling?
We know, to a greater or lesser extent, that casino gambling will draw into the orbit of the communities in which it is offered certain undesirable elements. That will have an impact on our communities. It certainly will have an impact on the image of our communities and I spoke to that just a few moments ago. Money laundering, profit skimming, prostitution, car theft, loan sharking, book-making. The list goes on and on. These are all social costs that accrue to casino gambling. It is true, sir, that to an extent they can be controlled and apparently the Winnipeg experience tells us that in that instance at least the controls have worked very well. However, that has not been the experience in every community, nor I suggest, sir, in the majority of communities which now offer casino gambling opportunities to people both resident in the community and visitors to the community.
Mr. Speaker, those kinds of illegal activities have a cost accruing with them. Not solely the social costs, but a hard economic cost and that is the cost of policing. We do not know with precision what additional monies will be put into the hands of the municipal units where additional policing will be required to deal with the undesirable impacts of casino gambling.
Is the province simply going to tell the new municipality of Halifax that policing is your responsibility? You pick up the tab, if you are going to hire any more policemen in order to enforce the law. Are they going to tell the new super municipality in Cape Breton that it is going to be responsible for paying for the municipal costs of policing associated with any increase in crime coming from casino gambling? Everybody who exercises any degree of common sense whatsoever understands that there are going to be additional policing costs. We do not know where those costs are going to be met, how they are going to be met. Are they going to be met by the province? Is the province going to pass the burden off to the municipal units?
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that every city which has the potential to have casino gambling sited in it seems to say to its provincial government that it wants to exercise some degree of control over casino gambling. It wants to exercise a degree of control over the siting of casino gambling facilities with respect to planning and zoning. It wants to exercise a degree of jurisdiction over casino gambling facilities with respect to Building Codes, with respect to applying for building permits.
It seems to me, sir, and I am sure it will to you and indeed to all Nova Scotians, absolutely ludicrous that given the blessing of the Minister of Finance, I could go out without even so much as purchasing a building permit and build a multimillion dollar casino. But if I build a deck on the back of my house, I am in breach of municipal law and not only can be fined, but can be forced to rip the deck off my house and absorb all of the costs of that. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong in a system which does not require at least a building permit before a casino be commenced in the construction end of it.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment, as mentioned, has introduced a very significant bill with respect to environmental control. Yet, while the minister has brought a bill before the House which he hopes to employ to enhance the environment, we have the Minister of Finance bringing a bill into the House which in fact allows any casino gambling facility to circumvent the environmental assessment process. Surely, that is the wrong message. Surely, that does not convey the message the Minister of the Environment is trying to convey to Nova Scotians and indeed to members of this House, that there is a direct and indissoluble link between the environment and the economy. The Minister of the Environment may see that link. If that link was intended to be there when the casino gambling bill was introduced, it was very clearly shattered by the Minister of Finance.
[4:00 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker, we have to talk, in speaking of casino gambling, of where casino gambling facilities will be built with respect to the communities immediately adjacent to them. Are they going to be put in downtown areas? What will the impact be there? What is the impact going to be on parking? What is the impact going to be on traffic? What is the impact going to be on the provision of rooms for persons visiting the province? If we have a booming casino here in Halifax, is there not the likelihood that the rooms in Halifax will almost always be reserved for those who are involved in casino gambling, thereby creating difficulties for persons who might otherwise have come to the province.
What about those who simply do not want to be associated with casino gambling? They may decide that they are not going to come to visit Halifax any more. It is no longer a destination area for them because they are not gamblers and they decide to go somewhere else.
Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest concerns I think that we all have with respect to casino gambling is the question of just how widespread is gambling as a problem? Most studies, as I understand it, say that the prevalent rate of problem gambling is between 3 per cent and 6 per cent of the adult population. There was a 1994 study in Alberta by the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commissioner and Alberta Lotteries and Gaming and they found that 5.4 per cent of the adult population in Alberta can be classed as current problem gamblers. It was suggested in that study that Alberta rates are similar to those found in New Brunswick and Manitoba.
Well, if there are similar rates found in New Brunswick, then we may assume that New Brunswickers and Nova Scotians, not being tremendously dissimilar, I myself being born and brought up in New Brunswick, that the rate here must be roughly the same. That is about three times the rate that I have used in trying to determine the impact of problem gambling and pathological gambling on Nova Scotia and I will be speaking to that shortly.
Who are the people that are most at risk, Mr. Speaker, with respect to problem gambling? Well, the member for Sackville-Cobequid has already pointed out to us that at least one member of this House has fallen prey to pathological gambling and that is the Minister of Finance himself because he is already hooked on the revenues that he says he is going to realize and he is dragging the whole Liberal family down with him. Some of the rest of us who, from time to time, might be friends of the family and other times might not be friends of the family, I am afraid, are going to be sucked into the vortex as well.
Mr. Speaker, studies tell us that a relatively consistent picture of pathological gamblers has emerged from all the research which has been done across North America. The majority of pathological gamblers are between the ages of 20 and 50, the average being around 30 years of age. I suppose, sir, you and I could take some comfort in the fact that we don't fall within that 30 to 50 grouping. At any rate, the proportion of males to females is estimated at 3 to 1, but as the role of women in society changes and as women have more disposable income, more and more of them are attracted to casino gambling and, therefore, more women undoubtedly will become pathological gamblers in the future than will be the case right now.
Pathological gamblers are almost twice as likely to be high school dropouts, three times as likely to be unemployed and to have household incomes under $25,000. They are also more prone to psychological distress and to harmful use of alcohol. Now that is the profile of the pathological gambler, Mr. Speaker, and there is no reason why we should assume anything other than that profile will fit Nova Scotians as neatly as it does people in any other jurisdiction in North America. I mentioned a few moments ago about the impact of casino gambling on younger people with respect to employment and that there may be some lower-value jobs available to young people who belong to Generation X and can't put their university degrees and their post-secondary training to work. And who have to throw themselves on this low-level service work, that will be available once the government has its way and creates casino gambling in the province.
What about the younger people, the children of compulsive gamblers? Statistically, it has been shown that they are more likely to have a gambling problem just as the children of alcoholics are more likely to have problems with alcohol, as they go through their lives. They are also more likely to experience other problems including running away from home and from abusive drugs and from depression. This is all part of the social cost that accrues to casino gambling anywhere where it has been instituted and Nova Scotia unfortunately, will be no exception to the rule. What do we know about the social costs of problem gambling? Social costs are as I have said, extremely difficult to calculate, but that is not to say that we should not endeavour in a reasonable way, to calculate those costs. Some research suggests that each pathological gambler affects between 10 and 17 individuals, other than himself or herself.
The spouse of the individual, the children of the individual, the extended family, the mother, the father, the mother-in-law, the father-in-law, brothers and sisters and I have seen this myself with respect to drug abuse. Substance abuse where, and I am thinking particularly of one young woman in my community who has worked hard and who has dug into her pocket, time and time again, to help her brother who is a victim of substance abuse and who also is a compulsive gambler. She is the kind of person who will be directly affected in this very adverse way, by increasing opportunities for gambling in Nova Scotia, particularly through casino gambling.
The employer of the person, the other employees, the co-workers of that person, because the psychological pressures, because of the fixation on gambling that the pathological gambler faces, that has an overflow and an impact on that pathological gambler's co-workers in every work place. If the pathological gambler is a person providing a service, their personality will be affected to the extent that they will be able to provide a lesser service to their clients. Consumers are affected, creditors are affected. Why are creditors affected? It should be obvious, sir, because those who are pathological gamblers spend every penny they can on gambling and that means that the bills go unpaid. That of course very much affects each and every family, because when the bills go unpaid liens are slapped on houses, people lose their houses, they lose their furniture, they lose all of their goods and chattels which are part and parcel of family life.
Insurance agencies, another example. The cost of gamblers entering treatment is excessive as well. There have been many studies done on pathological gambling in North America. Those in the United States suggest that the cost of pathological gambling nationally in the U.S.A. is about $30,000 per pathological gambler, per year. That is a 1988 figure. Mr. Speaker, let us extrapolate those figures and let us apply them to Nova Scotia. And I am not going to apply them to the 5 per cent to 5.5 per cent that the Alberta study found, I am going to use a very much more conservative percentage. I am going to use the percentage that was used in British Columbia with respect to the number of people in the greater Vancouver area, the Fraser Delta area, with respect to those who are pathological gamblers, at 1.5 per cent of the total adult population and we will take that to be the population of 19 years of age and over in Nova Scotia.
Now, the total adult population of Nova Scotia is about 670,000 people, over age 19 population. That means that probably we have in Nova Scotia somewhere in the vicinity of 10,000 persons who are addicted or have the potential to be addicted to gambling to the extent where they have already become or are likely to become pathological gamblers.
We already know that there are between 10 and 17 other individuals who are going to be directly affected by that one pathological gambler. So, 10,000 times that 10 or 17 people means that there are going to be another 100,000 to 170,000 Nova Scotians who are going to be directly impacted as a result of the hook on which the pathological gamblers have been affixed.
The cost in the United States per annum for coping with each pathological gambler is deemed to be $30,000 U.S. At today's exchange rate, that would seem to mean that the cost for each person here in Nova Scotia is going to be what, about $40,000 Canadian today. Now, if we take those $40,000 Canadian per year and we multiply it by the 10,000 pathological gamblers, we find that the cost which accrues to pathological gambling in the Province of Nova Scotia is going to be somewhere in the vicinity of $400 million. It is worth repeating, the social cost of pathological gambling on the basis of 10,000 gamblers in this province is $400 million. That is a cost and I invite every member of this House, every Nova Scotian to compare that, indeed to contrast it, with the profits of casino gambling that the Minister of Finance has said he will be able to realize of between $40 million and $75 million.
If he is correct on the lower end, that means that his profits will be exceeded by the costs accruing to pathological gambling in this province by 10 times. If he is right on the upper end, then the costs will exceed the profits by something in the order of five times. Those are costs which the minister has not addressed. Those are costs which the government has not addressed. Those are costs which should be addressed as a result of a clear, concise, arm's length study and those studies have not been done or at least if they have been done the government has not provided them to the people of this province to review in order that the people be able to determine where they want to go and where they want their government to go with respect to casino gambling and its introduction here in Nova Scotia.
Organized crime, is organized crime a risk with casino gambling? The answer is yes. Gaming, money laundering, profit skimming, loan sharking, extortion, are very real risks. Illegal drug sales are another example. In Colorado, the Police Association there did a study on the impact of casino gambling on crime and they very clearly came to the conclusion that the introduction of gambling means that police generally are much more busy than normal. It means a rise in crime due to the transient type of population that gambling attracts. It results in more burglary, more drunken driving and more crime in general.
[4:15 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker, the Windsor Police Force, Windsor again being the site of a major casino gambling palace in Ontario, say that when discussing gambling, it is very important to note that the visitor population expected as a result of the casino is not comparable to the same proportion of resident population. This is because the visitor population is far more active. They are transient and, by that very nature, represent more of a target for robberies, assaults, et cetera.
Mr. Speaker, how is Nova Scotia going to cope with these problems? The Minister of Finance and the government to date have failed to give us any assurance that the government is going to be able to provide this level of protection in the event that this level of crime increases or, even better, that it is going to be able to put in place sufficient prevention that we will not face this increase in crime and resultant in a cost to the municipal and provincial taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, this is all about governance. That is what this decision is about. It is about governance. We are all aware, as legislators, that public sector governance is under stress. There is nobody who can tell us more about that today, I am sure, than the Minister of Municipal Affairs, unless perhaps it happens to be the Premier. There is, sir, a perceived ineffectiveness which has induced a lack of confidence in our major institutions. The institution of Parliament, whether we are talking about the national Parliament in Ottawa or the Parliaments in any of the provinces are no exceptions.
Technology, as all of us know, is evolving very quickly and there are new risks and new uncertainties which accrue to the people of this province and, indeed, the global population as a result of those new risks and those new uncertainties. The continuance of improvements in governance is absolutely essential to recapture and to sustain the support of the stakeholders in society, the people of Nova Scotia in this respect, and to ensure that investments made by the government and the accountability of the government will optimize any opportunity for economic and social progress. After all, is that not why the minister argues that he is bringing this enabling legislation into play, to improve the economic prospects of the province. He has not yet, as we all know, in any way, shape or form, demonstrated that it is going to lend itself to improving social progress or creating social progress in the province.
Mr. Speaker, what are the hallmarks of an effective governing body. Certainly they have to include the achievement in practice, sir, of certain fundamental characteristics. What are some of these characteristics? These are characteristics which should accrue to any government and certainly should accrue to this government and to the Cabinet which is the heart of the government, if indeed this government has any heart at all.
What are some of the principles associated with effective governance? Well, one of those principles being composed is that the governing body, in this case the Cabinet, should be composed of people with the necessary knowledge, the ability and the commitment to fulfil their responsibilities. Well, very clearly, this is a group which deems itself to be knowledgeable, which deems itself to have ability, and which deems itself to be committed.
The questions are, how narrow is the knowledge, how thin is the ability and how self-centered and narrow and shallow is the commitment and is it a commitment to themselves or is it a commitment to the people of this province, the people who gave them the opportunity to govern? Another mark of good governance by this Cabinet or any Cabinet should be understanding their purposes and whose interests they represent.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance very clearly has stated on any number of occasions that his interest as Minister of Finance is to increase his revenues. In representing himself, I suppose one could say that he has very much fulfilled that responsibility. But surely his responsibility is wider than that. His responsibility is to represent the interests of the people of Nova Scotia and he has failed, thus far in debating this legislation, to do that in even the most modest way. He has not dealt with anything other than the dollar signs that light up his eyes every time somebody mentions the commencement of casino gambling here in this province.
Another element of good governance is understanding the objectives and the strategies of the organization they govern, in other words, understanding the objectives of the people of this province. I do not recall at any time in my 16 years in public life having the people in my constituency come to me and say that good governance means beginning casino gambling in Nova Scotia. I do not remember any of those people coming to me and saying good governance means commencing casino gambling and adding to the coffers of the Minister of Finance, but accruing the expenses associated with the downside of casino gambling to the municipalities or to the health system or to the educational system or to the community services system. I do not recall any of my constituents ever saying that to me nor, in the opportunities I have had to visit other parts of this province, do I recall any person anywhere at any time in those 16 years coming to me and saying that that is an objective that the government should pursue.
Mr. Speaker, also, another aspect of good governance is knowing and obtaining the information required in order to exercise responsibilities. This is a government which steadfastly has refused to undertake any studies with respect to the potential impact of casino gambling in this province and, if it has undertaken any and has not told us, then it has a responsibility to make all of those studies available to the people of this province.
I understand that at a committee meeting, not too many days ago, there was a witness who said that, gosh, you cannot study the impact of casino gambling in Nova Scotia until after we have casinos. After we have the casinos licensed and up and running and they are operating on licenses that have been granted to these foreign owners - for goodness knows how many years, because the minister has not told us what kind of generous terms he is going to be offering them with respect to their leaseholds and their business here - so, this person says, you cannot understand in any way, shape or form what the impact of casino gambling is going to be before we have casinos operating here.
I think it was my colleague, the member for Pictou Centre, who pointed out, that is a little like saying, you cannot conceptualize and plan and build an airplane until after you have seen it fly. We all know that all of those things were done before the airplane flew. In exactly the same way and for exactly the same rationale, this government should undertake all of those studies which are necessary before the casino airplane flies to make sure we understand that on its maiden flight or somewhere during the course of its flight, it is not going to crash and not going to go down to the ground with all of the best interests of Nova Scotians attached to it. Mr. Speaker, good government demands that once informed good government was prepared to act and to ensure that the province's objectives are met and that the performance is satisfactory.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of talk of confidence in this House. As of late, we have talked about the lack of confidence that the Opposition, and I think many Nova Scotians now have in the judgment of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I say that somewhat painfully because I know that she has worked hard at her job, and I think it is so unfortunate that her poor judgment and the matter of handling the matter of not applying the basic and vitally important government policy has caused that competence to be shaken. I think shaken beyond repair.
