MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We will commence this morning's sitting at this time with the daily routine.
PRESENTING AND READING PETITIONS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present, on behalf of 207 members of the Richmond constituency, 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 would like to submit a petition on behalf of 247 residents of Dartmouth East who also 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.
A petition from 792 residents from the constituency of Cape Breton The Lakes, Mr. Speaker, who are opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia and oppose any change to the legislation that would permit casinos in Nova Scotia.
A petition from 284 residents from Cape Breton East who are opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia and oppose any change to the legislation that would permit casinos in Nova Scotia.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, a petition from 772 residents of Guysborough-Port Hawkesbury who are opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia and are opposed to any change in the legislation that would permit casinos in Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, I have duly signed, in accordance with the rules, these petitions and I would therefore table them.
MR. SPEAKER: The petitions are tabled.
The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have signed to endorse all of the packages of petitions that I will be tabling today. I am pleased to sign, these are from residents of Sackville-Beaverbank, over 200 signatures to the petition which says, we, the undersigned, are opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia and hereby oppose any changes to the legislation that would permit casinos in Nova Scotia.
I am also interested and pleased to table on behalf of over 558 people from the constituency of Bedford-Fall River, Mr. Speaker, and I have also endorsed these, the same statement, that the people are opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia and oppose changes to legislation that would permit the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia . . .
MRS. FRANCENE COSMAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Yesterday I asked the persons who brought the petition here to return to its originator so I could table it in the House. I am somewhat surprised that the member for Sackville-Cobequid is taking on that duty of tabling a petition from Bedford-Fall River, particularly in light of my letter, yesterday, asking for them to be returned with the commitment that I would table it myself, if my own people in Bedford gave it to me. (Interruptions)
MR. JOHN HOLM: On the point, if I may. First of all, I would say, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Bedford-Fall River, that the petitions we are tabling, and that I just tabled, are petitions that do not originate from myself. I am not the person who had them taken up, they were taken up by PAC Nova Scotia. (Interruption) It is also my understanding that the members of the Liberal caucus were all contacted and invited to receive the petitions and they were all outside yesterday in the foyer and any member of this House who was willing to go pick up the petitions and to receive them, had the ample opportunity and were invited to do so. (Interruptions)
After you rule on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to table some additional petitions from others. (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: It appears that the actions of the honourable member have provoked a condition of tumult in the House. That, it would appear, would be a breach or order. I am not aware of the exact provisions of the authorities, the authorities not being limited to Beauchesne. I am not aware of the exact provisions of the authorities with reference to this matter, but I believe that it might be appropriate for me to research that matter and possibly confer with the Clerk. I do not know whether we need to recess the House to do that right now or whether, perhaps, it might be more appropriate to defer the further tabling of petitions until this matter has been researched. (Interruptions)
MR. HOLM: We have been requested to table, and are quite happy to do so, additional petitions in the House. If, Mr. Speaker, you plan to make a ruling, we would request that you would recess the House so that you can do your research and, if you are to rule against us, to provide us the references, et cetera, for the basis upon which we would not be permitted to table the petitions.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order. Are you indicating that you don't know whether there is a ruling against our tabling petitions or not, but you would like us to wait while you try to find one, to rule out of order the tabling of these petitions? (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: I would hesitate to make any ruling in this matter at all until I have researched the matter and determined the precedents and the practice with reference to a matter that has been raised as a point of order by the honourable member for Bedford-Fall River. Until I have had the opportunity to rule on her point of order, I will defer the further tabling of petitions. That doesn't prevent the matter from being returned to at a later time. (Interruptions)
AN HON. MEMBER: What parliamentary rule is that?
MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The very reason that the tabling of petitions is the very first order of business on our order paper is because it is the most ancient right of every citizen of the Kingdom to be able to petition the Crown on any given matter. (Applause) For you to rule that it is inappropriate for anyone to table a petition simply because it doesn't come from that member's constituency is absolutely wrong.
MR. SPEAKER: It is absolutely out of order for the honourable member to submit that the Speaker has made any ruling at all when I have specifically stated that I have made no ruling in this matter. (Interruption) I have made no ruling in this matter. I do request the honourable members of the House to refer themselves to Chapter 21 of Beauchesne's Rules and Forms of the House of the Commons of Canada, which I think is a guide.
Beauchesne is not the Rule Book of this House, but it certainly lays out many considerations on the form of petitions. I have not seen any of these petitions to determine if the form is correct. The Substance of the Petition. "It states the language of the petition should be respectful, temperate and free from disrespect to the Sovereign . . .". I have not had an opportunity to check any of these petitions to see if they conform with that particular qualification. There are precedents and usages that I think it is proper to research since there has been a point of order raised.
HON. JAMES SMITH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point would be simply not that the petitions, and I respect the rights of people to bring petitions before you, my concern and my point of order is that honourable member is laying false information before the House this morning, in that there (Interruptions) were petitions tabled this morning from Dartmouth East, and it was said that those members have refused to table those particular petitions and that is why they were being tabled. That is absolutely not true. There is no one from Dartmouth East who has asked me to table a petition against casinos or anything else. If they had asked me, I certainly would have tabled them before this House. (Applause)
MR. JOHN HOLM: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest to the member who just made the point, the honourable member for Dartmouth East, if he will check Hansard, he will see that I did not say that the minister or any member did not, or refused, to table them. (Interruptions) What I said was, quite clearly, that the petitions were outside, that members were invited to pick them up yesterday and that anybody who chose to take advantage of that had the chance. (Interruptions)
And, Mr. Speaker, I also further would like to add that we have had a tradition in this House, and I think that if we take a look at the practices in this House, upon which our rules are based, consistently over the years, (Interruptions) MLAs have had the privilege and the responsibility to table petitions in this House from Nova Scotians from right across this province, whether they happen to be in their own constituency or elsewhere. (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: I wish to note the following. There are some controls prescribed in Beauchesne on the tabling of petitions. The right is not unlimited. Certainly, the member, for example, wishing to present a petition is to submit it to the Clerk in advance, and the Clerk of Petitions is to certify it is correct in form and content. Have these petitions been certified correct as to form and content?
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Has that rule ever been invoked in this House in all of the years that you are in this House, including when the exact same process was followed when hundreds and hundreds and thousands of petitions on Sunday shopping were filed in this house by members on both sides? You never invoked any such ruling.
MR. SPEAKER: I have, again, made no ruling in this matter. I have asked the question. (Interruptions)
MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, if there is no ruling, I, therefore, beg leave to table a petition which reads as follows: 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. I do so on behalf of 1,644 petitioners, constituents from the constituency of Cape Breton Nova. Mr. Speaker, maybe you would rule on whether the language in that petition is acceptable and in order.
MR. SPEAKER: I would like to see that petition to determine if those 1,600 people are residents of Cape Breton Nova. (Interruptions)
The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, I have just asked for a copy of the petition from Richmond which has 207 Richmond, Sydney, Kemptville, Kentville, . . .
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh, Mr. Speaker.
MR. MANN: Mr. Speaker, I will give this petition back. (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: I wish to make a ruling in this matter. (Interruptions) I think that it is my considered view that in order to avoid disorder in the House here this morning, that we should allow these petitions to be tabled. But I might note also, it was just stated that this was a petition from 1,644 people in Cape Breton Nova. The third signtature, the stated address is Halifax; the 19th stated signature is from New Glasgow and so on and so forth. The petition is not from Cape Breton Nova.
[8:15 a.m.]
The petition is tabled. It is from bona fide residents of Nova Scotia.
The honourable member for Queens.
MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition signed by 1,116 persons from Yarmouth, from Argyle, from Shelburne County.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a package containing 2,539 signatures which were collected in the Truro area of Nova Scotia. (Interruptions) It is signed by people identifying their addresses variously as Truro and Bible Hill and Hilden and various places. The 2,539 have signed a petition opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia and are opposed to any change of the legislation that would permit casinos in Nova Scotia. I too have signed the petition to comply with the rules and ask that it be tabled.
MR. SPEAKER: The petitions are tabled.
The honourable member for Bedford-Fall River.
MRS. FRANCENE COSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am just standing here to advise you that the so-called Bedford-Fall River petition on the first page I am picking up is from Sackville, Dartmouth, Halifax, Halifax County, Bedford, Halifax, Sackville, Halifax, Halifax, Dartmouth, Head of St. Margarets Bay, Guysborough County, Hackett's Cove, Halifax, Chester, Tantallon, Halifax, Halifax, Sackville, Tantallon, Sackville, River Denys, and Bras d'Or Lakes.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. There are no rules in Beauchesne that say you cannot present a petition on behalf of any resident of Nova Scotia. (Interruption)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants East.
MR. ROBERT CARRUTHERS: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the question is whether the honourable members have the right to table a petition from any other constituency but theirs. I personally cannot see how that would be a problem. What would be a problem is if a member stands in this House and says that he wishes to table a petition signed by 1,500 members of the public from so-and-so and he can look at it and obviously see they are not from so-and-so. That is what is out of order in this House. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition that was signed by 4,839 Nova Scotians (Applause) who happen to be visiting in Cape Breton South. I too have signed the petition and they are all people against casinos in Nova Scotia.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition with 884 signatures opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia. It is signed primarily by people from Annapolis.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I want to table a petition signed by all Nova Scotians and they are primarily from the Dartmouth area. Their addresses are given as Dartmouth, Dartmouth, Eastern Passage, Dartmouth, Dartmouth, Cole Harbour, Dartmouth, Dartmouth, Dartmouth, and so on. While I do not have the exact number of signatures, I can tell you it is a very thick file of those who have indicated their opposition to the establishment of casinos in the Province of Nova Scotia.
MR. SPEAKER: Very well. Now I notice a further provision here of Beauchesne that I wish to read to the House stating that, "A Member wishing to present petitions will be recognized . . ." by the Chair, ". . . only once during routine proceedings for that purpose.". So, I would ask honourable members, if they have collections of petitions for more than one area but on the same subject, if they could please table them in bulk.
MR. MANNING MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I just want to advise members of the House that Waterville and Mabou are not in Cape Breton South.
MR. SPEAKER: The point is noted.
MR. GEORGE MOODY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I signed that petition and it is the rule of the House, the honourable member ought to know the rules, the person who tables the petition has to sign it and I happen to live in Waterville.
MR. SPEAKER: Very well.
The honourable member for Queens.
MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition signed by 484 persons who are opposed to the introduction of gambling casinos in Nova Scotia. (Interruptions) Well, the name on the front of the file is Betty Malloy of Lockeport, Nova Scotia; Tana Chapman, Lockeport, Nova Scotia; Robin Anderson, Lockeport, Nova Scotia; Beatrice Roache, Lockeport, Nova Scotia; A. Russell Wamback. Virtually every one of these is from the constituency . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Order!
The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Pictou Centre.
DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by 784 Nova Scotians. These names were collected in Dartmouth South. This is a petition against the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleasured to table a petition here this morning. The petition is from the constituency of Hants East. Just for the benefit of the House, two signatures are from Oxford, the rest are Hants East, on the first page. There are over 280 names. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
MR. ROBERT CARRUTHERS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just wish to advise the House that yesterday the honourable member indicated that these petitions had no political involvement. I believe that particular petition yesterday was offered to me outside in the foyer by a member from the previous speaker's district. It also happened to be his secretary who was out in the foyer, hanging out there. (Interruptions)
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, thousands and thousands of Nova Scotians are opposed to the establishment of casinos here in Nova Scotia. Housewives and mothers of children are opposed to the establishment . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?
MR. TAYLOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, the woman in question happens to be a mother and a housewife who is very concerned about the establishment of casinos, no different than any other person in any constituency. It is a deliberate attempt by that member to divert the real attention which is that people are opposed to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, I must intervene in this matter. Surely what is happening here ought to show all honourable members that there is a gross breach of order taking place here and I would ask honourable members to please restore decorum here in the House, behave civilly, follow parliamentary procedure, and avoid this type of wrangling, please.
The honourable member for Pictou West.
MR. DONALD MCINNES: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition, people against casinos in Nova Scotia. The majority of the people are from Pictou East. I see my own wife's name happens to be on that petition and my daughter's. I am very proud to table it on their behalf.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Kings North.
MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table this petition primarily from residents of Kings South. There may be a few from Kings County but mostly they are from Kings South.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Hants East.
MR. ROBERT CARRUTHERS: Do we still have some option to present some petitions?
MR. SPEAKER: If one has not yet presented petitions, yes.
The honourable member for Hants East.
MR. ROBERT CARRUTHERS: Just to change the vein of the tenor of the House, Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of petitions to table which have absolutely nothing to do with casinos.
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition signed by approximately 63 residents from the Burntcoat Road area on Route 215 at Noel to Route 215 at Minasville, Hants County. I have also signed this petition and wish to lend support to it. These citizens are petitioning to have their road resurfaced.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable member for Hants East.
MR. ROBERT CARRUTHERS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition that is signed by approximately 13 residents from the Cobequid Bay Seniors' Complex at Maitland, Hants County. I have signed this petition and wish to lend my support to it. These citizens are petitioning to have their road paved.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS
STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency.
HON. ROSS BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased and proud to announce that the largest ever fleet of international Tall Ships will arrive in Nova Scotia in the year 2000 for the Race of the Century. Nova Scotia has been confirmed as the first of three North American destinations for the record-breaking event being planned by the Sail Training Association. The announcement on this event is also being made in London, England, today by Vice Admiral George Vallings, Chairman of the Association.
The event is expected to draw 200 square rigged and other sail training vessels from around the world.
Halifax will host Tall Ships 2000 from July 15th to July 18th. Those Tall Ships participating in the racing competitions will then set sail for Amsterdam. The non-racing ships will travel to Sydney and dazzle a Cape Breton audience for at least three days.
In 1984 the Parade of Sail was a thrill, a breathtaking experience and a source of pride for every Nova Scotian. In the year 2000 a significant part of our Maritime heritage will help set us into the next millennium with great fanfare and celebration.
Tall Ships 2000 is the type of signature event that sets our province apart from the competition. Nova Scotia is a natural site for this event and our province's reputation as an outstanding host and organizer will be reinforced and enhanced by Tall Ships 2000.
This kind of reputation is already growing for us. Nova Scotia will host the G-7 in this world spotlight next year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou West.
MR. DONALD MCINNES: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for providing me with a copy of the announcement at 8:00 a.m., which was quite a while ago. We are very pleased and thank the minister for making this announcement today. The Tall Ships to come to Nova Scotia in the year 2000, it is a little piece away but I know that it takes time for the planning. The fact that they are coming here and also that the non-racing ships are going to go to Cape Breton, our lovely island of Nova Scotia, I think it is very nice.
I know most of you had the opportunity to see the Tall Ships in 1984 and it was certainly a dazzling display, and as I am sure with the larger numbers that this will even be greater.
Again, I am very pleased for Nova Scotia. It is part of our tourism industry, an $800 million industry, and anything that happens that will enhance that and promote Nova Scotia, I congratulate the government. Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I would agree that this is truly an exciting announcement that the minister has made today. There is no question that it will be an exciting time for Nova Scotia when those Tall Ships arrive. It is unfortunate though that the minister and his government's ship will have already sailed out by the time these Tall Ships come in. But, nonetheless, they will still be Nova Scotians and we will still appreciate the beauty and wonder of those Tall Ships visiting our province. Thank you.
[8:30 a.m.]
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Perhaps one last reasoned kick at this can. I have here one of the petitions that the honourable member's stood and said they were presenting on behalf of the people of Nova Scotia, Pointe-Claire, Quebec, Gratton, Maine, Gloucester, Ontario, Ottawa East.
MR. SPEAKER: I do know that Beauchesne's textbook specifically rules against the petitioning of this body by those who are not even citizens of Canada or foreigners, to use Beauchesne's terms. Any such petitions would have to be out of order. However, I have not been able to examine any of these petitions and I would suggest that they have been tabled to whatever effect and purpose that may amount to. I will, therefore, move on to other business.
GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
NOTICES OF MOTION
MR. SPEAKER: 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 Liberal MLAs and Cabinet Ministers have suffered humiliation, abuse and political misfortune because they had to tell loyal supporters that Liberals did not have an inside track for jobs with John Savage's clean, anti-patronage machine; and
Whereas Liberal foot soldiers must now ask whether they would have been more likely to receive a job if they called themselves a consultant and charged $1,225 daily; and
Whereas Liberal MLAs and ministers who leave this House this weekend may wish to explain to their own supporters how such a double standard applies;
Therefore be it resolved that this House reminds all Nova Scotians that untendered contracts to Liberal supporters are not patronage if the Liberal supporter has a downtown office, donates generously to the Party, has a good personal relationship with people at the top and thus, unlike the rank and file, is a person of unquestionable integrity.
MR. SPEAKER: I consider that be it resolved section to not contain a single proposition but rather to be more in the realm of a speech.
The notice is tabled.
I would caution honourable members to please try to be cogent and concise and to restrict be it resolved sections to a single proposition.
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 250 newly elected municipal officials will be in Halifax this weekend to get direction on their roles and responsibilities and to learn about procedures, municipal conflict of interest and provincial-municipal service exchange; and
Whereas as a guest speaker on Friday evening the Minister of Municipal Affairs will be expected to offer guidance and direction to the newly elected municipal officials; and
Whereas it will be difficult for the minister to give direction when she has demonstrated no sense of direction in handling her department's affairs;
Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Municipal Affairs be required to attend the conference as a participant rather than as an authority on the policies, practices and conflict of interest practices set out by the Department of Municipal Affairs.
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 federal Minister of Human Resources has outlined plans to change Canada's social security net; and
Whereas the Maritimes will be hardest hit by changes in income support, post-secondary education, employment and unemployment programs, and so far there has been no coordinated response from provincial governments in Maritime Canada; and
Whereas while there has much anecdotal information on the impact of these proposed changes on the people in our region, there is a serious lack of good research;
Therefore be it resolved that this House exercise leadership in analyzing the impact of the federal proposals and where appropriate offer alternatives which give Nova Scotians a genuine, realistic chance at economic and social independence.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas 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 on behalf of the Liberal members the Liberal caucus chairman has refused to present the petitions individually so that they may be duly recorded;
Therefore be it resolved that the Official Opposition and the recognized Third Party are acting on behalf of all Nova Scotians by presenting petitions with signatures of residents throughout Nova Scotia.
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 Sunday, November 20th, will be celebrated as Child Day to mark the anniversary of the signing of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; and
Whereas Save the Children Canada is among the many organizations dedicated to the rights of children, for whom this day underscores their important mandate in each neighbourhood and around the world; and
Whereas Child Day has particular significance in this, the Year of the Family;
Therefore be it resolved that this House join with child advocacy and child support organizations, families of all types, and Nova Scotia children themselves in marking Child Day 1994, November 20th, and affirming the importance of the rights of children.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver of notice which requires unanimous consent.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable member for Pictou West.
MR. DONALD MCINNES: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the section of the Trans Canada Highway leading from New Brunswick into Nova Scotia by-passes access to the Nova Scotia tourist bureau; and
Whereas I have toured the site and met with Amherst tourism officials and endorse their recommendation that a highway ramp be constructed on the New Brunswick side of the border to direct traffic onto the old bridge and past the Nova Scotia tourist bureau; and
Whereas representations to the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick Ministers of Transportation have not been acted upon;
Therefore be it resolved that the Premier and the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency commit to work with their New Brunswick counterparts to change the route so that the Nova Scotia tourist bureau is more accessible to visitors to our province.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
MR. DENNIS RICHARDS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, a few moments ago the member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley presented a resolution and in the third whereas clause the statement he read says, ". . . on behalf of the Liberal members the Liberal caucus chairman has refused to present the petitions individually so that they may be duly recorded.".
Mr. Speaker, that is totally untrue. We have been going through a debate here in this last day or so with what has been said and what has not been said. They have said in this resolution that I, as chair of caucus, had refused to present these petitions and I want to tell the House and members of the public at large that that is totally untrue. If that member has any proof to the contrary of what I am saying, lay it on the table. I am saying it is totally untrue.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member has made his point.
The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, if I may respond to that point of order, I would be quite prepared to have a meeting in private with that member and bring a witness who conveyed the information to me today, (Interruption) Probably within five minutes or so if he so desires.
MR. SPEAKER: I wish to say if I could from the Chair, please. I wish to say that the general thrust of parliamentary procedure does not anticipate that personal disputes outside the Chamber, having nothing to do with legislation or the public affairs of Nova Scotia, are to be canvassed extensively here in the House.
Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms of Procedure states that it has been sanctioned by usage, that means by convention, that a member while speaking must not make a personal charge against another member. Now, just exactly what a personal charge is, is not defined. It is usually considered to be a charge of personal malfeasance. But to accuse an honourable member of having done something in an official capacity, which he or she vehemently denies, would, in my view, tend to provoke disorder and thereby constitute a breach of order. The primary function of the Chair in the Assembly is to maintain order and decorum. That is why we have a Chair and don't just have a free-for-all, without any guidance or direction.
Therefore, I would, in my view, state that my personal opinion is that in Notices of Motion, members are to be very careful in what they say about what other members have said or done, or have not said or done, because if a charge is made against an honourable member that he or she takes personal exception to and takes offence to, that situation would obviously tend to incite disorder in the House. Therefore, it is not a good practice. It is not good practice, in my view, at all. Now, that is my opinion on the point that has been raised.
MR. RAYMOND WHITE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. As a member of this Legislature, when I receive correspondence from my constituents, I will table it and I have tabled petitions here in the past. But in reviewing the petitions that were tabled this morning, it is clearly indicated on one of these petitions, on one of the covering letters, that this is addressed, Attention: Ray White, MLA. I did not give anyone permission to open any correspondence on by behalf. (Interruptions)
Had I received this correspondence, Mr. Speaker, I would have tabled it on behalf of my residents. I believe that this is an infringement on my privilege as a member, (Interruptions) to have someone else open correspondence addressed to me.
MR. SPEAKER: I do not know how to respond to this. I have no knowledge of the facts. If the honourable member can bring to my attention any evidence as to who may have improperly opened his mail . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the member who tabled it. (Interruptions)
ANOTHER HON. MEMBER: Who tabled the petition? Surely they know who opened the mail. (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: The only MLA that I see having signed this particular piece of paper is identified as Robert Chisholm of Halifax. (Interruptions) But I do not know if that means that any mail was opened addressed to Mr. White. I do not know that. I am unable to make any ruling in this matter.
The proper procedure to follow in presenting a point of privilege is that it should be followed by a motion to be put to the House. The motion is usually that the matter be referred to the Committee on Internal Affairs for examination and such determination as that committee finds to be just. I issue that as direction for the House. (Interruptions)
The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas nutrition, health and safety are among the fundamental rights for any child if they are to have a fair opportunity in life; and
Whereas this Liberal Government has broken its promise of adequate child care, quietly suspended the services of the Children's Dental Program, and perpetuated the two-tiered social assistance system that leaves thousands of children in dire poverty; and
Whereas Child Day 1994 will not be an occasion to celebrate major advances for children in Nova Scotia;
Therefore be it resolved that this House regrets that November 20th, Child Day, is an occasion that highlights the betrayal by this Liberal Government of its promises to Nova Scotia children and thus its betrayal of all Nova Scotian families.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Kings North.
MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the silent 10 from Cape Breton had residents believing they could fix any problem at any time, if only they were in government; and
Whereas the silent 10 have proven on a number of occasions since becoming the government, that they are incapable of solving the many issues of concern to Cape Breton; and
Whereas the group of 10 had been a group of 11 (Interruptions) until one decided to speak his mind on the policies of the Savage Government;
Therefore be it resolved that 10 of the 11 members of the Legislature for Cape Breton admit to their constituents that they are, for the present time, more fearful of the member for Dartmouth South and his dictatorial manner than they are of the concerns being faced by the constituents of Cape Breton.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Queens.
[8:45 a.m.]
MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Premier had no problem firing deputy ministers, at a cost to Nova Scotia taxpayers of $2 million; and
Whereas the Premier had no problem earlier this week firing 98 janitors, maintenance workers and government postal employees; and
Whereas the Premier had no problem firing a government backbencher for voting his conscience;
Therefore be it resolved that the rigorous standards set for civil servants and MLAs of principle also be applied to the Premier and members of his inner Cabinet, rather than the double standard we have witnessed over the last 18 months.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Minister of Health last year overruled Premier Savage's tendering policy by awarding a $250,000 untendered contract to IBM; and
Whereas the Minister of Health recently awarded a $40,000 untendered contract to Berkeley Consultants of Ontario; and
Whereas this same Minister of Health this summer awarded Cynthia Martin of London, Ontario, a $15,000 untendered contract for seven weeks work as a communications consultant and he paid Rev. David Chisling $5,000 through an untendered, unsigned contract for AIDS research;
Therefore be it resolved that the Premier admit that by not firing his Minister of Municipal Affairs yesterday, he condones all Cabinet Ministers who overrule his tendering policy.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. This resolution is fraught with misstatement. For example, this minister and the Ministry of Health has never offered an untendered contract to IBM. There has been no contract offered. It is not, in any way, being considered and this is a misstatement of fact.
MR. SPEAKER: Very well, the point is noted. (Interruption)
It would be difficult for me to make a ruling in this type of situation because an honourable member, as a notice of motion, is certainly legitimately entitled to state what he or she believes to be the facts on some matter, even if those facts may be in error.
I have canvassed this matter already by extensive references to Beauchesne. I will not normally object to any notice of motion unless I feel it to be a breach of order or to contain material of a scurrilous nature that would perhaps incite disorder in the House.
I feel that the remedy for this is perhaps to do as the honourable Minister of Health has just done and note, on a point of order, those matters that are taken exception to and let it go at that.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say in response to the Health Minister's objections that the Premier himself made reference to the intended IBM LifeSmart contract as an example of this government's inexperience and lack of tendering in its early days in office.
DR. STEWART: There is no tender. There is no contract.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, perhaps this matter could be canvassed in Question Period, that might be the best way to handle it.
The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Mayor of Halifax is calling for the ouster of the member for Dartmouth South from his job as Premier; and
Whereas metro's four municipal leaders say they cannot work with the Minister of Municipal Affairs because they have absolutely no faith in her or her government; and
Whereas Liberals from Cape Breton West are meeting this weekend to seek a possible leadership review, as the result of actions taken by the government this week;
Therefore be it resolved that the Premier of this province put some form of peace accord together this weekend so that at least his Party faithful will stand behind him, despite the fact that the rest of Nova Scotia wants him disposed of.