Mr. Speaker, confidence in any organization's performance, and government is no exception, will likely require that governing become more transparent to improve the voters. To ensure to the stakeholders, in this case to the voters and indeed all those people who are not old enough to vote yet in Nova Scotia, that what they are doing is the right thing. Ultimately, this means that external reporting, not internal reporting, the government talking to itself - mirror, mirror on the wall - but external reporting by organizations, in this case the government, will have to include a much wider range of information than it has made available to itself, particularly, with respect to the implementation and the introduction of casino gambling here in Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, there are many dynamics at play here in the public sector. The public sector in which we work, the public sector which is suppose to work in the interest of the public of this province, the men and the women and the children of this province. There are many dynamics at play. Those dynamics will affect how governing bodies such as this government use the information they receive in order to implement appropriate management.
How much of it they are willing to include in their accountability to stakeholders is very much at question. The bottom line is that the extent to which a governing body itself wants to be informed will determine how wisely the governing body is able to act. Let us think about that, Mr. Speaker. The first issue at stake is the extent to which a governing body itself wants to be informed. That should cause us all to draw back and ask ourselves, and it should cause every Nova Scotian to ask himself or herself, why is it that this government, according to the answers given to questions in this House and elsewhere, has steadfastly refused to gather together the kinds of information, to have it gathered together at arm's length which will cause it to be able to make decisions in the best interest of Nova Scotians?
Is it because they do not have the money to undertake those studies? Surely not. We know that they have almost $.25 million to do the kinds of studies that are necessary to pull together the four municipalities from the metro region and hammer them into one government whether the people want it or not. We know they have money available for studies in Health. They have many dollars available for studies with respect to the Economic Renewal Agency and so on and so forth.
Why is it then that no money is being available insofar as we and the public know, with respect to pulling together the very best information that can be made available to government before it takes the final plunge over the edge and becomes absolutely hooked on the proceeds of gambling in this province?
[4:30 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker, if those studies have not been done, and we have no reason to believe they have, and if they are not going to be done, and we have no reason to believe that the minister is going to relent and have them done, again, at arm's length - and arm's length doesn't mean in a short-sleeved shirt - then what we have is a government which has not asked the questions because it is afraid of the answers it will receive. That is very bad governance, indeed.
It strikes me, sir, that the very sterling professional career that the Minister of Finance practised, prior to coming to this House, might well have suited him with respect to choosing this line of action, or rather, this line of inaction. I believe, from what little I know of the law, that a lawyer who is defending somebody, especially if it is somebody who probably committed the dreadful deed, will not ask certain questions because he does not want those questions answered.
I have every suspicion, after listening to the Minister of Finance and those in the government who try to defend the introduction of casino gambling in this province, that those studies have not been commissioned because the government does not want the answers that those studies will give. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, as it certainly appears to be from everything we have heard in this House, and outside, and from reading the papers and watching television and listening to radio, then this government has abrogated one of the most important principles of governance. That principle, again, the very first issue, is determining the extent to which the government itself wants to be informed.
Mr. Speaker, the government will have its way with respect to not consulting Nova Scotians; the government will have its way with respect to riding roughshod over those municipal units in which casino gambling houses are going to be established; and the government will have its way, it seems, in sloughing off the social costs of gambling onto the municipal units and to the families of this province. The government will have its way doing all those things, because it has chosen to make decisions not out of knowledge but out of ignorance, self-imposed ignorance. Ignorance which has been created and relied upon because this government is so determined to try to pick up the few dollars it will from casino gambling, without any consideration whatsoever being given to the tremendous social costs that will accrue to casino gambling from one end of this province to the other.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment is all about good governance and every member in this House should support this amendment. Thank you, sir.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou West.
MR. DONALD MCINNES: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak on the amendment to Bill No. 120, the Gaming Control Act. I guess the amendment has probably been read a number of times, but I will read it again. "That the words after `that' be deleted and the following be substituted: `in the opinion of the House, the introduction and enactment of Bill 120 will destroy the essential and fundamental belief that government acts only with the consent of the governed.".
To me, that means that the government should listen to the people. This afternoon there were many petitions tabled. My colleague the member for Pictou Centre. I think there was over 2,000 names, 2,112 names on his petition. There was a petition from my own riding with, I think it was almost 400 names on it. As I have said before, the petition was laying in the town office in Pictou and I had asked the gals that worked in the office if they were having a hard job to get people to sign the petition and they said to me, look, anybody that comes in here and sees the petition that says People Against Casinos, they immediately want to sign the petition. I think that that really tells you something, that people are volunteering to sign the petitions.
I was at a meeting last night with my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, and there was not one person there that was in favour of casinos in this province, not one. We have had all kinds of groups around that have said that they are not interested in casinos. What did the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities say? They said, no. They said they were not in favour of casinos in this province. Who do they represent? They represent 66 municipal units across this province, which will be down to 59 a little later on. The Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities is on record as opposing casinos.
I am sure when the Law Amendments Committee meets, all kinds of groups will be coming out against the casinos. I believe there were quite a number of church groups of all denominations, Protestants, Catholics have spoken out against casinos. I know in Pictou County we have had letters and petitions from the church groups in that area. I know that they have been directed to many of the government members. Are the government members listening? I don't know. (Interruption)
Mr. Speaker, I hope they are listening because if they do not listen, when the time comes, there will be an election in two or three years, or whatever time it is, and if they have not been listening to the people, they will have a difficult job in getting back to their roles in the government.
The member for Antigonish, the member for Cumberland South, the member for Digby-Annapolis, all honourable gentlemen, have been in this Legislature for a long time. Why are they back here? The Speaker himself, he has been representing his constituency of Cape Breton Nova for a long time. Why is he representing his constituency? Because the people like him, because they listen to him. I want to tell you and I don't know if I had this opportunity or not, but I was down to your constituency during the last election and I never saw so many signs in my life in any constituency that I ever was in during the last 16 years.
MR. SPEAKER: There weren't enough, actually.
MR. MCINNES: You had massive support. But the point I am trying to make is you were re-elected because you dealt with your people and you listened to your people and that is why the member for Cumberland South and Antigonish and Digby-Annapolis and the member for Richmond, that is how they get back in this House, by listening to the people.
You know we have a lot of members here that have represented their municipal councils in their various districts for many years. Now, because they did a good job, they ran for election to this House of Assembly. But the point that I want to make again is that I haven't heard from those members, I don't know what they think. I am not sure whether they are for casinos or against them.
My understanding is that there are many people who have, as I say - the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities, the church groups, the Cumberland County Councillors - have spoken against casinos; the people of Yarmouth and the City of Sydney. Now, I think that is where one of the casinos is supposed to go, down in Sydney. The city fathers of the City of Sydney have passed a motion against casinos. The Provincial Health Council has spoken out against casinos and the Medical Society. And why have they spoken out against them? Well, they have and they have come out very strongly against them.
Now, Saskatoon is a nice city, on the Prairie Provinces, on the flat prairies of Canada, nice farming country. They had a plebiscite and what did they have a plebescite on? Casinos; they asked the people. The people resoundingly turned that down.
Where are the regulations for these casinos? Have we seen the regulations? When will they come out? This is a massive bill that gives tremendous power to the appointments. Who is making the appointments to this commission and corporation? The Cabinet are going to appoint three to five people. Who are they going to appoint? I would imagine they will appoint some of their friends. Who does the corporation report to? It reports to the minister. Is that going to be at arm's length? I don't know, that bothers me. I thought this thing was all supposed to be at arm's length.
The Laszlo Lichter group that are reviewing the applications for casinos have narrowed it down to three applications. They were announced. And who supports those groups? Some very well-known people in the City of Halifax support each one of those different applications. So, when the final decision is made it will be interesting to see which one wins the draw. The Cabinet is going to make that final decision, isn't that correct? That is my understanding.
The bill also talks about the Planning Act. Now, you know what it says? It says the Planning Act does not apply. They can do whatever they like, no building permit for renovations or even to repair, they don't need a building permit. This takes away authority from the Cities of Halifax and Sydney. Why don't they let them look at it and review them. I think that is pretty heavy-handed, I do not think that is giving the people an opportunity and that is what this amendment says, that we will destroy the essential and fundamental belief that government acts only within the consent of the government. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, I think that is very heavy-handed.
[4:45 p.m.]
How much money are we going to get from these casinos? Have there been any studies done in Nova Scotia about casinos? Our Leader has asked on numerous occasions to see the studies. The honourable minister, for whom I have great respect, the Minister of Finance who is in charge of gaming in Nova Scotia, has not produced. I have not seen them tabled. We have asked for them. I know we need revenue, I cannot deny that, it would be nice to have more revenue, to lower our debt.
When we have so many people in this province that are calling, that are signing petitions, the figure mentioned is 40,000 people, that is a lot of people to sign petitions. They just do not do that lightheartedly. They see this as a beautiful province in which we live, 900,000 plus people, a very scenic, beautiful province. They talk about the studies, maybe, that were done in Windsor, Ontario and Montreal. Where is Windsor, Ontario located? What city is it next to?
AN HON. MEMBER: Detroit.
MR. MCINNES: Detroit, I wonder how many people in Detroit? I really do not know the population of Detroit City. How many million?
AN HON. MEMBER: About 2 million.
MR. MCINNES: Two million, whatever. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How many people in Nova Scotia? Over 900,000. How many in the Halifax area? Roughly 300,000 or is it 250,000? I do not think we have the population for the casino, that is what I am trying to say. Casinos have to have people coming in and spending their money and if they do not spend their money, well, the government or the people of Nova Scotia are not only to get any return from them.
They say in Montreal, as I understand it, and I may be off a few percentage points in this figure, that 96 per cent of the people who go to the casino in Montreal are from Montreal. They are not bringing in tourists, they are not attracting people from outside to come to the casino. (Interruption) And I say Windsor, Ontario, next to a city of 2 million people, I am told who are very close by and they certainly, have the opportunity to go to that casino and spend their money and that is fine.
We do not have the population and what do we want? We want people to come here and stay in Nova Scotia. We want them to come here and see our beautiful country, beautiful Cape Breton. Cape Breton is a beautiful island. We were down in the fall with the Resources Committee, thanks to the chairman, . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: Great trip.
MR. MCINNES: It was a good trip, the member for Halifax Atlantic was with us and they had an excellent trip. We saw a lot of aquaculture.
AN HON. MEMBER: Saw a lot of little fish.
MR. MCINNES: We saw a lot of little fish and it was a good experience and one that was very worthwhile. The people down there were talking to us when we were down there about being against gambling. They were against gambling.
AN HON. MEMBER: Certainly against gambling with fish.
MR. MCINNES: Exactly. This is the Cape Breton Post, dated October 29th: Major Study Casts Doubt On Economic Benefit of Casinos; I quote from this: A number of people, including public officials have pointed out that the determination of costs and benefits of casino gambling is so difficult that nothing very useful would come from the exercise. Laszlo Lichter, who is the chairman of the Nova Scotia casino project and the former Mayor of Halifax County - who was a good mayor and warden until they changed the name - is quoted by the writer of the Cape Breton Post: Nothing more than guess work, he says. Surely, we have not come to a stage in public policing formation that as the Post indicates, what is regarded as important in government today is to have a plan, an action, and stick to it whether it is the right plan or the best one hardly seems important.
Well, I say we need and the minister has said $40 million to $60 million. It would be nice to have an extra $40 million or $60 million for our revenue in this province. What does liquor bring in sales from the Liquor Commission, I believe it is in the $80 million range and the Atlantic Lottery Corporation I believe brings in $60 million to $80 million revenue and that is very helpful. We have no study to show where that money will come from. What policing requirements are going to be necessary when these casinos are here? They tell us that it is going to cost a lot of money. Who is going to pay for that? This commission I guess is going to give funds to that commission to help offset the costs of extra policing.
I don't want to repeat too many things I said before but I did mention about several members of this House were former municipal councillors and I am disappointed that they are not taking the opportunity to get up and speak on this bill. A very controversial bill. The amendment says you have to listen and I just really feel strongly that this government is going ahead, forging ahead and having these casinos put in the two major cities in our province, our lovely Cities of Halifax and Sydney, where the City Council of Sydney is against it. They are against it. I find that very difficult and hard to understand.
Government is ignoring the wishes of the people. Is the government in the dark? I don't think so, I think there are a lot of intelligent members on that side of the House and sitting beside us and some over here too, some good members, all good members. You had to be a pretty decent person to get elected, in most cases. It really bothers me when so many people are against it that you as a government are not listening. Are you not concerned what your people think? If somebody calls me up I try to call them back. I try to call them back and I try to help them. If I can't help them I will call them back and tell them that too because people like that, at least you tried, they said you tried Donnie and you couldn't help, fine.
Churches, I don't think I mentioned TIANS when I talked about the various groups that were against casinos, the Tourist Industry Association of Nova Scotia. Who do they represent? They represent the hotels, motels, little bed and breakfasts across this province and they also have representatives of course in each area and their thinking is, they passed the resolution and I read the resolution into Hansard the other day, and I am not going to read it again for you, you heard it, you know what it is. It said that 60 per cent of the people at the TIANS annual meeting voted against it. Nova Scotians do not want casino gambling. We don't know what the social implications are. Where is the social impact study?
Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult that these members are not listening and are not up to speaking on it one way or the other. If they are for it, let's get up and tell us why they are for it. Are they for it because they think it is going to raise a lot of money? Maybe that is a good reason to be for it. And where is the money going to come from? I am suggesting to you that we are not going to get a lot of tourism dollars from people who come to Halifax or Sydney to go to casinos. I know there are people who go to Las Vegas and I talked about that the other day, too. People go to Las Vegas to gamble, all kinds of casinos, the city is full of them down there.
This is not Las Vegas. People want to come to Nova Scotia to see our beautiful landscape and our beautiful harbours and the countryside, to see our beautiful trees in the fall, the beautiful colours. They don't want to come here for a casino.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say too much more about this bill. We will likely have an opportunity again to speak on it, before the Legislature closes, before next spring. It will eventually pass second reading here and then it will go to the Law Amendments Committee. There will be many groups, church groups and all kinds of groups of people into the Law Amendments Committee and that is a great opportunity for people. I guess we are one of the few provinces that now has a Law Amendments Committee that gives people an opportunity (Interruption) The only one, I was quite sure of that, but it is the only one where people have a right to come in and express their feelings.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is what I am asking you people to do, to think about this bill. If this bill passes, and it will, you are going to have casinos in this province forever; once they get in, they will be here. And if they are here, and if it is the government's wish to pass the bill and they have them, I just hope that it can make a lot of money for us. My concern is that the money they make is going to be coming from the poor people of Nova Scotia. It is not going to be outside money. (Interruption)
Well, unfortunately, some people get the fever, just like the VLTs. We put the VLTs in the corner stores, we made a conscious decision to do that. I was part of the Cabinet that said, yes, we are going to put them in the corner stores. And do you know what happened? The people spoke; the churches, the municipalities, it was crazy. People wanted them out of those corner stores. We listened to the people, we took them out. I am trying to tell you, to tie this down, you have to listen to the people. We took them out and your government and your minister went along with that and stood up in the House and said, no, they should not be in the corner stores and I salute you for that, I think that was the right move. (Interruption) And you studied this, well, I didn't see that study yet, to the Minister of Transportation.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about this. People want you to listen to them. Once we decided to take them out of the corner stores the only people who were upset were the small corner stores themselves. They were disappointed, but the majority of the 900,000 people of Nova Scotia wanted them out. The majority of people are saying today, we do not want casinos in Nova Scotia, 900,000 plus (Interruption) 40,000, we think, is the number. I do not want to be quoted on that, but (Interruption) I tabled my petition earlier today, and I am sure the Clerk would be glad to give a copy to anybody that wanted it or staff would be more than pleased to give you a copy. (Interruption)
[5:00 p.m.]
AN HON. MEMBER: So, why don't you put it to a plebiscite then, if you figure 40,000 is not representing the population. Put it to a plebiscite. (Interruption)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member for Pictou West has the floor.
MR. MCINNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know the members are getting restless. They are going to be restless before this bill is passed, I know that too. Anyway, I think this bill needs time for the regulations to be drafted. I think we need that social and economic study. We should have public hearings, my gosh, we did have public hearings did we not? Did we have public hearings? We had the Morris Commission. We had Derrick Kimball, a member for Kings South and then we had (Interruption) Yes, and I will tell you why in a minute. Then we had the member for Halifax Bedford Basin who was a good member and was a good chairman and they went around the province and they had the hearings and they brought in the report. I believe a number of those members signed that report. Some of our members signed that report. Do you know what the report said? What did that report say? Nobody will talk about the Kimball Report. (Interruption)
Mr. Speaker, if they want the floor, I would be very pleased to sit down and let them speak. Do you want to speak? Well, I will not sit down yet then. What did those reports say? They said, no casinos in this province at this time. I am glad you people are wanting to talk. I really am glad. I would be so happy to see those members stand up and express their concerns to the Legislature here. I really would love to hear what they think.
Well, what happened to us on May 25th? We are over here and you are over there. (Interruption) That was what the people said and when the people - I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am supposed to address you. The people said, you fellows are out. You got tired of listening, you are old, you are 16 years at it or 15 years at it. We want a new group and these fellows are getting to it quicker. (Interruption) I do not think they will be around for 15 years if they do not start listening to the people of this province.
People want to see the regulations. We want to see the social and economic studies. We would like to have some public hearings again.
AN HON. MEMBER: Some more public hearings?
MR. MCINNES: Sure, I think that would be a good idea so people could go and express their, and we will see the public in at this Law Amendments Committee when this bill gets through, Mr. Speaker. We will have the people there. (Interruption)
Mr. Russell has expressed himself before and Mr. Russell has the right and he will express himself again on this bill. He will have that opportunity and if that member wants to get up and have his say, the chairman of the government caucus, I would be glad to yield the floor to him because I would like to hear what he thinks about casinos.
I have another minute or two here. I had a piece of paper which I cannot locate. Where is my bill? Mr. Speaker, this bill, Bill No. 120, is 38 pages, laying down the law, not giving the municipalities the right for any planning. They are just going to go ahead and build their casinos any way they like.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to be voting for this amendment. When the main bill gets to second reading, I will voting against the bill because that is what I am told the people of my area, and I hope the people in your area, want. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the amendment which is now proposed to Bill No. 120. The amendment, I think, is very important in the context of what it is all 52 of us are supposed to do in this place. The amendment says that, ". . . in the opinion of the House, the introduction and enactment of Bill No. 120 will destroy the essential and fundamental belief that government acts only with the consent of the governed.".
I think there is considerable merit to that amendment because if we have a government, any government, that attempts to govern without the support of those who are governed, we have anarchy and we have dictatorship and we have, frankly, what we have in this bill. We have a piece of public policy being stuffed down the throat of a majority of the residents who are governed who simply do not want the legislative change or the public policy change to be made.
The amendment says ". . . belief that government acts only with the consent of the governed.". Well, the word or the will or the opinion of the governed in relation to this issue has, in fact, been canvassed and in those cases when the will of the people was canvassed and that will was made public, lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, as I know you well know, the expression of that will, as determined by those consultations and those studies, was a negative one. The will expressed by the people of Nova Scotia relative to casino gaming was, we do not believe that it is appropriate to have casino gaming in the Province of Nova Scotia at the present time.
There are, as I have said before, a number of members of this Legislature, among them members of the governing Party, who are signatories to the documents which report to this Legislature and to the Province of Nova Scotia that the people of Nova Scotia do not want casino gaming in Nova Scotia at the present time.
You know, Mr. Speaker, there are many elements of concern that surround this whole issue of casino gambling and casino gaming. It is, I think, important to note that this provincial government, acting in what I consider to be an uninformed and arrogant way, is in the process of foisting upon the people of Nova Scotia a significant public policy initiative, a process or an initiative which has the potential to change - I say potential - the fabric and the lifestyle and the socio-economic reality of our province, without ever having even had the decency to undertake a socio-economic impact study to make some judgment or determination as to what the long-term impact of casino gaming in this province will be.
You know, my colleague, the member for Queens, made reference to the fact, a little earlier when he spoke, that certain experts have offered opinion in regard to this whole matter and one of them, when asked about the possibility of doing a socio-economic impact study in regard to casino gaming, got off what I thought was just an absolutely glorious line. The line was something to the effect that, well, you know you can't really do an effective socio-impact study until you have the casinos up and running and we see what happens and give them two or three years and then maybe after a three year study, we experts, said he, will be able to tell you what the socio-economic impact is of having casinos in the Province of Nova Scotia.
Well, in some arcane, theoretical, academic kind of debate, that kind of line might go down and some people might say, gee, that makes sense, you have something going and you let it go for three years and then you check it out and you see what it is doing, good, bad, or indifferent. But I can't help but think as has already been said that if that were the attitude taken in regard to a whole range of initiatives of public policy, we would be in one state of affairs. That is akin, as has already been said, to well, we can't really do a study to determine what the impact is, as but one example, of airplane flight so we will send a piece of machinery up, not worry much about how the configuration and the engines and the wings and so on and then we will study after the fact how it gets along. That is about the logic employed, in my humble opinion, by those who say, no, you cannot do a socio-economic impact study.
Well, if that is the case, if that perhaps is the theory to which this government subscribes, I can't help but believe that it begs the question and it just begs for the government to answer, how is it and on what information and on what analysis and on what study, has the government been able to make any conclusion to do anything except guess that the establishment of casinos will generate any money whatsoever? I am going to put the proposition that they will make zero dollars. Why is that proposition any less valid than the uninformed and unsubstantiated suggestions from the Minister of Finance that there is the potential that there are millions of dollars of revenue? How does he know? He certainly doesn't know on the basis of anything that he has been prepared to share with this House or with the taxpayers of Nova Scotia. He hasn't shared any study. He hasn't shared with the people who are governed, background or information or detail as to how he has come to that conclusion.
The government has done no credible research whatsoever that shows that casinos will create any positive, let alone any net positive social or economic benefit for the Province of Nova Scotia. And I say that with no cost benefit analysis to support its claims that there will be benefit to the people of Nova Scotia, the government is doing nothing more than merely idly insisting that net revenues and employment levels will increase and they don't have one scintilla, not one iota or information of professional study to verify that, at least none that they have been prepared to disclose here in this place.
You know, there have been some studies done in relation to casino gaming. Admittedly and as I indicated in discussion on this bill on earlier days, they have been done relative to other places. But they have been done and the only thing that we can do as an Opposition Party in the face of the government which simply says, we are doing this and we don't particularly care one way or the other what the Opposition says, we don't particularly care one way or the other what thousands of people and it may be as many as 40,000 to 50,000 people who signed petitions saying we don't want this. The government simply snubs their nose at those who signed the petitions and simply have no care and no interest in those who signed those petitions. But some studies have been done and, admittedly, I acknowledge they have been done in other places, so if they are suspect for that reason, then I acknowledge that. But all we can do is offer in this debate and in this discussion some indication and some information that in places where casino gaming has taken place, some analysis of the results and the effects has been undertaken.
[5:15 p.m.]
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the case of Atlantic City. There has been a great deal of talk, although again no documentation and no analysis to support it, that there is the likelihood of economic benefit and jobs to be gained as a result of having casino gaming in the Province of Nova Scotia. Well, ". . . consider the case of Atlantic City, New Jersey. In 1977, before the city's first casino opened there were 243 eating and drinking establishments. After ten years, there were only 146, and the survivors reported a 10% drop in sales, after inflation. Arnold Hewes, of the Minnesota Restaurant Association, says that in the three years since the introduction of casinos in that state, restaurants within a 25-30 mile radius of any major casino are reporting a 20-50% loss in business.".
Well, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that is a scary proposition for indigenous, existing, current, local Nova Scotia business. Is that the fate of Nova Scotia business, if casino gaming and gambling is in place here?
My understanding, and I may be wrong because the thing is shrouded in such secrecy that I think I would have easier access to the Kremlin than I would to the information relative to what this government and the proponents propose relative to these casinos, but in general terms, my understanding is that these will be Las Vegas-like places. Well, my understanding of places of that kind is that they will provide or have relationships with particular hotel accommodation, that they will provide considerable entertainment opportunity for the patrons, aside from the casinos and the tables and the machines themselves.
They will, of course, have all those gaming tables and the slot machines and the like. They will have restaurants, coffee shops, and undoubtedly little mall areas with craft shops and the whole deal. What kind of impact is that going to have on the men and women who are now running hotels and restaurants and entertainers in Nova Scotia and craft shops and the like? I don't hear any mention at all from the Minister of Finance that they will have a positive impact. I don't hear any mention from the Minister of Tourism and Culture that the men and women who are world-class craftspersons in Nova Scotia are going to be advantaged, as a result of having an opportunity to sell their wares in these gambling emporiums which are proposed.
If that information was available and if, in fact, studies were done which showed that that was the case, then I would be prone to change my tune radically. But I can't understand that it is incumbent upon those of us who, in my opinion, are the only ones in this House, namely the Opposition members, who are attempting to represent the best interests of the people of Nova Scotia, we simply have no information and, by extrapolation, the taxpayers of Nova Scotia have no information that the establishment of casino gaming in the Province of Nova Scotia is likely to be of any value or benefit to them at all.
There have been the studies to which reference has already been made. Members of this House, Mr. Speaker, went out and talked to the public and asked advice and opinion on the question of whether or not Nova Scotians thought casino gaming was the right thing for this province. The answer came back, in each case the opinion was no, we Nova Scotians do not believe that casino gaming is in the best interest of the Province of Nova Scotia at the present time.
Where is the study that the Minister of Finance or the Premier or the Minister of Tourism and Culture, the Minister of Economic Renewal, any minister on the Treasury benches opposite, where is the study that any of them have or has, that indicates that those earlier reports were all wrong, that there were going to be considerable benefits from the establishment of casino gaming?
You know, it has been said that the establishment of casinos in this province will be good for tourism in Nova Scotia. Well, I am just simply not so sure that is the case, in fact, I have very serious reasons to doubt that that will be the case at all. It is the case that when we get into a discussion about what the impact on tourism in Nova Scotia will be, if we have casino gaming, the provincial government's own Standing Committee on Community Services, which is one of the reports to which I referred earlier, agrees and says this, ". . .there is little substantiated evidence, as shown by other casino gaming operations in Canada, that casinos will significantly improve the levels of tourist traffic.". In fact, tourism could be hurt by casino gambling. A study conducted by the University of New Orleans regarding casinos in that city made the following statement that the tourist industry, as a whole, is a net loser due to gambling, however, the casino is a net winner. I say, therefore, based on no hard evidence, on no hard evidence at least that this government has been prepared to share with anybody. The provincial government has bought into the myth that casinos will, in fact, attract more tourists. Furthermore, in my view, the provincial government has not considered the negative impact that legalized casino gambling could have on our traditional tourism sector.
I remember the Minister of Tourism on an earlier day, I think, in the last session of the House getting up and talking about - this was long before the announcement by the Premier that there would be casino gaming in this province - and he was applauding his department and he was lauding, patting himself on the back. He was talking about the wonderful year that tourism was having and he spent some time - if my memory is correct - talking about the tremendous potential of eco-tourism here in the Province of Nova Scotia.
While I came, in my very short time as Minister of Tourism, to learn a little bit about eco-tourism and, I frankly, believe that what the current minister was saying is absolutely right. There is an overwhelming potential for tourism growth here in the Province of Nova Scotia, in the field of eco-tourism. I do not know what impact, what adverse impact, if any, the establishment of casinos is going to have on that. But I make this prediction, it will certainly not add one tourist in the eco-tourism field, because you are not going to have those who are coming for eco-tourism coming for the casino gambling. I do not believe . . .
AN HOH. MEMBER: Is that ego-tourism?
MR. DONAHOE: . . . yes, eco-tourism. Well, there is more ego-tourism on the government benches than perhaps anything else in regard to all of this.
There are many people who have taken a look at what might happen here. It is my contention which, I suggest, is just as valid as the contention of the Minister of Finance or anybody else on this issue. He offers no studies, no reports and no analysis. I believe, frankly, that tourism and culture are not the only businesses which will be hurt in this province by the casino industry. Nova Scotians, and tourists have a limited amount of disposable income and every dollar that is spent on casino gaming is a dollar that is not spent somewhere else.
There was a study done by the University of South Dakota which showed that the arrival of new gambling ventures produced a significant decline in sales of certain non-gambling industries. Those industries included clothing stores, recreation services, business services, auto dealers and service stations. Sales of alcohol, however, continued in an upward direction. Well, I again ask, and I plead with the government to share with Nova Scotians the studies or the analyses of the details, which they have, which indicate that casinos will, in fact, be good for the Province of Nova Scotia and will not be the harm, to a whole range of existing and indigenous business here in the Province of Nova Scotia.
I said on an earlier day and it has been said by others and I am very much struck by the fact that it has been said by the Tourism Industry Association of Nova Scotia. The Tourism Industry Association of Nova Scotia, at an annual meeting in Halifax, as recently as November 6th - today is what, the 16th - that is only 11 days ago they had their meeting and 60 per cent of the delegates to the TIANS meeting supported seeking more information before deciding whether to back casinos.
Well, those are the men and women, Mr. Speaker, who run the tourism industry of this province. They are the men and women who run the hotels and the motels and the bed and breakfasts. They run the craft shops and they run all of those facilities and all of the infrastructure which is Nova Scotia tourism. They are saying that this issue needs study. They, TIANS, the tourism industry . . .
MRS. LILA O'CONNOR: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have heard the members over here mention TIANS many times and the fact about the annual meeting. I would like to say that I have had a memo from Judith Cabrita, who is the Executive Director of TIANS, saying that they called both the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative caucus to advise them of the motion and that TIANS supports gaming on the premise that gaming would increase tourism. They have not changed their position and I think it is time that they realized that they were called. Thank you. (Applause)
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!
MR. SPEAKER: I would like to rule on the point of order that has been raised, if I may. It has been ruled by many Speakers over the years that a dispute between honourable members as to facts does not constitute a point of order. This is a matter of an interpretation of the position of a private organization. It would be, I would suggest, between the honourable member and that organization as to what the stance of the organization is on some given issue.
I would think, for example, that if a member were to claim that the Nova Scotia Teachers Union was against education that that would not be a point of order. It would be a matter between that member and the Nova Scotia Teachers Union. So I would feel in the same way in this instance, that this is a matter between TIANS and the various members of the House. I do not feel it is a point of order.
MRS. O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the information I have saying where they have been contacted.
MR. SPEAKER: I have no objection whatever to any legitimate material being tabled. It is always in order to table documents. The documents are tabled.
MR. DONAHOE: Before the Page takes it, could I perhaps have a look. (Interruption) Well, all I can say is that I would like to see the resolution which was passed because the official record of the Tourism Industry Association of Nova Scotia is not that letter, but it is in fact the document which I now have and I will now read and will table.
It is, that the annual general meeting of TIANS took place this morning, November 6, 1994 at 9:30 a.m. At this meeting, a motion was introduced by Adrian Blanchette and seconded by Bruce Anderson to the effect that, and I quote, TIANS asks the Government of Nova Scotia to form an all-Party committee to appoint a recognized authority who would identify the possible benefits to our industry, as well as the possible harm which could result from the introduction of casinos to our province so that we may properly prepare ourselves for this eventuality, close quote.
The motion was passed by the general membership with 60 per cent of the delegates voting in favour of the motion. Information on this vote may be obtained from myself at the above address and the phone numbers and so on and that detail. (Interruption) I am prepared to table the document.
[5:30 p.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: The document is tabled.