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 Health Minister explained his intended untendered $250,000 contract to IBM for the LifeSmart Program, as the result of inexperience and enthusiasm; and
Whereas that mistake was made in August 1993, when the explanation had some credibility; and
Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs sat through that error and every single word said since, about enforced, strict tendering rules, apparently without hearing or understanding a word;
Therefore be it resolved that this House urges the Premier to find new and more relevant reasons for the same old Liberal mistakes, rather than mistakenly applying the principle of recycling to his pathetic political excuses.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas this Cabinet moved Heaven and earth to get the Liberal Party convention cancelled so that they could rush back into the Legislature instead; and
Whereas the same brain trust decided to suddenly impose metro amalgamation, without consultation or evidence it would save taxpayers a cent, to take limelight away from the Opposition; and
Whereas in true Liberal tradition, the Liberal brains will now blame the Premier, personally, for the terrible mistake of rushing back into the Legislature and imposing amalgamation;
Therefore be it resolved that each Liberal MLA and minister who privately blames the Premier for their collective political disasters should take the honourable step of joining the MLA for Cape Breton West outside the Liberal caucus, so no one can suspect them of saying one thing inside caucus and another outside.
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 Mayor of Lunenburg and the Municipality of Lunenburg have asked for a six month moratorium on further reductions in hospital staff and services until the community can be involved in planning the future of their health care; and
Whereas the Health Minister has singled out for praise each community where public protest put a halt to his imposed cutbacks; and
Whereas by April 1994, when the new budget began, the government had already cut the number of beds provided by the Health Services Association of the South Shore from 113 to 91;
Therefore be it resolved that in Lunenburg County and in the rest of Nova Scotia, the government should suspend cutbacks in health services that are being made without community involvement and a public process of needs assessment.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
Any further notices of motion? If none, that concludes then the daily routine. We will now advance to Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
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: The debate was adjourned by the honourable member for Pictou Centre. According to our records here, he would have approximately 40 minutes left.
MR. MANNING MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I just want to, again, bring to the attention of the House the way that this particular petition was tabled for Cape Breton South today. On one of the pages, I think Page 25, there are three names on this particular petition that I think the House should be aware of. One of them is the Premier's name, signed from Halifax; the other one is a gentleman by the name of Elvis, parts unknown, [Memphis, Tennessee]; and the third one, Mr. Wayne Newton from Las Vegas is on this particular page too. (Laughter) Now, are these gentlemen residents of (Interruptions) I think we can safely assume that the Premier of the province didn't sign this particular page nor did Elvis Presley nor did Wayne Newton.
MR. SPEAKER: I would like to make this observation concerning this practice that was followed today. It is clear to the Chair that the procedures that have been followed today have provoked a state of disorder and tumult in the House and that material has been tabled which was out of order in that the petitions that were signed by persons who do not reside in Canada nor are known to be Canadian citizens have been tabled. In petitions that were claimed to be signed even by the Premier of the province against his own government have been tabled. (Laughter) This is no matter of mirth.
I believe that these procedures mean that we may perhaps have to review past practices with reference to the tabling of a petition and to have the Clerk examine a petition before it is tabled to certify that it is in order and properly executed, otherwise there would be no control at all. A member could stand up and say I beg leave to table a document and introduce a very thick manuscript of perhaps 300 or 400 pages, we have no idea what is on those pages, whether the signatures are legitimate or whether they are Nova Scotians and this could lead to abuses.
I shall, therefore, take this situation under consideration and review and if I have further observations to make, will announce them at a later time.
The honourable member for Queens.
MR. JOHN LEEFE: In making your review, I would ask you to bear in mind that if too great a restriction were placed with respect to the knowledge that the tabler had to have of those who signed the petition, it might well be that the only way a petition could ever be tabled in the House is for the person tabling the petition to actually go around and collect the signatures. (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I want to hear this. I think this is an important consideration.
MR. LEEFE: That certainly, Mr. Speaker, I believe would be a subversion of the right that Nova Scotians have to petition the Crown in any matter of concern to them.
MR. SPEAKER: I tend, very strongly, to agree with what has just been stated and I would not want to be unduly restrictive. I think that the honourable members of this House, to a certain extent, may have been victimized themselves when they accept for presentation in the House petitions which they themselves did not collect or organize, but which are taken on good faith from some other organization outside the House which has organized and put the petition package together and give to the member to present to the House.
The member believes that the petition is legitimate and that the signatories are all Nova Scotians and then it is found on closer examination that that is not the case. In that case, I do not feel it would be the fault of the honourable member involved because he or she had acted in good faith. But there is a danger here, I think, that the House itself can be taken advantage of by persons outside the House who seek to take advantage of our goodwill here and of our faith and trust. I do feel that this might be perhaps an appropriate topic for the Committee on Assembly Matters to examine after this session of the House, or some other appropriate forum.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I, for one, want to say very clearly that you don't speak for me when you say that members of this House have been victimized by agreeing to table petitions on behalf of some organization outside of the House. I know for a fact that on every single one of those pages there are people who signed in good faith.
Now, if we are prepared to say that those who signed in good faith have no rights to have petition tabled in this House with their name on it because one or two people might have signed a petition, then it is a very sorry day for democracy in this province, given the importance of petitioning in parliamentary procedure.
I do not want to leave any impression that I was victimized, and I don't think any members of my caucus do, in having cooperated with trying to get the viewpoint of tens of thousands of Nova Scotians expressed in this House through petitions.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think this matter has been extensively canvassed this morning. The Chair does not purport to speak on behalf of any honourable member of the House, but to speak on behalf of the Chair. The observations I have made express my personal distress with the events of this morning and I think they speak for themselves to all honourable members - at least those of discernment - that this is not the type of practice we want to encourage here in the House.
Having said that, I would propose that we move on to the business at hand and I believe the honourable member for Pictou Centre has the floor. I have not made an exact calculation of the time he has remaining, but I think half an hour would be a fair approximation.
The honourable member for Pictou Centre.
DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to continue my remarks on Bill No. 120 and particularly directing them to the amendment which has been presented and which I will read into the record, "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.".
Last evening, I had the opportunity in my opening remarks to review the position of the Liberal Party, review the position of the Minister of Finance and to review the position of the Premier in relation to the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia and, in particular, to examine their position prior to the election of May 1993.
The substance of the amendment is to examine the government's willingness to respond to the will of the governed. I think the events of this morning, in terms of the reception of the petitions in this House received by members of the government side is strong testimony as to the seriousness with which the government is looking at the very strong lobby that has been launched in this province against casinos. There is no question that one of the ways in which the governed can make their intentions and their will known to the government is through petitions.
[9:00 a.m.]
It would not be in the interests of Nova Scotians if, in fact, the process of launching petitions was hampered in any way that would suggest that the petitioning process would have to be altered in such a way that it would preclude, on occasion, mischievous people signing a page of a petition hung in a public place. If, in fact, we, as an Opposition, were hamstrung in guaranteeing that each and every signature on a petition was authentic would, in fact, destroy the whole process and would interfere with the ability of Nova Scotians to communicate their wishes to the government.
I have not had the opportunity in my remarks thus far, to look at some of the information that was available to the government which was certainly available to them before they introduced the casino bill and is, in no small way, a reflection of the will of the people in Nova Scotia. Other speakers have made reference to the so-called Kimball Report. This report was released on April 16, 1993, a year and one-half ago. The Chairman of that was Derrick Kimball, MLA. As well, members of that committee who have signed and endorsed that report were the members for Dartmouth East, Cape Breton East, Inverness and Halifax Atlantic. That report states, in Article 9, that no new games, lotteries, betting or gambling of any sort be sanctioned, promoted or permitted by Atlantic Lottery, the Nova Scotia Lottery Commission or anyone else under any circumstances until an affirmative determination has been made by the people of Nova Scotia to expand gambling in the province.
Well, four of the five persons who signed that report still sit in this House. We have heard from the member for Halifax Atlantic and I think he continues to support what he signed in April 1993. It would be interesting to hear the position of the members for Dartmouth East, Cape Breton East and Inverness as to if, in fact, they had a change of heart as to how casino gambling and other types of gambling could be promoted in this province and, in fact, if it should be endorsed by the government.
The Edmund Morris Report of June 28, 1993, an initial report and recommendations to the Government of Nova Scotia and the Nova Scotia Lottery Commission. Again, this was June 28, 1993. This report takes perhaps a slightly different approach to the casino issue and again, I quote from the report, "We recommend that Government authorize the Lottery Commission, as part of the review it has been directed to carry out into all aspects of gaming in the Province, and under new draft Casino (Pilot-Project) Regulations which will expire March 31, 1995, to operate two casino pilot-projects, one each in the Halifax-Dartmouth metropolitan area and Cape Breton Island, between October 1, 1993 and October 31, 1994 . . .", thirteen months, ". . . and two-week casino-type operations at the Atlantic Winter Fair this Autumn and next, and direct the Commission to report further, in full detail, on the pilot operations, jobs potential, tourism and conventioneering indicators, economic cost-benefits and social and community impacts, with further recommendation to Government . . .".
Well, that is a long paragraph and certainly a very long sentence. But I think the intent is very clear that there is enough concern, there is enough doubt that casinos will in fact be beneficial, that we should try the shoe on before we buy it. The course that the government has decided to follow in the establishment of casinos, is the introduction of two casinos with obviously massive investments by whoever they choose to be their partner in the process. This will force the government to enter into a long-term contract with the operator to ensure in fact that the operator will eventually have a proper return on his investment. This will absolutely eliminate and preclude the province from retracing its steps, if in fact the casino project turns out to be detrimental and harmful and uneconomical from the point of view of the province.
We then can examine the report of the Standing Committee on Community Services. This is a more recent report, dated February 1994, and it is popularly known as the Fogarty Report. As well, it has been signed and endorsed by the member for Halifax Bedford Basin, it has been endorsed by the member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage, Timberlea-Prospect, Guysborough-Port Hawkesbury, Kings West, Yarmouth, Hants West, Sackville-Beaverbank and Halifax Fairview.
Now this report is just over six months old and I will turn to that portion of the report which is headlined, casinos and I will read excerpts from that portion of the report. "While gambling has raised interest, there is little substantiated evidence, as shown by other casino gaming operations in Canada, that casinos will significantly improve the levels of tourist traffic." Well, I reflect back now on the remarks of the Minister of Finance when he was introducing to this House his casino legislation and of course, he spoke in a very positive way that there would be benefits to tourism and there would be a significant economic benefit to casinos.
The question that that raises, if in fact that after travelling about, that the honourable member for Halifax Bedford Basin has come to the conclusion that there is very much doubt as to a positive impact on tourist traffic in this province. And the report goes on to say which is again, contrary to what the Minister of Finance has suggested in the House, that and again I quote from the Fogarty Report, "Without more information, it is premature to presume that there will be a net positive economic value from casino operations.". Well, if, in fact, the so-called Fogarty Committee was prepared to say in February that there is little substantiated evidence that casinos will significantly improve the levels of tourist traffic and without more information, it is premature to presume that there will be a net positive economic value from casinos. I would certainly challenge the Minister of Finance to produce the information that allows him to stand and promote his casino bill, saying that certainly there will be an improvement in tourism and that there will be a net positive economic value from casino operations.
I would certainly like, during the course of this debate, that all members who were part of the Fogarty Report, to stand in the House and perhaps make known to the House if, in fact, they have new information that would change their stand on casinos, new information that obviously must have surfaced in the last six months.
The report goes on to say, and this is in regard to tourism, ". . . the Committee has taken a cautious approach. While a casino may benefit the tourism industry, it may also harm that industry as well.". Well, Mr. Speaker, tourism is a very important part of the economic well-being of Nova Scotia. The revenue or the income from tourism in this province is over $800 million a year and it is one of our major industries and it is one of our industries that, properly promoted, will improve the economic well-being of this province.
Here we have legislation that a committee, which rather exhaustively examined the gambling situation in Nova Scotia in February, is saying that a casino may harm that industry, that industry being tourism. Well, that sounds like a very risky venture to me, if, in fact, we are going to introduce an industry into this province and promote gambling for, I guess the only positive benefit would be economic - I cannot really see that there will be any other benefit - but that benefit has not been studied and that benefit certainly is, by the Fogarty Committee Report, in question.
The recommendation of the Fogarty Committee and this is Recommendation 7 and the specific recommendation is that the government, "not permit the establishment of a commercial casino operation at this time.". Well, I would certainly hesitate to suggest to the committee that they had reached incorrect conclusions in February, so if we are to assume that their conclusions were correct in February, then I think it might be legitimate to assume that their conclusions would still be relevant in November.
Now there is another report dated June 28, 1993, An Initial Report and Recommendations to the Government of Nova Scotia from the Nova Scotia Lottery Commission. This report examines the question, should casinos be introduced into Nova Scotia? The report confirms and echoes the Omnifacts report and it was made clear, however, that from 607 respondents to the Omnifacts Report, that 58 per cent, and again this was a Nova Scotia survey, 58 per cent opposed the introduction of casinos, against 36 per cent who approved. Well, in terms of the amendment that is before this House, that government acts only with the consent of the governed, then the Omnifacts Report, I think, is very relevant and germane to this debate. It says 58 per cent of Nova Scotians are opposed to the introduction of casinos.
[9:15 a.m.]
Now, the present proposal before this House is not for a government run casino, it is for a privately run casino. The question on that on the Omnifacts poll, that the rejection rate to casinos increased to 64 per cent if private companies were involved. Well, private companies are going to be involved in this casino project and the rejection rate from Nova Scotians is 64 per cent. Sixty-four per cent of Nova Scotians don't want casinos in this province and despite that, the government is going ahead. This government does not believe it requires the consent of the governed.
Now, the Lottery Commission goes on in its report and here, I think, they were being influenced by the Morris Report who did suggest, if in fact the government is determined that it must conduct a pilot project, and again I quote from the report of the Lottery Commission, ". . . if any casino operation in Nova Scotia is to be considered by Government, consideration should be preceded by pilot-project testing of detailed operating conditions and guidelines. We also believe that it is desirable to bring together much more information on jobs potential, tourism and conventioneering impacts, spin-off and indirect economic stimuli, social and community impacts and cost-benefits measurements.".
Well, this is not a pilot project. This legislation, if it is passed, will introduce casinos into this province forever and a day. They will always be here despite the protestations of 64 per cent of Nova Scotians by Omnifacts poll and despite perhaps as many as 40,000 signatures on petitions that are now being presented to this government and which this government, instead of listening to what that petition says, are trying to discredit those people who signed these petitions in good faith. (Interruption) The mere mention in this House of these petitions signed by thousands of concerned Nova Scotians is still being treated lightly by this government. (Interruption)
MR. GERALD FOGARTY: Mr. Speaker, would the member for Pictou Centre entertain a question?
MR. SPEAKER: Would you?
DR. HAMM: I certainly would at the end of this before my time is up.
MR. SPEAKER: At the end of his speech.
MR. FOGARTY: Thank you.
DR. HAMM: Again, the Lottery Commission Report states, "For the purpose of testing the appropriateness and viability both socially and economically . . .", one of the very severe criticisms of this project is that fact that there has been no socio-economic study done in terms of the casino project. "For the purpose of testing the appropriateness and viability both socially and economically of casino operations in Nova Scotia, and notwithstanding any other provision in the Video Lottery Regulations, the Commission may operate a casino pilot-project in the Halifax-Dartmouth metropolitan area and Cape Breton Island, subject to the following conditions . . .". Well, there have been four recent reports done on casino gambling, and there has been a petition circulated and it all points in the same direction, that the people of Nova Scotia don't want casinos and the reports that have been done on casinos, at the very least, require a pilot project, allowing us to evaluate the economics of the casino project, the social effects of the casino project and to allow us the opportunity to retrace our steps if, in fact, the pilot projects fail. The proposal in the legislation before us will be irrevocable, if passed, and will provide us and burden us here in this province with casinos for decades.
In my remarks last night, I was introducing the subject of compulsory or pathological gambling into the casino question. I was in the midst of quoting from a report called Social Gaming and Problem Gambling in British Columbia. This report and others must substitute for reports and studies, in terms of the problem of pathological or addictive gambling because, to my knowledge, we have not had a study in Nova Scotia. I think it is fair to assume that Canadian studies in one province would have significant relevance in all parts of the country. I don't think that is drawing a very long bow, as the Speaker on occasion, might comment.
Survey responses indicate that 7.8 per cent of British Columbians have experienced a gambling problem during their lifetime; 6 per cent can be classified as problem gamblers while 1.8 per cent score high enough to be classified as probable pathological gamblers. Well, whether we go with 1.8 per cent or with 7.8 per cent, it is a significant problem. Pathological gambling creates a great number of victims.
Now the numbers of the situation, if, in fact, 5 per cent of Nova Scotians are potential problem gamblers, then that is in excess of 46,000 Nova Scotians and that is a very significant number. While we may debate whether it is 4 per cent or 5 per cent or 6 per cent, it is very difficult for the government to debate that pathological gambling is not a serious illness.
I look across and I see the Minister of Health, and I know he is a very strong component of wellness in this province. On that matter, I certainly salute him. I have endorsed his efforts to eliminate and to discourage the use of tobacco products, particularly by the young people of this province. While I cannot speak for the minister, I cannot help but speculate that he is having some considerable difficulty in supporting legislation that will introduce problem gambling into this province.
The Minister of Finance, in his earlier remarks, has suggested that we have gambling in Nova Scotia and, yes, we do, but it makes no more sense for this government to suggest that it is okay to introduce more problem gambling into Nova Scotia by introducing casinos because, in fact, it will provide revenue for the province, any more than it would make sense for the Minister of Health to get up and say, well, let's encourage smoking even though it is bad, because we are going to get additional revenue from the sale of tobacco products in this province.
One of the sad things about gambling addiction is that is doesn't affect all segments of our population equally. It is a particular problem and particularly addictive to young people and to those people of lower economic means. So, in other words, the problems of casinos will affect two very vulnerable segments of our society; the young and those of limited economic means. That, in itself, if a very serious observation. First of all, creating in young people a gambling addiction will introduce them to an illness that will express itself throughout their entire life and if, in fact, we introduce casinos to this province, obviously for decades, they will have the opportunity to feed their addiction.
Some of the literature that . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, would the honourable member permit an introduction? Perhaps it would give you a chance to organize your thoughts.
DR. HAMM: Yes, certainly, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I would like to introduce to the House some good friends of mine who are with us here this morning in the Speaker's Gallery. His Excellency, Dr. Stanislav Chylek, Ambassador of the Czech Republic to Canada. Stand up if you would, doctor. (Applause) His good wife, Dr. Vlasta Chylkova and Mr. Vladimir Gludai who is the Czech Trade Commissioner to Canada. (Applause)
His Excellency, the Ambassador, is a former Member of the Czech Parliament in Prague. He and I had a very interesting conversation yesterday morning comparing practice in their Parliament with practice in ours. In the Czech Parliament, the speaker wishing to address the Assembly comes up and speaks from a podium in front of the Speaker's Chair. But here the members speak from their individual places in the House. So, we certainly welcome you here this morning, Ambassador, and we hope you enjoy what we are doing here. (Interruptions)
Their Parliament is somewhat larger than ours. They had 300 members at the time Dr. Chylek was a member. (Interruption) Well, I don't know. In any event, we welcome you here this morning, sir, your wife and Mr. Gludai. (Applause)
DR. HAMM: Before the introduction I was speaking about gambling addiction, particularly as it affects the young, as it affects those of limited economic means. One of the other interesting pieces of information about gambling addiction is that despite treatment, it, like alcoholism, has a high rate of recurrence and it like those who have attempted and successfully been able to control their tobacco habit, like those other two addictions, gambling addiction has a very high rate of recurrence.
The government in its pre-election platform had stated that it has a very strong commitment to the treatment of gambling addiction. I would only think it fair that we can assume that they will continue that commitment to the treatment of gambling addiction. But there has been no study in Nova Scotia to suggest as to how many gambling addicts will require treatment. I am not aware of any specific clinic which will treat and specialize in treating gambling addiction.
[9:30 a.m.]
Now, some of the spinoffs in terms of gambling addictions, in terms of depression and other well-documented illnesses, in fact, are amenable to treatment and can be, I think, addressed by some of the mental health facilities that we have in this province. But in this case, we are only treating symptoms of a disease. If in fact we cannot treat the addiction itself successfully then, the recurrence rate of the addiction will be very high and treatment will become an intermittent, but a lifelong, event for those who have the infliction.
The cost that has been estimated for treating a gambling addict is staggering and some figures have been put forward that it could be as high as $18,000 a year. It is very difficult to say that is right or wrong without seeing proper studies being done locally. I have not seen any cost accounting by the government in terms of how they are going to treat gambling addicts. Will it be done centrally? Will it be done all over the province? Will it be done like the environmental illness problem that we have in this province? Will it be treated the same as we treat eating disorders?
There are all sorts of questions that would have to be answered as to how this government plans to treat gambling addiction in this province. It is no small matter. It is a very serious matter and it will negatively affect any positive economic benefit that the casinos may or may not generate.
There is another report on problem gambling and it comes from Saskatchewan. It is interesting that when a province introduces casinos and gambling it is not long afterwards that they are able, in fact, to start writing reports on problem gambling. This is a real and not an imagined problem.
This report makes an observation in the introduction, on the one hand, there are those who view gambling as an activity that undermines the moral fabric of community life by promoting greed and avarice. Seen from this perspective, there is little tolerance for gambling of any kind and abolition or abstinence are the only policy approaches that seem appropriate. Well I can only think back at the success of Alcoholic's Anonymous, in which abstinence is a major part of defeating the problem of drinking by an alcoholic. It is going to be very difficult for someone to practice abstinence if, in fact, there is a casino in the community.
In other words, the temptation will always be there. The attraction of the bright lights and the sound of money being ejected out of the machine, it is very addictive. I am sure that at one time or other, in their lifetime, that all members of this Legislature have had the opportunity to visit a casino. Fortunately, those casinos were far away and you did not have the opportunity to go back on a regular basis or perhaps you would not be here. If the figures are correct, it well may be that there are three or four gambling addicts in this House.
The report from Saskatchewan gives us some definitions and they talk about three terms which are used when we are talking about gambling addictions. They are compulsive gambling, pathological gambling and problem gambling.
Compulsive gambling is the term used by Gamblers Anonymous. It is the most commonly used term, however, some scholars believe it is not the correct term. So then they have the term, compulsive gambling and compulsive gamblers enjoy gambling at least in the initial stages while individuals suffering from other compulsive behaviour disorders do not find enjoyment. Those with compulsive personalities, of course, usually as the report very correctly states, never do enjoy their compulsions, but compulsive gamblers at least initially seem to enjoy the gambling experience.
The term pathological gambling is used by the American Psychiatric Association to describe a disorder of impulse control and problem gambling is the most frequently used term in recent literature and describes any form of gambling behaviour that negatively affects family, personal or vocational pursuits. So maybe problem gambling is really what we should talk about because there is no question that gambling behaviour will negatively affect family, personal or vocational pursuits for many, many persons and in many, many families.
The report goes on to state that the following is a list of some of the common forms of gambling that might be associated with pathological gambling. That is playing of casino games. Well, the Minister of Finance may, quite correctly, be able to point out that there are other gambling opportunities available in this province but at this time there is not the opportunity to play casino games. Casino games include blackjack, roulette, baccarat, mini-baccarat, keno, video poker, video blackjack, video keno or similar games of chance or a slot machine. Those to many people do not sound like very wholesome activities and in those homes that have already been affected by problem gambling, the introduction of a significant number of new gambling activities by way of casinos is certainly sorry news for those people.
One of the discussions around casino gambling has been whether or not the operators will have any control in terms of preventing a person who is a known problem gambler from entering the premises.
MR. SPEAKER: I regret to advise the honourable member, I do believe his time has pretty well run out. Now, we could give a little more time, perhaps but I had said half an hour when the honourable member began, it is more than that now.
DR. HAMM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How many minutes do I have left?
MR. SPEAKER: Five minutes, is that agreed?
It is agreed.
DR. HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I did agree that I would leave a little time for a question, I believe that I have considerably more to say on this subject but I have not yet spoken on the main motion, and I will have an opportunity to make my views known at that time. So I will take my place and would entertain a question.
MR. GERALD FOGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I do thank the honourable member for agreeing to take this question. In his remarks speaking to Bill No. 120, he alluded to what he called a rather light way, I believe, or the way the government members here this morning treated lightly the attempt to present these obviously bogus petitions to the House of Assembly. Would he agree, then, that he, as a member of the Opposition, acted in a responsible fashion, given that these petitions presented were obviously not authentic, would he agree that he acted as a responsible member? It became very obvious to all of us that these petitions were badly flawed in the way they were presented.
DR. HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for the question. I think the honourable member has outlined, by the use of the words bogus petition and not authentic, the real concern in this problem; there are thousands of names on those sheets from real Nova Scotians who have real concerns and who are only anxious to make their views known to this government. The mere fact that a few mischievous people have signed their names is unfortunate but that happens in all petitions that are posted in public places.
Would the member want the member who is presenting the petition to go over and strike off the names, that he would make the judgment as to whether or not a name on that petition is authentic or not? These are authentic petitions.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Bedford-Fall River is rising on a point of order, which I think relates to this matter.
MRS. FRANCENE COSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure how one defines some of the terms that we have heard here this morning around these petitions. It is my belief, without checking the Hansard record from this morning, that the member for Sackville-Cobequid introduced a petition purporting to represent 558 constituents of the Bedford-Fall River constituency. In examining the petition, I note that only 158 signatures appear to be from the Bedford-Fall River constituency.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, we hear alternative points of view. I might say this, that the function of the Chair surely is to make sure that material tabled in the House is legitimate material. Now normally when a member makes a statement in the House, the member is responsible to the House to vouch for the accuracy of that statement.
Now we know from such precedents, for example, as the case of the Honourable John Profumo in Great Britain that it is a serious matter to lie to the House. Now when a member makes a statement he or she is then responsible for its accuracy, in terms of truthfulness.
When a member tables a document that he or she did not originate, the member is supposed to vouch for the accuracy and legitimacy of the document. But, of course, there must be reasonable constraints exercised in that function. If a petition from only 25 people had been tabled and 17 of them had names such as Elvis, I could see that there could be a problem. But if a member is asked to present a petition of perhaps 200 or 300 signatures and they are not added up correctly and a wrong number is given or statements are made that perhaps may not completely accurately depict the reality of the petition, I am not certain that that constitutes a genuine point of order. It would depend on the degree to which there is culpability and I do not feel that there is culpability in a matter of incorrect addition, even if it is a gross difference from the real number. If it is a difference between 500 and 100-some odd, I am not prepared to consider that to be a breach of order.