MR. DONAHOE: That is the official record as I see it of the Tourism Industry Association of Nova Scotia. The honourable members opposite are wailing away and they are saying, well, how many voted? It is clear that this government does not particularly care much about how many others outside of their caucus vote on anything or have any opinion on anything because they are certainly not prepared to share any information with TIANS, with this caucus, with anybody. (Interruption)
Well, if the Minister of Education is so smart perhaps the Minister of Education can stand now and table in this House the studies which he or his colleagues have done to show that casinos gambling will be good for the people of Nova Scotia. (Interruption) Yes, good answer and if the honourable member had been listening to my remarks he would have realized that I have been citing and quoting from study after study which reflects and indicates clearly, Mr. Speaker, that there are many potential problems.
The introduction of casino gaming into the Province of Nova Scotia carries with it, Mr. Speaker, the potential that we will be sealing the fate of thousands and thousands of Nova Scotians as gambling addicts as a consequence of the presence in our province of casino gaming. Yes, thousands and thousands. Because, in fact, in Canada there have been some surveys done and surveys have shown that pathological gamblers comprise from 1.2 per cent to as much as 5.4 per cent of the total population. Surveys from American jurisdictions show similar rates of gambling addiction. If we assume the provincial population is, I think it is pretty accurate here in Nova Scotia, some 900,000 people, there are potentially between 9,000 and 45,000 Nova Scotians who could become addicted and problem gamblers here in the Province of Nova Scotia.
Public health research has demonstrated conclusively that increased exposure to gambling activities leads to an increase in the number of pathological gamblers. With that in mind, I suggest it is very likely that the introduction of casinos will push the percentage of problem gamblers in Nova Scotia toward the higher end of these estimates.
HON. ROSS BRAGG: A short question, Mr. Speaker. If, and I am just curious about this because it just dawned on me, the member opposite is so concerned about the moral wrongs of casinos as he calls it and all the problems and so on, could he tell me why his government put video poker machines in corner stores and then into bars and lounges? There is something wrong with his position now and if he could explain why maybe I would understand his position better. The government that put video lottery terminals in convenience stores all over this province and then put them in bars and not just a few, but just went wild with them a few years ago has now become the evangelist of anti-casino in this Legislature. Could he explain why he and his government did that then and he is taking this position now?
MR. DONAHOE: The honourable member (Interruption) No, I am not born again. (Interruption) Yes, like Dizzy Dean, he was originally born in Chicago. I was part of a government, as the honourable indicates that took a decision to have video lottery terminals in the corner grocery stores and bars and we came to the conclusion, and we think rightly so, that we were perpetrating a very real problem upon the people of Nova Scotia to allow them to continue to function in the corner grocery stores. So, we made the decision to take them out of the corner grocery stores. They were left in the bars on the recommendation of expert advice and opinion which was made available, and a study (Interruption) The members laugh. If you will check, the honourable members might like to jest but if the honourable members who have access to Cabinet documents go back and do a little research themselves and go back and take a look at the advice that (Interruption) This isn't a distance trick. The problem with these arrogant know-it-all so and so's across the way is that all they know is that they are infallible.
It is unbelievable that the government to a person has adopted one ethic and the one ethic is don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up. I ask any one of these members, well I will ignore the rabbit tracks from the lady who had the saddest day, the saddest person in Nova Scotia today, thought she had a seat on the front benches and it didn't happen, saddest lady in Nova Scotia.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's speak to the resolution, please.
MR. DONAHOE: I will speak to the resolution and I will answer. I am trying to answer the question from the distinguished Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency and I will tell him we made a mistake to have them in the corner grocery stores. We made a mistake, we admitted it and we corrected it and we stopped that. Why are the video lottery terminals in the licensed establishments? Because the government of which I was a member conducted a study, sought expert advice and opinion and had a recommendation that that was an appropriate public policy course, okay?
Yes, indeed we mentioned the social impact and I ask honourable members opposite, the study is not in my possession but I daresay it is in the possession of the present Treasury bench members because the study was made available to us and it was on the advice of professional opinion that those decisions were taken. Maybe they were the wrong decisions. Maybe, John, maybe Minister of Education? Right? Maybe they were wrong. But, do you know the difference between what we did and what you and your bunch are doing, we did them on the basis of seeking professional advice and counsel and guidance. I have seen no evidence at all that this government has undertaken the same public policy course.
If this government has, it owes it to the people in Nova Scotia to table in this place the studies on which they base this decision. The Minister of Finance was so sure I presume he had some economic or financial studies, he was so sure that casino gaming in Nova Scotia was going to be such a financial bonanza for him and his department's bank account that he was even getting off lines a few months ago about maybe being able to lower taxes. Now I notice he is backing away from that. (Interruptions) Not at all? So, he has made a commitment today that he is going to lower taxes, okay. (Interruptions) Well, we are reading the whole thing.
What the taxpayers of Nova Scotia would like to read is the study and the socio-economic impact study that lets them make their judgment as to whether or not this is a reasonable or appropriate public policy position for the people of Nova Scotia. The truth of the matter is and these honourable members opposite know it, there is very real potential that, if we engage in casino gambling in this province, we will run the risk of subjecting somewhere from 9,000 to 45,000 people to a life of gambling addiction and that is the case. Studies in other places have indicated that that is the reality, that is what happens.
I see no indication or evidence at all that this particular government has the slightest concern about that; a government led by a doctor; a government with a doctor as a Minister of Health who they tell us today in resolutions is so famous that he is going to get some big international award for emergency medicine; a doctor who is the Minister of Community Services. With all the medical opinion, I think the taxpayers of Nova Scotia have every reason to look askance at the lack of concern that this government indicates at the possibility that we are going to be subjecting thousands of Nova Scotians to a life of addiction as a result.
The amendment asks or suggests that we are, by passing this bill if we do, destroying ". . . the essential and fundamental belief that government acts only with the consent of the governed.". This piece of legislation has provisions in it as I know you know, Mr. Speaker, which completely and totally run roughshod over, to use the words of the amendment, the consent of the governed. It runs roughshod over the citizens of the city, a part of which I have the honour to represent and over the citizens represented by a number of members in this House, including members of the Executive Council.
I wonder what the Minister of Labour has to say to his constituents when he realizes, as I do, that Halifax City Council has passed a resolution against the establishment of a casino in its city. Add to that that this legislation has some of the most unbelievable provisions in it, as to what the province can do to simply strip and rip away legitimate municipal rights.
The City of Halifax and I have heard this kind of expression used by members opposite in the past, the City of Halifax is the crown jewel of Atlantic Canada. One of the reasons that it is is it has the magnificent Halifax Citadel, after which my constituency has the honour to be named. One of the things that the City Fathers in this city have done and to their credit and over many years have been diligent to ensure they continue to protect and that is view planes legislation from the historic Halifax Citadel. The Halifax Citadel is the most visited national historic location or site in all of this country. My City Fathers, the City Fathers of the capital city of our province, have worked hard over many years to protect the viewplanes from the City of Halifax. This legislation (Interruption) Yes, Gerald O'Malley, the honourable member for Halifax Needham, was a part of that city council and it escapes me as to why he is not raising objection and concern at least to part of this legislation.
Potentially, the impact of this legislation, speaking in terms in the context of the amendment, governing with the consent of the governed, the governed in this case, the residents of the City of Halifax, have City Fathers who have passed viewplanes legislation. This bill would afford this provincial government, through the committee and the commission, to be able to establish a casino anywhere it pleases within the City of Halifax, with no regard whatsoever to the zoning or the planning rules and by-laws of the City of Halifax, and the Planning Act. Completely ignore another piece of provincial legislation, but also including a capacity for this government, through the structures established in the bill, to completely ignore the viewplanes legislation of the City of Halifax.
[5:45 p.m.]
I can't believe that any one of the 52 members of this Legislature, understanding the importance of the Halifax Citadel, understanding the importance for future generations of the viewplanes legislation which our enlightened City Fathers for the past many years have instituted, could allow a piece of legislation to be passed so that somebody from Las Vegas or somebody from God knows where, can come into our province and build a casino and put it up so as to destroy the viewplanes legislation of the City of Halifax. It can happen. (Interruption)
I hear honourable members, oh, it is not up yet. No, it is not up yet and if we took some time and some care to seek the advice and the counsel and the opinion of those who have the concerns and many concerns about this particular legislation, perhaps we could make some very significant changes. Perhaps we could have some consultation with the City of Halifax, which has never taken place. I don't think it has taken place with the City of Sydney. We could potentially have many of the concerns absolutely overcome. But the most fundamental concern is, what is the long-term impact to the social fabric and the life of the Province of Nova Scotia, in the event we have casino gaming.
You know honourable members opposite sort of snickered when I talked about the possibility of gaming addiction and gambling addiction and so on. Well, it is a very significant disease and it is a disease. If we pass this legislation, we are about to embark on putting in place a regime which has the potential to result in as many as 50,000 of our fellow citizens having a disease and, in many cases, perhaps a pre-existing disease, flower into a serious illness. I think that is exceedingly important and sufficiently important that we should be prepared to put this matter behind us and simply not go forward with it at all.
I would like to ask, in the context of the amendment which we debate, Mr. Speaker, the amendment says that if we pass this bill it will destroy the essential and fundamental belief that government acts only with the consent of the governed. Well, some might not believe that is a fundamental belief. I have some reason to think, on the basis of their performance over the past weeks particularly, that many opposite perhaps don't share that belief, a fundamental belief that government act only with the consent of the governed. So maybe there are some over there who don't particularly care what the will or the opinion, the hopes, the aspirations and the fears of the governed really are.
I don't understand why that need be the case. This is a government which only 18 months ago went to the people of Nova Scotia and was sent to this place with a resounding 41, 42 seat majority. What possible fear could there be that this government would afford those they govern the opportunity to make their views known? They have already had three chances, three studies done and they have expressed an opinion.
So what is going on here? What is the problem? The problem is, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the three studies already done indicate that those Nova Scotians who express their opinion on the question of casino gaming said, we do not believe it to be in the best interests of Nova Scotia. This government is, for some particular reason, and I suspect it is nothing more than greed, and greed in the sense that they have a belief, they have this ill-conceived, in my opinion, belief that the establishment of casino gaming in this province is going to be an absolute financial bonanza for the Minster of Finance. They are so struck with the idea and the sight of sugar plums dancing before their heads, that there will be millions of dollars in the Minister of Finance's account that is not there now, that they do not particularly care what the view and the opinion of the governed actually is.
You know, I cannot get over the arrogance of this government. They simply do not care what the people of Nova Scotia say. They simply do not care what the people of this province say about casino gaming. They certainly seem not to care what the tourism industry of Nova Scotia says. They certainly do not seem to care about what the Medical Society of this province has said and if I could find the right notes, they seem not to care at all about what has been said about the Anglican, Baptist, Evangelical, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic and United Churches, all of whom have spoken out against casinos. Cumberland County councillors, there are two Cabinet Ministers, including the Minister of the Economic Renewal Agency from Cumberland and the county councillors there have spoken out against casinos. The Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities have spoken out against casinos. The Medical Society, I repeat, the Medical Society is men and women in this province who know . . . (Interruption)
I guess the honourable Minister of the Economic Renewal Agency is perhaps phoning the Cumberland County councillors who have spoken out about casino gaming to see if perhaps they have changed their mind. (Interruption) Perhaps he is phoning the people of Yarmouth because the people of Yarmouth have also expressed an opinion against gaming. (Interruption)
If he knows what is good for him, he will be calling for help because I think he and his colleagues need a great deal of help in connection with this matter, Mr. Speaker.
We watched the American elections recently on television and seven states in the United States turned down resolutions calling for the establishment of casino gaming. What is the unseemly haste here? What is going on here? We have had three studies that say, no. Yet this government is hell-bent-for-leather to have casino gaming in the Province of Nova Scotia.
Did this government go to the people, Mr. Speaker, in April and May of 1993 and say vote for us and we are going to pass laws that allow casino gaming? They sure did not. They went to the people of Nova Scotia in 1993 and they said, vote for us and we are going to lower taxes and they have done the opposite. They went to the people in May of 1993 and they said, vote for us and we are going to put 63,000 people back to work and that has not happened. (Interruption)
It was not 57,000 at all. It was 63,000 people. Then they had 30-60-90. Mr. Speaker, we are going shortly to debate legislation introduced by the Minister of the Environment. Legislation I am sure he will tell us, is intended to be a framework and the legislated cradle within which the environment of the Province of Nova Scotia will be sustained and protected.
Well, isn't it interesting that a few rows down the line on the Treasury bench, we have a minister who introduces a piece of legislation which says the Environment Act does not apply here. We can build any kind of a casino anywhere we want and we do not have to worry about the local planning or zoning by-laws, we do not have to worry even about the Planning Act itself. We do not have to worry about the Minister of the Environment's Environment Act. Well, it is true, and if I am wrong, then perhaps the Minister of the Environment could disabuse me of my understanding, but I know I am not wrong and so does he.
Here is a piece of legislation that says that we are going to go do whatever we want to do with casinos and we don't have to worry about the province's planning laws; we don't have to worry about the province's environment laws; we don't have to worry about the municipality zoning laws; we don't have to worry about the City of Halifax's viewplanes by-laws; we don't have to worry about the sewer and water. In fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you particularly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, coming at your present responsibilities as you do with an extensive experience on Halifax City Council, you know that this legislation also does not provide, anywhere at all, for any obligation on the part of the provincial authority to compensate, in any way, shape or form, the municipalities in the event that any additional cost is to be borne by the municipalities in terms of sewer and water, of police protection, in terms of all of those other things which may well attend the implementation of casino gaming in the Province of Nova Scotia.
I just really do not understand why this government is so absolutely intent that it go forward with this legislation at this time with such haste. I wonder if the government has any idea what the opinion of those they govern really is? Do they have any idea what the opinion of those whom they govern really is? I doubt that they do at all. I have seen no evidence or none of them have taken their feet here in this House, none of them have stood up and said that they have conducted any survey or analysis in their constituency and they have concluded that their constituents support the establishment of casino gaming in this province.
We had the spectacle here today that they were not even prepared to table petitions which were signed by people who are their constituents. Are they afraid to see those, to read those, to look at those names?
AN HON. MEMBER: There aren't too many Tories left . . .
MR. DONAHOE: Well, I hear my distinguished friend say there are not too many Tories out there. Well, I will tell you, there are not too many Liberals out there any longer on the strength of the people that I have had contact with over the last couple of months. (Interruptions) We will see when the time comes how many Tories, how many Liberals and how many NDP.
In the meantime, what we are seeing is more of the high-handed, do not confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up, kind of approach. We are going ahead with casinos, we do not particularly care what the Opposition says. We do not particular care what those who signed the petition say. We do not particularly care what the churches of the province say. We do not care what TIANS say. We do not care what the Medical Society say. We do not care what the community in Yarmouth says. We do not care what the councillors in Cumberland say. They simply do not care. They simply have decided, for some reason which they will not share with the taxpayers of Nova Scotia, for some reason this government will not share the surveys, analysis, the debate which they have done . . .
MR. SPEAKER: We have now reached the motion of interruption. The honourable member has six minutes remaining after the Adjournment debate.
[6:00 p.m.]
I understand that the debate was won by the honourable Leader of the Opposition. The resolution reads:
Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Natural Resources put forth a position paper on behalf of the Province of Nova Scotia so that serious negotiations can begin and a consensus reached with the federal government on a new federal Forestry Development Agreement for Nova Scotia.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION UNDER RULE 5(5)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to turn over, as I think I am permitted by the rules, the carriage of the debate on this resolution to my distinguished colleague for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in the Legislature, and I want to thank my colleague for Halifax Citadel, the Leader of our great Party for passing this debate along to me this evening.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the Legislature this evening for the late show debate to discuss a very important issue with thousands and thousands of Nova Scotians, an issue that the Minister of Natural Resources has said he has done a lot of work on but yet we are not seeing the end result, that of course being a new federal-provincial forestry agreement.
Mr. Speaker, time is running out. If no new forestry agreement is signed, the consequences for Nova Scotia will be absolutely catastrophic. Approximately 30,000 direct and indirect jobs relate to the forest or forest related industries. Nearly one out of every four dollars that is generated in the manufacturing sector is attributed to forestry.
To begin with, we are looking, without any exaggeration, at the possible loss of 30,000 direct and indirect jobs. There may be no more 24 hour saw or pulp mills. Mr. Speaker, I do not make that statement to fear monger, that is a very real, very distinct possibility. The honourable minister might be doing something, but I will tell you right now there is tremendous concern, as I am sure the minister is aware, right across Nova Scotia in the forest industry that the minister or his Cabinet colleagues are accomplishing very much. There is a lot of concern across this province.
I will tell you why that perception could be there. For example, in the Legislature yesterday, I asked the minister for a list of names of the Cabinet committee which he said had been formed to go to Ottawa and fight for all resource based industries here in Nova Scotia. Mr. Speaker, he clearly stated there was such a committee in this Legislature during debate on November 2nd, but yesterday when I asked him for a list of Cabinet committee members, his best reply and I mean his best response to me was that he is talking with the federal Minister of Natural Resources. He then said he understood I was asking for a list of every meeting that had taken place between provincial Cabinet Ministers and their federal counterparts.
Mr. Speaker, that is not what I asked. What I wanted from the honourable minister, and still do, if such a committee exists, and I suggest that it does exist . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Order now, please. With all due deference to the honourable member, we are debating a resolution. We are not in Question Period. We are not a follow-up to the Question Period. I am not trying to restrict you, you have a latitude here, but we are debating a resolution which you have before you.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am still looking for the names of the Cabinet Ministers who are sitting on the committee formed to fight for all resources based in this province. I simply wanted their names and a list of the meetings that they have held since the committee was formed.
Now, keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that the committee did exist. When we last debated the issue which was back on November 2nd, I wanted to know now if the committee exists or does not exist. I think it is very important that the minister answer that question tonight during his response to this debate. We are talking about the future livelihood of 30,000 Nova Scotians.
Also back on November 2nd, the honourable minister rose and stated in this Legislature that the Member of Parliament for the South Shore, Derek Wells, had taken up the lead on behalf of Nova Scotia in regard to fighting for a new federal-provincial agreement. The honourable minister might have simply been trying to promote the South Shore MP in any fashion possible, but I feel it must be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that the MP for Central Nova is actually on the Parliament's Natural Resources Committee. If anyone, Mr. Speaker, should know and be playing a leading role, I would suggest it would be that member. So am I to take from the minister that he has no faith in Roseanne Skoke? (Interruption)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have to draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that he is straying very seriously from the essence of the resolution before us. The essence, in my view, is contained in the first two lines, that the Minister of Natural Resources put forth a position paper on behalf of the Province of Nova Scotia. Now that is the basis upon which the debate should be carried out; why it is necessary to do so, how it should be done, when it should be done. The allusions to a number of other parliamentarians who are not here to speak or defend themselves, I think it is somewhat out of order. I would ask for a greater degree of specificity to the resolution before us. I am taking the time of the honourable member but I have to do that.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly try to comply more closely. I think it is important that I do mention the federal parliamentary committee because that all leads up, hopefully, to a new federal-provincial Forestry Development Agreement. Mr. Speaker, very shortly I am going to get to the proposal that we are talking about here tonight.
Mr. Speaker, the honourable minister, and again I have to refer to yesterday because we have had an ongoing debate and it has been a very congenial debate about the Nova Scotia-Canada Forestry Agreement, I referred to a meeting he held with the federal Cabinet Minister responsible for Nova Scotia, Mr. Dingwall, in early June. At that time he said he did not know what I meant when I used the word proposal.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this was just yesterday. I wanted to know if he was referring to a blueprint - I don't see a whole lot of difference between a blueprint and a proposal - unless someone is playing with words here. What I would like to know from the minister this evening is, would he be able to table in this Legislature, within the next 18 to 24 hours, a copy of any proposal or proposed blueprint or blueprint proposal, whatever you want to call it, I want to know if he would put that forward?
I don't always confess to be right, and I could very well be wrong on this matter, Mr. Speaker, but my very reliable sources indicate that Nova Scotia has put nothing on the bargaining table for the feds to even look at. I know there has been dialogue, I know there has been discussion, but if they have something to put on the table I wonder if the minister would share that with me within 18 to 24 hours, I would like to have a peek at that proposal or blueprint, just a peek at it. This way we all will know for sure that serious negotiations are underway. Right now all we know is that there is a lot of correspondence that has exchanged hands.
My intention, Mr. Speaker, is not to give the minister a hard time, and I don't believe I have done so, but it is a very important matter. Nova Scotians want to know and they want to understand what is being done and they want to have a very clear understanding. They want to know whether this government is going to the wall, in an attempt to save the 30,000 jobs, or will they simply say on March 1st, whoops, sorry folks, you are going to lose your jobs. I am sure the minister doesn't want to say that, or anybody on the government benches or anybody who is a member of that government doesn't want to have to say that but this week we saw what happened in the provincial Department of Supply and Services. The day before yesterday all Nova Scotians understand that times are tough, that governments everywhere must be accountable and they must pay their bills.
Maybe we can't put anywhere near as much money into a new agreement as the previous provincial and federal governments did, back in 1991, when they signed a $98 million forestry agreement. So, Mr. Speaker, I beg pardon for being a little partisan there but I did want to mention that the previous governments did sign a $98 million . . .
MR. SPEAKER: The time of the honourable member has expired.
MR. TAYLOR: Okay, thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will be listening very intently to what the minister has to say.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Natural Resources.
HON. DONALD DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the opportunity to address what I consider to be a very serious issue as well, that is dealing with the Forestry Development Agreement for Nova Scotia, Round 6. In fact Round 6 for not only Nova Scotia but for all of Canada. As the member opposite pointed out very clearly, this is very important to the social and economic well-being of this province. Thirty thousand jobs will be gone tomorrow if we don't have an agreement; I question that figure but I am not here to debate numbers that the member opposite brought forward. I am here to debate the resolution and he says here, "Resolved the Minister of Natural Recources put forth a position paper on behalf of the Province of Nova Scotia, so that a serious negotiation can begin . . .".
Now let me make it very clear to the member opposite that negotiations for our new agreement are not on the table yet. The federal government has not agreed to even negotiate a new agreement for Round 6 for Nova Scotia, in fact, for every province in Canada. It was under the Conservative Government in 1993, Mr. Mazankowski, had stated then in the federal budget, no more agreements for forestry and other sectors of the economy. It has been our pursuit, through the leadership of the Premier, Ministers of this Cabinet, ministers of every province in Canada, to reinstate the government's commitment or to ask the government to make a new commitment toward the importance of these agreements to the sustainable development of not only our forests but many of our resource sectors.
I want to say to the member opposite that we have been pursuing that issue as tenaciously as possible, with all the appropriate ministers, through correspondence and through personal meetings that I have had and others have had to try to get the federal government to come forward to state that they will sit down and negotiate a package. We are prepared at any point in time on any day to sit down and negotiate a package, we have made that abundantly clear to them, they have not agreed as of yet that they are prepared to move forward on a new agreement.
So, the question is not whether or not we are prepared to put a proposal forward to start serious negotiations, the federal government has not indicated it is willing to negotiate Round 6 of a forestry agreement. So, I can sit down and talk to myself about it and have all the answers. The problem is in these agreements, it takes two partners to make sure this package can go forward. The federal government's commitment to enter into negotiations, the province is committed to be willing and able to sit down at any point in time to start those negotiations.
Mr. Speaker, the member has asked a question - it is almost like Question Period - in regard to the committee. The committee is a member of the Economic Committee of Cabinet. A number of those ministers on that Economic Committee, I being one of them, have talked for a number of months about the importance of these agreements and we are pursuing to go forward, in fact, under the leadership of the Honourable Ross Bragg, Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency. They are now in the process of trying to organize meetings with the appropriate ministers in Ottawa. The ministers that would probably be in attendance, would be those ministers that are directly affected by the fact that their next agreements will not be signed and in fact we do not have a commitment by the federal government to even enter a negotiating process or that they are willing to negotiate a new round of an agreement.
I obviously will be one going forward to the federal government. Minister Gaudet would probably be another one representing Agriculture, I being Forestry and Energy. Mr. Barkhouse would probably be involved with it, Mr. Bragg would probably be involved with it, any other minister that has an agreement that is running due and we will be going forward to Ottawa to present the position, a position that Nova Scotia wants to come to the table to negotiate and you, the federal government, we want you to commit to the future fundings of these programs. That is what we are trying to establish at this point in time, not the fact that we are putting a proposal out to negotiate, they don't want to negotiate and we have to get a commitment out of the federal government that they are going to pursue Round 6 of the negotiations.
So, I hope that the honourable member opposite understands the serious of this issue and understands clearly the position of this government and the governments right across this country whether it is Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Quebec or Ontario. Every other province in Canada has been doing the same thing, working with the federal government to try to convince them of the importance of these agreements to our area. The minister alluded the other day to the meetings I have had. I just want to inform them that I have had seven meetings with the federal Minister of Natural Resources dealing specifically with this issue, seven separate meetings with her. I have had two meetings with the Honourable David Dingwall on this matter and I have had one with Mr. Manley discussing the issue of the importance of these agreements.
[6:15 p.m.]
The Premier of this province, the Honourable John Savage, has discussed this matter with the Prime Minister of Canada. Honourable Ross Bragg has discussed this matter with Mr. Dingwall and other appropriate ministers of the importance of this, asking them to please give a commitment that they are prepared to sit down and negotiate. We want to negotiate. As I said earlier, we will be going to Ottawa pushing that issue even further. I was as of this week in Ottawa asking the federal government to move forward on this particular issue.
With regard to the resolution, the problem is not that we are not willing to participate. In fact, we want to, we are willing and we are asking for it. This is not a matter of a position paper. The problem is the federal government has not committed because Honourable Don Mazankowski's 1993 budget said no more federal agreements. This new government has not made a firm decision yes or no, on whether or not they are going to enter into those negotiations. We have been as tenacious as possible with them, indicating to them it is vitally critical to our industry to have this agreement signed, to have an agreement, to sit down and negotiate an agreement.
I would ask the member opposite and members opposite that I would encourage them to go to their appropriate Parties in other provinces of Canada to ask them to put pressure on the federal government as well. We need everybody working together on having these agreements reinstated to be able to sit down and negotiate. I would encourage them not to put the pressure this way because there is no problem here. We are on-side. We want it to happen. We are prepared to go to the table. We want to negotiate. We want to negotiate a future for the forestry sector of this province. I encourage them to do the same with their counterparts in other jurisdictions within Canada to make it very clear this is a vital issue to our province.
I tried to answer some of the questions. He made a few derogatory comments about Derek Wells, Member of Parliament for the South Shore and so on and so forth. I have in fact written every Member of Parliament in Nova Scotia. In fact, I have had discussions with Ms. Skoke with regard to her position on the Natural Resource Committee of Parliament. She is very much aware of the concern that we have in this province and she has indicated to me personally that she will be bringing this issue forward and pursuing it as hard as she can.
Earlier this year in the summer we had the honourable George Rideout, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister responsible for the Department of Natural Resources from New Brunswick. We spent a day with him touring him throughout Nova Scotia, some areas very close to the constituency of the honourable member opposite, showing him the importance of the forestry agreement, what it means in Nova Scotia. We have given him the statistics, we have given him the employment factors, we have given him the issue of sustainable development and we have talked to him about the future of the forestry sector to Nova Scotia. He is very much aware of how critical this is to Nova Scotia's position. He has gone forward to the federal minister with that concern.
We have done all we can at this point in time and we will continue to do even more to put pressure on the federal government to seriously take a look at reinstating the ability for us to sit down and negotiate a new agreement for forestry. It is critical to us. We are prepared to do all we can. We are prepared to go to the table, we want to go to the table, we are prepared to sit down and negotiate a package for the Nova Scotia Forestry sector but we need two to negotiate. It is no good going to the table by ourselves. We need the federal government's commitment to say, yes, sit down at that table and put some money on the table and let's develop a program that is vitally important to our sector. I encourage members opposite to write on behalf of the Province of Nova Scotia in support of the minister's efforts, in support of this minister's efforts and this government's efforts to have that established. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting debate so far on quite an important question, the renewal of the forestry agreements with the federal government. I must say it is quite alarming to listen to the minister talk about the kind of reluctance, almost complete rejection from the federal government to even sit down and talk about these agreements and the possibility of rejecting them.
I guess what I find myself doing when I hear that is asking a number of questions, and maybe that is part of what I will do when I address my comments to this question. It appears that - if I understand the minister correctly then - it was under the former administration that these agreements or that the decision was made that the federal government would not renew the forestry agreements in the future. I guess the question then that must be asked is, have we gotten any confirmation from the new administration whether or not they support that decision? It appears that maybe they do, or they haven't provided an answer.
So now that we are dealing with that information then, I guess the question is, how do we apply the appropriate pressure, either as a province or as provincial governments or provinces, as industries across the country, that are directly affected by these agreements, how do we apply the kind of pressure that is going to be necessary, it appears, on the federal government in order to get them to acknowledge the fact that these agreements exist, there is some valid reason for them to continue and that the provinces are prepared to sit down with them and discuss the terms of those particular agreements? How are we going to do that?
I remember back to the GATT negotiations, Mr. Speaker, and how this minister, when he was then involved with the Federation of Agriculture for the Province of Nova Scotia, initiated on behalf of Nova Scotia, an all-Party, all-sector, I think, agreement to send letters of support and to try to get the federal government to respond to the concerns supporting supply management in the Province of Nova Scotia and in the Atlantic Provinces and took a number of steps to try to bring together common interests across the country, in order to try to bring that position to bear on the negotiating team representing the federal government in the GATT negotiations. I wonder if maybe it is those kinds of alliances that are needed in order to try to further the interests that are at stake under the reluctance of the federal government to discuss the renewal of these forestry agreements.
You know, we have 11 federal government members in the Parliament from Nova Scotia. In terms of Parties, we all represent or are represented across the province, in terms of provincial governments, and maybe we do have to work at trying to coordinate better, and I know from my point of view and from the point of view of our caucus, if I can be of any help whatsoever, in terms of assisting this government's initiative at trying to push the federal government and trying to open negotiations of some kind, or at least an acknowledgement that there is a need to negotiate the re-establishment of these forestry agreements, then I would certainly be prepared to do what I can.
It is difficult from my point of view, not knowing what the positions are of the various provincial governments. I indicated to the minister when this issue was brought up in the House last week or a couple of weeks ago, that I would certainly be interested in receiving that information. Again, I indicate to him that if he thinks that I or our caucus could be of any assistance on this issue, I certainly offer to him again my assistance, understanding, of course, that he is one minister and there are a number of other ministers in the Government Cabinet who are strong and united on the need to reinstate not only the forestry agreements but the agreements in other sectors. Surely that is a pretty sound, significant level of clout. Whether or not it would do any good to have the support from the Third Party in the House, who knows.
Again, I think maybe the question is, how can we build alliances across this country, in order to figure out how the appropriate pressure can be applied to the ministers responsible? Obviously, the process of writing letters does not appear to be having a whole lot of effect.
It would be interesting, I guess, to know what the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency for Nova Scotia, representing the federal government, the Honourable David Dingwall has to say about the possibility of these agreements being renegotiated. I do not think there is any question that that minister holds a fair bit of sway in the federal Cabinet. So it will certainly be interesting to hear what he has to say. If there is any way that we can apply pressure or encouragement to that minister or any of the other members here in Nova Scotia in order to try and get this work done, then I think that is important.
One final comment would be, in response, specifically, to the question that was raised in this resolution in terms of a position paper. To me the effectiveness of that particular proposal would be, what would be the minister's position. What would be the government's position in terms of these negotiations? Maybe it would be helpful to set down some principles upon which all of the industry, as well as the three caucuses can agree that these are the principles on which the negotiations should take place.