DR. HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I was responding to the question of the honourable member to my right, when I was interrupted on a point of order, so I believe I can continue to answer his question in the time allotted.
The member asked about the petitions submitted to the House this morning and he suggested and used the term bogus petition and not authentic. Well, Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to certainly look over the petition that I presented this morning. I presented it in such a way that it was a petition collected in a certain constituency and did not indicate that all the signatures on the petition were, in fact, from Nova Scotians or persons from that constituency but, in fact, the signatures were collected in that constituency. I think it is rather unfortunate if, in fact, the member is suggesting that before presenting petitions, the presenter would go over and alter the sheets. I think that would be most unacceptable to the House. If, in fact, the presenter of the petition would in any way edit the petition, I am quite sure that this House would find that very objectionable.
And if, in fact, for example, a name of a person outside of Nova Scotia was on a sheet of a petition that held 25 names from legitimate Nova Scotians, should we withhold the protest of those 25 Nova Scotians from this House, only because some person from outside this province happened to sign the same sheet? I think that would interfere with the whole process.
[9:45 a.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: If I could raise a point of order from the Chair, I would state that Beauchesne's textbook which, as I have earlier noted, this is a textbook that applies to the House of Commons of Canada. This is not the House of Commons of Canada here where our own usages and precedents vary from those of the House of Commons, I am guided by Nova Scotia usages and precedents. But Beauchesne's textbook states that a petition signed by both Canadian citizens and foreigners may be received by the House only with unanimous consent.
So, that is what Beauchesne has to say on this point, that if there is a mixture of Canadian citizens and foreigners, you have to receive unanimous consent of the House to present the petition. Now, that is what they do in Ottawa, it is not necessarily what we do here.
DR. HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I know that as you will be wrestling with this problem perhaps for the next few days but I would certainly suggest that a reasonable interpretation of that will come forward and that the ruling will not, in any way, hamper the ability of legitimate Nova Scotians to make a legitimate protest which is directed to government policy and government intention.
I feel that I have satisfactorily answered the member's concern about the petition. Those of us that are presenting these petitions feel very strongly that we are presenting to this government a very large protest on behalf of legitimate Nova Scotians to the introduction of casinos in this province.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak for a few moments on the amendment introduced by the member for Halifax Fairview. The amendment which reads as follows, ". . . 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.". I think that that is an extremely timely amendment given what we have seen take place in this House over the last number of weeks and, for that matter, the last number of hours.
We are talking about whether or not this government or any government has any authority if it doesn't respond to the concerns and the wishes of the people who elected it and the people who pay taxes and the people to whom the government is supposed to be responsible for, in other words, the governed. On an issue like this, a very important issue and I am reminded of another issue that came up this time last year on the Sunday shopping issue, it was a very similar principle in that the government was undertaking to make a significant change to the way in which our communities operate.
There were, as you will recall, tens of thousands of Nova Scotians that expressed some very serious concern about that decision and wanted to urge the government, through whatever means at their disposal, to try to reconsider that particular decision. You also may recall, Mr. Speaker, that there had been a canvass done of Nova Scotians, just that previous year and they had rejected a proposal by the former administration to move forward with Sunday shopping. Then, all of a sudden, even though they had not been asked, this government was proposing to go forward with that same proposal.
The similarities extend beyond that in that we also had the opportunity in this House, many members, to table petitions opposing that particular policy at that particular time, as has been done in the last couple of days with respect to the petitions against casino gambling and the establishment of casinos. At that time, as now, government members tried their best to attack the legitimacy of those particular petitions, the veracity of the claims that were made in those petitions. Tried, in whatever way they could, to discredit the thousands of Nova Scotians who attempted to register, through the traditional usage of the process of petitions in this House, their protest against a government policy.
I would say it is a sad day to see what we have, Mr. Speaker, today in this House. Nova Scotians cannot legitimately present petitions, through whatever means that they think they have at their disposal, and not be viciously attacked by members of this House whom they are registering their concern with. I think it goes to the heart of this particular amendment that the people of Nova Scotia, on this issue, and I would suggest on other issues, feel that this government is acting without their consent. Without regard to their particular wishes and, in fact, with contempt of those particular wishes.
So I think it is important to canvass a little bit of history here in terms of the whole question of whether, in fact, the governed have been asked, whether or not they have provided to this government an indication of how they feel about casino gambling. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, and other members, I raised this issue in the House a few times, since the announcement was made on April 20, 1994 by the Premier, that the government was going to go forward with licensing casino gambling in this province. He referred, at that particular time, as the Minister of Finance did the next day, to studies and to the fact that they had studied this issue thoroughly, done analysis and so on and they have decided that the benefits outweigh the cost and they have decided to go forward on this, having covered the issue and studied it and so on.
So ever since that statement was made, Mr. Speaker, in this House, we have attempted, my colleagues and I, and members of the Official Opposition, to illicit some evidence from the Premier and the Minister of Finance as to what basis they made their particular decision. What we were referred to was they had studied it, in fact, but they never did come forward. In frustration and exasperation, I filed a freedom of information request with the minister's department and the Lottery Commission. The response that I got was that the only reports that they had with respect to the decision were the reports done by the Kimball, Morris and Fogarty Committees. So that is the basis according the response of the freedom of information request that the government made its decision.
So let's go back and take a look. I remember that I was a member of the somewhat ill-fated Kimball Committee when we canvassed Nova Scotians on the issue of video lottery terminals. I travelled to a number of different locations in this province with that committee and what we heard from Nova Scotians, as a result of our canvass, was that they were concerned about a proliferation of gambling of any kind, in particular a form of gambling such as VLTs or casinos, that would be supported and initiated and encouraged by the government. They felt that that clearly was advocating or condoning that particular practice, and some have suggested it is an additional tax on people who are unable to discern the dangers of gambling.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we had the Morris Committee go forward. You may recall that the Morris Committee was, in fact, a committee of commissionaires appointed by the Commissioners of the Lottery Commission, mandated with the responsibility to canvass these issues. They issued public invitations to us for the expression of views and comments on any aspect of gaming in Nova Scotia; received and replied to 176 written responses.
On the specific question about casinos, whether or not they should be introduced into Nova Scotia, the report - and I understand that this has been tabled on a number of occasions - this reference, in response to this question refers to an Omnifacts report. It was made clear from the 607 respondents that 58 per cent opposed the introduction of casinos, as against 36 who approved it.
The report goes on to make a few statements with respect to conclusions reached by these commissioners on the question of casinos. They say here on the first page of the section on casinos - I have to find a page number, for your easy reference and that of Hansard - on Page 22, it says that, "The sense we have, from comments we have received and heard that are confirmed by the independent public opinion survey we commissioned, is that most Nova Scotians are opposed to casinos at this time.". Mr. Speaker, that is the governed that we are talking about, in terms of whether or not they have given their consent to this.
They raise another issue that is of concern, it says here, "Nova Scotians very much want jobs, encouragement for new and additional tourism, and trickle-down economic benefits, but we believe it would be both indispensable and prudent to gather more information on casinos before making any definitive recommendation.".
On the next page - I want to make just one further reference - it says, and this is the commissioners, "We also believe that it is desirable to bring together much more information on jobs potential, tourism and conventioneering impacts, spin-off and indirect economic stimuli, social and community impacts, and cost-benefits measurements.". Mr. Speaker, in other words, having canvassed the people of Nova Scotia, these commissioners identified that there was a fairly clear response in the negative against casino gambling and, having reviewed authoritative evidence on the question of casino gambling, they came to the conclusion that the impacts were such that, be they positive or negative, the matter should be further reviewed, further studied before any steps were taken to move forward.
They talked about the Kimball Committee, of which I was a part, and this is the committee of commissionaires appointed by the Lottery Commission who reviewed the question of gaming in Nova Scotia. So what else did we get? Well we had, as you recall, the report of the Standing Committee on Community Services of this Legislature, chaired by the member for Halifax Bedford Basin that was tabled or at least is dated February, 1994 on gaming in Nova Scotia. What did this committee have to say about casinos?
[10:00 a.m.]
Well, I refer to Page 21 of that report and they say on casinos, "While gambling has raised interest, there is little substantiated evidence, as shown by other casino gaming operations in Canada, that casinos will significantly improve the level of tourist traffic. It seems likely that as each new casino is established in North America, and particularly on the eastern seaboard and coast, the opportunity for generating government revenue from adding one more casino will be reduced.". It goes on to suggest that, "While a casino may benefit the tourism industry, it may also harm that industry as well.". So, one of the two recommendations that the committee made was that the government not permit the establishment of a commercial casino operation at this time and the second one was review the regulations for licensing charitable casinos.
Now, I think it is important for us to consider the fact that there has been an attempt by this government and by the previous administration to talk to Nova Scotians and there has been attempts on behalf of Nova Scotians to make clear what their feelings are with respect to casino gambling. Let us not forget that this most recent report of the standing committee that said that the government should not permit the establishment of casino operations at the time and raised concerns about the lack of information on the potential benefits of these casinos was signed by a number of members that sit on government benches today.
The MLA, as I indicated earlier, for Halifax Bedford Basin, the member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage, the member for Guysborough-Port Hawkesbury, the member for Yarmouth, the member for Sackville-Beaverbank, the member for Timberlea-Prospect, as well as, the member for Kings West, the member for Hants West and the member for Halifax Fairview. Well, we have heard from the member for Halifax Fairview, we have heard from the member for Hants West, we have heard from the member for Kings West but there is an awfully bit silence coming from members who participated actively in reviewing this whole question. I think Nova Scotians are wondering why it is that their views, when they are solicited, are not considered when it comes to making these decisions.
I guess Nova Scotians are getting an indication of just what this government is prepared to do and just what this government thinks about the governed.
I am referring now to comments made by the honourable Finance Minister, the minister responsible for this piece of legislation, as reported in the Cape Breton Post on November 11, 1994. The article by the way is headed, "Public interference won't be tolerated," on the whole question. It says, "Boudreau told the legislature, he would only consider submitting the proposed developments to public hearings if the process could not be used `to subvert the decision government has made.'". Now, Mr. Speaker, what does that mean?
It seems to me that what the minister is saying is, this is my interpretation of this, he is not going to go out and consult with the public if he doesn't know in advance that the public is going to support him. Or he is not going to take the risk of opening the question to public review if there is a chance that the public could, through its presentations and representations, put sufficient pressure on government members to force him to back off his position. Now, Mr. Speaker, is that your definition of democracy? It certainly isn't mine. And that is why the member is so correct and it is so appropriate that this particular amendment be brought forward at this particular time to raise questions about whether this bill, in fact, attacks the very heart of democracy in this particular province.
In the same vein, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is quoted further in the article. "He said it is the government's decision to allow casino gambling. `We have made it and we will accept responsibility for it, period.' Outside the house he explained the government had already taken public opinion into account through the three consultations on casino gambling done before the decision was made to proceed. All the studies indicated public reservations about the idea.".
Mr. Speaker, again, the minister is underlining the fact that we have talked to the public about this. Yes, the public are opposed but we will not be slowed down. We will not be deterred in our quest to proceed with any given policy, regardless of how upset Nova Scotians are about it. It is almost like Nova Scotians can just go away and twiddle their thumbs. They will get another crack at us in three years time, but in the meantime, we have got a job to do and we are going to go about and do it.
You have to ask yourself, what is the purpose then of us being in here? What is the purpose of us having people come to the Law Amendments Committee? What is the purpose of us having standing committees? It is a waste of money. It is a joke, if you would believe what the Minister of Finance is saying and what the government members are saying about this particular piece of legislation.
I mean, really, what is the point? Does this government believe that, once elected, they have the authority to do anything they bloody well please? I beg to differ. I think Nova Scotians are beginning to be extremely concerned about the extent to which this government will go to try to ram through an agenda that they approve of, without considering the wishes of Nova Scotians.
As a parliamentarian, that causes me some considerable concern. It makes it awfully difficult for me to go out and talk to my constituents and other people around this province with any credibility about the relevance of this very Chamber, about how important it is for them to participate in those avenues that exist, appearing before standing committees, public meetings, to present their view. People say, why bother. They are not going to listen to us. In fact, as the minister himself has said on this issue, public interference will not be tolerated.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that anybody that it cited in this House as being opposed, any member of this province, any taxpayer or any citizen, whatever, who has the courage to stand up and raise their concerns publicly, about something this government is doing, is going to subject themselves to ridicule, to character assassination, the imputing of motives from government members. So I suggest to you that I think it takes a lot of courage for the public, for the governed, to stand up in the face of that kind of challenge by government members and voice their opposition to whatever is their due.
You know, in regards to some of those petitions that came in this morning, Mr. Speaker, it does not surprise me one little bit that a Nova Scotian would put somebody else's name down and would put down the name of Elvis or some other fictional character because of their concern for the possible retribution of government members (Interruptions) if they were to see their name on that particular petition. That doesn't surprise me one little bit. I have heard of that kind of fear. I found it hard to believe but I have heard my constituents talk about it and I didn't believe it, but when I hear the kind of attacks that come from government members on any issue for people standing up.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member knows that he has a reasonable amount of latitude because he is speaking on the motion and it is a reasoned amendment and that gives him the right to speak on the principle of the bill and, therefore, a reasonable amount of latitude. However, I would ask that he not stray excessively from the final sentence, "with the consent of the governed", which is where he is relating his present remarks to.
I would just like to indicate to the member that recently in his debate he used, I think, the term "bloody" and that is a non-acceptable parliamentary term. I would ask that Hansard strike it from the record with the honourable member's permission.
MR. CHISHOLM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, I would withdraw that term.
Mr. Speaker, as you, I think, have noted, my preceding comments do relate very clearly to the amendment dealing with the relationship between government and the governed. I have introduced it at this particular time because I am going to review some of the organizations and some of the people who have stood up and said they don't agree with what this government is doing with respect to Bill No. 120. I am going to cite some of the things that are said. I say that, and I preface what I am doing by highlighting the fact that whoever it is, this government is going to try to discredit those concerns. If they can't do it on the basis of facts, they going to do it by trying to assert affiliations and political motivation and even go to the point of personal character assassination. Let me continue on then and wait and hear what government members have to say.
Mr. Speaker, in his column on November 8th, in the reporter in Port Hawkesbury, Parker Barss Donham, when he talked about what this government is doing with respect to this particular bill, he says, "On Monday, Finance Minister Bernie Boudreau will mark another milestone in obduracy when he introduces legislation to establish casinos despite a mountain of evidence that doing so is a mistake the province will long regret.". The point of raising it -and this is one of a number of items within this particular article - is that there have been, as he says, a mountain of protest against this particular legislation but the government appears incapable of listening, incapable of responding in at all a respectful or a positive manner to those kinds of representations.
Who are some of the groups that have come out, publicly, against the action of this government to license casino gambling in Halifax and Sydney? The Atlantic Conference Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada; the Anglican Diocese of Nova Scotia; the Atlantic Ecumenical Council; the Council of Priests, Diocese of Antigonish; Cumberland County Council; Industrial Cape Breton Board of Trade; Industrial Cape Breton Council of Churches; Innkeepers Guild of Nova Scotia; Lunenburg Town Council; Maritime Conference of the United Church of Canada; Nova Scotia Association of Unique Country Inns; Nova Scotia Medical Society; Nova Scotia Residents and Interns Association; New Minas United Church; People Against Casinos in Nova Scotia; Provincial Health Council; Psychologist Association of Nova Scotia; Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Halifax; Sydney City Council; Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities; United Baptist Convention of the Atlantic Provinces; United Church Sydney Presbytery; and Yarmouth County Ministerial Institute, Mr. Speaker.
[10:15 a.m.]
Now I have heard in this House members of the government benches try to attack the legitimacy of some of the organizations that I have just cited. We have heard a number of people get up on the question of TIANS and they are not on this list. They are another group that have cited some concern about the lack of information. And what do we hear from the government members on that question? Well they don't jump to their feet, but they quickly bellow that in fact how many people were there to make that decision?
AN HON. MEMBER: Thirteen.
MR. CHISHOLM: Thirteen people, there you go. In other words, a democratic organization that has its convention and its rules of procedure that make particular motions, particular decisions, valid or invalid, has made a decision, has passed a motion that it falls within the rules of their particular organization, but that is not good enough for these government members, Mr. Speaker.
This is probably not a fair question because I think many members of this government have shown that they don't have a whole lot of respect for the municipal level of government. But what about those municipal councillors who get voted in with 10 per cent of the voters of a particular ward? You know that happens all the time. Are they therefore not legitimate representatives of their constituents? I ask you, what about the fact that some members of this Legislature were in tight electoral battles in the last provincial election and came in with under 50 per cent of the popular vote, does that mean they don't have the authority or legitimacy to sit here in this House and represent the interests of their constituents? Or is it simply a case that democracy is fair and right and proper, only when it serves the interests of these government members? That is a question that has to be asked. In other words, where democracy does exist and does not seem to serve their particular purposes, then they will go out of their way to try to discredit that particular action, Mr. Speaker.
But let's be clear, the governed are aware of what is happening here in these Chambers, as much as some members may think that the proceedings are not piped into their particular communities, people are not paying attention. Well let me tell you, people are paying attention and we are hearing about it. People are watching this government as they pile up the barriers, as they try to isolate themselves more and more, to try to protect against the outcry of Nova Scotians against the actions that this government is taking.
So what other members, what other governed taxpayers in this province are not providing their consent to this particular proposal? Well, we have heard from an authority known as the Provincial Health Council, whose opinions and research have been lauded by the Minister of Health and other people in this House as being well based, well researched, balanced and informed.
In a letter of October 3, 1994, in a letter to the Minister of Finance, the Chairperson of the Provincial Health Council, Thomas Bauld, raises a concern with the minister and says, ". . . that the benefits of casinos outweigh the negatives, we have yet to receive any supporting data.". He says that, "In the absence of such information it is clear that neither the Council nor the majority of Nova Scotians can support the establishment of casinos.". It goes on to say, ". . . we require some supporting facts and figures before we can agree that casinos will indeed benefit our province.". They go on to make a few specific recommendations. One of them is, "to release all studies, reports, and analyses conducted to date to show how the benefits of casinos outweigh the costs;".
We have got one report in this House, I don't know if the council did, but we finally were able to elicit one report from the minister that came from Saskatchewan. But it did not exactly support the government's contention. In fact, it had, of course, nothing to do with Nova Scotia. You and I both know that there is a whole lot of difference between Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, not the least of which is that we grow fish and they grow grain. They say, Mr. Speaker, the government should "conduct a comprehensive assessment of the health and social impacts of casinos, if more information is required; and encourage the public to review and comment on the short list of casino proposals and the draft enabling legislation . . .".
The letter goes on to raise some other concerns. I just want to refer to one further comment on Page 2. The chairman, in his letter, says, "It's a risk that forces us . . .", in other words, to establish casinos, ". . . to ask if the government should gamble with the health and well being of its citizens without consulting them.". It is a question you have heard and I have heard and many Nova Scotians have heard time and time again.
You will recall one of the groups on the list that I read out was the Innkeepers Guild of Nova Scotia. They are, as you know, a group of small business people who are providing an important service, sort of part of the foundation within the tourism industry of this particular province. The innkeepers, Mr. Speaker, in this report in the Chronicle-Herald on November 5th, it is reported as "The 170 member Innkeepers Guild of Nova Scotia says, it won't support the province's decision to license casinos until the government provides independent research to show that casinos will benefit the tourism industry.".
The article goes on to say "`The provincial government to date has not presented any significant independent studies to show that casinos will in fact benefit tourism in the province,' Mr. Stackhouse said.". Mr. Stackhouse being the President of the Nova Scotia Innkeepers Guild. Well, what can we find about the Innkeepers Guild of Nova Scotia to possibly discredit their particular concern. I have not heard anything, but undoubtedly . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: The Government House Leader will find something to say about it.
MR. CHISHOLM: Yes, we may hear something. Mr. Speaker, a number of church organizations in Nova Scotia have indicated their concern about casinos. You and I both know, I think, that churches represent hundreds and thousands of people in Nova Scotia, do they not? I think so. They had made representations to this government on behalf of those people, and others, about concerns they have with respect to gambling. Well, what have those people, who themselves are the governed, and who represent hundreds and thousands more governed Nova Scotians . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable member yield the floor for an introduction?
MR. CHISHOLM: Certainly.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Victoria on an introduction.
MR. KENNETH MACASKILL: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the honourable member for Halifax Atlantic for yielding the floor to me to make this introduction. I want to introduce to you and to all member of the House, Mr. Jim Ryan from Baddeck who is representing the Provincial Lions Club today in Halifax.
I might also add that Jim is the father of one of our messengers who serve this House so well. So I want to introduce Jim Ryan to the House and give him a warm welcome. (Applause)
MR. CHISHOLM: May I ask how much time I have left?
MR. SPEAKER: You have until 10:47 a.m., you have about 20 minutes left.
MR. CHISHOLM: So, Mr. Speaker, what do these church leaders who have united against casinos, representing the hundreds and thousands of their parishioners, say about this issue? They say, and I am referring to an article from October 25, 1994, in the metro edition of the Halifax Mail-Star, it says that "`We firmly believe the proposed casinos for metro Halifax-Dartmouth and Sydney will irrevocably change our province's cultural, social and economic life in a manner that is detrimental to the majority of our people,' representatives of the Anglican, Baptist, Evangelical Lutheran, Presbyterian and Roman Catholic and United churches told a news conference in Dartmouth.".
I would suggest that the representatives of those church organizations represent a lot of people in Nova Scotia. They are concerned about the evidence that they have had the opportunity to review that suggests there are going to be very significant costs associated, socially as well as economically, as a result of the introduction of casino gambling. They say, "`Therefore, we call on the government of Nova Scotia to abandon its plan to establish casinos.".
I think it is instructive to look at what the response was to this statement by six major church organizations in the Province of Nova Scotia who were clearly opposed to this government moving forward. In this same article, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is quoted as saying the following: "`Every attention will be paid to the concerns of these good people', the premier said. `They've every right to make comments . . . to have opinions on social issues.'". It goes on to say, "`In this case I think they are inaccurate.'".
In other words, it is like tap, tap on the head, sure, you can go ahead and have your own opinions, they don't agree with us or we don't agree with them so therefore, we are not going to listen to you. Again, that is another reason why the governed feel that Bill No. 120 tramples on their rights and it goes to the heart of the fact that this government has no concern, or certainly appears to have no concern, Mr. Speaker, that they need the consent of the government when they move forward.
There was a piece that I have looked at that was, I think, clearly a response and it was in the Chronicle-Herald, November 7th, by one Hilary Fraser on the question of casino gambling. She says that her particular reason for writing is to set the record straight as to the question our Premier seems to keep raising.
[10:30 a.m.]
You may recall and I didn't refer to it in that particular article when I was talking about the churches because I didn't have that reference but I recall also that when the churches came out and voiced the opposition to casino gambling, one of the Premier's comments, as I recall, or a comment that was attributed to him was that, where have the churches been on this issue, why haven't they spoken out before.
Hilary Fraser is responding to that, she says, ". . . set the record straight as to the question our premier seems to keep raising: Where have the churches been all along?". She says that that is simply not true. She goes through in this article to talk about how involved her particular church has been, the United Church of Canada, on this issue both here in Nova Scotia, in the Maritimes and across the country.
That having been said, she raises a very important question or makes a very important statement towards the end of her piece. I would like to take a second to quote this from the article. It says, "Who will they blame when things begin to go wrong and the profits for the government fail to meet expectations? When businesses go under and either require financial help to survive, or move from the province altogether? And when the true fabric of Nova Scotia is compromised through the whim and greed of a few people in power, who have the blind will and determination to see it through to completion?".
This is a sentiment that a number of people, I would suggest to you tens of thousands of people, are expressing daily across this province. They have heard the arguments that raise concerns about the negative impacts of casino gambling. They have heard the references to reports that seem to document the way that money is going to be sucked out of our economy, instead of generated. That wealth is going to leave our communities and go either into the government coffers or outside the province and the country. It is going to affect small businesses, people that have jobs in those communities, those business people. It is also going to have a negative social impact in terms of the moral fibre of our communities. The cultural integrity of our communities and the consequences in terms of addiction and so on, have been cited by a number of these particular reports.
So, these people have reviewed this, they have seen it and listened to it. They are concerned about the evidence that has been raised, the evidence that has been provided, to support those contentions. They are also very upset by the fact that this government has done nothing in terms of a factual presentation of any sort whatsoever to produce evidence, to provide them with evidence, to allay those fears, to refute the concerns that have been cited by so many. To try to indicate through reason and facts that in fact, while there are some concerns about these issues, the benefits far outweigh the costs. They have asserted that time and time again but they failed to come through with the reasons, they have failed to come through with the evidence, to support those assertions.
All we have seen from this government is an attempt to discredit those people that are raising concerns, either those individuals or the reports that have been done. They have tried, time and time again, to suggest that there is no validity in this report, there is nothing to that report, there is nothing to the other report. That is all they have done. They have not come forward and said to us, this is why we believe that that particular report is less than accurate as it relates to Nova Scotia. These are the reasons why you can't extrapolate from New Jersey into Nova Scotia. This is why you can't take the same kind of problems that are beginning to rear their head in Windsor and apply them to Nova Scotia.
Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because it is reports, supposedly, or I would say, it is assertions again from the people that are administering casino gambling in other jurisdictions, people that have a vested interest in the maintenance of casino gambling in North America, that they are asserting that those people that have done reports and they say it is okay. So, therefore, in Saskatchewan or British Columbia or Manitoba or whatever, it is going to be okay here.
So they can't very well provide factual evidence to support the argument that you can't extrapolate the evidence from New Jersey or from Windsor and relate it to Nova Scotia, because there is too much difference. Because that same argument would blow their arguments or their assertions about the benefits of casino gambling completely out of the water. So, Nova Scotians, understandably, are very quickly losing faith in this government's concern or interest even, in what it is that they, the governed, have to say on this particular issue.
We have a bill before us, Mr. Speaker, one example, Bill No. 120 that this amendment relates to that takes away the Municipality of Halifax's right to determine how the development of that casino is going to take place. They have in that legislation totally overridden the planning authority that the City of Halifax has, as well as the City of Sydney. Is that democracy? What about the rights of each and every level of government in this country to be responsible for their constituents and for their taxpayers? I ask you. Not only that, the City of Halifax, as with the City of Sydney, have said no to casino gambling. Well, there you go, that explains it, doesn't it? If they say no to casino gambling, then you have to take away any tools, any instruments they may have to have any effect, on what it is that you want to do.