Maybe the minister has already done that, I don't know. Certainly when I saw the resolution that was brought forward by the member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, that is what I was thinking about. I think it would be helpful for the industry here in Nova Scotia to know what the government would be prepared to establish in terms of its principles of negotiating these particular agreements if, in fact, we get to that stage. Then maybe we can put together some kind of a concerted alliance in order to further back up what the government is already doing and try to make it that much more effective.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important topic and a concern of many Nova Scotians that these forestry agreements and the possibility of re-establishing these forestry agreements is not getting very far. I think the member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, not to speak for him, but from his perspective and his caucus, as with ours, we want to see these agreements, and the government minister has already said that, re-established. We will do what we can to assist this government, assist this minister in trying to get the federal government and the federal minister to the table.
So with those few comments, again I say to the minister that mainly my comments have been questions, but I hope he understands that all I am doing is offering, as I have done before, any assistance or any ideas that I can possibly bring to try to solve this problem.
MR. SPEAKER: The time for the debate of the Adjournment motion has now expired. We return to the debate of the amendment on Bill No. 120. The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition has six minutes remaining.
AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think they have a quorum, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, you are right. No, we do not have quorum.
AN HON. MEMBER: It is not quite 6:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: No it is not quite 6:30 p.m., we have a quorum.
HON. RICHARD MANN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering, and I could just check the Rule Book to find out for sure. The quorum, does that include the Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, it does. It is after the Speaker has concluded his counting. I have concluded the counting. We now have a quorum including the Speaker.
[PUBLIC BILLS FOR SECOND READING]
Bill No. 120 - Gaming Control Act. [Debate resumed.]
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition has six minutes remaining.
[6:30 p.m.]
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: I certainly would not want to, Mr. Speaker, have (Interruption) the important comments that I will make in relation to the amendment to Bill No. 120 spoken to a House that does not contain a quorum and I am absolutely delighted that members from all sides of the House were able to come and hear the last six minutes of my contribution to the debate on this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance who is the sponsor of this bill has suggested that there is big money in it for him and for the provincial government, for the coffers, the Treasury of the Province of Nova Scotia. I wonder, without seeing any documentation at all from the Minister of Finance or from any official in the Department of Finance, from anybody on the Treasury benches, how that conclusion is reached.
When I read a newspaper report which is a major interview, a special report actually, The Casino Gamble, and it features the Minister of Finance and it has to do, of course, with the pros and cons of casino gaming in Nova Scotia. The Minister of Finance, who would have Nova Scotia taxpayers believe that we are on the eve of a bonanza as a result of casino gaming in the Province of Nova Scotia, he, the Minister of Finance, makes a couple of very interesting observations.
Referring to the Minister of Finance, the article says, he, the Minister of Finance, "makes no bones about where he expects the majority of patrons to be drawn from and it's not from the United States or even the other Atlantic provinces. `Based on info from other areas, the casinos will not be supported primarily by people from outside Nova Scotia.' Boudreau is conceding, on the basis of the Manitoba and Quebec experience, that the vast majority of revenue from casinos will come from the pockets of Nova Scotians.".
Well, I have really got to wonder what this Minister of Finance is all about. He is acknowledging, as far as I am concerned, in those words, Mr. Speaker, that he is not at all interested in the creation of new wealth, but all he is doing is playing games with stirring up a pot of either stagnant or shrinking Nova Scotia resources and wealth. The article to which I refer goes on to make reference to the fact it is in fact, Nova Scotians or patrons of middle to lower middle incomes who are the likely patrons of this or any other casino facility. That reality is borne out in a number of other places and is the subject and has been the subject of study in other places.
In fact, a study was done by Mr. Robert Goodman of the University of Massachusetts and his study was entitled, Legalized Gambling as a Strategy for Economic Development. Imagine basing your economic development strategy on legalized gambling, and that report's purpose as outlined by the author was to ". . . help people and their government leaders better understand the connections between gambling and economic development in their communities.", and ". . . help them make more reasoned choices".
The report goes on and Professor Goodman goes on to make it clear that, although the controversy over legalizing gambling often centres on issues of morality, and I make no comment at all on the moral issues, ". . . the goal of this study was not to explore whether or not people should gamble. The morality of gambling is indeed worthy of serious debate. But our primary concern . . .", referring to his own report, ". . . was to assess the economic, social and legal consequences that occur when governments try to use gambling as a way to improve their economies.".
There was some very key findings of the report from Professor Goodman and among them very quickly, knowing I only have a moment or two left. There is no popularly based movement for the expansion of legalized gambling and the people of Nova Scotia have said that in large numbers.
There is a lack of objective knowledge and research about the real economic and social costs and benefits of legalized gambling. The research used by public officials to evaluate projects is often done by the gambling industry itself and I am prepared to bet dollars to doughnuts, speaking of betting, I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that the reports and analyses that the minister (Interruption)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member's time has now expired.
MR. DONAHOE: That is six minutes? Well, I will close, Mr. Speaker, having been told that my time has concluded, that it is my intention to vote for the amendment which is before us now, that the passage of, ". . . Bill No. 120 will destroy the essential and fundamental belief that government acts only with the consent of the governed.". I look forward to some intervention from government members who will provide me with detail that indicates that, perhaps some of my suggestions are ill-founded and erroneous. I believe them not to be.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening in support of the amendment. The amendment speaks about good government and the amendment also speaks about the absence of public participation. It states that, ". . . the introduction and enactment of Bill No. 120 will destroy the essential and fundamental belief that government acts only with the consent of the governed.".
There has been much talk that we have not had a study that indicates we need casinos in Nova Scotia. Goodness, that seems like a very fundamental request that there is a very real need for a study that indicates we need casinos in Nova Scotia. We have had different studies from different governments indicating that casinos should not be established at this time in Nova Scotia.
I have attended some meetings recently. On Monday night I was at a meeting up in Middle Musquodoboit in the Musquodoboit Valley fire hall. This meeting was put on by the Musquodoboit Valley tourism committee, not to be confused with the Musquodoboit Valley-Eastern Shore tourism committee. At that meeting, before I could get in the door, I was broached with the subject, what do you think about this government? What are they trying to do? What impact are these casinos going to have on our tourism industry? That is just a very small community in Middle Musquodoboit. It has a population of approximately 500 people, but the people in that community are no different than in any other community in this beautiful province. They are concerned about the establishment of casinos (Interruption) don't you start. The people in that community are extremely concerned about the impact casinos are going to have on the social, the economic and, yes, the moral being the moral fabric of our society.
We had a very well attended meeting. The room was filled to capacity and we discussed very interesting subjects that night but one that received a lot of discussion, one that received a lot of attention was the discussion on this government's intention, this government's introduction of a bill that will enable them to establish casinos in Nova Scotia.
I had the very real privilege of being in the lovely Town of Liverpool this week on Tuesday night and the residents of Liverpool, at the parish hall, at another very well attended, extremely well attended meeting, were very concerned, too about this government's intention to establish casinos in this beautiful province.
Mr. Speaker, in one of the questions they asked us, they said, what can you do for us in Opposition, what can you do for us? I am telling you one of things we can do is support this amendment. We told the people in Liverpool - again, I state that the people in Liverpool are no different than anywhere else in this province, they are very concerned about this government's intention to establish casinos in Nova Scotia - we will try to make this government see the reasons why they should go back and have a socio-economic study. We said we will try to get the government members and when we are outside in the halls or out in the lunchroom, we will talk to different members about casinos. I have mentioned it off-the-cuff to different members just to see what they think and from talking to some of the backbenchers, I have to be completely candid and honest, they do have reservations about the government's intention to establish these casinos.
There is a saying that goes something like this, they who accept evil without protesting against it really are cooperating with it. Now, I think my interpretation for the purpose of this debate, is that they who accept evil without protesting against it are really cooperating with it. We saw an incident today where People Against Casinos in Nova Scotia, they are a separate entity, they are not representing any of the MLAs in here. They are not represented. There were accusations that they were tied in with the Progressive Conservative Party, they certainly are not. They are certainly not tied in, to my knowledge, with the Third Party and I don't believe they are tied in with the Liberal Party. They are speaking on behalf of Nova Scotians right across this beautiful province. They had well over 40,000 names on that petition from constituencies like Hants East, Eastern Shore, Bedford-Fall River, Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage, it doesn't matter where. But the people who signed those petitions are expecting the members of this House to get up and table the petitions on behalf of them.
People Against Casinos in Nova Scotia is a separate entity; they are not tied in with any political Party. But this amendment will allow a process to take place that will enable Nova Scotians to become involved again. This government owes it to Nova Scotians to go back to them with this very questionable legislation that they are proposing now.
There is some talk that the casinos will have games such as blackjack, roulette and so on and so forth. I understand there will be no dice throwing, apparently that was prohibited some time ago. Now, I want to suggest that the government is playing Russian roulette. Thousands of Nova Scotians, the majority, I would suggest and submit here tonight, are opposed to the establishment of casinos at this time.
There is no question that people do become addicted. The government perhaps, perhaps the casino minister, the Finance Minister, perhaps he may be addicted. He may be addicted to this legislation but this amendment, he should stand up and speak in favour of this amendment. It will give us the opportunity (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The din is overwhelming. The honourable member has the floor.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, after some of the events that have gone on in here, especially during the last 48 hours or so, I think it is time that an amendment such as this was supported and supported by the government. What an opportunity this government will have to go back to the people, it is an opportunity to save face, just a little bit. It will put some credibility in a government that is losing credibility very fast.
[6:45 p.m.]
You know first of all, we had a MLA, a member of this government, Mr. Speaker. He was a member of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly and he still is, but he was expelled from his caucus because he stood up for his constituents. By way of this amendment I am encouraging all members to stand up, support the amendment and you will be doing your constituents a favour and you will be doing your government a . . .
MR. SPEAKER: I would like to bring the honourable member's attention to the fact that he may be in error, he made a judgment concerning an act of another Party in the House and he may or may not be in error regarding that matter but I would ask him to be very careful about making such assertions until he is absolutely assured that he is correct.
Now it is not my point to correct him but I have the authority to bring forth a point of order from the Chair and I have brought forth a point of order from the Chair.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I respect and appreciate, as I always do, your rulings and I will try not to get on that subject at any great length, but I emphasize the word "try".
The government doesn't have one iota of information to indicate to Nova Scotians that they have the support of Nova Scotians respecting this legislation. Nova Scotians have a right to know what the cost benefits are going to be and they also have a right to know what the burdens of this particular legislation are going to be.
You know, Mr. Speaker, it is a questionable proposition. Some of the questions and comments I have heard people make are along the lines that casinos are pernicious, they are wicked things. Now a lot of people, and I have brought it up before in here, we have a lot of good Christians in this House but a lot of people are morally opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia and people don't like you to impose or impinge your morality on them. But it goes without saying that we are hearing it from people and from our churches and later on I will mention some of the churches that have spoken. I can name some of the churches that have spoken against the establishment of casinos.
People are telling us, Mr. Speaker, and I would submit again and suggest that they are telling all members of this House that there will be a rise in prostitution if casinos are established here in Nova Scotia. With all the goings on in the last year or so, especially in the last year, respecting prostitution, I know that nobody in this House wants that to happen and I am not suggesting that they do. But go back to the people, go back and have some meaningful consultation. That is one of the points you will hear, is that there could possibly be a rise in prostitution.
There are also suggestions that there will be a rise in white collar crime. We can't just dismiss those suggestions, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is something to that, there is something valid there. We are hearing it from other locations. We are hearing it from New Jersey, where there are casinos; we are hearing it from Atlantic City, we are hearing it from Nevada, we are hearing it from Reno, Nevada, the biggest little city in the world. We are hearing it from Las Vegas. Everywhere that there is a casino we are hearing these concerns.
Mr. Speaker, it is something that should be seriously considered. There have been no studies, there just have not been social and no socio-economic study. That is all we are asking for. Is that asking so much? What is the hurry? What is the motive? The government has predicted they are going to come under the estimate, in terms of the deficit this year, so why the hurry? Why is the government trying to ram this down our throats? They projected already that we are going to see an appreciable reduction in the deficit this year so why the hurry? Let's go back to the people. It is going to show that you are credible, it is going to show that you are trying to save face a little bit.
Even though we are in Opposition, we think all Nova Scotians want to see better from their politicians. This is an opportunity, yes, I would submit everywhere, even down in Cape Breton they want to see more, they want to see better, they want to see openness, they want to see you come in and talk to everyday people. They want to see you talk to the housewives. They want to see you talk to the nurses. They want to see you talk to the secretaries. They want to see you talk to, Heaven forbid, the truck drivers. They might even like to talk to somebody again about the establishment of casinos, the welders, the pipefitters, the people that work at Stora, the local politicians. The local politicians can't be all wrong. They would like this government to go back to their constituents, go back and listen.
It is no good to have consultation, unless you have meaningful consultation. But what an opportunity. Here is a government that is on the decline. Here is a government, there is no question, that is going down and is going down fast. (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member has the floor.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of sayings, but one saying that does stick out in my mind is the saying that nothing that is morally wrong can ever be politically right - not politically correct, politically right - I have used that a couple of times and I think it is very important. Just because we are politicians, we cannot divorce ourselves from the morality of this issue, prostitution and white collar crime is very important. A lot of people are religiously opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia. Nothing is wrong with that. There are people right in here tonight that are opposed to them because of the religious reasons that it entails.
Mr. Speaker, I tried to earlier, and I thank you for helping me say the word catastrophic, but if these casinos are established in Nova Scotia, the results may be catastrophic. I got through it twice, I am not going to try it again.
We all saw the ultimate insult today. We saw government members refuse to table petitions from people in their own constituency who are opposed to the establishment of casinos in their constituencies. I don't need to tell everybody that we have 52 constituencies. We have constituencies in Yarmouth (Interruption) Nobody is going to run out and jump it up and stick it in your face. All you had to do is go to the steps like the Conservatives, go to the steps like the Third Party did, be gracious enough to go stand up for your constituents. Mr. Speaker, we were looking for them. They knew where the petitions were.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Either I have order or I will (Interruptions) The honourable Leader of the Opposition, order, please. The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley has the floor and I would ask that some decorum be maintained in this House. I refer to the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition to set the example for others. (Applause)
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to say things that inflame the government. That is not my intention at all. Every time somebody mentions TIANS, the Tourist Industry Association of Nova Scotia, members of the government seem to take exception when you are speaking about TIANS, but TIANS want a study of casino risks.
The Tourist Industry Association of Nova Scotia's support for casino gambling is no longer a sure thing. This is not the resolution that the honourable Leader of the Opposition read just a while ago, Mr. Speaker. This is coming out of The Daily News, Monday, November 7, 1994. "At its annual general meeting in Halifax yesterday, 60 per cent of TIAN's voting delegates supported seeking more information before deciding whether to back casinos.".
Mr. Speaker, The Daily News is saying it, the Chronicle-Herald is saying it and the resolution clearly says it. On Friday, the Innkeepers' Guild of Nova Scotia passed a similar motion and I know you would forbid me from reading that resolution again, but I would like to read it into the record again with your approbation. Would you let me?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Has the honourable member already read the resolution?
MR. TAYLOR: Not on this amendment, no I haven't.
MR. SPEAKER: Then you have the right to read it.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your approval, your permission and your approbation. The letterhead on this document has the Salmon River House Country Inn, Musquodoboit Harbour, Salmon River Bridge, R.R. #2, Head of Jeddore, Nova Scotia, Canada BOJ 1PO, FAX No. (902) 889-3653.
MR. SPEAKER: Order. I am going to rule that most of the material that the honourable member has put forward to this point in time, has been irrelevant to the debate and I will rule the member out of order on irrelevance and if he continues the irrelevance I will remove him from the floor.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, as per usual, I always respect your rulings and I certainly do, but you did give me approval to read this resolution.
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the resolution.