Now I tell you what, that is a pretty sad case of a government turning itself into a dictatorship and just moving forward and ramming through their will, regardless of the consequences, Mr. Speaker. I tell you, it makes my stomach turn and I think it makes a lot of people very upset in the Province of Nova Scotia, and for good reason. Even though the government has, on the one hand, cited the jurisdiction of Saskatchewan as an example of studies that have been done on the effects of gambling and how they have gone ahead and done ta-da, ta-da, ta-da. What about the fact that Saskatchewan has responded to the wishes of Saskatoon, where they intended to put in a casino and the residents of Saskatoon said no, or indicated that they were not in favour of it. So the Saskatchewan Government said well, we are not going to shove it down their throats, we are not going to go against the wishes of the people of Saskatoon. What could be more democratic than that? The government has a policy initiative they want to go forward with. Fair ball. But it is not fair ball, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all government members, to completely tred over the rights of municipal councillors to decide how it is that things are going to work within their particular jurisdiction. That is not right, number one.
The second thing is, if the people in Halifax and in Sydney and in Yarmouth and in other places in this province say no to casino gambling in their communities, then what right does this government have to ignore those sentiments and proceed? I would suggest to you that they have no right, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest they are absolutely illegitimate in their proposal to ram forward with casino gambling in Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know what to tell you. I get calls and I get stopped in the street by Nova Scotians who say to me, what in the name of Heaven is this government doing? I had a call last night from a physician who talked to me about the way that the Minister of Health was dealing with the Medical Society and what is happening . . .
MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest that is irrelevant to the motion and irrelevant to the bill.
MR. CHISHOLM: If you would let me finish my sentence, what I am saying is that this person called me on that issue but then very quickly he got into the issue of casino gambling. As a physician, he said, I know something about gambling addiction, I see the effects of it, I see the consequences. This government doesn't have any idea what it is doing. Why it is doing that, Mr. Speaker?
Unfortunately, I didn't have a whole lot to say to that gentleman that would help him understand what it is that this government is doing. But, Mr. Speaker, I will continue to raise issues and concerns in this House on this issue and hopefully, at some point, either through my words or through the words of others, or from Nova Scotians outside this House, this government and some of its members will listen.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce an amendment, a subamendment to this amendment. I would move and if a Page would like to take it to you . . .
MR. SPEAKER: I would indicate to the honourable member that under Beauchesne and the motions allowable as amendments to second reading of a bill are three in kind. It has been ruled by the Speaker that only one of each of those types of amendments are allowable and there is no indication in Beauchesne of subamendments being allowed to those main amendments. I would, therefore, have to rule a subamendment out of order.
[10:45 a.m.]
MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise that question with you but first, I would like to read my motion into the record and then perhaps we can have a discussion on whether it is in order. I would hate to have my opportunity to introduce a subamendment disallowed because my time has run out.
MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, I cannot allow the member to violate the Rules and Procedures of the House. There is no provision for a subamendment in second reading of the bill so I can't allow the member to read a subamendment into the procedure of the debate of the House. It is out of order. So I have ruled that it is out of order and, therefore, I cannot permit the member to rule it into the official procedure of the House.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think you will find that Beauchesne does deal with the issue of a subamendments. It makes it clear that under certain circumstances it is allowed. Referring specifically to Page 177, Paragraph 581, ". . . the usage has grown into law that an amendment to an amendment is allowable, but that no motion to amend further can be entertained until the sub-amendment is disposed of.".
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, on previous occasions in this House, we have introduced a subamendment and I am not clear, sir, on what basis this would be ruled out. You have now cited the arbitrary, unprecedented ruling that was made by the Speaker a couple of weeks ago with respect to the imposition of a limit of three amendments but we are not dealing here with the introduction of another amendment. We are dealing with a subamendment to an existing amendment that is now before the House.
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I have the reference to which the honourable member refers on Page 177, as a subamendment. In my judgment and in the judgment of the Clerk at the Table, the subamendments refer to motions and amendments to motions but motions outside the domain of second readings of bills. Beauchesne is very clear that motions on second readings allow three types of amendments only and does not give authority for subamendments, as I have already ruled. Subamendments are therefore out of order. The three types of amendments have been made and have been considered by the House. I have so ruled and I will not allow it to be read in.
MS. MCDONOUGH: . . . refer us, please, to the specific reference to a subamendment being disallowed, according to Beauchesne, in the instance of a reasoned amendment?
MR. SPEAKER: I am not giving you a reference to a subamendment being disallowed, I am giving you a reference to Beauchesne's allowance, where he speaks positively of the amendments that are allowed. I can't give you and it wouldn't be possible for me to give you all of the exclusions to all parts of Beauchesne. I can only give you the inclusions and this is not included in the allowable procedure on debate. I have so ruled and the ruling is final.
The honourable member's time has now expired. The honourable member is the last speaker on the motion.
Is the House ready for the question?
A recorded vote has been called for.
Ring the bells, Call in the members. (Interruption)
MR. SPEAKER: Well, we will set a timeframe but it will be up to the Whips to give me the satisfaction but we will give another 10 minutes since most members should be within the confines of the Legislature. So we will give 10 minutes, until 11:00 a.m. (Interruption) I think that is really what I just said.
Under the Rules of the House I have the right to give a reasonable timeframe, up to the maximum of one hour. I have done so, one hour.
[10:50 a.m.]
[The Division bells were rung.]
[11:00 a.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. For the information or edification of the House, I gave a reason as is requested on Page 33, the section on Divisions, I gave a reasoned 10-minute time period for the ringing of the bells, but the precedence of this House is set on the satisfaction of the Whips. The Whips are not here, so the time will have to be extended and it can be extended up to a one hour period or a reasonable period. (Interruptions) Our Whip was here, but the other Whips are not here. So, there will be an extension of the time until I can get satisfaction of the Whips.
The ". . . duration of the division bells ringing (4) When a roll call vote is demanded by at least two Members, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman shall order the bells to be rung and shall then direct the Clerk to call the roll when he is satisfied that all Members wishing to vote are in their seats, provided that the bells shall be rung for a reasonable length of time and in no event for longer than one hour.". The precedents of the House and precedents of all authorities is for the satisfaction of the Whips.
Are the Whips satisfied?
The Whips are satisfied. Cease ringing the bells, please. Is the House ready for the question? The question is on the reasoned amendment to Bill No. 120. The amendment reads as follows and all those who are presently in the House may vote:
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.
[The Clerk calls the roll.]
[11:42 p.m.]
YEAS NAYS
Mr. Moody Mr. Barkhouse
Mr. Donahoe Mrs. Norrie
Mr. Russell Dr. Savage
Mr. Leefe Mr. Gillis
Ms. McDonough Mr. Bragg
Mr. Holm Ms. Jolly
Mr. Chisholm Mr. Mann
Mr. Archibald Mr. Casey
Mr. Taylor Mr. Gaudet
Mr. McInnes Dr. Stewart
Dr. Hamm Mr. Harrison
Mr. Adams
Mr. Brown
Mr. Lorraine
Mrs. Cosman
Mr. MacAskill
Mr. MacArthur
Mr. MacNeil
Mr. Rayfuse
Mr. Richards
Mr. Surette
Mr. White
Mr. Holland
Mrs. O'Connor
Mr. Mitchell
Mr. Fogarty
Mr. Hubbard
Mr. W. MacDonald
Mr. Fraser
Mr. Colwell
Mr. Carruthers
THE CLERK: For, 11. Against, 31.
[11:45 p.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: I declare that the motion has been declared in the negative.
The House will now return to the debate of the motion for the second reading of Bill No. 120. There are still five members of the House who have not spoken on the main motion.
The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, it seems like we have been talking on this bill forever, but this is my first opportunity to speak on the bill proper. Heretofore it has been on the amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I am still amazed that this bill is still before us. The government now has had three opportunities in which to either defer or to refer or to abandon this bill and they have chosen not to. I am amazed, truthfully, that they could be so politically naive as to imagine that somewhere down the road, the public of Nova Scotia is going to say, well, they did something that we were really in favour of because the people of Nova Scotia are definitely not in favour of the establishment of casinos in the Province of Nova Scotia.
I think they have evidence, by the resounding numbers of them who have signed their names to petitions, many of those petitions were tabled today and a great deal more will be tabled next week when we will still be on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I know that eventually this bill is going to get through second reading and it is going to go on to the Law Amendments Committee. At that time, I am sure that the people of Nova Scotia are going to make their views known. They are going to make their individual views known. Associations and organizations are going to make known the views of their particular memberships.
Mr. Speaker, the support for tabling this bill at the present time is overwhelming. As has been said many times in this House, one of the reasons why there are so many people in this province who have negative feelings towards casinos is they simply do not have the facts to make a proper judgment on whether or not casinos would be advantageous for this province. The minister has given the only reason, in his particular statements to the press and in this House, for the establishment of casinos as being one for rectifying some of the financial problems that we have in this province.
Mr. Speaker, if that was a valid case, then I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that he should make available to the people of Nova Scotia some kind of an economic impact on this province. In other words, the establishment of a casino is going to do something that is positive for the Department of Finance and it is going to have spinoff benefits for other associated industries such as tourism, transportation and the hospitality industry. But he has chosen not to do that so even on his most pressing case, he has not made a valid case as to why casinos should be foisted onto the people of Nova Scotia.
I believe, truthfully, that this particular piece of legislation is going to have a very rocky ride as it goes through the Law Amendments Committee and I would suggest that when we get into Committee of the Whole House and we have the opportunity to go through this bill clause by clause and there are some 129 clauses to this bill, on 39 pages, that this bill is going to take a long time to go through this House.
We, in the Opposition and I am speaking now for the Official Opposition and I am sure that the New Democratic Party would probably agree, that we intend to do our utmost to delay this bill. We intend to do everything we possibly can to ensure that this piece of legislation doesn't go through, not because we just want to be obstinate to the aims of the government but because we want more information and the people of Nova Scotia want more information.
If the minister was prepared today to table some of the studies that I suppose he has and I can only suppose it because we haven't seen anything to indicate anything to the contrary, if he has studies then I would say to the minister, table them in the House today. Adjourn the House for a week and let the Opposition take a look at the information that he has but we don't have. Let the people of Nova Scotia have a look at the information that he has that they don't have and perhaps, this whole business of establishing casinos in this province would be such a bonanza, that the members of this House would vote unanimously for the establishment of casinos in this province.
There would petitions coming forward from all parts of this province saying, yes, casinos are a great idea, I wish you would establish one in my particular area. That could well happen if people have information. But if people don't have information, they cannot make informed choices and when they look at casinos they look at what has happened in other parts of Canada, what has happened in other parts of the world and they say, on the evidence that we have, we don't want them.
So, if the minister is determined and the government is determined that this bill is going to progress and eventually become legislation and casinos are going to be established in Nova Scotia then I would suggest to him that that would be the logical course to follow. But instead of that we are getting nothing and the people are getting nothing and every time we try, in this House, to in some way take this bill and say, let's set it aside, let's get out there and talk to people, let's get the information from the minister or if he hasn't already got the information, let him go out and gather that information, so that people can make an informed choice on this legislation. Well, then, while he doesn't do that I can assure him that the Opposition and the people of Nova Scotia are going to be very much against this legislation.
It will be interesting to see what occurs in this House when we finally get to vote on second reading of this legislation, how many people on the government side are perhaps absent or decline to vote or else vote against the legislation.
One of the things that we do know about though in this legislation, is how that legislation is going to be controlled. The legislation sets up a corporation and a board of directors to manage that corporation. We are told that there shall be no fewer than three, nor more than five members of the corporation. We are told that they will hold office for a term of two years and they can serve for no more than two terms. We are told that of that board of directors of three or possibly five, the Governor in Council will appoint a chairman and they will appoint the deputy chairman.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't say who these people are or what their attributes have to be to serve on this corporation. I would assume, from the government's track record, that probably one of the attributes you have to have is to have been a supporter of the Liberal Party somewhere in the past. However, that aside, if we do get to the end of this process of approving this piece of legislation and the government does finally get around to having to appoint this board of directors, I would eventually like to see this bill amended somewhere in Law Amendments Committee so that board is absolutely and completely divorced from government.
So what am I saying, Mr. Speaker? I am saying that the people who are running this board should not only have the best interests of Nova Scotians at heart but should also have the best interests of the industries already present in Nova Scotia at heart as well. Also, the people who are on that board, at least one member of that board, should be from some organization which would have some knowledge of the social impact of gambling on this province.
Mr. Speaker, therefore, I would suggest that this board should be composed of perhaps somebody from policing, somebody who has had experience in policing, either RCMP or local police. I would suggest that some member on this board be an appointment by the tourist industry of Nova Scotia, who could then channel the efforts of the casinos to maximize the tourism industry in this province.
I would suggest that somebody on this board should be from the legal profession because quite obviously when you are running casinos, you are going to need some legal advice, so perhaps that person could be appointed by the Bar Association of Nova Scotia. Certainly one person on that board should be a watchdog on the finances generated by casinos, so perhaps we should have somebody from the chartered accountants' association.
And who else could we have on there? We have somebody from churches, somebody from tourism, somebody from the legal side, somebody from the accounting side. I think that pretty well covers the ballpark, Mr. Speaker, except for one other person. That other person should be, indeed, a government appointee, somebody who actually represents the Government of Nova Scotia. Now I know that in this particular bill it says that a member of the House of Assembly or the Executive Council or a person who has been a member within the last three years is not eligible to be a member of the board. Well, I don't agree with that, I think the government should have a minority position on that board, to be a watchdog for the government of this province and a watchdog for the province generally. So perhaps the Auditor General could be a member of this board. Now I don't know whether that would be possible within the limitations of the Auditor General Act. Perhaps it could be the Minister of Finance or perhaps the Deputy Minister of Finance, but I think certainly somebody from government should be on that board.
Now with that kind of a board, Mr. Speaker, there is only one person who is appointed by government and that person is appointed as a watchdog for government. You have all the other bases loaded, you have people out there who are protecting the rights and the interests of Nova Scotians, not just five appointees who are appointed simply because of the fact that they voted the right way in the last election. I think that politics should be completely divorced from the board of directors because this board and the corporation have tremendous powers.
When we get to the back of the bill somewhere, Mr. Speaker, we come to Clause 126, and I am not going to go into it clause by clause, but we get back to a chapter at the end of this bill which provides the Governor in Council to make regulations. We go through approximately, most bills when they go through the regulations that are permitted under the particular piece of legislation, you do it alphabetically. You from A-M or A-Y or A-Z but in this particular bill it goes from A through AZ, then we start of in the B's and we BA right through to BI before we come to the end of the regulatory power that goes along with this bill.
[12:00 p.m.]
Now, Mr. Speaker, with these tremendous powers that are there for direction of the gaming industry in Nova Scotia, it would seem to make sense that another item that is missing before you can make an intelligent response to this piece of legislation is, what are these regulations? We do not know. We do not have the foggiest idea what these regulations are and I would assume since there are approximately 74 subparagraphs which delineate the regulations that we are going to have probably something in the order of 1,000 to 2,000 regulations which will go along with this piece of legislation. We do not know whether that is too many regulations or too few and that is really not important.
What we do not know though, Mr. Speaker, is what are those regulations? I would think that at least with a piece of legislation such as this which starts Nova Scotia off on a completely new track should have accompanying the legislation the regulations that are going to fall out from this particular piece of legislation when it is brought into effect.
So, Mr. Speaker, there is a tremendous number of items just to do with the governance of casinos in this province that I am sure that people in this province would like to know about and certainly we, in the Opposition, would like to know about so we can make an informed choice when we get up to say Yea or Nay on this particular piece of legislation.
I do not want to cover ground that has already been plowed but as you know, Mr. Speaker, there have been three committees out looking at casinos over the years. Those committees have come back with various recommendations and the last one is the only one that I want to speak about because it was the one that was put in place by this government. In point of fact, I think it was put in place because the Minister of Finance decided, just shortly after he became Minister of Finance, that indeed there should be another look at gambling. Rightly or wrongly, that job was given to the Community Services Committee. That committee, as you well know - and as I say, I do not want to plow the ground all over again -they went out and they spoke to hundreds of people around this province.
Mr. Speaker, that committee came back to this government with a large number of recommendations and, as a member of that committee, I was pleased to sign that particular document, as were all members of this House. To me it seems to be strange that what they did not recommend, the government is now enacting and what they did recommend, the government has not done anything about.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, that committee came back and they made a very strong case for the closer policing of bingo operations in this province. We were told during those committee hearings that this province is losing perhaps $50 million to $60 million a year on bingo operations in this province which should be flowing to the Treasury of the Minister of Finance, the gentleman who put out this piece of legislation. Not only were we told that there was a considerable amount of money not being reported to the Minister of Finance, we as a committee made certain suggestions with regard to how those holes could be filled to get that money flowing into the provincial Treasury. That was a gift to the Minister of Finance if you will. Here is a report, the report says this is a way in which you can substantially increase your revenues simply by tightening up bingo operations in this province and that was a recommendation of that committee. We didn't recommend casinos we recommended that though.
What has the government done about that? To the best of my knowledge nothing absolutely nothing. Can you in your own mind think of being Minister of Finance and somebody comes along to you and says look here is a report that may make for the Treasury of the province $50 million to $60 million if you enact what we are suggesting. He takes that report and he fires it over there, there is a recommendation there to do that, turns over the page and there is a recommendation against casinos and what does he do. Brings in a piece of legislation to introduce casinos. It just doesn't make sense.
If the honourable member over there has any questions he is welcome to make them but muttering in the corner isn't going to get anywhere. This is important legislation. This legislation is going to change the fabric of the Province of Nova Scotia. It is not something just to natter about it is something to do about. (Interruption)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. RUSSELL: Does the member have a question? If he does, get in his chair. Mr. Speaker, that committee came back with other recommendations. They came back with recommendations with regard to video lottery machines, illegal video lottery machines and what did the minister do? Absolutely nothing. There are still a proliferation of grey machines out there and well there should be. The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance isn't taking any action to stop that so that right now you can install a grey machine, operate to your rules, that is the person that has the machines in there, make considerable profits, not to clear them and another loss to the Treasury, how much is that? How much money is being lost in grey machines? That was another proposal of the last committee that was put in place by the Minister of Finance.
There is possibly $20 million to $30 million still being lost to the province on grey machines. Is the Minister of Finance, is the Minister of Justice doing anything to stop that proliferation of machines? Doing anything to endeavour to get within the legal premises for video lottery machines to increase their share of the revenue and to get rid of the grey machines? As I said before, the Minister of Finance directed the Community Services Committee to carry out this study of gambling in this province and there is no argument about that. He can say what he wants about it but he told the media that early after the last election. That committee went out and investigated gambling from end to end of this province because the minister wanted two definite recommendations from that committee.
Mr. Speaker, I would resume my seat if the member wishes to make an introduction.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Victoria.
MR. KENNETH MACASKILL: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the honourable member for yielding the floor for me to introduce to you and to all members of the House a newly elected councillor for Victoria, Phonsie Farrell and I would ask Phonsie to stand and receive the warm welcome of all members of the House. (Applause)
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, welcome back to the Chair. I was saying, before I took my seat, that the Minister of Finance, shortly after the last election, put in place another committee to look at gambling in this province. We had already had two previous committees, but this was a third one and this is the one that this government put in place to look at gambling from one end of the province to the other and the committee did that and, as I said before, spoke to hundreds of Nova Scotians.
Mr. Speaker, what I am coming to is this. The Minister of Finance, when he put that committee in place, did so for two reasons. He wanted two recommendations from that committee. One recommendation he wanted was a recommendation to return video lottery machines to corner stores. The second one that he wanted was a recommendation that casinos be established in this province. Well, lo and behold! The committee did its work, it did its work well, and under the capable chairmanship of the member for Halifax Bedford Basin, under his capable direction, we went out and we did, I thought, an excellent job of making contact with people in this province to illicit what their responses were.
We heard from all kinds of people. They were not just all people who were anti-gambling. They were not all people who were interested in having gambling machines within their corner stores. There were a number of those, but we had representations from police forces, churches, other social groups. I am not going to say universally, because I was corrected the other night, but almost universally the people agreed that they did not want casinos and they did not want illegal gambling machines.
The report came back and was presented to the House by the member for Halifax Bedford Basin, Mr. Fogarty. That was the recommendation. There was also another recommendation in that report, Mr. Speaker. You were not in the Chair, the Deputy Speaker was there at the time when I made this last remark because I want to get back to it and that was with regard to bingo, that bingo operations be more closely policed and certainly controlled to a greater extent than they are at the present time or were in the past.
Mr. Speaker, what I cannot believe is that the Minister of Finance, who is a bright guy, would read this report and then choose to do something entirely different. What we did not recommend is what he is going ahead with and what we did recommend, he is ignoring. It just does not make sense.
Mr. Speaker, when I started off talking about this, I was talking about the fiscal side of the equation and from the words that we have had from the Minister of Finance, to date, it is being that we are going to have casinos because we are going to make money. We have not got a shred of evidence, nothing, not even a piece of paper such as this that says what we are going to make from gambling through casinos in this province. We do not know how much the casino operators are going to make. We don't know how much the Government of Nova Scotia is going to make.
Those two things are very important, but equally important is that with these revenues comes cost. What is the cost going to be to Nova Scotians, Mr. Speaker? There is reason to believe, and as I say, we have no proof of this because the minister has not given us any documentation, that there will be increased costs for such things as policing. We believe that there will be increased costs from the fact that we will have greater addiction and we will have to set up some addiction treatment centres for gambling, I suppose, equal to what we have set up at the present time for alcohol abuse and I don't know off the top of my head, I used to know what it costs for addiction, I think it is something in the order of $0.75 million for addiction centres in the province at the present time. Don't quote me on that but I think it is a reasonable figure for the treatment of people, we have a number of centres as you well know across the province. So, we are going to have to set up, I would think, equal and equally costly facilities for the treatment (Interruptions) Has the honourable member got a question?
[12:15 p.m.]
HON. ROSS BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Would the member opposite perhaps tell the House, now that he is so concerned about the addiction side of casinos in Nova Scotia, what his government did when they were in power when they put VLTs in every corner store in Nova Scotia and then put them in bars? I find that his sudden interest in that aspect, which we all recognize the social concerns of it, is so great now and I wonder if he could explain what they did when they put these machines in stores, which I believe had a very devastating impact on many people in the communities.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, we found out to our sorrow and we put (Interruptions) If the honourable member would listen maybe he would learn. He has been in the House long enough to have listened to the debates in previous times and he well knows what the government of that day did. They took them out of the corner stores because they recognized that indeed the temptation to use the machines becomes greater with their proliferation. And we increased the amount of money available to treat addicts, we did those things.
But we are not talking about VLTs today. We are not talking about three or five machines in a bar. We are talking about maybe 500 machines, all in one location, in the City of Halifax, 500 machines all in one location in the City of Sydney. (Interruptions) The honourable birds down there can chirp. Mr. Speaker, this is an incredibly serious matter and you know, I just can't understand why we are taking a step that is clearly against the will and the wishes of the majority of the people of Nova Scotia.
The honourable member opposite was successful in that he talked me off my train of thought from a few moments ago. (Interruptions) Well, at least the train comes to a stop eventually.
That is the reason why we have been looking for a delay in this particular bill because as I said before, we don't know what the profit and loss statement is if this bill goes through but that is only one side of the equation. The other side is what happens to the Nova Scotia that we know today when we build down on the waterfront here perhaps a 20 storey hotel and casino complex right next door to this House, practically, except a little closer to the water.
Those things can happen because when the people get the license for this casino and they go ahead to build this casino, the City of Halifax has no say as to where they can establish themselves, they can establish themselves wherever they want. They can build on this lot right across the road that is presently empty. They can block the view, as my friend from Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley (Interruption) has just said, they can block the view from Citadel Hill because the viewplanes don't apply.
MR. EDWARD LORRAINE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I have been going through some of these petitions and first of all I want to say that the petition that was mailed to me some four months or more ago, has been hanging on our bulletin board and as of Monday night of this week there wasn't one signature on it and I hung it right by the employment opportunities that hangs there on a regular basis. What really brought me to my feet, I am reading through this petition from Truro, N. S., and I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that is forgery. If that is the case and if that is supposed to be my signature, I want to say this, that this petition is not worth the paper it is written on because I signed no such petition, nor do I intend to sign any such petition. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: Are there any other submissions to the point of order? I believe that earlier in the discussion on this matter today there was a petition tabled which had a purported signature of John Savage on it, was there not?
I have considered this matter at some length. It seems to me that the propriety of the procedures followed this morning, for which I do not blame any honourable member of this House, I want to make that clear in the beginning, but it appears to me that material has been tabled in the House inadvertently, which is not legitimate. It appears that way to me very clearly.
I notice that the House of Assembly Act, which I have not used previously in making Speaker's rulings, because it is law and, in my view, matters of law are best enforced by the courts, but in the House of Assembly Act, Section 37, under the heading of offences and penalties, states; "The following acts, matters and things are prohibited, and shall be deemed violations of this Act:". Under that there are a number of various categories of acts and actions but paragraph (i) states; "presenting to the House or to any committee any forged or falsified document, with intent to deceive the House or committee;", that is an offence against the House of Assembly Act and if it purported that the signature on the petition is that of Ed Lorraine or John Savage and these people did not actually sign these petitions, it would appear to me that we have been the victims here this morning of an unlawful act.
AN HON. MEMBER: Throw him out.
MR. SPEAKER: I am not throwing anyone out, I am simply making that observation from the Chair as a caution to all honourable members. If we are going to table petitions in the House, for goodness sake let's read these things first and make sure they are legitimate.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: On that point, I didn't review the reference you were making but I think you did say that with lawful intent or with intent to deceive or something, in other words, if it was intended to deceive, it would be unlawful. I guess there is some question, is there not, as to whether or not the people who brought these petitions to the attention of this House had any intention whatsoever to deceive or otherwise. It is my understanding these were petitions put up in public and sometimes people can be somewhat mischievous, as we have seen that Elvis' name was used and I understand, Wayne Newton and that sort of thing. There may be people walking around out there who go by those alias', who are known to people in those communities.
AN HON. MEMBER: Ed Lorraine? (Laughter)
MR. CHISHOLM: I think that were we able to prove there was that intent, Mr. Speaker, then perhaps we would be in a position to call it unlawful. That is my only point.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, if I would advise and counsel the honourable member from the Chair, I would not press this matter too hard because there is a responsibility on the part of any honourable member who advances written material here in the House to vouch for the content and legitimacy of that material. I heard here this morning one honourable member stand up and state, I beg leave to table a petition containing so many signatures from the constituency of Cape Breton Nova. I examined the material in that folio and found that the persons who had signed the petition were, in the vast majority of cases, not from the constituency of Cape Breton Nova, the third name being from Halifax and others from New Glasgow and such various other places, and places in Cape Breton that are not in Cape Breton Nova, such as Sydney Mines, Florence or Bras d'Or.