MR. TAYLOR: The resolution, "The annual General Meeting of TIANS took place this morning . . .", at the World Trade and Convention Centre. TIANS asked, and I am quoting the resolution, "TIANS ask the government of Nova Scotia to form an all-party committee to appoint a recognized authority who would identify the possible benefits to our industry . . .", that of course being the tourism industry, " . . . as well as the possible harm which could result from the introduction of Casinos to our Province so that we may properly prepare ourselves for this eventuality". I thank you, Mr. Speaker and that is the first time I read that into the record on this amendment.
We have gotten along in Nova Scotia for hundreds of years without casinos but . . .
MRS. LILA O'CONNOR: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you mind asking the member and I hate to ask you to do that, but only because . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: I would hope you would hate to ask him because he hasn't any right to do it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order.
MRS. O'CONNOR: You are right, he doesn't.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member for Lunenburg has the floor on a point of order.
MRS. O'CONNOR: Would you ask him to reread the motion that he has, because I don't believe that if he is reading it from the paper, it is exactly the motion that I received from TIANS. There are a few words; I don't read the word hurt in this motion at all.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member, first of all (Interruptions) Well, we are either going to have decorum in the House or I am going to adjourn the House, one or the other. There is going to be decorum or it is going to be adjourned.
The honourable member has brought forth a matter on a point of order. There is no point of order. The matter read by the honourable member is in Hansard for the official record and she may refer to that if she wishes and she may bring it forth at a later date if she wishes to contest it. But I have now given final warning that either we are going to have decorum in the House or I will adjourn it. The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley has the floor.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, just for the information of the House this resolution is tabled with the House. I oft-times wonder how the government can say that the establishment of casinos in this beautiful province will be in the public interest. We have had many examples that people do not want casinos in Nova Scotia.
[7:00 p.m.]
Representatives of the many churches, Anglican, Baptist, Evangelist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic and United Churches have spoken against casinos. Salvation Army probably has spoken against casinos. (Interruption)
MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the honourable member, if he would, to help retain decorum in the House by reducing the interchanges between those who would speak to him from around the House, to direct his remarks to and from the Chair. He would help the Chair and the House with maintaining the appropriate decorum.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly try to. We have had many examples that people do not want casinos in Nova Scotia. The churches have spoken out. Cumberland County councillors have spoken out. Cumberland County Council is a very highly respected municipal unit, as are the other 66 municipal units in Nova Scotia, but Cumberland County took the time and effort. Cumberland County councillors are unanimous. They have spoken out against them.
The Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities, a very highly respected union, and I know this government perhaps does not respect unions as highly as some other previous governments have. The Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities has gone on record as opposing the establishment of casinos, Mr. Speaker.
The Medical Society has spoken out against them. The Medical Society, another highly respected professional organization. The Provincial Health Council has questioned this move and the motive behind the government, Mr. Speaker. The good people of Yarmouth have spoken out by way of a plebiscite. (Interruption)
MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable member please address his remarks to the Chair. (Interruption)
HON. ROBERT HARRISON: On a point of order and in the interest of decorum, sir, perhaps when you are on approbation you are used to approaching the bench. Could that be his motive?
MR. TAYLOR: I think it was Victor Hugo that said, laughter is the sunshine that drives the winter from the human face. (Applause) Mr. Speaker, you will have to forgive me for a moment. I am just trying to find out where I was and gather my composure.
Mr. Speaker, the information I have here indicates that British Columbia turned down commercial casinos. Saskatoon held a plebiscite and Saskatoon resoundingly turned down the establishment of casinos. Yes, recently, in Florida in fact they turned down casinos. So those other locations have had an opportunity though. It is an opportunity we should afford everyday Nova Scotians.
I noticed the casino minister, the Minister of Finance is not with us this evening. I do not see him, Mr. Speaker. There are some relatively easy questions that have not even been answered. Questions like we want to know if liquor will be served in the casinos. We want to know if food will be served. We want to know if the casinos will be open on Sunday, Mr. Speaker. What will the hours be? Will casinos be open 24 hours? Is there anybody that can tell us? Maybe lucky Laszlo Lichter can tell us, but the answers have not come forward, Mr. Speaker.
So when people comment to our caucus, and I am sure they comment to the New Democratic Party, I would not be surprised if they even comment to the government, you seem to be somewhat dictatorial with this legislation, Mr. Speaker. That is the message that we are hearing. Why are we not given an opportunity?
The Community Services Committee, I know it has been mentioned several times, but, Mr. Speaker, I have not mentioned it regarding this amendment. The Community Services Committee came back with a report that recommended against the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia at this time.
Now Clause 37(1)(a) of the bill and, I know we are not talking about the bill, we are talking about the amendment, but ". . . the Nova Scotia Environmental Assessment Board shall not hold a public hearing in respect of a casino or proposed casino.". They cannot even hold a public hearing. Why was that waived? The Planning Act does not apply. The Leader of the Opposition raised the question and a concern he has about Citadel Hill, but the Planning Act does not even apply. (Interruption) I understand that, yes, Mr. Speaker would be very concerned about that and no building permit is even required. The Planning Act has been waived and the Nova Scotia Environmental Assessment Act has been waived. Why are all these things waived, Mr. Speaker?
So, the whole section, and that goes back to Clause 37 in the bill, the whole section invalidates municipal authority. That is amazing, that is incredible. There are different draconian provisions, Clause 57 and Clause 59, also leads us to many, many questions. Clause 57(1), provides that when the disposition of a matter is in question, the commission may hold a hearing and make a decision and Clause 57(2), "A decision of the Commission pursuant to subsection (1) is final and is not open to question in any court.". It is not open to question in any court, absolutely amazing. This provision, it is not just found once, but it is found twice in the Act. It is found in Clause 99, also.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. As the honourable member is aware, we are not debating the bill clause by clause. We are debating the principle of the bill, plus the amendment that has been put forward as a reasoned amendment on the principle of the bill. Please refrain from debating the bill clause by clause.
MR. TAYLOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk now about the opportunity that this government will have. They are going to have an opportunity if they support this amendment. If this project is so good for churches, for the municipalities and everybody in Nova Scotia, we want to hear about it. We want to see some cold, hard facts. For example, where has the Minister of Finance, the casino minister, where has he come up with his estimate of $40 million to $60 million or $40 million to $75 million that is going to be going into the government's Treasury. Where does he come up with that figure? I sure would like to know.
Many people out there have legitimate, very rational concerns as to why casinos should not be established at this time. These are people of all different backgrounds, of all different social status and they are people that live all over this beautiful province. People come here to enjoy our scenery, our beauty and our friendly people. They like our way of life and, I would suggest, a lot of tourists like to get away from casinos. Perhaps, they like the fact that Nova Scotia is casino free.
I have an article here, also, from the Nova Scotia Lottery Commission. You would be interested in some of the comments they have and one of the questions is whether or not casinos should be introduced into Nova Scotia. The Nova Scotia Lottery Commission says, it was made clear, however from the 607 respondents that 58 per cent were opposed to the introduction of casinos, 58 per cent of 607 respondents were opposed. I would suggest that those 607 respondents would be overwhelmingly happy to support an amendment like this, if only given the opportunity. Why not formulate, perhaps even an all-Party committee, a socio-economic study? Why not go back to the people and come back with the real cold, hard facts?
The Progressive Conservative caucus was disappointed a few weeks ago with the quick dismissal by the Premier and the Government House Leader of our proposal for a free vote. We wanted a free vote on this whole issue. This would lay a lot of questions to rest. At least it would lay to rest this amendment. We probably would not be debating it if it had been allowed to go to a free vote. I think that was one of the things that we included, Mr. Speaker, that we wouldn't be trying to force the government to support amendments, if only we could have had free votes. But neither the Premier nor Mr. Mann, the House Leader, and I apologize for using an individual's name - the House Leader - but neither the Premier . . .
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Transportation, the Government House Leader.
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the honourable Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker, discussed the proposal with their caucus colleagues - this is what they told us - and given the fact that there are many Liberal members who wish to represent the views of their constituents, it is our view that the issue should have received serious review by the entire Liberal caucus.
But, Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Minister of Transportation and Communications spoke for all members of the government, they spoke for all 41 members. I will bet you that if the Premier or the Government House Leader, the honourable Minister of Transportation and Communications, had the wherewithal to go to the government caucus at a full caucus meeting and put that on the table and really give the members of government an opportunity to say whether or not they want free votes - not a free vote that is perceived by the Minister of Transportation and Communications. His version of free votes is certainly a lot different than our version and, I would submit, it is a lot different than the NDP's version of what a free vote is and, I would suggest, it is a lot different than the member for Cape Breton West's version of a free vote is, Mr. Speaker.
HON. RICHARD MANN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be safe to assume that their version of a free vote would be that as demonstrated in the past 15 years when they were in government?
MR. SPEAKER: Well, it is not a point of order.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, from time to time, I think it is very important that we do talk a little bit because in the past 15 years there was never legislation that came forward that would even remotely suggest that casinos be established in Nova Scotia.
So in reference to the free vote that the Minister of Transportation and Communications talks about, the past cannot be changed but the future, for the time being, and I emphasize for the time being, the future is in the hands of the government. There is no need to tell us. This government has been in power now for almost two years, so we want to hear what they are going to do. We are tired, Mr. Speaker, 18 months. (Interruption) She is trying to mislead the House. I have been trying to stay away from the rabbit tracks.
Mr. Speaker, here is what the Leaders - the Liberal Leader, John Savage, the NDP Leader, Alexa McDonough - had to say back on May 19, 1993. Liberal Leader John Savage said, Nova Scotians must decide whether they wish to have a gambling casino in Nova Scotia. He said Nova Scotians must decide. He didn't say that the Finance Minister must decide, he said Nova Scotians must decide. He said, that is why public hearings, like those of the Kimball Committee, are so important. We believe caution is necessary and will accept no proposal without extensive public consultation.
Mr. Speaker, this is what the Premier of the Province had to say. I hope the government members are listening, I hope all MLAs are listening to what the Premier had to say then and, in fact, what is happening today. We believe caution is necessary, the Premier said, and we will accept no proposal without extensive public consultation. The Liberal Party is very concerned about strictly controlling gambling, treating gambling addiction.
I have to stop right there, Mr. Speaker, on treating gambling addiction. There is nothing in Bill No. 120 that talks about gambling addiction and educating gamblers. The Premier suggests we have to educate gamblers and the public about the risks of gambling. I agree with what the Premier said back on May 19, 1993. Sometimes I do agree with the Premier, Mr. Speaker.
Now the New Democratic Party Leader, Mr. Speaker, I know you will believe this comment. She said, it is appalling that any government would put major emphasis on gambling as a source of revenue when there are corporations and wealthy individuals who are paying no taxes whatsoever. That is what the Leader of the Third Party had to say, she was appalled.
Furthermore, the study of the question of gambling in this province should not be left in the hands of a patronage appointee. That is another comment she made and I think I will stop right there in reading her comments.
[7:15 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker, we should not forget that, they who accept evil without protesting against it really are cooperating with it. I could table this document. (Interruption) Somebody is talking about Victor. I am not sure if that is Vic or not. It certainly was somebody who had their act together.
MR. SPEAKER: It is repetitious.
MR. TAYLOR: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: Did you find something else to read, Brooke?
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, People Against Casinos in Nova Scotia, I am going to read a few lines, make a few comments on what they have to say. I think this document is tabled. In fact, I am sure all members of this House have copies of this document. People Against Casinos, remember that organization, Mr. Speaker? They were in here today with something like over 40,000 signatures on petitions and they will be back tomorrow and the rest of the week.
They state that the government has long stated its commitment to reducing the provincial deficit. This is an objective that almost every Nova Scotian has come to agree with. Certainly those of us in the business community understand that the future of our economy depends on reducing the provincial deficit. Nobody will argue with that. I certainly will never argue with that. In fact, I support that. Then, under revenues, estimated at between $40 million to $60 million and we have heard since that it is between $40 million and $75 million. I am not sure if that is based on information that the member for Hants East has provided to the Finance Minister. We are still all waiting for his report to be tabled. (Interruption)
They have concerns about the incremental increases in the costs of services. Increased policing costs, increasing court costs, increases in incarsenation, unemployment insurance, problem gamblers. A problem gambler is not a very good employee.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Mr. Malaprop. It's incarceration, not incarsenation. (Laughter)
MR. TAYLOR: Incarceration, Mr. Speaker. Welfare payments, social assistance to affected families, health care costs, erosion of the tax base, these are some of the concerns that the People Against Casinos in Nova Scotia have. The people who signed those petitions, a good number of them, they have the same concerns. Over 40,000 Nova Scotians took the time, took the effort.
Costs as an employer of problem gamblers, Mr. Speaker, costs as a retailer, People Against Casinos in Nova Scotia say that Nova Scotia businesses stand to lose $149 million. "Industry material clearly states that casinos compete with other entertainment/tourism business, such as restaurants, bars, movies, plays and concerts. The Tourism Industry Association . . .".
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member is well aware that in debate he has the freedom to quote or cite documents with minor extractions, but not to do extensive readings from documents. His capacity in the House and his responsibility is to formulate his own debate and not to read extensively from papers. I would suggest that the honourable member has read extensively from that particular document and if he wishes to do further, then he should do it outside the Chamber and not as part of the debate. I would ask that the honourable member take the matter seriously because decorum is the responsibility of all of us in the House.
AN HON. MEMBER: Including these who are back here talking about comic books?
MR. SPEAKER: Including all of them, including yourself. (Interruption)
AN HON. MEMBER: Perhaps you could give them a couple of colouring books. (Interruption)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is the Chair and I am trying to establish decorum in the House. It is a privilege of all members of the House. It is a privilege of the population of Nova Scotia and we intend to observe it. I have stated that. I don't want to take unnecessary measures, but I indeed will, regardless of who is out of order, regardless. I give the honourable member the floor.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I do apologize for digressing sometimes and sometimes reading from documents. But tonight I have tried to stay away from documents at any great length. I would like to mention if I may, last night I have the very real privilege, pleasure and honour of being in the Community of West Gore in the beautiful constituency of Hants East and the fire hall was packed right to the gunnels. Again, I hardly got through the door and the people, said, what can you do for us? The government . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Is this repetitious of the story you told us a few moments ago?
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer that . . . (Interruptions) I know it has been somewhat noisy in here and what I had said earlier was that I was at a very well attended meeting in Liverpool on Tuesday night. It will be in Hansard on record. Last night I was in West Gore and Monday night I was in Middle Musquodoboit.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member realizes that there is an onus of responsibility upon him just as there is upon every other member of the House to preserve decorum in this House. He has an obligation to do so, it is a formal obligation and I would ask him to take it seriously.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I am doing my best to keep decorum in here but may I tell you, people are concerned about the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia. Monday night I was in Middle Musquodoboit, Tuesday night was in the beautiful community of Liverpool at the parish hall and again the place was pretty well packed, there was a good crowd. The people, whether in West Gore or whether you are in Lunenburg or whether you are in the beautiful Town of Antigonish, the people are very concerned that casinos will be established in this beautiful province, a province where the people, the tourists especially come here for our beauty, they come here for our scenery, they come here for our culture, they come here for our tradition and they come here because we have friendly people, we have genuine people, that is why people come to this province.
I am just going to read a couple of lines from this with your approbation and I promise not to stay on it too long. (Interruption) Yes, it says somebody had the audacity to suggest that the Tories are playing a waiting game respecting the casino issue. I want to tell you this government has put forward some legislation that this caucus has supported. We are hoping to support changes to the workers' compensation legislation. We are not going to say that we are not going to raise some questions, we are not going to say that we are not going to go to the Law Amendments Committee, we are not going to say that we won't perhaps try to put forward some amendments but in principle we are going to support workers' compensation legislation.
MR. SPEAKER: It is irrelevant, we are not debating the Workers' Compensation Act. If the honourable member isn't aware, we are debating Bill No. 120.