I am not saying that there was any deliberate intent to deceive there but I think that the honourable members who are going to table these things should read them first and make sure they are on the up and up, before they table them. That is my considered opinion.
MR. RUSSELL: I have lost my train of thought completely now. I believe, Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the effects of casinos and our lack of knowledge of the effects of casinos other than the financial aspects. I was talking about the fact that the Planning Act and the environment Act and the Liquor Control Act does not apply, none of the regulations or stipulations or the legislation itself applies to the casino licensees.
I just find it incredible that, for instance, if for argument sake - and I have no knowledge of this - the casino was built indeed on the waterfront and they put up a hotel on the waterfront and they put a restaurant on the waterfront and they put a bar on the waterfront. Mr. Speaker, you yourself and I am sure every member of this Assembly has walked along that waterfront and have noticed that fact that we have Sheraton Hotel down there, we have a large number of restaurants and a large number of bars. Those hotels, those restaurants and those bars must all comply with the Planning Act, the environment Act and with the Liquor Control Act.
It would seem to me to be very unfair competition, for instance, if I wanted to start a lounge down at Historic Properties, the hoops and jumps that I would have to go through to get a license from the Liquor License Board are many. One of the first things I would have to do is to have my premise meet the requirements of the Liquor License Board as to seating and health arrangements, number of toilets, number of seats, space, square footage per person and what have you. But, most importantly there would have to be a public meeting at which people could come forward and oppose my having a licensed premise in that area.
Even my competition could come forward and say, well, this area is already adequately serviced. Certainly, people who lived and worked in that area could come forward with a host of complaints about the noise generated by bars, the fact that there might be undesirables hanging around the bars, intoxicated persons and what have you. But none of that, Mr. Speaker, applies to casinos. They build a casino, they build a bar as part of that operation. They don't have any public hearings, nobody can come forward and say, well, I don't want a bar next to my business; they can't do that because they won't have the opportunity because there is no requirement for this particular bar to go to the Liquor License Board even to get a license because they are exempt from the sections of Section 42 of the Liquor Control Act.
AN HON. MEMBER: Why was that waived?
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, they don't require a building permit. Well, you ask me, I don't know why it was waived. They don't require a building permit. Now, if you or I or any other Nova Scotians want to erect a building one of the first things we have to do is to go down to the local municipal office and see the building inspector, show him a copy of our plans. The building inspector is going to perhaps issue us the building permit eventually. When we get the building permit during construction the building inspector will be there to check that the wiring is right, that the plumbing is right, that the structure is built according to the national Building Code. In some particular municipalities, for instance, you can't have chimneys other than brick. They would check all these things out. But in the City of Halifax, in the City of Sydney, which certainly have building inspectors and building permits required for construction, they can't do anything. These people can erect their buildings, no fear at all, no building permit required, none whatsoever. Those things are important, but the most important one of the lot is that the City of Sydney and the City of Halifax have lost their ability under the Planning Act to control where these casinos go and any aspect of the casino that would not normally be approved.
[12:30 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you have ever been to Atlantic City or Las Vegas, but I am sure there are several people here that have. I don't know if Bingo Bob is in the place, I think he went down to Las Vegas one time.
MR. SPEAKER: I have been in New Jersey, but I have not gone to Atlantic City.
MR. RUSSELL: It is a great place to go to vacation, I say that honestly. But I will tell you, if we had some of the buildings from Las Vegas dumped down on Water Street or downtown Halifax, they would look completely out of place and I would say that they would destroy the whole ambience of the City of Halifax, which is a historic town. We have old buildings, some of them not, perhaps, conducive to what they are used for these days. For instance, this building is a handsome building, but certainly the size of government has grown beyond this building these days and we can no longer keep the Provincial Secretary and the Attorney General and the Premier and the Speaker, et cetera, housed in this building. It has just gotten too small.
I don't think we want an MGM enterprise down here with elephants out in front and fireworks going off from a mock volcano or something down on our waterfront. Those are the things and, yes, Mr. Speaker, I am exaggerating, I know. But, however, when you take away from the requirement that people must meet the Planning Act, then you are really giving them carte blanche to do whatever they want to do.
Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that they would put up that kind of an edifice, but, however, it is quite possible that they might build an art deco building. It is quite possible that they would build a 40 storey tower. Who knows? That should come out of the bill. It should absolutely, positively come out of the bill. Let them put in bars if they want. Let them build according to their own requirements, without having to get a building permit, but do not take away the requirement that they have to meet the requirements of the Planning Act. Because if you do that, I would suggest to you, you have given an outside agency and an agency probably from outside of Canada, the right to do something that nobody else in Nova Scotia has or should have. Nobody should have that ability.
Mr. Speaker, we know now that there are three finalists who are coming forward with proposals to build casinos in this province. I know that the expertise for casino management in Canada is pretty thin. We do not have the experience over the years. We don't have, perhaps, the particular management skills that are required for those kinds of operations.
But I am saddened that while there are three finalists, all these three finalists are from not only out of province, but they are from out of Canada. I am saddened for two reasons, Mr. Speaker. I am saddened, number one, because of the fact that part of the profits from these casinos is going to flow out of this country and be spent elsewhere. At least if it was a Canadian corporation, the money would flow to a Canadian corporation which in turn would, hopefully, invest their money in Canada and it would return something to this country or to this province.
Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that if we are going to go into the casino business, and this government seems really determined to do so, that one of things that we should have stipulated, and I don't know if it is too late now, was that the company should be a Canadian company. They should be entitled and enabled with no restriction whatsoever to employ management talent, financial talent, et cetera, as necessary from casinos either in the United States or in Europe - or anywhere else for that matter - but at least the company itself would be a wholly owned Canadian entity. At least that way it would retain, in this country, the profits - I see people standing up, have I got a - at least it would retain in this province, or in this country, the part of the profit accruing to the casino operator.
Mr. Speaker, I would think that those profits might be very large. They would be very large if, indeed, we are going to realize for the province the profits that the Minister of Finance is predicting, because I would think the profits accruing to the province would be a fairly low percentage of the total profit originating from the casino.
So, that is another thing that I find distasteful about this legislation. I do not think that in any way I am suggesting to the government that the government should get involved, because I do not think that the government should start running casinos and I want to make it very clear. I am suggesting that there still be private enterprise, but it come from either within this province or within Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the commission that is going to be running this gaming enterprise, as I said before, has a large number of powers. I would think that with the large number of powers that they are going to have, that they are going to require a very large staff. In fact, it would seem to me that they are going to have a staff in the 100's and they are not all - how can I put it - low paid members of the working population, but some of them are highly paid members of society, so a large percentage of the profits that would be accruing to this province are going to be chewed up in the administration and governance of the gaming operations in this province.
A little while ago, I was talking about competition and I was talking about competition from the casinos and the impact on neighbouring facilities. I do not believe that the clientele in these casinos is going to come from outside the province. Some will, but I cannot see anybody in the middle of February, quite honestly, driving up to the Province of Nova Scotia and coming here specifically to gamble; it is just not on. You might do that, as I said before, in Las Vegas; you might do it in Atlantic City; and you might do it on the Riviera, but I do not think you would do that in Nova Scotia.
So, Mr. Speaker, where are the customers going to come from? We may get a few from New Brunswick and we may get a few from Prince Edward Island but I think, quite truthfully, that the majority, probably about 90 per cent of those who gamble in these casinos are going to be Nova Scotians.
People who work in this province, earn their living in this province, normally spend the majority of their money in this province. There is a little bit spent out of province, but not a heck of a lot. Most of their money is spent in this province and it accrues a profit to the retailer and the supplier of services and to the manufacturing sector within Nova Scotia. Money spent in the casino, however, does not have a multiplier effect, except for those who are employed directly within the casino because what comes out from there in the way of profit, a portion of it is returned to the province and then a portion of it leaves the province.
Money that is spent in casinos by Nova Scotians, 90 cents of a dollar spent in a casino leaves the economy; $1.00 spent, however, outside of a casino by a Nova Scotian generates 50 cents within (Interruptions) Where does it go? It either goes to the Minister of Finance or it goes into profits for the casino (Interruptions) That is the other 10 per cent that is going to staff (Interruptions) Well, there are expenses such as those, true, but they are not going directly into the Nova Scotian economy.
I have a piece of paper (Interruptions) Nova Scotia Light and Power. Mr. Speaker, does the honourable member have a question because I am not going to answer him across the floor.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member seems to have many questions.
MR. RUSSELL: He has many questions, well, let him put his questions and I will answer his questions. (Interruptions) Well, it is a reverse question period, I will endeavour to get those facts for the honourable member. There was a case made in the Province of Manitoba and these were figures that I received on a visit to the casino in Manitoba (Interruptions) Mr. Speaker, I refuse to answer questions across the floor in this fashion. If he wants to get to his seat, I will take my seat and let him put the question and I will answer it.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member is quite correct. If the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency wishes to ask questions he should go to his own place in the House and request the floor.
MR. RUSSELL: Where I am coming to is this, casinos such as the one in Windsor, Ontario, we don't have one in Windsor, Nova Scotia yet. (Interruptions) The casino in Windsor, Ontario is drawing form a huge population base that is just across the St. Clair River, a huge population base that is outside of the Town of Windsor. I would say that there was a perfectly good case to establish a casino in Windsor, Ontario, in fact it was a wise move because there was no casino across the border in Detroit or for that matter in Buffalo, so there was a large population base which was coming in and using that casino.
Those people were bringing money into the economy, they were bringing money into the casino, earned outside the Province of Ontario, earned outside the City of Windsor and that is good economic sense. In Nova Scotia, where you have got dollars earned in Nova Scotia being spent in casinos, is a loss to the Province of Nova Scotia. It is a loss on two counts, it is a loss because a percentage of the money is going out of the country which doesn't return to be invested or spent within the province and because a percentage of the money is going directly to the Treasury of the province.
Mr. Speaker, you referred to the Minister responsible for the Economic Renewal Agency a few moments ago, I notice, who has returned to his seat. He does not have any questions now, fortunately, so that is good. However, this minister is also the Minister of Tourism and I am not going to say whether he is a good minister or a bad minister because actually, tourism is just tacked on at the end of his title and that shouldn't be the way it is. But he does speak for the province insofar as tourism matters are concerned. And if anybody should be worried in this province about these dollars that are leaving the country and not being spent in this province, it should be the Minister of Tourism. Because these dollars that are being spent outside the Province of Nova Scotia is the same as dollars spent by those who go to Florida for the winter, or to the Bahamas or to some other warm spot; those tourist dollars are spent outside the province. His job is to encourage Nova Scotians to spend their tourist dollars within the province and to get outside tourists to come into this province and spend dollars.
[12:45 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker, there will be no tourist dollars, or very few tourist dollars, coming into this province to be spent in casinos. But what is even worse is that some of those tourism dollars that are presently coming into this province and being spent in local tourism facilities will now be spent at casinos and exported.
I understand my time is up. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou Centre.
DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on the casino bill, Bill No. 120. I had opportunity earlier in the day to speak to the amendment and was able, during that time, to bring forward to the House some of the ideas and some of the concerns that have been brought to me about casinos. It is not my intention to repeat, in any great detail, the ideas that I brought forward in earlier debate, but there is still a considerable amount that can be said about the introduction of casinos here in Nova Scotia.
It is very interesting that the debate on casinos has generated so much public input. There are a great number of serious questions before this House and there are a great many issues before the government of the day that will impact very seriously on our way of life here in Nova Scotia and how we progress as a province over the next decade. I am thinking of such things as health and education and community services, how it will be impacted by the changes in funding arrangements between the federal and the provincial government. Despite the fundamental nature of those questions, the casino issue has certainly generated more paper than any of those very important matters on the government's plate.
One has to look and ask oneself, why are people so interested in casinos? Why is it that you can go to Canso and hang up a petition about casinos and people are prepared to take the time to sign that? Because there isn't going to be a casino in Canso, there isn't going to be a casino in Neils Harbour. There isn't going to be a casino, apparently, in any other place but in Halifax and, presumably, in Sydney, but certainly in industrial Cape Breton. So, why is it that Nova Scotians are prepared to go out and do exit polls or go out and organize petitions in areas that are quite remote from casino locations in Nova Scotia?
I think if we analyze that, perhaps it places the casino issue on a slightly different plane than some of the other bread and butter issues that we debate in this House. That is because the casino issue, unlike other job promotion efforts of the government, has ramifications that many other industries do not. The government earlier had brought forward its plan for a blood fractionation plant. While that became a controversial issue, the controversy did not involve the plant, in terms of the negative effect it was going to have on the community because the negative effect was going to be a good one. It was going to create jobs and they were going to be high paying jobs.
The government announced the other day it took over the warehouse in Yarmouth and that is going to allow another industry to occur in the province. All of us in this House, regardless of where we sit in this place, are anxious for the government to come forward with announcements that will have a truly positive effect on our economy. So why is it that an industry that will create 300, 400, 500 or 600 jobs, we are still not absolutely sure, why is it that this has become a controversy in a province that desperately needs jobs and income? That is because there is much more to the casino issue than simply jobs and revenue.
Why is it that representatives from the Anglican, the Baptist, the Lutheran, the Presbyterian, the Roman Catholic and the United Churches have chosen to speak out against casinos? Why is it that the Medical Society has spoken out against casinos? The Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities has gone on record as opposing casinos. The Medical Society, as I have said, has spoken out. The Provincial Health Council has questioned the move for this province to get into the casino business. The people of Yarmouth, by plebiscite, have voted against casinos. The Industrial Cape Breton Board of Trade have voted against casinos.
So that litany of organizations that have chosen to publicly come out against casinos must suggest to all of us in this place that it is a question that deserves serious consideration. There is more to this than meets the eye. There is more to this than jobs and just some increased revenue.
Now earlier, I and many other speakers as well, have made reference to the three studies on casinos that were carried out in this province and made reference to the report of the Lottery Commission. All of these studies came to a conclusion and, if you interpret their recommendations, not one of the recommendations from either the report from the Lottery Commission or the three studies, including the most recent one in February 1993, have recommended this province jumping into the casino business with both feet and making an irrevocable decision to commit this province to the support of casinos for decades.
So one has to wonder why it is that the present government if, in fact, it had intended to introduce casinos, has spent money on the most recent survey on casinos, if, in fact, it was not prepared to listen to the recommendations. If the fiscal situation in the province is such that we can't afford to waste money, then we should not be wasting money on studies if the government has absolutely no intention of listening to their recommendations.
One of the criticisms directed to the whole project is the fact that the projected or estimates of revenue are not based on any hard, factual information. Now on several occasions, the Minister of Finance has suggested that the revenue from the operation of two casinos in this province could be as much as $60 million and perhaps as little as $40 million.
The evidence for that, however, is quite scanty and there are certain costs that, I think anyone would be prepared to agree, will be generated by the casinos. These will be costs that will be borne by the taxpayer in the municipality in which the casino is built and there will be costs that will be borne by all Nova Scotians.
One of the costs and I think there is almost universal agreement, is that there will be increased policing costs due to the establishment of casinos. Those policing costs, in Halifax, will be borne by the people of Halifax and the policing costs in Cape Breton will be borne by the new Cape Breton Regional Municipality. The police officials in Halifax have provided to the government a paper which indicates the increased policing requirements and the increased policing costs that will be generated by the new casino.
It would seem to me that all of us in this place, both on the Opposition side and on the government side, should be privy to that kind of information as we attempt to decide in our own minds whether or not the casino business will, in fact, be a viable operation. There has been so much criticism that there is not enough information. But one can even be more critical of the fact that there is information and the information is not being made available. What is to prevent the Minister of Finance and the government from releasing the report from the Halifax Police Department, which will outline in detail their best estimate of the increased cost of this casino in terms of additional policing to the taxpayers in Halifax?
The other additional costs which will be generated under the general heading of law and order would be court costs, municipal, provincial and federal and the costs of incarcerations. If in fact the majority of the attendants at casinos and the majority of the crime that may be generated by the introduction of a casino will occur here in metropolitan Halifax, certainly in terms of the local casino. The cost of the incarceration of anyone convicted in this municipality will be, in fact, partially borne by the taxpayers of the City of Halifax.
Similarly, in industrial Cape Breton, any additional crime and incarcerations, the payment for the incarcerations will be borne by the property tax owners in Sydney or in industrial Cape Breton, or what will be then called the Cape Breton Regional Municipality.
Earlier information brought forward in terms of the people who are most susceptible to gambling addiction suggests very clearly that younger people and those of lesser economic means will be most affected by gambling addiction. This will certainly create an increased load on the budget of the Minister of Community Services because he will then become responsible for the families of those who become disadvantaged by having the bread-winner become addicted to gambling.
The health care costs that will be generated should be of considerable concern to the Minister of Health because associated with gambling addiction, and gambling addiction, like other addictions, will require treatment. There has been no indication from the government side how this will be addressed. There has been no indication from the government side how much this will cost. Certainly when we look at studies done in other jurisdictions the estimates have been as high as $18,000 a year for the treatment of one person addicted to gambling. In a time when the health care budget is being compressed, it is difficult to understand how the health care budget will, in fact, cope with new costs.
[1:00 p.m.]
Certainly the treatment of gambling addiction is a very specialized branch of medicine. I am not aware of anyone in this province who has particular expertise in dealing with gambling addiction. I am not aware of any clinic in this province that is set up to deal with gambling addiction. Certainly in terms of some of the symptoms or results of gambling addiction, in terms of depression and other psychological problems, they can be handled by the current medical expertise available in the province. But it is obvious that if, in fact, gambling addiction is on the increase in this province, then an appropriate clinic would have to be set up with the appropriate expertise, as to how to deal with serious gambling addiction.
There is a very high rate of relapse in gambling addiction, I think perhaps it is very similar to alcohol or tobacco addiction. The conquering of the addiction becomes a lifelong endeavour and one that requires continuous exposure to certain treatments and influences, including things like Gamblers Anonymous, which is a program not unlike the Alcoholics Anonymous, and other treatment modalities. So this is not something that you treat once and it goes away, particularly if the temptation continues to be readily available.
There are a number of opportunities in this province at present to involve one's self in gambling but the casino certainly introduces a number of new activities. One only has to look at the list as provided within the legislation. This legislation will introduce a casino; "`casino' means a place that is kept for the purpose of playing or operating blackjack, roulette, baccarat, mini-baccarat, keno . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I believe that this type of detailed examination is not appropriate to second reading of bills. We are examining here the principle of the bill, not the detailed definitions or technicalities.
DR. HAMM: I think I was merely trying to indicate to the House that there was going to be an increase in the number of opportunities and ways in which a person could engage in gambling activity but I will certainly take the opportunity on third reading to read that into the record and I thank the Speaker.
On an earlier occasion the minister suggested there were many gambling opportunities in this province. I am sure that from time to time there are members of the House who avail themselves of those opportunities. But, nevertheless, that is certainly a weak argument for introducing many new temptations into the province, activities that certainly don't come under the definition as being totally wholesome.
It would seem that the government of the day would have the responsibility, as do all governments, to take a leadership role in terms of determining what is or is not acceptable and commendable public activities. The endorsement of the government of the gaming that is referred to in the casino Act and actually allowing that kind of gaming to be introduced in the province would certainly not be the kind of leadership that one would expect from government. It is not my intention to suggest that participating in that is necessarily a wrongdoing, but it is not the kind of activities that government should be promoting and especially promoting so aggressively.
The revenues which the government and the Minister of Finance suggest will come from casinos bear considerable scrutiny. It has been estimated by the minister that in fact $42 million may accrue to the province yearly or annually as a result of the operation of the two casinos. The question then would be where will this money come from?
If we look at the Montreal experience which I think certainly does not exactly parallel the situation here in Halifax but at least the figures bear some scrutiny. Now, Montreal is approximately 45 miles from the border and their experience is that only 2 per cent of the gambling fraternity at their casino come from the United States. In addition, only 2 per cent come from outside the province. So, the Montreal experience is that 96 per cent of the revenue from their casino comes actually from people from the Province of Quebec. Now, that is, I think it would be fair to suggest that a province such as ours that is very far away from a major American population and very far away from a major Canadian population, will have a similar experience.
It is highly unlikely and I think that the minister is gradually begrudgingly starting to admit that there will not be anything approaching 25 per cent or 50 per cent of the gambling revenue of the casinos that will come from outside the province. There is certainly evidence to suggest, from the provincial point of view, that anything that is much short of 50 per cent in terms of outside revenue will not result in a positive revenue situation for the province, once you take in the effects on the other aspects of the business community and the socio-economic costs generated for the government by the introduction of casinos.
I think it is in direct response to that kind of analysis that the TIANS have, while they were initially perhaps supportive of casinos, the more and more they studied the situation the more they realized it was not going to be of great benefit or, in fact, probably not any benefit to their industry.
It is hard to understand what the effect will be on the business community in either Halifax or Sydney once a casino is established. Those who have visited other casinos are aware that very often, in order to attract people to the casino, they serve food in their restaurants at a very reasonable price. In other words it is a come-on to the casino when you provide meals at a much lower cost than is available perhaps down the street. Halifax does have some fine restaurants and if in fact the casino operators decided that in their restaurants they are going to use their restaurant business as a loss leader and are going to start serving low priced foods, there well may be a lot of people who will go in to the casino just to eat the food and they will start ignoring other businesses. While it is always nice to be able to go out and find lower cost meals, most of us in government find that we don't have a lot of extra money for fancy meals when we are in the city and I won't make the obvious comparison to the eating habits of the Minister of Finance on occasions.
What I am saying is that the character and the availability of good restaurants in Halifax, and I am less familiar with the Sydney area, I would think if I owned a restaurant somewhere in downtown Halifax, I would be very concerned that the casino project here might put a lot of pressure on my business. I might be concerned, too, that perhaps some of the other fine attractions in this city might be becoming somewhat concerned because there only is so much disposable income.
I would look with some concern perhaps at Neptune Theatre, if in fact it becomes very fashionable that instead of going to Neptune we spend a night down at the casino and spend $30, $40, or $50. A lot of the disposable income in this city is certainly going to be directly to casinos if in fact the casinos are going to survive because there is very strong evidence that the money from the casinos is going to come from Nova Scotian pockets and not from the pockets of either New Brunswickers or the Mainers, or Americans. There is not going to be a lot of people that are going to fly in here to visit what, by Atlantic City or Las Vegas standards, is a very small casino.
I have already made reference to the Montreal experience in terms of tourism and the fact that the casino has only resulted in an increase of some 2 per cent in terms of attracting people into the Montreal area and only 2 per cent of their revenue actually comes from Americans. I think it is unfair and inappropriate and inaccurate to refer to the casino in Windsor, Ontario, which is right next door to Detroit with over 2 million people and without casinos in that city. It is obvious the Windsor situation will generate a lot of people with money in their pockets to come across the bridge and to gamble in the Windsor casino.
The only people that are going to come across the bridge to gamble in this casino are the people from Dartmouth. I don't think the Dartmouthians coming over here to spend their money is going to benefit this province in any way, shape, or form.
One of the serious problems that a proper financial review of the casino situations, one of the serious issues that has not been addressed is if, in fact, as the information that we have now suggests, that there will not be any significant amount of new wealth brought into the province, and by new wealth I am talking about the money in the pockets of the people who come here to gamble, then what about the estimate of the amount of money that will end up in Boston or Memphis or Vienna because that is where the three finalists in the casino projects have their head offices. Not in Halifax, not in Canada but in Boston, Memphis and in Vienna.
[1:15 p.m.]
The Minister of Finance has very conveniently provided us with his estimate of the amount of revenue that his department might expect from the casino and he has suggested $40 or $60 million. Why then has the Minister of Finance not provided his best estimate as to how much money will go to the operator of the casino, a come from away who will take, each and every day that that casino operates, a significant amount of wealth away from this province?
Nova Scotians understood what this was all about because the percentage of disapproval of a casino operation with management from outside the province was higher than it was for disapproval for a government-run operation. In fact, 64 per cent of Nova Scotians in a recent poll were very much not in favour of the kind of casino operation that is being proposed in this bill. I think it is just one other example of a government that is quite prepared to go ahead with a proposal without the backing of the people and without a mandate from their election, because they didn't talk about casinos. So, they have no mandate and they have no public approval.
The issue of problem gambling, as well, creates some terrific costs for the project and, again, I have to go back to the figure of $18,000 per year, which is the only figure that I can find which applies to the issue.
Getting on to the bill itself . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I thought you had been talking about that all along.
DR. HAMM: . . . in terms of the principle of Bill No. 120, I think the remarks to this point would suggest that there is no popular public support for this bill and, certainly, any studies that are available place the whole effort in question.
The bill sets up an organization that will enable the government to have a casino set up in Nova Scotia, both here and in Sydney, but the bill sets up, first of all, a corporation which is going to organize and conduct and manage a casino; through the Governor in Council, it will appoint three to five members of the corporation. It is my intention, and it is unfortunate that the Minister of Finance isn't here because I was going to put to him something that he may wish to address when he closes out debate, because it was my understanding, from things that were said in the press, that the government had an intention, and it certainly does because they have appointed a committee to interest companies and to make presentations and it is quite common knowledge now, now that they are down to a short list of three.
But the principle of the bill, as it applies to the corporation, certainly would allow the corporation to run and manage the casino without any outside help. I am not sure if that is deliberate or accidental or, perhaps, and the minister may, in his concluding remarks, wish to clarify that because certainly the bill allows the corporation to hire people to run the casino. First of all, if that is the case, I think that leads to a very interesting debate as to whether or not we should be setting up the corporation appointed by the Cabinet which, in fact, would go out and hire 200, 300, 400, 500 people who would not be subject to scrutiny and screening by the Civil Service. In other words, these would be direct political hiring by the board of directors, who are appointed directly by the Cabinet.
But, certainly, the whole principle of how the board of directors will interface with the casino proponents is certainly cloudy as one reads through the terms of reference and the sections of the bill which deal with the corporation. I would certainly like the minister's clarification, in his closing remarks, as to what it is exactly is intended here.
One of the very surprising items, in terms of the proposed legislation, is that the legislation excludes the casinos from complying with a number of Statutes. One of the great concerns is that the casino operation may introduce in this province, elements that would interfere with the security of the province. There are a number of safeguards that appear to be introduced in principle in the bill which, obviously, go to great pains to try and reassure Nova Scotians that, in fact, all of the great problems that casinos will create, that if in fact they do increase crime, if they do require increased policing, that they will be looked after.
In other words, there are a great network of sections that, if applied, should be able to provide some degree of protection for citizens. But that sort of flies in the face of a bill that then goes on and says, for example, that casinos do not have to comply with the Companies Act. They do not have to comply with the Environment Act or the Planning Act. They do not require a building permit.
It seems that the most likely place for a casino here in Halifax is down somewhere along the waterfront. Halifax is a beautiful city and earlier speakers have made reference to the fact that we cannot allow casinos to interfere with the very character of Halifax and to destroy the historical nature of downtown Halifax and to somehow divorce ourselves with our connections with the past.
One, of course, important pieces of legislation is the viewplane legislation that affects the heights of buildings and will deter a further erosion of the ability of us all to view the harbour and the water, which is so much a part of the history of this city. So it would be quite possible for the board of directors to make an arrangement with the proponent of the casino to build a casino which is higher than the viewplanes legislation and would, again, further obscure the view of Halifax Harbour from downtown Halifax.
The member for Hants West made specific reference to the historical nature of downtown Halifax and the fact that by not having to answer to the Planning Act, it well may be that a building would be created down there that would be very much in keeping with downtown Las Vegas but very much not in keeping with downtown Halifax.
While you might suggest, let's let the government have its way here and let reason prevail. Well, I think that is part of the problem because we all know that reason doesn't always prevail and sometimes in the effort to achieve a goal, we are prepared to take corners. I would think that if we have viewplane legislation, if we have building permits, if we have a Planning Act, if we have an environment Act, then what makes a casino different from other businesses? Other businesses do not get exemption from these very necessary pieces of legislation so one has to wonder, what makes casinos different? Why do they operate under a separate set of rules? Why is it not like any other business? Because I guess that is just a recognition on behalf of the government that this isn't a business like any other business, but they would like us to believe that it is.
By way of its legislation the government has not only set up a corporation that has within the various clauses the ability, first of all, to operate, conduct and manage a casino. It also have the ability to hire persons, to allow it to operate and manage and conduct a casino. I hope the minister again will clarify exactly what he means because it is my interpretation that it would be the proponent of the casino who would do the hiring but that is not what the bill says.
The commission. The commission is set up to regulate the gaming going on within the casino. Again the situation is that the members of the commission will be appointed by the Governor in Council, presumably with some recommendation from the Minister of Finance. They will be saddled with regulating what goes on in the casino.
Now there are a great number of organizations in this province that have an interest in regulating the gaming in the casino. It seems to me that it is not appropriate that if, in fact, the Cabinet and the Minister of Finance will directly appoint the directors of the corporation who will operate and manage and conduct a casino but they will also appoint the body that will control and regulate that same corporation.
I think a better situation would be to separate the appointing of the commission from the appointing of the corporation. For example, the casino within the City of Halifax will have a profound effect on the waterfront area, on policing, it will have a profound effect on the payment of general assistance, in the long run, by the City of Halifax. Would it not be appropriate, then, that the City of Halifax would appoint a member of the gaming commission? Would it not be appropriate that the police department, either through the police chiefs association or through the Halifax Police Department, would make an appointment to the gaming commission? Would it not be appropriate that the Barristers' Society make an appointment? Would it not be appropriate that a group that represents the moral concerns of the province could have an opportunity to appoint someone to the gaming commission? It is very difficult to think that a gaming commission appointed by the Governor in Council would in any way, shape or form be in a position to seriously challenge the corporation which is appointed by the same body. I would say that that is a fundamental weakness in this piece of legislation.
[1:30 p.m.]
There is no end to what one could discuss in terms of the introduction of casinos in Nova Scotia. To recap before closing, the government did not go to the people of Nova Scotia in the spring of 1993 and seek a mandate to introduce casinos in Nova Scotia. The Government of Nova Scotia has not by way of plebiscite or public meetings gone to the people and asked them for their opinion to introduce casino gambling in Nova Scotia. The Government of Nova Scotia has chosen to ignore and make little of 40,000 well-intentioned Nova Scotians whose only act was to sign a petition against casinos in Nova Scotia. While there may have been mischievous people who did sign those same petitions, by and far the majority of the signatures on those petitions are simply Nova Scotians wishing to lodge a protest against this legislation.
In closing, I will be voting against this legislation but fully expect to participate in the Law Amendments procedure when it goes to Law Amendments because I cannot see that despite the very fundamental nature that this is in many ways a conscience issue, that the government will be any more lenient on this issue in allowing members to vote their conscience than it was on the municipal exchange bill. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Queens.
MR. JOHN LEEFE: It gives me pleasure to rise in debate on second reading of this bill, an Act to Establish the Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation and the Nova Scotia Gaming Control Commission which in its short form might well be termed the casino gambling Act rather than simply the Gaming Control Act, as is its shorter title laid out in Clause 1 of the bill. In fact, I would suggest, sir, that considering the interest expressed by Nova Scotians and the commentary one has been able to read in the papers and see on television and indeed hear from people in our own constituencies that it might well be cited as many other things too.
One of the very first aspects of the bill is that it tells us that the purpose of the bill is to ensure that all lottery schemes in the province are undertaken for the public good and in the best interest of the public. I think that behooves us to ask ourselves just who does support this bill? To date, it would appear that the support of the bill, if silence denotes consent, is supported by the government members in the Legislature. Certainly, it is abundantly clear from the words which have been spoken thus far that the members of the Opposition are not in support of this bill. There has been to the best of my knowledge no effort made by the government in any way, shape or form to test public opinion with respect to whether or not the people of this province deem this Act and those things that it will initiate to be in the public good and in the best interests of the public.
There has been, to my knowledge, no public opinion polling done. Public opinion polling would seem to be a very basic instrument that government might well have used in order to determine the public humour with respect to extending gaming opportunities in this province and most particularly, with respect to extending opportunities in casino gambling. I suppose that one would have to ask why the government has chosen not to undertake polling in this respect and indeed to share that polling with the House and through the House with the people of the province.
Indeed, I suppose it is possible that polling has been conducted by the government and that the response it has received does not provide the answer that the government would have like to have heard and therefore those polling results have been tucked away in a back drawer to gather dust, never to see the light of day, certainly not to be shared with Nova Scotians because if, in fact, the polling results were negative with respect to proceeding with casino gambling, then that would further reinforce the antipathy that I believe the majority of Nova Scotians have toward this legislation and toward the rather more extensive gambling regime and the resultant negative social fall out that will come as a result of that. So, there has been no polling information.
There is no opportunity provided in the bill, nor has there been any opportunity provided by the government, thus far, to test public opinion in any other way. We do know that from time to time across this country, cities have held plebiscites with respect to whether or not gambling casinos should be allowed in their cities. The City of Saskatoon held such a plebiscite and the people gave a resounding no to the creation and siting of casino gambling facilities in that city.
Why is it that the government is so hell-bent on not testing public opinion? Why is it that the government is so hell bent on not giving the public the opportunity to participate in what will be, after all, a very profound decision with respect to the future of gaming in Nova Scotia. We know that there have been three groups which have, to one extent or another, tested public opinion or at least have given the public an opportunity to respond to the concept of wider gaming opportunities in Nova Scotia. I refer to the Edmund Morris Commission, which was commissioned by the former Premier, Premier Cameron, so the government may well have decided that that commission was jaundiced because it was initiated by the previous government.
There have been two committees of this House, the Kimball Committee and the Standing Committee on Community Services, which have heard from the public around the province. In both of those instances, the committee members heard from Nova Scotians that Nova Scotians did not want to have gambling casinos here and did not want significantly increased gaming opportunities, if one may call them that. But the government itself has not provided any opportunity at all to the people of Nova Scotia to be heard, unless perhaps they wish to include as an opportunity or as the sole opportunity, calling the Premier on his 1-800 number.
I wonder how then it is that the government has chosen to define public interest and the public good, if it has not consulted with the public. Then is it telling us that it, the government, knows better than the public what is the public good and what is in the public interest? If so, that strikes me as being entirely paternalistic and entirely out of keeping with the kind of government that the Liberal Party said out of power that it wanted to be once in power. In that sense, I suppose, sir, the government could be said to be, for the most part, consistent in that in promising to be different in the election campaign, the one thing that none of us really understood, certainly those who voted for the government did not understand, was that when they said they wanted to be different, their intention was to be different than everything they had promised to be in the election campaign itself.
Mr. Speaker, the greatest game of chance that is being played out as the result of the introduction of this legislation is the gamble on Nova Scotia's future and, most particularly, the largest game of chance that is being played out as a result of the introduction of this legislation is increasing the risk to each and every man and woman who innately may suffer from a predilection to pathological or compulsive gambling. I think it is abundantly clear that the provision of casinos will, in likelihood, cause more people who suffer from that predilection to have it exercised than would be the case if the gambling casinos were not here.
We certainly should all understand the implications of inviting this level of gaming into this province. That is made very clear on Page 2 of the bill where the Criminal Code of Canada is referenced and there are several instances throughout the bill where the Criminal Code of Canada is referenced. That is because this level of gaming is almost always associated to greater or lesser extent with crime. Were it not associated with crime, why then, in Heaven's name, would the Criminal Code be referenced in so many instances in the bill.
This bill is binding. It binds Her Majesty in the right of the province. The question that each and every legislator here should ask and each and every Nova Scotian should ask himself or herself, to whom does this bill bind the Crown? Does it bind the Crown to the two proponents who will ultimately be chosen from the now three proponent list, which is in lucky Laszlo Lichter's hands? Does it bind the Crown with respect to agents or agencies or entities, whose names we have not heard from the government, or from lucky Laszlo, with respect to gaming in Nova Scotia? To whom then does it bind the Crown? Because with the Crown bound, so too are bound the fortunes of the people of this province.
To what purpose does this bill bind the Crown? Is it to ensure that the public interest and the public good are served as Clause 2(b) of the bill hopes to suggest, indeed, I would think, hopes to convince? Or are there other purposes at play here with respect to the binding aspect of this bill?
I do not know the answer to that question, but it is a question that I think the Minister of Finance has a direct responsibility to answer when he closes out second reading of this bill so that we can understand this one very brief sentence in a very long and complicated bill. Not only must ask who is bound, to whom the bill binds the Crown and to what purpose is the Crown bound, but we must also ask ourselves for what length of time is the Crown bound?
[1:45 p.m.]
This brings up the whole subject of agreements or Memoranda of Understanding. All of the kinds of legal instruments which will be put in place, if they have not already been put in place, between the operators of gambling casinos and the Crown for the Crown's agencies.
Will those instruments require the people of Nova Scotia to be bound into agreements of 1 year's duration, 5 year's duration, 10 year's duration, 25 year's duration? We do not know for how long. Indeed, sir, one is bound to ask, are these agreements renewable? Are they renewable at the request of either Party? Are they terminable at the request of either party? Those are all questions that must be answered by the Minister of Finance on second reading, at close.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that money is very much at the heart of this bill. Money is the reason this bill is in the House today. The money that the Minister of Finance hopes to win in this risk that he is taking with the well-being of the people of this province. The gamble he is taking with the well-being of the people of this province he hopes will result and I think he has told us $40 million to $75 million in profits that to him those will be the profits that accrue, his lucky moment when he pulls the hand from the big machine and he hopes to get the three swinging bells, as I am told they are called.
How much is this bill going to cost the people of this province with respect to binding Her Majesty, binding the people of Nova Scotia for whatever duration agreements may be put in place? Again, what is the cost going to be with respect to those kinds of agreements?
It strikes me, in reading the bill, Mr. Speaker, that Atlantic Loto may have as limited a future as the proverbial dodo. There is an inference in the bill that Atlantic Loto may be caught up in this bill. There is also a suggestion in the bill that inter-provincial cooperation may take rather a new twist and turn, in that there is an opportunity built into the bill for the Government of Nova Scotia, the Province of Nova Scotia, to enter into lottery schemes on behalf of the province. Not only with any other province of Canada but also with the Government of Canada. Does the government have in mind an arrangement with the Province of New Brunswick, perhaps the Province of Prince Edward Island and perhaps the Province of Newfoundland? Have there been discussions between Nova Scotia and other provinces with respect to combining gaming interests and catching them up, in our case in Nova Scotia, under this bill? Just what does the government have in mind with this seemingly innocuous section that is tied up in the bill?
Mr. Speaker, we also know that the object of the corporation, while I think the corporation, it has been said by the government to be at arm's length, is what I have previously described as being at arm's length in a very short-sleeved shirt. While the objects of the corporation are very clearly laid out in the bill, the Governor in Council, that is the Cabinet, the political leadership in this province, is given the full authority in this bill to require the corporation to do other things in respect of lottery schemes, as the Minister of Finance, or the Cabinet may, from time to time, require. Well, to me that smacks of something very much closer than an arm's length relationship. I want the Minister of Finance in summing up to convince Nova Scotians that in fact the bill is arm's length, not only in appearance, but also in substance. This corporation which is going to be set up is going to run a pretty complicated business. It is going to have a board of directors. That board of directors is going to be appointed by the Cabinet of the day. There is nothing in the bill that suggests that those boards of directors need to have any qualification, other than perhaps to be members of the Liberal Party. (Interruption) To hold a red card, that is correct. Appointed behind the red curtain.
Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotians have a right to know what kind of qualifications those directors should have, in order to be able to provide proper governance to that corporation, the corporation which will be dealing with absolutely huge sums of money. Not all of which unfortunately, but at least some of which, will stay here in the province as profits, albeit I believe short-term profits, to the people of Nova Scotia. As I have said the job facing these directors is going to be a complicated and time-consuming one. I notice that the bill provides the opportunity for Cabinet to give remuneration to these directors, that is to pay them. One wonders since it is not reference to the bill, to what extent these people are going to be remunerated?
Over the past two weeks we saw an instance where the Minister of Municipal Affairs endeavoured to remunerate a friend of the government to the extent of what was it, $1,200 a day? About $180 an hour for a seven hour day. Are these directors going to be paid $180 an hour, $1,200 a day? Are they going to do it gratuitously, simply because they are good citizens and they want the job done well? What is the level of remuneration going to be? This is a government which has preached restraint, has laid people off in the name of restraint, has terminated positions in the name of restraint, has our health system topsy-turvy in the name of restraint. Although the Minister of Health likes to call it reform, health reform and I could go on and on. Yet, they have not told us what the remuneration will be to these directors.
I think Nova Scotians want to have that information and they want to have that information now. Mr. Speaker, there is no reference, the corporation and these directors who are running it, obviously, are going to employ people to make the whole gaming process in the province tick and that means that they are going to have to go and find persons to come and work for them. We have no indication in this legislation that employment by this corporation will occur as a result of an open, a transparent and a competitive process. Why is it that this bill is absolutely silent on the process by which employees will be hired for this corporation?
We now know that the directors are going to be appointed by Cabinet and they will be appointed to do certain work and they undoubtedly will be remunerated significantly for that work. There is no indication that the same kind of decision with respect to employment may not, in effect, come as the result of appointment by Cabinet by the political Party in power today, through the directors with respect to those who will be employed by the corporation.
The member for Halifax Fairview has asked to seek the floor for an introduction.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the members of the House, two constituents from Bedford-Fall River who have taken the trouble to sign the anti casino petition and also come down to demonstrate visibly their opposition to casinos and make sure that that is known and understood to their own member and all members. I would ask members to welcome in the east gallery, Fred Shuman and David Brown and thank them for coming to act on their concerns. (Applause)
MR. LEEFE: We are very pleased to have these people with us in the gallery this afternoon and certainly they have given every indication that they have a deep and abiding interest in the legislation currently before the House. One can only hope that the government will give credence to the objections that they have with respect to this legislation.
Now, I have been talking about the corporation and employees. There is no reference to an open, fair, competitive and impartial process with respect to the hiring of employees of the corporation. Also, the corporation is given full authority to engage contractual services with people in order to make the commission tick. But again, there is no reference to personnel contract restrictions and so on.
Contrast this corporation to the commission, which is created later on in the bill. The commission by contrast is required to appoint people to conduct and manage the affairs of the commission in accordance with the Civil Service Act. Now why is it that the corporation is not required to work within the ambit of the Civil Service Act and yet the commission is? A distinction with a difference and I anticipate that this distinction is deliberate, not accidental. We can only hope and indeed demand that the Minister of Finance explain that difference to us.
It is rather interesting that the members of the board, the chief executive officers and the other officers are going to have to take an oath of affirmation, prescribed in the regulations. What are they going to have to do, take an oath in blood, an oath of secrecy? We don't have any idea what this oath is about or what it will say or what its purpose is, we only know that it is going to be done. Why is it required that an oath of affirmation be required of these people before they take up their position as board members or as the CEO or other officers and employees of the corporation? Does that mean that the person who provides janitorial services is going to have to take some kind of a secret oath never to divulge anything that they know about the workings of the corporation? What does it mean and why is it necessary?
[2:00 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker, again, the question of arm's length and to what extent is arm's length built into this bill. Especially when we understand that one of the mandatory sections of this bill requires that the corporation comply with any direction given to it by Governor in Council providing, of course, it is subject to this bill and the regulations.
That, sir, does not in any way, shape or form suggest to me that there is anything even approaching the concept of an arm's length relationship between the board and the corporation and the Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, we also know that the corporation will be required to submit a report annually to the minister respecting everything the corporation does, the administration, the operation, the management of the corporation and lottery schemes falling under its purview. Everything it does in the province is subject to being reported to the minister.
I think that the Minister of Finance would do well to ensure that that report is not made to the minister, but rather is made to the House of Assembly which, in effect, would mean that the corporation would be reporting to the people of this province. With respect to proper governance and because the public interest is very much wrapped up in the impact of this legislation on the Province of Nova Scotia and the people of Nova Scotia, surely it is incumbent upon the government, through amendment of this bill, to ensure that the annual report of the corporation is not made to the Minister of Finance, but rather is made to the Legislative Assembly.
It is interesting, too, that this arm's length legislation, and the arm keeps getting shorter and shorter, provides that, with the approval of the Governor in Council. Again, with the approval of the Governor in Council. No arm's length here, direct approval. Hello, Mr. Premier, Mr. Governor in Council, can we do this? Mr. Governor in Council, we would like to do this. Or does it work the other way around? The Governor in Council, Mr. Premier calls the corporation and says, corporation, we would like you to do this. At any rate, with the approval of the Governor in Council, the corporation is given full authority to develop, undertake, to organize, conduct and manage lottery schemes on behalf of the government of the province, or on behalf of the government of the province and the government of another province of Canada.
Again, we have this interesting inference to a linkage between Nova Scotia and other provinces. Is this a flier that the government has put out through this legislation or are Messrs. Savage and McKenna looking to cook up a lottery deal for both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to be run by a single agency?
Approval of Governor in Council is required time and time again in order for the corporation to act. There is no independence with respect to a person, with respect to agreements entered into by the corporation to operate a casino and a lottery scheme on behalf of the corporation. Just think of this. This is described as an arm's length deal by the government.
AN HON. MEMBER: Short arms. Just think how short they are.
MR. LEEFE: Exactly. Just think of this, with the approval of the Governor in Council, with the approval of the Cabinet, but not without the approval of the Cabinet, "the Corporation may enter . . . into an agreement with a person to operate a casino or other lottery scheme on behalf of the Corporation upon such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council determines.". Again, the Cabinet, with the approval of the Cabinet, but only with the approval of the Cabinet, "the Corporation may . . . enter into an agreement with a person to develop, undertake, organize, conduct and manage a lottery scheme with the Government of Canada.", and again, only with the approval of the Cabinet, to enter into an agreement for the purpose, to enter into an agreement with the Government of Canada for management of a lottery or, again, only with the approval of the Cabinet, "enter into an agreement with a government of another province of Canada, or an agency thereof, to incorporate a body . . ." and so on and so forth.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the corporation is not going to be allowed, at arm's length, to determine who should operate a casino in Nova Scotia. It is the Cabinet of the Province of Nova Scotia which will make that decision and this bill is very clear on that matter.
Again, with the approval of Cabinet, "the Corporation may establish bank accounts.". It would be interesting to see if any of them are in Switzerland. There is also an interesting reference here to trust funds and special funds. I wonder if the Minister of Finance might care to enlarge on just what kinds of trust funds or special funds he may have in mind, especially when one considers the very direct influence that Cabinet has to play in determining whether or not trust or special funds will be set up and, secondly, if they are to be set up, what the parameters of those special trusts or funds are going to be. There is absolutely no arm's length in this aspect of the bill at all.
Isn't it interesting, too, that while the Minister of Finance talks about the profits which will accrue to Nova Scotia and Nova Scotians as the result of the introduction of casino gambling here, one of the clauses of the bill which deals with the costs of operating the corporation, which presumably is going to oversee the whole general way in which gambling is conducted in the province, is not going to be paid; that cost is not going to be picked up by the private sector which will be operating the gambling casinos, but it is going to be picked up and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the province. That means that you and I, and every taxpayer in Nova Scotia, is going to be paying for the operation of that corporation. It is not going to be paid for directly, as I believe it should be, by those who will glean the largest profits out of casino gambling in Nova Scotia, and that is the foreign companies, the casino owners and operators in Sydney and in Halifax.
It is fascinating that the Minister of Municipal Affairs talks about municipal reform and laying out with clarity, the relative responsibilities of the municipalities, on the one hand, and the province on the other talks about property taxation and so on. Yet isn't it interesting that the capacity for the municipal units in which casinos are going to be located, as we shall see later on, with no reference to the communities themselves, is infringed upon by this very bill.
The corporation, we now know as the result of this legislation, may, it is interesting again, with the approval of the Cabinet - that should really instill confidence in the hearts of Nova Scotians - with the approval of the Cabinet with respect to any land that is owned by the corporation and of which a casino is located, pay to the municipality in which the land is situated a grant in lieu of property taxes not exceeding the taxes that would be payable if the land were not exempt from taxation.
So, they may pay a grant in lieu and they may not pay a grant in lieu of taxes. They may pay a grant in lies of taxes but not to the same extent as though they were paying property taxes and yet all that while, the municipalities in which the casinos are located, will be required to provide for these casinos precisely the same services that they would if those casinos were paying full taxes. Why is it that other commercial property taxpayers have to pay the full shot and these people may have to pay some or none of the shot? That hardly strikes me as being equitable.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned a moment ago the report that is going to be made to the minister by the commission. I strongly urge the minister to step back and amend the legislation so that the report is made to the House and thereby publicly to all Nova Scotians. There is a provision in here that the minister would table his report in the House and there are timeframes. Strangely, it is suggested that if the House happens not to be sitting, that the report will be tabled 14 days after it next sits and I think that section should be struck out and that irrespective if the House happens not to be sitting, that within 14 days of submission of the report to the minister, the minister won't amend the Act in the first instance, that the report should be tabled with the Clerk and thereby deemed to be tabled in the House.
Reporting is very important, it is an entirely essential aspect of governance. Here the minister and the government have an opportunity to provide good governance and unfortunately, they thus far have not seen fit to build this into the legislation which is before the House today. This is a government which time and time again has said that it wants to be open, transparent and ensure that there is due public process. Yet, what do we find in this bill? We find exactly the opposite prevalent.
If under the current laws of Nova Scotia casinos were going to be established, those casinos would have to comply with the Environment Act. And if upon application to the Department of the Environment it was deemed necessary to put that application through an environmental process, then that would be done as a matter of course. Indeed, that matter of course might well demand that public hearings be part of it. This bill prevents there from being any public hearings with respect to gambling casinos, even though every other citizen both corporate and private in this province is required by law to have public hearings during the normal course of application when deemed appropriate by the minister or by the Act.
We have talked at length in this province about the importance of planning. We have encouraged our municipal units, particularly our rural municipalities to become involved in municipal planning. We know from the municipal reform thrust of the government that municipal planning is seen to be a municipal responsibility and properly so. That being the case, why then would the government remove from the municipalities in which it is deemed that casinos are going to be sited, the right under the law of the land to review the casino's plans, under the Planning Act, and to hold public hearings with respect to them.
[2:15 p.m.]
I do not think there is anybody in this House or in Nova Scotia who does not understand that in order to build a structure, whether it is new front steps on your house or a whole new house, you have to go to your municipal unit and acquire a building permit and tell them what it is that you propose to build. Yet, Mr. Speaker, even though every man, woman and child and every corporate citizen in this province is required to do this, the gambling casinos are not. Why are they exempted and given superior status to every Nova Scotian?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Liquor Control Act provides opportunity for the public to participate and yet even the Liquor Control Act is interfered with, with respect to gambling casinos, for Section 49 of that Act does not apply to casinos. Whether we are talking about the Environment Act, the Planning Act, building permits, or Section 49 of the Liquor Control Act, the intention of the government is abundantly clear. It intends to ensure in every way, shape and form that the people of this province are never, ever given the opportunity at a public hearing to say whether they are in favour or opposed to the intent of this bill and to gambling casinos being built in this province and in their communities. That, sir, strikes me to be a direct subversion of the democratic process by the very political Party which, in Opposition, spoke as to how necessary it was to include the people in the decision-making processes of this province.
Mr. Speaker, we talked a little while ago about remunerating the directors of the commission. It is also very clear in the bill that members of the commission who are not employed in the Public Service of the province - which suggests that perhaps some of the people in the commission may be employees of the Public Service of the province. It would be interesting to know from the minister just who he has in mind with respect to that - but those people will be remunerated as the Governor in Council determines. Well, what is the remuneration level going to be here? Perhaps the minister could enlighten us in that.
AN HON. MEMBER: They are going to roll the dice.
MR. LEEFE: They are going to roll the dice, that is right. Those who crap out are the ones that are going to work for nothing, I guess.
The commission shall pay all its revenue into the Consolidated Fund of the province. What about the proceeds from gaming? Where are those going to be paid? Are they going to be paid into the Consolidated Fund? Are they going to be paid to the commission? Are they going to be paid to the corporation? How are they going to be accounted for? What is the direct and open process by which Nova Scotians will understand where the money that the Minister of Finance raises is being paid and then, of course, how it is being dispersed?
Time and again the Opposition members, in debate on this bill, have pleaded with the government to undertake studies appropriate to understanding the consequences of introducing casino gambling in Nova Scotia. Time and time again the Opposition members have faced an absolutely blank wall. The government absolutely refuses to even discuss, let alone countenance, undertaking the kinds of studies which should be done before Nova Scotians are locked into a very long-term arrangement for casino gambling in Nova Scotia and with the two companies which will be successful, out of the three proponents which are currently waiting for the final decision to be taken.