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: And an amendment thereto. Please and I have indicated on multitudes of occasions you have been irrelevant. I have tried to be very tolerant of that but I ask you to (Interruption)
MR. TAYLOR: It is estimated that 90 per cent of the money spent at casinos will come out of local taxpayers' pockets. We don't know, I don't know . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. TAYLOR: I don't know what the province (Interruption) What I am trying to say, what I am suggesting is that once the province gets its yet to be determined tax share the rest of the money could possibly leave the province. Mr. Speaker, just a brief quote, he also makes no bones about where he expects (Interruption)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. TAYLOR: What we are wondering, Mr. Speaker, is, what is the potential, Mr. Speaker, for a socio-economic study. Based on the information from other areas, Mr. Speaker, the casinos will not be supported primarily by people from outside the province, they will be supported by the local people, Mr. Speaker.
Psychologists in Nova Scotia are the latest group to come out against casino gambling in the province. Psychologists see problems associated with gambling addiction. So, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the psychologists would be very proud if this government would support this New Democratic Party, this Third Party, amendment, Mr. Speaker. I am going to support this amendment, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Council of Priests condemns casinos, Mr. Speaker, councillors are against casinos, Mr. Speaker.
Now, there is a lot of talk about county council and municipalities and things of that nature but councillors are every day people. Mr. Speaker, some councils are made up of housewives, Mr. Speaker. Some councils are made up of secretaries, nurses, Mr. Speaker, hospital workers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, farmers, woodsmen, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Speaker, councils are made up of . . .
MRS. FRANCENE COSMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that two days ago it was raised in this House by Mr. Speaker, Paul MacEwan that the repetitive use of the words, Mr. Speaker, wasn't necessary in a speech or an offering by a member. We are down to 10, 12 and 14, Mr. Speakers, per minute here in this past 10 minutes. I wonder if it would be possible to refresh the memories of all of us in here on the ruling by Mr. Speaker, Paul MacEwan?
MR. SPEAKER: Well, I heard the ruling of the Speaker. I don't think he made it a firm ruling that it was the delay of the time of the House by excessive use of the term, Mr. Speaker. He admonished the House that any unnecessary use of the term, Mr. Speaker, was an infringement upon the privilege upon the House. He admonished those who did it intentionally and I would do exactly the same thing. It is unnecessary as you are so well aware but more necessary is the obligation of each member to participate in the full decorum of the House.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: On that same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the Speaker had to say about that the other night and I believe it was more an editorialization than it was a direction given. But let me say that unfortunately and I would put myself in this category, some of us are not as articulate as others when we get up to speak and we try to make our points as best we possibly can and the use of the term, Mr. Speaker, I think is an appropriate and a deferential reference in order to keep ourselves as focused as we possibly can, in order to make our point. I would suggest that (Interruptions) And some would suggest it is a term of respect for the Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member has no point of order but he, in fact, repeated exactly what I had just said. (Applause)
MR. TAYLOR: My colleague, the member for Pictou Centre suggested that the term, Mr. Speaker, is somewhat of a phonetic punctuation, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Is this relevant to the motion, relative to the bill?
You are not speaking on the point of order. (Interruptions) The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley on the question before us.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have stood here tonight for a few moments to speak about the amendment and I do support the amendment. I support it because of some of the reasons I have stated during debate. And you know, one reason that is very important is that churches have responded to . . .
MR. SPEAKER: You have already indicated that, I think, at least four times and that is repetition and I am going to rule that repetition out of order and I ask the member to take his seat.
The honourable member for Pictou Centre.
[7:30 p.m.]
DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to continue the debate on the amendment to Bill No. 120. The amendment before me read, "That the words after `that' be deleted and the following be substituted: `in the opinion of the House, the introduction and enactment of Bill No. 120 will destroy the essential and fundamental belief that government acts only with the consent of the governed.'".
It is very difficult when a very limited topic has been on the floor of the House for some period of time to get up and try to present some new light on the subject. But, nevertheless, I think the task is important enough that one should make an attempt. I think it is rather unfortunate that in this piece of legislation, unlike others before this House at this time, that when the minister introduced his bill, he did not suggest to the House that he was prepared to look and listen to debate and then follow his bill when it eventually gets to the Law Amendments Committee and, in fact, to perhaps be swayed and influenced and directed by what the debate and public opinion seem to be saying.
It is very difficult to rise in your place to discuss the issue of casinos because the volume of material being provided is so voluminous that, in fact, it is hard to get it all in your desk. It is interesting that despite the accumulation of a very large amount of literature on casinos, there is not a single page that would allow one to come to the conclusion that the introduction of casinos is in the best interests of the people of Nova Scotia.
Today we had an interesting phenomenon; we had the introduction of a very large number of petitions representing the opinion of a great number of Nova Scotians, in terms of and expressing their opposition to the introduction of casinos. But, you know, a very strange statistical anomaly has presented itself, in terms of those petitions. If you would believe what the government side is saying, is that the same political determination that decided that members in eight of the constituencies in this province would return Progressive Conservatives and three more would return members of the New Democratic Party, that, in fact, all of the opposition in this province to the establishment of casinos in this province occurs in those 11 constituencies.
The other 41 constituencies, we are being led to believe by the government, are solidly in favour and that the members there are not like the members on this side of the House. They are being encouraged by their constituents to allow casinos to be established in this province. That is a very strange statistical anomaly. (Interruption)
It was suggested earlier in the day by members that nobody has approached them. Well, I might suggest to you that perhaps they realize the futility of approaching a government member. (Applause) I would suggest to you that a recent decision made in this House by the Premier to suspend a member who had the audacity to vote against a government motion in this House, only because that bill would create considerable financial hardship for his constituents, in the form of a 20 per cent tax increase.
If we look back and try to put the casino issue into perspective, the casino issue has nothing to do with being Liberal or Progressive Conservative or a member of the New Democratic Party. I would suggest to you that the anti-casino movement, in my area, has attracted as much attention and as much support from members of the Liberal Party as it has from people who support the Party which I represent. This is not a politically aligned movement in terms of trying to prevent casinos from coming into this province.
Now the members on the government side have persisted in suggesting that they are not being approached by constituents, they have not been asked to present petitions. The members on the government side, I would suggest to you, are being placed in a very difficult position. I would suggest to you that the lobby that they are experiencing at home is sufficiently strong to suggest to them that I should be looking at this in terms of what the people who sent me to Halifax, or sent me to this place, are really thinking. What do they really think about casinos? Do they think that the price to be paid for having casinos in our province is worth the financial reward that we are being told by the Minister of Finance will occur to the Treasury of the province?
The action of the Premier the other day makes each and every member on the government side realize that regardless of what is being said back home, regardless of what their personal view on the introduction of casinos is, regardless of all that, they are going to have to vote on the casino bill in the affirmative or they will be excluded from their own caucus.
I think it behooves us all to look at this issue perhaps in the broader perspective. It was just a few weeks ago when the suggestion came forward from our caucus for a free vote on the casino issue and, quicker than the eye can blink, the Government House Leader went and suggested to the press that there was not going to be any free vote. That decision, Mr. Speaker, could not have been made with the consent of his caucus, because time did not allow it. So in other words, the morality of the situation was determined in the twinkling of an eye for the Government House Leader. Well, Mr. Speaker, I really am not sure what the people of Richmond County are saying to their member about casinos because it well may be some time before there will be a casino in Richmond County. I would not care to speculate on that.
I think the point is that when we get back to the amendment, the amendment states that the government acts only with the consent of the governed; well, there are certainly 11 constituencies in this province in which the government does not have the consent of the governed.
AN HON. MEMBER: Right, and there are going to be more if they ever call another election.
DR. HAMM: Is it not rather too bad that the Government House Leader had not come up with a different decision just a few short weeks ago, perhaps had met with his caucus and said, behind closed doors, because we do not get a lot of information about what happens at the government caucus meetings, and that is probably just as well because, I am sure, if we were privy to what went on at the government caucus meetings, it would not be a confidence builder for either us or the rest of the province.
I do not serve on the side of the House that governs this province; I serve on the side of the House that is charged with the task of keeping the government accountable. That has turned out to be quite an enormous task, indeed. In terms of looking at what it was the government was saying before we started hearing about casinos, and I refer back to the Liberal Party policy prior to the election, the reference to gaming consists of four lines: video gambling addicts will receive support and treatment under a Liberal Government, as will individuals desiring help for other gambling compulsions and addictions.
I think that is a very laudable plank and platform because gambling addiction is a very, very serious disease and there is a great deal of experience in terms of the statistical occurrence of gambling addiction within a given population. That was the Liberal Party platform in terms of gaming prior to the election.
A great many speakers before myself have made reference to the reply of the now Premier of Nova Scotia, when he was the Liberal Leader of Nova Scotia and running to be Premier, his position at that time and it is the position, I presume, that we can assume was endorsed by the people of Nova Scotia in the election of May 25, 1993, that Nova Scotians must decide whether they wish to have a gambling casino in Nova Scotia. Nova Scotians must decide. This does not say the Minister of Finance must decide. It does not say that the Premier must decide. It does not say that the Government House Leader must decide. It does not say that the members of the Liberal caucus must decide. It says Nova Scotians must decide. That is why public hearings like those of the Kimball Committee are so important.
[7:45 p.m.]
The Premier continues, we believe caution is necessary and will accept no proposal without extensive public consultation. That was the Premier speaking, the now Premier, and then the Liberal Leader running for office.
Then he goes on and he makes a statement about the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is very concerned about strictly controlling gambling, treating gambling addiction and educating gamblers and the public about the risks of gambling. Well, that is very laudable and I would ascribe to that position and I could support that position, but when I look at what has happened since May 25th, when I look at what has happened in this House with a tabling of a casino bill, there is an awful lot in what the Premier was saying then that is not in any way, shape or form addressed in what the government has decided to do. The government action completely ignores the proclamation of the Liberal Party prior to the election.
Well, Mr. Speaker, getting back to the amendment, the fundamental belief that government acts only with the consent of the governed. It is not happening. There is going to be, according to the legislation, a casino in Sydney. All of us in this House, regardless of persuasion are aware that there is a groundswell of resistance to the introduction of a casino in industrial Cape Breton and in Sydney, in particular.
One of the chronic problems in industrial Cape Breton, of course, with the difficulties with the coal industry, with a downsizing over the years of the Sydney steel plant has been the creation of jobs and the creation of wealth in industrial Cape Breton and it is a very serious problem.
With that background, then the key findings in the report that has been issued by the Industrial Cape Breton Board of Trade would suggest that in their wisdom and in their analysis of their portion of the province, industrial Cape Breton, that they are not in favour of a casino in their city. The key findings of the report of the industrial commission are very clear cut. Their first finding is there is no popularly based movement for the expansion of legalized gambling.
I have had opportunity to speak with some people in industrial Cape Breton who have chosen to contact me about the casino issue. Certainly they are telling me the same thing. They do not feel there will be any job creation of significance in industrial Cape Breton with the introduction of a casino. Certainly any small benefits will be far outweighed by the social and economic problems for Cape Bretoners, either on the social side or on the economic side, by other employers.
This report goes on and says that there is a lack of objective knowledge and research about the real economic and social costs and benefits of legalized gambling. Well, let's go. Does the government have any research about the economic and social costs and any benefits that will accrue to Sydney if, in fact, there is a casino built in Sydney? Is there any objective evidence, hard facts? The Industrial Cape Breton Board of Trade says there is no hard and fast information.
They go on to say, and bearing in mind that they are representing the business community in the Sydney area, while gambling has led to increases in some forms of employment and tax revenues, the shifting of large amounts of consumer spending to government sponsored gambling also has negative effects on other local businesses. In addition, there are other expenditures, such as those for problem gambling behaviour, regulation, criminal justice and public infrastructure.
They go on to say that it was found that claims of economic benefits were exaggerated while costs were understated. Well, if you take those last two statements, Mr. Speaker, the business community sees no economic benefit from the introduction of a casino into their area.
So what is the opinion of the Industrial Cape Breton Board of Trade regarding the social effects of a casino and increased gambling activity in their city? Government gambling revenues come disproportionately from lower income residents. Problem gambling behaviours are highest among the poor. Well, Mr. Speaker, we will have an opportunity later to discuss some specific studies out West that really confirm what the Industrial Cape Breton Board of Trade in Sydney is saying because the studies indicate exactly what they are saying.
They go on, in the future, if governments do not find better ways to raise public revenues, they will continue to promote more gambling, which will tend to result in increased cannibalization of non-gambling businesses and increase public costs of dealing with the social and economic consequences.
There are jobs needed in industrial Cape Breton but these are not the kinds of jobs they require. They require jobs that will not extract such a tremendous penalty from the people of industrial Cape Breton. They need real jobs in industrial Cape Breton, they do not need the kinds of jobs that will disadvantage existing businesses in the Sydney area and put undue social pressures on many of the people in industrial Cape Breton.
A few moments ago I mentioned that there were studies available, in terms of problems created by increased gambling activity. I think this is an opportunity to go back to what the Minister of Finance said the other day in this House when he said that we are only encouraging an activity that already exists in the province. He was quite prepared to justify the government promoting gambling activity in this province simply because gambling already exists. Mr. Speaker, we may have a little play on words here but if building two casinos in Nova Scotia does not encourage gambling then somewhere along the line I am missing the point. (Interruptions) There has been in British Columbia a study done and a research paper put out entitled, Social Gaming and Problem Gambling in British Columbia. Since we don't have any proper study which relates either to the Sydney area or the Halifax area then I think it is only fair that we should look at studies that have been done elsewhere in the country.
One of the important findings which I think will ultimately prove to have great relevance in Nova Scotia that the survey responses indicate that 7.8 per cent of British Columbians have experienced a gambling problem during their lifetime. Six per cent can be classified as problem gamblers; while 1.8 per cent score high enough to be classified as probable, pathological gamblers. Information provided by People Against Casinos have used these figures to try and extrapolate what the effect might be on Nova Scotians. There are certainly many studies that would suggest that 5 per cent of any given population has the potential to become problem gamblers. Five per cent of 923,000 people is slightly in excess of 46,000 people and a few. That is a significant number of Nova Scotians. That is a very great number of Nova Scotians to put at risk, a great number.
We talk about the spinoff effects, of a created job creating two more jobs, creating 2.5 more jobs, well the spinoff effects of creating 46,000 problem or pathological gamblers in this province is astronomical. The studies also point out that within our population, within the demographics of our population that the most susceptible are the young and those in lower economic brackets. In other words, not only are we putting 46,000 Nova Scotians at risk, we are putting 46,000 young and/or lower economic status Nova Scotians.
I will adjourn the debate until the following day, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion of adjournment has been made and carried.
The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, as I advised all members today earlier by memo the hours tomorrow will be 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Following the daily routine we will be resuming debate on Bill No. 120.
I move we adjourn until 8:00 a.m. tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.
We stand adjourned until 8:00 a.m. on Friday.
[The House rose at 8:00 p.m.]
By: Dr. John Hamm (Pictou Centre)
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 Community Services:
(1) The list of all tenders let by the Department of Community Services since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of bidders for each tender;
(3) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the tenders were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(4) Details of the nature of the work for which the tender was awarded.
By: Dr. John Hamm (Pictou Centre)
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 Municipal Affairs:
(1) The list of all tenders let by the Department of Municipal Affairs since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of bidders for each tender;
(3) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the tenders were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(4) Details of the nature of the work for which the tender was awarded.
By: Mr. John Leefe (Queens)
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 the Environment:
(1) The list of all tenders let by the Department of the Environment since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of bidders for each tender;
(3) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the tenders were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(4) Details of the nature of the work for which the tender was awarded.
By: Mr. John Leefe (Queens)
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 Fisheries:
(1) The list of all tenders let by the Department of Fisheries since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of bidders for each tender;
(3) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the tenders were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(4) Details of the nature of the work for which the tender was awarded.
By: Mr. John Leefe (Queens)
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 memoranda, correspondence, agreements, list of contacts and any other legal instrument with respect to arrangements between the ERA and:
(a) Bluenose II Preservation Trust;
(b) Bluenose III Foundation; and
(c) Bluenose Pride Inc. since June 11, 1993 to date of this return.