If the commission, not out of its own funds but out of the consolidated fund of the province, is going to be given the authority to carry on continuous study of the public interest and reaction of the residents of the province to existing and potential features of casinos, other lottery schemes and games of chance, why not do it before the fact? You don't need a casino up and running in order to go to the people to study what the public interest is, what the public's reaction is to the potential features of casinos and to other lottery schemes and games of chance. You don't have to have them up and running in order to do that. The money is coming from the consolidated fund of the province anyway, so why hasn't the minister gone to the consolidated fund of the province, taken the necessary funds out and undertaken these studies and made them public, so that the people of Nova Scotia can read them and see them and if, in fact, all those studies say that casino gambling is the best thing to hit this province for a long time, the people of the province and, indeed, the members of the Opposition, will get on board and support the government in its thrust.
But if those studies were to say, no, this is wrong for the Province of Nova Scotia, then every member of the Opposition in this House, I am sure, and people across the province would applaud the government for responding with the appropriate decision, based on the best information available. But the government has steadfastly refused to do that and the only conclusion I can reach is that the government believes the answer it would get from those studies is not the answer it wants and it would rather have no answer at all than to have to deal with the answer it did not want in the first place.
One of the studies which the commission is required to undertake on a continuing basis is the continuous study of the social impact of casinos and other lottery schemes in the province. Well, isn't that great. A lot of people in this community come from farm backgrounds and every one of them knows the expression, closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. That is exactly what is happening here; once the horse is out of the barn, there is no point in closing the door because the damage is done. It is very clear that again, since this money will come, in any event, from the consolidated fund of the province, that it should be paid out now, in advance of the passage of this legislation, in advance of the proclamation of this legislation, so that even at the 11th hour, on the basis of the best information that can be made available, the government can take a decision, even if that decision means not to proclaim this legislation and not to move forward with casino gaming in this province.
Sir, this is a government which, in Opposition, made loud noises about the importance of broadening the Freedom of Information Act (Interruption) and the Minister of Education says they did that. He is right, they did make changes. Why then now, not many months after the Act of which the Minister of Education is so proud was passed in this House and became the law in this province, why is it that this bill, casino gambling, restricts the Freedom of Information Act with respect to the implementation of casino gambling and gaming in Nova Scotia? It is a notwithstanding clause in this bill, a clause which is of great and salutary importantance notwithstanding the Freedom of Information Act.
I would invite every member to look at that clause, Clause 73(6), and ask themselves why it is that a government that has been so proud, as recently as a couple of moments ago, to proclaim the virtues of the new Freedom of Information Act, that Freedom of Information Act is abridged by this bill that this very same government has brought forward for consideration at this sitting.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Victoria, I believe, has asked to make an introduction.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourble member for Victoria on an introduction.
MR. KENNETH MACASKILL: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the honourable member for giving me the floor to make this introduction. I want to introduce to you, Mr. Speaker and through you, to all members of the House, seated in the east gallery, a newly elected member for Victoria, Reverend Louis Ihasz, and I would ask Mr. Ihasz to stand and receive the warm welcome of the House. (Applause)
MR. LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, due process is something which we very much take for granted in Canada and in Nova Scotia. Yet, this bill, which not only denies full protection of the Freedom of Information Act, also denies due process. Buried in this bill is a little clause which says that a decision and an order of the commission is final and not open to question in any court.
Is there anyone living in the Province of Nova Scotia today who knows anything about the law and the rights of citizens who believes anything other than this, that if they believe their right to have been denied that they have due access to a court in this land where they can go and they can bring their complaint forward, and have it dealt with in a fair and judicious and open manner? Every Nova Scotian who is old enough to understand even the most modest aspects of our legal system and of our rights as citizens believes that to be the case. Yet, this bill will deny Nova Scotians that basic right.
When the Minister of Finance described this - and these are my words, not his, but I don't think I do him an injustice - as a very powerful bill, a very far-reaching bill, he was not kidding. But I don't think until we sat down and read the fine print of the bill, we began to understand just to what extent this bill was going to reach into the daily lives of Nova Scotians and into our rights as citizens of this province and of this land.
Mr. Speaker, there is, under this bill, a director of investigation and enforcement. Well, I think that that is probably a very necessary position. The person - and his activities, or her activities, are covered in Clauses 108 to 117 - is going to be a very powerful person, indeed. Yet, we have absolutely no assurance in the bill that the person who is employed in that position would be employed as a result of a fair, open, competitive, transparent process.
[2:30 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker, I have made many remarks on the bill and I am sure I will have other opportunities on other days. I am by way of closing my offering on second reading of the bill I want to move an amendment to the bill at this point, sir. The amendment that I am moving reads as follows: that the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted, "In the opinion of the House the enactment of Bill No. 120, An Act to Establish the Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation and the Nova Scotia Gaming Control Commission will destroy the social fabric of Nova Scotia.".
MR. SPEAKER: Prior to reading the proposed amendment the Chair will rule the amendment out of order according to conventions of this House, conventions of Beauchesne, conventions of Erskine May on second reading. There are three types of amendments and one of each of the three types may be made in the reading stage of a bill and we are in the second reading stage of this bill. All three, the motion to hoist, the reasoned amendment and the referral amendment have all been carried out. No further amendments will be entertained. That is a final and firm ruling by the Chair not to be contested.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, nowhere in Beauchesne does it say that there can be only three such amendments. In fact, looking at the conventions and traditions of this House I refer to a motion introduced in a similar situation, a fourth motion on second reading introduced on Thursday, January 20, 1991 by the member for Cape Breton Nova, now the Speaker of this House, in which this was allowed to stand because it was very much in keeping with the traditions and rules that allow for amendments on second reading. I know that there was an arbitrary ruling made by the Speaker last week in this regard but it was not substantiated by any reference to Beauchesne and it was in direct contradiction and violation to traditions of this House.
MR. SPEAKER: I have made the ruling on the matter. If any member of the House wishes to do so my ruling may be appealed by a substantive motion put before the House as all members are so well aware but the ruling stands.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification I guess, I was wondering if you could research for me and tell me where it says in Beauchesne or in any other Rule that only one amendment of the three types admissible under second reading can be put on the floor of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: It is not stated clearly but as I indicated in my ruling this morning Beauchesne obviously cannot include all matters that can be excluded from any debate, it can only reasonably include those matters that can be included in a debate. The positive inclusions he indicates very clearly that three types of motions can be made, one of each if the honourable Speaker of our current House, Mr. MacEwan has made the similar decision that one and one only of each of the motions can be made. I believe that the honourable Mr. Donahoe in my time has made the same reading.
My ruling stands and I indicate again if any member of the House wishes to challenge it they may appeal by substantive motion. I have dealt with this matter with both Clerks at the Table and have been so advised by both and I have also referred to the authority of Erskine May. On reasoned amendments even in Erskine May while there may be more than one made they will all be debated at one setting. The ruling is firm. Are there further speakers on the main motion?
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, just so that we are absolutely and 100 per cent clear because I do want to give some serious thought as to whether or not a substantive motion should be moved to appeal your ruling. I would appreciate it very much if you would make it crystal clear for me, so that we can have appropriate deliberation. You are saying that you are basing your ruling in disallowing the amendment moved by the member for Queens, on the basis that according to the Rules of this House and Beauchesne and Erskine May, you are ruling that there is allowed only to be received for debate one of the three kinds of amendments which are set out in Beauchesne, as permissible amendments on second reading, is that right?
MR. SPEAKER: And the additional ruling of the current Speaker of the House, who indicated in his ruling, while I do not have it verbatim before me, that to do otherwise would to be to allow an infinite number of reasoned amendments to go on forever and thus delay the ultimate movement of the bill through the House. So the ruling has been made, that is the basis of the ruling. If you wish to appeal that ruling, then you have available to you the process and all members are aware of that. I will hear no further discussion on the motion.
MR. LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, I want to be absolutely clear on this and I would ask you to confirm that what I heard was correct, that is, that the advice given to the Chair by both Clerks is that the ruling which you have just rendered is the appropriate ruling, according to all the authorities. That ruling is on the basis of the advice from both the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk.
MR. SPEAKER: I think I cited Beauchesne as an authority to which this House refers, Page 200, Paragraph 666, items (1), (2) and (3), Paragraphs 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 672, and 673. I have made that decision, I will take no further points of order on it at this time.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: On a point of privilege then, I consider that my privileges, as a member of this House, are violated by any such interpretation, when the Speaker is not able to point to anywhere that it says no more than three amendments will be permitted on second reading. Because, and this is not hypothetical, in the event that a member of another Party might move all three amendments, does that mean that I have no privileges in this House, under the Rules, under the conventions, to exercise the same rights and responsibilities on behalf of my constituents and the people of Nova Scotia?
Surely, Mr. Speaker, if there is some limitation on the number of amendments, and we are still waiting you to point out where they are, the limitation on the number surely cannot be restricted without reference to the rights and responsibilities of the individual member, or at least on the basis of rights of the respective caucuses represented in this House.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party does not have a point of privilege and I have made the ruling.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: I wish to speak to the point of privilege, if I may, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to you that by way of additional curtailment of the rights and privileges of the members of this House, in addition to those already described by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, she posed the difficulty or the hypothetical; what happens to her privileges if, in the event one of each of the three kinds of amendments permitted by the authorities on second reading is put before the House by a member of another Party?
She then says that is an encroachment and a denial of her privileges, as a member, because if that action has consumed all the allowable amendment, she and her Party have no right to put any amendments that they would consider appropriate.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider even further that what happens if, as one individual member, three of the members of my own Party put an amendment of the kinds that are permitted by the authorities and I happened to, at that point, not have done so. Are you suggesting to me, by way of this ruling, that my privileges as a member are then eaten up and used up by reason of the fact that three other members who have the same rights and privileges but no more than I, have placed amendments which are permitted by the authorities on second reading?
With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, on this point of privilege, you have not, with respect, cited any rule in Beauchesne, Erskine May or anywhere else, which limits the number of amendments. I, quite frankly, have some serious concern when I hear you say that what you are now suggesting or ruling is on the advice of the two Clerks of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: I have made the ruling, the ruling is firm and if any member of the House wishes to contest or appeal the ruling, then the member has available to that member the procedure for either contest of privilege or contest of order. Other than that, the ruling is firm and I will not entertain any further discussion on the ruling, point of order or otherwise.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege, I feel that within this House we have rules. The rules are made by the House. We have a committee which changes rules, amends rules and initiates new rules, that is the Committee on Rules and Procedures. The Speaker's job is to interpret those rules and to maintain good order within the House. However, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that the fact that the Speaker came up and said, I have just originated a new rule, there can only be three dilatory motions, is not in order and infringes upon my rights as a member of this House. That is my point of privilege.
MR. SPEAKER: The point of privilege has been given. I will refer to Page 28 of our own rules, Rule 29(1) "Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately, but Mr. Speaker may, if he thinks fit, delay giving his ruling on the question of privilege raised with him.". I will delay giving the ruling on the question of privilege. I will now return to speakers, (Interruption)
MR. JOHN HOLM: If I might, on a new point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have to add my voice of concern in that I feel that my privileges as a member have been infringed upon because I, quite frankly, am one who have not yet had an opportunity to move an amendment at this stage, yet, in this very House, and I understood that when there are not clear rules within Beauchesne, that the precedents and practices of this House take precedence.
In the debate on June 21, 1991, I, in fact, was able to move a motion, the kind which we are not being permitted and on that occasion that was the fourth motion. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have less privileges now in 1994, according to the rulings, as a member of this House, than I had three years ago in 1991 when I was permitted to move a dilatory motion which was the fourth in that particular debate.
MR. SPEAKER: I will repeat what I have just indicated on matters of privilege in this House. The points of privilege will be taken under discussion, by myself, and under consideration, with the Clerks and the Speaker. I will render a decision on them in the very near future. Presently, the debate will return to . . .
MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I rise on a point of personal privilege. The least questioned freedom of any member of any Parliament is free speech. That free speech which accrues to every person who is elected to every Parliament and every Legislature in this country and in every free country that follows the British parliamentary tradition is very clear. Each and every one of us understands that there are limitations to that speech and those limitations are with respect to the appropriate rules and procedures that the House chooses to impose upon itself.
[2:45 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker, the ruling that was made this afternoon with respect to the amendment that I put forward in causing me not to be able to exercise my freedom of speech with reference to that motion is indeed a direct infringement upon my ability to serve my constituents in this place. It is a ruling, sir, which has a very evil impact with respect to every member of this House today and every member who shall come into this House from this time forward.
It strikes at the very heart of our responsibilities as members to speak on behalf of our constituents and to speak within the Rules and Procedures of this House, with the freedoms that are allowed us and which, indeed, are guaranteed us when we sign the roll of the House upon being elected.
This is a matter of such great significance, sir, that before you give your ruling, in order that we be able to understand precisely what is going to be imposed on this House by way of a Speaker's ruling, I believe that the House should adjourn to give ample consideration, or at least to recess, to give you ample opportunity to give consideration to this now. We have an hour and 15 minutes before we are due to leave for the weekend and that should give you ample opportunity to give consideration to the point of privilege which I have raised this afternoon. I move that you leave the Chair and that the House recess.
MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker's ruling on the admissibility of the amendment has been made. It remains firm. If any of the members who have stood and put forth their point of privilege wish to register that as a formal privilege, they have the avenue through which to do so, and it will be addressed and addressed by the House at large, if necessary. Nevertheless, the point of order of acceptance or rejection of the motion has been made and it stands firm as a ruling of the Chair on the basis of the authorities that I have outlined to you.
I would now return to debate of Bill No. 120. If there are no further speakers on Bill No. 120, is the House ready for the question?
AN HON. MEMBER: There are speakers.
MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.
AN HON. MEMBER: Listen, Mr. Speaker, are you blind? I am standing in my place, sir.
MR. SPEAKER: I beg your pardon.
The honourable member for Kings North.
MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: I regret very much that I must begin debate again, because I do not think we have finished with the previous discussion, because it is so important.
MR. SPEAKER: Is the honourable member standing on debate?
MR. ARCHIBALD: I will commence debate, rather than have . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Proceed with debate. Your time is 2:48 p.m.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Queens, Mr. Leefe, please leave the Chamber.
MR. JOHN LEEFE: Sir, I apologize for placing the book on the Table in such a rough manner. I am greatly exercised by your ruling, which very much limits this place as a democratic Chamber.
MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Leefe, please leave the Chamber.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotians must decide whether they wish to have a gambling casino in Nova Scotia. Nova Scotians are very exercised over the casino. They are exercised because of the methods by which this government has been treating the people of this province. Public hearings must be held, caution is necessary. We will accept no proposal without extensive public consultation. Those were the words of a man running for office. Premier John Savage said those words, the member for Dartmouth, when he wanted people to support him. He used words like consultation, like reasonable, he used the words that ring so hollow this afternoon. Why is this government, why is the Premier, the Minister of Finance, why are they pushing this through?
We have had three public hearings, one of which the Deputy Speaker sat upon. They travelled around, they met with groups and nobody, no person, came forward and said this is why we need a casino in Nova Scotia. So why is it there has not been a reasonable explanation given to me, to any member of this House, or to the people of Nova Scotia? Why did the Premier of our province change his mind since the election campaign? Why did the members of his government change their minds? Why is the government so determined? Why do they exercise such control over speech in this House? Why, Mr. Speaker, what is the rush? Is the sky going to fall like Chicken Little said if we don't have a casino by Christmas? What is the compelling reason? That is open for speculation and there is plenty of speculation.
I just received a phone call from somebody who was curious, what is the rush? We have been around here for 175 years in this very building where free speech was first recorded for all of the Dominion of Canada.
Let me read to you, if I may, from an editorial from the local newspaper where I come from, written by Brent Fox, a well educated employee of The Advertiser. Why do Premier Savage and his cronies in government want to defy the will of the people and logic, to introduce big time casino gambling into this province. I am not talking about the moral issue here. The moralists aside, casino gambling is just bad for business. I am paraphrasing. The casinos would draw away from the selling of our cultural attractions as well as plans for eco-tourism, both of which need a lot of emphasis and promotion. Besides this, casinos would definitely draw attention from the more rural areas of our province, everywhere outside the areas of Sydney and Halifax. Is government not supporting elements that will actually be in competition with government lotto and video gaming enterprises? Regardless of morality and health issues, further development of private sector gambling is just bad business.
These aren't my words. These are the words of an independent editorial writer in the Annapolis Valley and I would like to table this for you because I have read extensively from it and I believe one of the rules that you enforce in this Chamber is the tabling of information after you have read from it. So, it is tabled and all members may read it if they choose to do so.
This morning was a difficult morning indeed. There were petitions that were brought here yesterday, 40,000 signatures, some of which apparently and allegedly were put on there as a prank, perhaps. The petitions were put in stores and restaurants and offices throughout our province. They weren't guarded or watched and occasionally if somebody might have signed a name like Elvis Presley, most of the people in this Chamber know that they were legitimate signatures. But the furore that was raised was quite surprising. Mr. Speaker, 40,000 Nova Scotians signed a petition. This is very serious, but they were totally dismissed as a political prank. I don't think that is fair. I think the people who signed them and I think the people who are working on the committee, the Council of Churches were working with the People Against Casinos. It wasn't just one or two people, there were hundreds of people; the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union, the Provincial Liquor Commission employees are against casinos. They sent out a press release and a news release indicating the lack of support they show for a casino in our province.
The Halifax Mayor is worried about the viewplane from Citadel Hill. You know we have one of the most beautiful cities in all of Canada, one of the most popular destination zones in all of Canada, and we have done that without a casino. People come to Nova Scotia, they come to Halifax, they come to Sydney, they come to look at the view, to take a ride in the harbour on one of the boats, they do all sorts of things, but the last thing anybody wants to do in Nova Scotia is to come here and gamble in a casino.
Public interference won't be tolerated. You know, Mr. Speaker, the government is going to rattle on down this road and we can see very clearly that this legislation is determined to pass through here as expediently as possible, and with as little derailment as possible. The government has taken public opinion into account through the consultation on casino gambling done before the decision was made. You see the Minister of Finance has said all of the public opinion has been assembled because we had three around-the-province visits to discuss casinos with the people.
Well if this is outside opinion that was used as a basis to decide we are in the casino business, Mr. Speaker, it is surely very peculiar, because we had three opportunities, as Nova Scotians to tell the government what we thought about casinos and on three occasions the people said no. Yet using those three public consultations that were done, the Minister of Finance said we have consulted the people and they said yes.
I am afraid the government is not hearing what the people are saying. The people are saying most clearly and most distinctly that we are against casinos for Nova Scotia. However, the Minister of Finance said we are going to have them anyway and he has gripped his caucus and his Cabinet and they have agreed to go along with it. But why? What is the compelling reason that demands a casino for Nova Scotia? I don't know. I have asked the Minister of Finance three or four times during this debate in the House.
I asked the Premier outside, in the hall, I asked why a casino? The best reason he could give me was, well, they say it is good for business. I asked, who said that? He said well, the people who want to build a casino said it is good for business. I said, anyone else? Yes, he said, we have sent people away on trips to look at casinos. Well the only one we all know about is the member for Hants East who had an expenses paid junket for a couple of days to look at casinos. We have not heard his report yet. Perhaps there have been others, he said.
Mr. Speaker, is this any way to enter into a casino business? You know, we are having difficulty, as a province, with small things and we are getting into a thing like a casino, an entirely new adventure for Nova Scotians, with so little consultation, so little information, no studies, no information, but yet we have bought it hook, line and sinker, quite contrary to all of the pre-election suggestions.
[3:00 p.m.]
Dictatorial power is what we keep reading about in editorials, Mr. Speaker. What else but dictatorial is the legislation introduced this week to compel Halifax and Sydney to accept casinos? Now, these aren't my words, these are the words of people in Nova Scotia. Have you seen editorial writers calling a government dictatorial? We used to hear politicians say, that guy is a dictator, and that sort of thing, but you just took it as political rhetoric. But when you start reading it day after day in the editorials of Nova Scotia's newspapers, it may be time for this government to take a look at itself and say, by golly, maybe we are acting a little heavy-handed; maybe we have let 40 seats in the Legislature go to our head. Certainly it is something to think about.
What else could be dictatorial? The Planning Act, you don't need it if you are involved in a casino. The Liquor Control Act, you don't need it if you are involved in a casino. Mr. Speaker, where does the government get off taking these stands? Bypass the wishes of thousands of people, bypass the Planning Act, bypass the Liquor Control Act, bypass the Environmental Control Act, anything in the way, just build the darned thing. Is there a contractor in the province that wouldn't like to do business that way? I have had calls before from contractors who said, I am trying to put this darned building up and I am getting held up with red tape. Well, I am going to tell them from now on, call the Minister of Finance, he can fix it. He will bring in legislation so you don't need a building permit, you don't the fire marshal, you don't need the liquor law. You just get a little note from him and include it in this piece of legislation.
Is that where we are headed? This isn't where they said we were going, a year and one-half ago. We were going to have more consultation from this government; we were going to be talking with the people, to the people, and all we are having is less and less and less. Step out of line just once and look what happens. You will wind up sitting in your own Party. Stand up for the people who sent you here and see what happens. This is very serious. (Interruption) No. Well, you have to be careful.
The psychologists oppose gambling (Interruption) Well, the psychologists spend time dealing with people and they realize some of the pitfalls that may be arise. Can we find a group that says they want it? Just one, Mr. Speaker? Tell me who it is. Tell me who wants a casino. We have had group after group, person after person; more people have stopped me and said, for goodness sake, stop the casino.
You look at the bill and you compare the little bill that we have here, Bill No. 120, the casino bill, where it says - let me read it to you, we are not doing clause by clause but I am just going to read this one clause - the Planning Act does not apply, no building permit and Section 49 of the Liquor Control Act does not apply.
Mr. Speaker, compare that to the bill in Ontario. We have heard people say, oh, they work good in Ontario, we have heard some of the government members say that they work good in Ontario, so they must be all right for us. But did Ontario say that they don't need to? What did Ontario say about communities that want to have a casino? Let me read it to you.
The corporation shall not provide for the operation of a casino in a municipality unless the council of the municipality has passed a resolution approving the operation of the casino. How different than the dictatorial powers that this bill presents for Nova Scotia. In Ontario, the municipal council has the opportunity to say, yes, we want it or, no, we do not. Not in Nova Scotia.
In Ontario, the council of a municipality shall not vote on a resolution to approve the operation of a casino until it has held at least one meeting that was open to all the public, at least seven days have passed since the meeting was held; the council of the municipalities shall give at least 15 days notice of the meeting. It goes on. There are certain requirements that the people in Ontario enjoy that we do not. This government can put a casino in my backyard. They can put it in downtown Peggy's Cove. They can put it anywhere you want without consulting, without even applying for a building permit.
I told you the other day about the fellow down home who cannot even build a chicken barn because he cannot get the building permit. He is less than 1,000 feet from a neighbour's boundary. Do you think he enjoys this? He says, I cannot even make a living, but yet the government can open a gambling casino any place they want to, anywhere they want to. Is that fair? He is questioning whether it is fair. I agree with him.
In each municipality where a casino is established in Ontario, the corporation shall establish an independent committee in accordance with the regulations under this bill and each committee shall include a member of the police service. Do we have that in our legislation? Are the police going to be involved anywhere? I doubt it, Mr. Speaker. Each committee shall have the power to monitor the social, the economic and law enforcement consequences of the operation of casinos.
That is what they think in Ontario. Are we so far behind Ontario that we cannot even follow legislation? Did our Minister of Finance not even bother to read their legislation? Well, Mr. Speaker, clearly, there were options, there have been options, but what has our government chosen to do? Our government has chosen to take a heavy-handed approach, not just today, not just last Friday, but it goes on and on. The people are rising, the people are annoyed and they are frustrated because nobody in the government is listening. They think they have all the answers and I will tell you something, that is a dangerous sign.
This week, Mr. Speaker, the Human Resources Committee had a special surprise guest, a professor from St. Mary's was at the meeting to promote casinos. Do you know what he told them? He said that this casino will bring in about $13 million, tops. That is a whole new number right out of down here. We heard the Minister of Finance telling us it was going to be $60 million or maybe $40 million, but now we have another guy saying, well, $13 million, if we are lucky.
What a difference. Do we have any idea why we are getting into this casino business? The Minister of Finance said, so I can lower taxes, I am going to lower taxes is why I want to get into the casino business. He is going to bring in $13 million from the casino. Well, $13 million is not $40 million and it is not $60 million and how many taxes is he going to lower for $13 million. If we are getting into casinos for $13 million, it is pretty preposterous.
Is there anybody that will tell us the real reason why we are getting into casinos? They never have justified the casino bill to any person. Who does this government answer to? They will find out in a couple of years but in the meantime, who is driving the government? Prior to the election there was no great hue and cry for a casino and suddenly, we have to have it without public hearings, with half the information not around us, absolutely no economic or social studies to decide whether it is any good or not. The casino people suggested, you will get used to casinos once they are here. You know, you get used to pretty near anything once it is here. You get used to the rain after a day or two, it doesn't mean you like it though.
Here we go again, Dr. Savage and his herd will go out of their way to become unpopular. They seem to relish in it. (Interruptions) Well, I am just quoting from editorial writers. If they want to call you a herd, that is fine. But you know, if I was a member of that so-called herd, I would be asking questions why. Why is there such a determination to get into the casino business when obviously, nobody is asking for them? There is strong opposition, there are no proponents except the few people who want to build the things. The downtown business people are scared to death they are going to be out of business in a year's time.
People Against Casinos, they have gathered here and look at the group. It is not a rag-tag assembly of habitual protestors, they represent the province's six major churches. The Medical Society of Nova Scotia, the Provincial Health Council, as professionals they treat, counsel and instruct people who fall victim to addiction. These people do not deserve the heckles and catcalls they are receiving from the front benches of this Chamber. The churches of Nova Scotia don't deserve the ridicule that the front benches are giving them. They deserve answers and they are asking for them and they are not getting them, why?
The $40 million to $60 million figure, we have all been asking, is it real, imaginary? I asked the Minister of Finance last spring and he said, well, it is the number some casino people told us was the number. Was it an educated guess, a ballpark, what was it? Are we to believe Dr. Carrigan when he said it would be $13 million. We have all the questions and we get absolutely no answers. Occasionally, the best we can expect is heckling from some of the front benches but no answers. The seniors have said no to casinos. Did the government say, well, we will tell you why, we will try to turn your answer around to a yes? No, the government doesn't care.
People have been cynical about the Minister of Finance ever since he said he would lower taxes from casino revenues. They don't believe him; they don't believe the Minister of Finance when he said that; they are skeptical. That is a terrible thing, Mr. Speaker, when a politician holding the highest office in that Cabinet is not believed by the people.
[3:15 p.m.]
What is he going to do about it? Is he serious? He won't even give us the information that we ask. Holding it out like a carrot, tax relief, go along with me, he doesn't say how much or when. Does he even know? I suspect the truth of it, Mr. Speaker, is he doesn't have the foggiest idea in the world what kind of revenue two casinos in Nova Scotia would generate. I suspect he doesn't have any more idea than you or I. He certainly hasn't told us. If he doesn't know, then why are we getting into it? What is the agenda that we don't know? That is what we are wondering. He hasn't told us the reason, so all we can do is speculate, and the speculation isn't pleasant.
You know there was a moral issue a few months ago, Mr. Speaker, about cigarettes. Do you remember when all the provinces in Canada, or Quebec lowered the prices of cigarettes and then Ontario and then New Brunswick? Our Minister of Health stood there smiling and the Premier was there smiling with him and they said we are not going to lower them because it is a moral issue and our morals are higher here than they are in New Brunswick or Quebec or anywhere else; we are not going to lower the price of cigarettes, that would be immoral.
Well, what happened to their morals when they decided to get into the casino business? They said they would not do it for moral reasons with cigarettes but yet, casinos, I mean, have we got a double standard here, Mr. Speaker? This doesn't ring the way it really should.
Bishop Colin Campbell, the friend of our Deputy Premier, his colleague, is very angry. I hope that the member for Antigonish will talk to Bishop Colin Campbell over the weekend perhaps and have a chat. Perhaps the Bishop Campbell can convince the Deputy Premier to explain to Nova Scotians why we are getting into the business of casinos in Nova Scotia. Perhaps the Deputy Premier himself doesn't know, he certainly hasn't stood in his place to tell anybody the reason. For a while there was some chat that it was for economic development reasons, but we haven't heard anything from the Minister of Economic Development indicating we should be in the casino business.
The coalition of health and church groups have formed to fight Nova Scotia's plan to build a gambling casino; gaming houses will irrevocably change our province's cultural, social and economic life in a manner that is detrimental to the majority of our people. That about says it all, in that one sentence, Mr. Speaker, those few words so eloquently tied together, from the writer in the New Glasgow Evening News. They have the same feelings in New Glasgow as they do in Antigonish, as they did in Kentville, as they do in Yarmouth, as they did in Sydney. It is sort of across the province.
Is there an editorial anywhere; is there a letter to the newspaper anywhere; is there a member of this Legislature who will stand in his place and speak on this bill in support of it? Not one, have we heard, who will support this legislation and I am very curious.
You know we talked about having a free vote on a casino. The government said they were not too crazy about the idea. One of the members on the government side indicated that he thought it was just political manoeuvering but you know we really should have a free vote on casino gambling because there are a diversion of opinions. We need the input of all members to make legislation today. The dictatorial approach doesn't go over very well in Nova Scotia. People are used to being treated better than they have been treated in this Chamber in the last few days.
Municipalities oppose casinos. Is there a reason the municipalities oppose them? Is it just because the government has chosen to bypass planning rules, to bypass environmental rules, bypass the fire marshal is that why? That is part of the reason but the other part is simply and truthfully that they know casinos are bad for Nova Scotia. This is not a happy time to be a member of this Legislature. We are discussing some very detrimental legislation and it is shocking and alarming that all members of the government so blindly support casinos. Even though a few short months ago they signed a report indicating lack of support for casinos. They said Nova Scotians were opposed to a casino and they were too. But suddenly things changed and they do support a casino.
The Innkeepers' Guild of Nova Scotia is opposed to casino gambling in the province, unless the government can provide independent research proving casinos will benefit the tourism industry. Why won't the government provide this information? Why won't the government provide independent research proving casinos will benefit Nova Scotia? Why won't the government provide that information? I have asked for it, the innkeepers have asked for it, the municipalities have been asking for it. Everybody seems to want it except the government back bench MLAs, they sit there on their hands and support it. Is there one of them that has any information they could share with us, just some information that shows the benefit of a casino to Nova Scotia. Did we elect people in Nova Scotia or did we just elect. (Interruption)
Mr. Speaker, it is not very often debate gets as emotional and as difficult as it has in this House today. Conducts, (Interruption) There is a long series of tradition in this House and I think this issue doesn't need to get out of hand but the government is driving this bill the way they are driving all the other legislation. No information, no plan, straight ahead, we have 40 members, we can do as we please. If one person speaks out he is out of caucus, what a system. And the rules? Subject to interpretation, and I am sure we will be hearing more about that as time goes on.
In Cape Breton, the Priests of the Sydney Diocese have lent their support to the current stand against gambling. They have joined the People Against Casinos. In Antigonish, look what the Coady Institute has done, the Antigonish Movement. They did it around the world and it was not to promote casinos. Anybody can have a casino, but no other province developed something like the Coady Institute and the Antigonish Movement. That is something this province can be proud of.
But I am telling you that this in an embarrassment to Nova Scotians, casino legislation. We should be doing things that make us proud, not embarrassed, do things that are unique. We do not need casinos to make Nova Scotia a better place.
The Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities used to have a love-in for this group when they were in Opposition. But suddenly, they got into government and they thought they could do whatever they like, run roughshod over metro, run roughshod over all Nova Scotia with this foolish casino notion, total disregard for the thought of people . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: Or their own promises.
MR. ARCHIBALD: . . . or their promises. The clearest way to know what is going to happen is when a Liberal tells you they will do something, you can be guaranteed they will do the opposite. Time and again we have seen that. (Interruption)
AN HON. MEMBER: It sounds like the red curtain is coming down.
MR. ARCHIBALD: The red curtain is coming down. The red curtain will be going out. The red tide came in, by golly, Mr. Speaker, and the red tide will be going out.
The churches, is there anyone that has any respect for this Premier and this government in this province any more? All I am hearing is total and complete disgust with the dictatorial method. Look at the difference from what it was two years ago when they said, we are going to consult with the people, we are going to work with the Civil Service. They used to say we have the best Civil Service in Canada. We will work with them. Now, by golly, they do not want anything to do with working with civil servants or the people in this province. They want to run roughshod over everybody, and speak out just once and sit somewhere else, unless you happen to be a Cabinet Minister and then you can do whatever you blessed well please. There are two rules, Mr. Speaker.
But with this casino, there are not two rules, there is one rule. We are all in the same boat together. We are all going down with the ship with this casino. Have you ever had an issue that crosses all layers of society, all areas of this province from Yarmouth to Sydney to Cape North to New Glasgow to Antigonish to Amherst? Is there any? We have never had an issue, since last year when you tried Sunday shopping. It did not work for Sunday shopping, it will not work for this.
Why won't you listen to the people? You said you would and now you will not. What kind of a government is this? Every dollar that is spent on casino gambling is a dollar that cannot be spent somewhere else. It is going to ruin the economy of Nova Scotia and all the Cabinet Minister can do is just laugh and hope we get through this thing as quick as we can so they can all go line up and gamble in the casino. There has got to be more to life than a gambling casino, Mr. Speaker. Is that all this government will ever be remembered for is a gambling casino? They will not tell a soul why it is so important that we have one.
[3:30 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker, I am getting calls from people who are complaining about this casino. If I am getting the calls, then I expect all members are. What are the members on the government side telling their constituents when they call them on the phone? They certainly aren't saying, well I am going to raise your issue in the House, because you don't speak in the House. I doubt very much that you get much opportunity to speak to the front bench in this Cabinet either. So, what do you tell your constituents?
Some of you are telling them to call me because I am getting calls from people right across this province. When their member won't speak for them they call me and they call some other members in this caucus. They expect us to speak up and this is the place you are supposed to speak, this is why they pay you and this what they expect. Right now, are they getting their money's worth? Is anybody on the government side going to say anything for or against a casino? I know, it is difficult to be in the back benches and speak up.
Listen to this, Nova Scotians must decide whether they wish to have a gambling casino in Nova Scotia. We believe caution is necessary and will accept no proposal without extensive public consultation, said Premier John Savage in 1993. It was important then when he wanted to get people's support for election, they were good enough to talk to. He got elected and he is all through with Nova Scotia, he will never run again. He is so busy trying to get a job in the foreign service, he is going to cut us adrift. He wants to look after his future out of Nova Scotia but he hasn't spoken to a Nova Scotian since the election. It is time that he did because Nova Scotians have something to say to Premier Savage and it is they don't want a casino. There were 40,000 petitions received this morning and the Speaker threw half of them out.
The Minister of Health is against casinos. How did he become compromised? He is supposed to be the guy that stands up, the movie mogul from California who is going to revitalize health care in Nova Scotia. He is not scared of anything but by golly, he buckled under to the pressure from his colleagues that wanted a casino because we haven't heard a peep out of him.
The member for Cape Breton South said they won't work anyway but we don't hear a peep from him. The silent 11 (Interruption) Well the silent 10 now, Russell MacKinnon spoke up so they kicked him out, the silent 10. The Provincial Health Council, the doctors, the Medical Society, the list is endless of people who are opposed to this casino. Is there anyone that will speak from this government on behalf of them and tell us why we need a casino? We need the information. The back bench in the government need the information. How can they vote intelligently if nobody tells them?
When you look at the money that is spent on consultants, either the money that has been spent or even the money they tried to spend, if they hadn't got caught they would have done it. They would have spent $225,000 under the table if nobody was looking, $50,000 to an Ontario company with no tenders. Dear knows how many thousands and hundreds of thousands that was spent on consultants for everything under the sun. The consultants report on Education, they said, I didn't like that, we were doing it anyway, they didn't look at that. The consultant's report for the Department of Supply and Services, they liked that because it said fire a hundred people that were in low paying jobs so they did that.
The government couldn't find 50 cents to do a consult on casinos. Doesn't that puzzle you? it puzzles a lot of people. They have money for everything under the sun but no money to do a study on casinos. Even a free study with one of the committees of the House. They won't read them. The studies that have been done they won't read, they have total disregard for them. The United Church wanted to meet with the Premier and the Minister of Finance to talk about casinos and they couldn't get a meeting with them. They got an acknowledgement of their letter and that was it - thanks for writing, no time to meet.
You know, Mr. Speaker, this is serious stuff. We will be the big losers. What a heritage this Party is going to leave - the Party that brought a casino to Nova Scotia on a whim and a promise. (Interruptions) I hear some rattling and some heckling from a few of members, perhaps they would like to stand and speak, perhaps they would like to defend some of their actions of the last few months and this week. Some of their actions are indefensible, Mr. Speaker. (Interruption) Well their silence is expected, after the last 18 months. They soon won't be saying the silent 10, it will soon be the silent 40.
You know even the people who are working with the Minister of Economic Development, the KLM Airline agents who are helping develop tourism in Europe have indicated that casinos are not the way to go. They are working under a $1.5 million contract with the Economic Renewal Agency to promote tourism and, independent of all that, they just said, look, casinos are not the way to go, eco-tourism is. People want to come and see your great outdoors; if they wanted to go to a gambling casino, they could all stay home.
AN HON. MEMBER: So all the great outdoors is going to leave and go home because we got a casino . . .
MR. ARCHIBALD: Well, Mr. Speaker, anybody who thinks Nova Scotia is going to compete with Las Vegas and Monte Carlo has not been there. Nova Scotia is a vacation destination because of its scenic, uncrowded, clean, ideal for hiking, camping, sports, fishing, friendly, easy to drive around, fine beaches, sailing, historic sites, museums and so on. That was the KLM and the German tourist industry. And that market of tourism hasn't been tapped. All the energy that this government is going to put into a casino, if you channel that towards developing tourism in Europe - in Germany, in Holland, in France - that would bring in more money than a casino ever will. That would be fresh money, brand new money, and it would stay here and it could help develop our economy. Casino money is going to be leaving town. Who wants to get into a business where your money is leaving town? We want to have money that is coming in, not going out.
What is wrong with the Economic Renewal Agency, why don't they recommend that we put our energies into tourism development, not this foolish casino? But even the tourist associations say it won't work; KLM says it won't work, the German Department of Tourism says it is not going to work. You know, Nova Scotia hasn't scratched the surface of eco-tourism. Casinos are past their growth peak.
I was reading a study the other day from Mississippi where they got into the casino business about seven or eight years ago and they thought, oh by golly, let's do it, and the money rolled in. Guess what, they built some and they are closing them faster than they can open them, because the bloom is off the rose, Mr. Speaker. There is no more great interest in casinos. Ten years ago you could gamble in Las Vegas or you could go to the Caribbean and some of those islands and Atlantic City. Well, all of a sudden, they got gambling casinos in Minnesota, they have them in Connecticut, they have them in Ontario and places like Manitoba, they are all over the countryside, they are not unique any more.
Mr. Speaker, we are plowing plowed ground. We are not going into anything new, this is old hat. Anybody who thinks a casino is new and different has not been keeping abreast of what is happening; they are looking backwards. You don't get ahead by looking backwards and that is where they are looking.
Casinos were hot stuff 10 years ago. Who cares about a casino today in Nova Scotia? Nobody is going to come here to gamble. We are building them for local people just like the Quebec casino. Eighty-six per cent of the people live in Montreal. Holy smokes, Mr. Speaker, can you believe it? That is what this government is hanging its hat on. Can you believe it? I can't.
We cannot get any answers to our questions. All we get is some heckling from some of the front bench and, occasionally, the back bench. But, Mr. Speaker, it is not fair.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member has the floor.
MR. ARCHIBALD: We expect more from these people. The electors that sent them here expect them to speak, expect to hear their opinions and they want to know what they are thinking and how they are voting and why they are doing it?
What do I tell the people when they say, why is the government doing this? All I can tell them is, they will not tell me, guess for yourself. It is the best I can do for them because they will not tell me and they will not tell you. It is a fathom, Mr. Speaker, it is just foolishness.
Harry Bruce, he is independent, anybody that says Harry Bruce is not independent has never read his writing. Proposals to build gambling casinos in Nova Scotia are stupid. Did you hear that? Harry Bruce says they are stupid. If Harry Bruce said it, it is good enough for me because he is a well known writer. (Interruption) I am not going to start quoting that guy. He married my cousin. (Interruptions)
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is very serious and I want to appeal to each and every member of this House. We have an opportunity to sidestep an issue that puts a black eye on the name of Nova Scotia. This does not enhance our image here, in Atlantic Canada, in Canada or anywhere in the world. We are just another wannabe putting in a casino.
I won a trip one time and I went to Las Vegas. They have lights and they have everything under the sun and they have heat 10 months of the year. They have movie stars and stage shows and they have millions of people. Now this is not Las Vegas, I hate to tell the front bench over there. If they think this is Las Vegas, forget it. You are not going to have a million people a week landing here. (Interruption)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. ARCHIBALD: It is so silly, Mr. Speaker, that one little old casino is going to bring in $1 million a week in profit. The math does not work and if the math does not work, why are we doing it? Why? Have there been promises made? Are there commitments that we as legislators do not know about? Is there a hidden agenda? I want to know and the taxpayers of our province have a right to know, but if the minister will not tell us all we can do is assume.
Mr. Speaker, it is late on Friday and it is a very nice day so I am going to finish up right now. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.
AN HON. MEMBER: With just a few brief comments?
MR. JOHN HOLM: I hear the member for Hants East make a comment across the floor and say, just a few brief comments. I am wondering was that a request for the member for Hants East to stand and make a few comments?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid has the floor and he knows that he has a full hour.
MR. HOLM: No, indeed, I thought the member was requesting the floor to make a few brief comments. (Interruptions) I am not giving up my spot. So I want to have an opportunity to touch on a number of items this afternoon and Monday and I may even try on Monday to see if I have as many privileges as I had a few years ago. Before I take my seat on Monday I might try another reasoned amendment but that is for another day.
[3:45 p.m.]
What I want to talk about today is the legislation which I believe is extremely wrong, wrong-headed, short-sighted, hasn't been thought out; certainly none of the consultation, none of the homework has been done. In fact, I can sum it up as some others have done already in suggesting that the bill is downright stupid for the Province of Nova Scotia, certainly at this time.
We have heard all kinds of commitments, all kinds of predictions, all kinds of assurances from this government; not during the debate, of course, because they have been stone silent on that. But the minister when he introduced the bill gave us all kinds of assurances that Nova Scotians, we don't need to worry at all about the things that we are fearful of. So those 40,000 people who have signed petitions to express their concern and opposition, obviously, they don't need to worry. Nor do the representatives of the church community, they don't need to worry, or those in small business or tourism, of course, you don't need to worry because we have decreed that everything is fine. Everything is fine maybe in China but everything is not fine in the Province of Nova Scotia, especially as it refers to this bill.
I am a little bit surprised that the Minister of the Environment hasn't taken his place on the floor to enter this debate to object strenuously to this legislation, exempting casinos from the environmental assessment process. We have spent many hours in this House talking about the new environmental legislation. We have had regulations going out for broad consultation as did the bill. People came forward to the Law Amendments Committee to make recommendations as to how that bill can be strengthened and improved. To his credit, the Minister of the Environment, has accepted many of those. But here, what do we have? We have a piece of legislation that says, doesn't apply to casinos. We have a piece of legislation that will prohibit public hearings, in accordance with the Planning Act.
So, this casino, regardless of whatever plans, have been put in place by the municipalities that have been told - not asked - you will accept this casino where the residents, the staff, and the municipal elected representatives have worked for the good of their community to develop regional and local plans. All that work done by the paid people, the volunteers, chuck it aside because yes indeed, Father Liberal Government has decided that we know best, our interests are best so we are going to exempt this legislation from the laws in those cities, in those jurisdictions where we are going to impose it. What contempt for the people of those communities. What contempt for the democratic process. What contempt for public consultation. You can't describe it as anything other than contempt.
Mr. Speaker, if you were to do renovations on your home, or if I was to do renovations on my home, or any business in these communities were to do work on renovations or additions, we have to get building permits and, in order to get building permits, you have to tell what you are doing, sometimes have to show plans, but you have to meet your requirements and you have to get building permits from the municipality.
Oh, no, Mr. Speaker, casinos are important because casinos might possibly bring a couple of extra dollars jingling into the cash registers of the Liberal Government and it is not just, I might add, the Premier who seems to be the lightning-rod to whom all the attention is attracted when things go wrong. It is not just the Minister of Finance who is responsible for this bill. This bill I am sure, the standard practice would be that the government bills are caucused so, therefore, all 40 now - because somebody dared to question one of the bills so it is now gone from 41 down to 40 - all 40 members of the Liberal caucus have accountability because this bill should have gone through your Liberal caucus and therefore you're supporting it.
So, you can't run and hide if you try and say it is not our bill, we couldn't do anything about it, this was the front bench. You can't blame this all on the Premier or the Minister of Finance. The member for Lunenburg, or the member for Dartmouth, or Cole Harbour, or Sackville-Beaverbank, or Timberlea-Prospect, you can't duck responsibility. Whether you live in and represent residents in Annapolis County or wherever it is you happen to live, you are assuming responsibility for this bill and your residents, your constituents have the right to ask you where you stand.
No building permit is required for this casino. But, you know, if there is a Ma and a Pa business or a small entrepreneur who is trying to get started, they have to obey the rules. Do you know what? If we have an energetic, enterprising group or individual who wants to establish a new business and they get out and start it and they are going to be able maybe to employ themselves initially, or one or two or three other people, whatever the numbers are, they are going to have to pay taxes, not just personal income tax on the money they make but they are also going to have to pay property tax and business occupancy tax.
But does the government casino have to pay tax? No, Mr. Speaker. The government has decided to maximize profits, I guess, the casino doesn't have to pay tax, it is exempt from any tax laws but, with the permission of the Governor in Council, it may pay a grant in lieu of taxes. Not shall, but may, and nowhere is there a requirement that the residents of the municipality shall be involved in a consultative way to determine how much of a grant they may receive instead of the taxes. The residents who live in the metropolitan area, soon to be the super-city - so we are not just talking super-Halifax, when the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Premier and the rest of their colleagues get finished with this super amalgamation and we have one super-city whatever it is going to be called - the tax revenue comes from all that area.
So, that means the residents in all of Halifax County, Bedford, Dartmouth, Halifax, and of course when I talk about Halifax County it includes Sackville, Cole Harbour, Timberlea and all the other areas, they are going to be responsible, through their tax rate, to provide services like policing. So any increased police costs that come as a result of this casino are going to be paid on the property tax base. It is not the Province of Nova Scotia but the property taxpayers.
Who is going to pay for the fire service? Is the province going to be paying for the fire service, Mr. Speaker? Is the province going to pay for the snowplows and so on that clear the streets in the area, the water and services and all those other things which now businesses share with residents? But no, because here, and of course a lot of communities like to attract business because the business will then generate increased tax dollars that will make it easier for the residential property taxpayer. But no, you can't let that get by this government, they are too sharp, they are too quick, they are too interested in downloading to the property taxpayers, so they exempt it.
You know if a small restaurant in my community opens and they decide they would like to serve wine or beer with a meal, to help their business and provide something that their customers want, they have to apply for a license. If somebody wants to establish a drinking establishment they have to go through a licensing process and that can involve public hearings. In fact in my community of Sackville, at least one public hearing that I am aware of resulted in an existing operation having severe restrictions on it, because of the problems occurring in that particular establishment. I am sure the member for Sackville-Beaverbank will know the one I am referring to. As a result of it, that problem establishment, problem with the neighbourhood, closed down.
What does this bill do? The casino, Section 49 of the Liquor Control Act, which deals with all that is exempt, Mr. Speaker. I am just getting started but the Government House Leader is asking that I adjourn the debate. I am certainly happy to do that so that I can resume my place on this bill on Monday and maybe even get another reasoned amendment. So I move adjournment of the debate.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is for adjournment of the debate. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded. Nay.
The motion is carried.
The Honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, would you please revert to the order of business, Presenting Reports of Committees.
PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Justice.
HON. WILLIAM GILLIS: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee on Law Amendments, I am directed to report that the committee has met and considered the following bill:
Bill No. 115 - Environment Act.
and the committee recommends this bill to the favourable consideration of the House, with certain amendments.
MR. SPEAKER: Ordered that this bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on Bills.
The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by memo earlier today, we will be sitting on Monday from 2:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. The order of business following the daily routine will be Public Bills for Second Reading.
Mr. Speaker, I move that we adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on Monday.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion for adjournment has been made. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
We stand adjourned. The House will now rise to sit again at 2:00 p.m. on Monday hence.
[The House rose at 3:59 p.m.]
By: Mr. George Archibald (Kings North)
I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return showing, with respect to the Department of Supply and Services:
(1) The list of all contracts signed but not tendered for the Department of Supply and Services since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the contracts were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(3) Details of the nature of the work for which the contract was awarded.
By: Mr. George Archibald (Kings North)
I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return showing, with respect to the Department of Supply and Services:
(1) The list of all tenders let by the Department of Supply and 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: Mr. George Archibald (Kings North)
I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return showing, with respect to the Department of Agriculture:
(1) The list of all tenders let by the Department of Agriculture 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. George Archibald (Kings North)
I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return showing, with respect to the Economic Renewal Agency:
(1) The list of all tenders let by the Economic Renewal Agency 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. George Archibald (Kings North)
I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return showing, with respect to the Department of Human Resources:
(1) The list of all contracts signed but not tendered for the Department of Human Resources since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the contracts were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(3) Details of the nature of the work for which the contract was awarded.
By: Mr. George Archibald (Kings North)
I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return showing, with respect to the Department of Agriculture:
(1) The list of all contracts signed but not tendered for the Department of Agriculture since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the contracts were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(3) Details of the nature of the work for which the contract was awarded.
By: Mr. George Archibald (Kings North)
I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return showing, with respect to the Economic Renewal Agency:
(1) The list of all contracts signed but not tendered for the Economic Renewal Agency since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the contracts were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(3) Details of the nature of the work for which the contract 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 contracts signed but not tendered for the Department of Municipal Affairs since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the contracts were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(3) Details of the nature of the work for which the contract 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 Community Services:
(1) The list of all contracts signed but not tendered for the Department of Community Services since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the contracts were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(3) Details of the nature of the work for which the contract was awarded.
By: Mr. Terence Donahoe (Halifax Citadel)
I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return showing, with respect to the Department of Education:
(1) The list of all contracts signed but not tendered for the Department of Education since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the contracts were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(3) Details of the nature of the work for which the contract was awarded.
By: Mr. Terence Donahoe (Halifax Citadel)
I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return showing, with respect to the Department of Justice:
(1) The list of all contracts signed but not tendered for the Department of Justice since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the contracts were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(3) Details of the nature of the work for which the contract 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 contracts signed but not tendered for the Department of the Environment since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the contracts were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(3) Details of the nature of the work for which the contract 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 contracts signed but not tendered for the Department of Fisheries since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the contracts were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(3) Details of the nature of the work for which the contract was awarded.
By: Mr. Donald McInnes (Pictou West)
I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return showing, with respect to the Department of Housing and Consumer Affairs:
(1) The list of all contracts signed but not tendered for the Department of Housing and Consumer Affairs since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the contracts were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(3) Details of the nature of the work for which the contract was awarded.
By: Mr. Brooke Taylor (Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley)
I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return showing, with respect to the Department of Transportation and Communications:
(1) The list of all contracts signed but not tendered for the Department of Transportation and Communications since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the contracts were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(3) Details of the nature of the work for which the contract was awarded.
By: Mr. Brooke Taylor (Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley)
I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return showing, with respect to the Department of Natural Resources:
(1) The list of all contracts signed but not tendered for the Department of Natural Resources since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the contracts were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(3) Details of the nature of the work for which the contract was awarded.
By: Mr. Ronald Russell (Hants West)
I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return showing, with respect to the Department of Labour:
(1) The list of all contracts signed but not tendered for the Department of Labour since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the contracts were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(3) Details of the nature of the work for which the contract was awarded.
By: Mr. Ronald Russell (Hants West)
I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return showing, with respect to the Department of Finance:
(1) The list of all contracts signed but not tendered for the Department of Finance since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the contracts were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(3) Details of the nature of the work for which the contract was awarded.
By: Mr. George Moody (Kings West)
I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return showing, with respect to the Department of Health:
(1) The list of all contracts signed but not tendered for the Department of Health since June 11, 1993;
(2) The list of those individual(s) or companies to whom the contracts were awarded as well as the value of each contract; and
(3) Details of the nature of the work for which the contract was awarded.
