MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We will commence this afternoon's proceedings at this time. The first item on the agenda is the daily routine.
PRESENTING AND READING PETITIONS
PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS
STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS
GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
NOTICES OF MOTION
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the gruesome murder of Kimber Leane Lucas and her unborn child was a terrifying reminder of the peril faced by those forced into a life on the streets; and
Whereas the recent trial of the accused in the murder of 17 year old Kelly Wilneff brought forward the grisly details of senseless actions which saw her short life end; and
Whereas these and many other incidents in just the past year are visible reminders of the desperate and dangerous life on the streets endured by so many of our province's youth;
Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Justice, especially as the metro region experiences the uncertainty of the plan for a regional merger, ensure that the brutal actions of late provide an impetus for continued and enhanced support for the work of the prostitution task force.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver of notice.
Is it agreed that there be waiver of notice?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
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 murder of Kimber Leane Lucas was the latest, brutal reminder of the violence against women which plagues our society; and
Whereas Kimber Leane Lucas was robbed of the opportunity to overcome the problems she faced and make a good life for herself and her child; and
Whereas we cannot rest while the women are not safe, either on the streets or in their homes, from the possibility of violence, as the commemoration of December 6th reminds us;
Therefore be it resolved that this House observe a minute of silence in memory of Kimber Leane Lucas, in condolence for her loved ones, and in affirmation of the importance of the struggle to end violence against women during the upcoming week of remembrance and reflection and throughout the year.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might 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.
We will observe one minute of silence.
[One minute of silence was observed.]
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas in a recent national quarterly opinion survey conducted by Decima Research, the current Liberal Administration in Nova Scotia received the lowest performance assessment of any government in Canada, lower than the performance assessment of the previous administration received in the fall of 1990; and
Whereas the public initially attributed government mistakes to inexperience, but this has been replaced with a growing sense of the Liberal Administration's incompetence; and
Whereas the Premier and his inner Cabinet have refused participation from many Nova Scotians including government employees, vulnerable citizens, health providers, educators, students, the private sector and politicians of all political Parties and levels of government;
Therefore be it resolved that the Premier recognize that his government will continue to sustain continued low performance assessments until it commits to work with, rather than against, Nova Scotians.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Minister of the Environment announced strict guidelines for the Upper Sackville landfill as the condition for any expansion, extension and continued operation; and
Whereas those guidelines would divert construction waste, launch composting and substantially increase the reduction, reuse and recycling of other waste resources; and
Whereas up-to-date information now indicates that since the minister's guidelines were announced, the diversion, reduction, reuse and recycling of metro's waste resources has declined;
Therefore be it resolved that this House urges the Minister of the Environment to put his words into action and stop the massive growth in the dumping of waste at the Sackville landfill, which only increases the severe problems endured by that long-suffering community.
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 Nova Scotians were told that Donald Cameron's amalgamation and merger of government departments would help solve the deficit problem; and
Whereas Tory amalgamation was used to justify long-term, high cost, untendered contract for additional Natural Resources Department offices at Founders Square, adding $1 million to the cost of government despite a decrease in square feet rented; and
Whereas the Liberals have now also used reorganization to justify yet another contract for still more Natural Resources offices at Founders Square;
Therefore be it resolved that this government should honour its claim to be customer oriented by locating the mapping and other customer service operations of the Natural Resources Department in the lowest cost, widely accessible location identified by public tender.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
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 Premier is scheduled to be in Boston for this year's annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony; and
Whereas the Premier may encounter his good friend and predecessor, the Canadian Consul General in Boston; and
Whereas the Consul General can speak from experience about how unpopular Premiers, who are imposing regressive policies, making bizarre announcements and disheartening their own supporters, can explore job opportunities while preparing to abandon ship;
Therefore be it resolved that this House wishes the Premier every success during his visit to Boston on December 3rd.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
Are there any other notices of motion? If not, that brings us to the end of the daily routine.
The Clerk has conducted a draw for the Adjournment debate at 6:00 p.m. The winner this afternoon is the honourable member for Halifax Fairview. She has submitted a resolution stating:
Therefore be it resolved that this government finally address the continuing child care crisis.
We will discuss that matter at 6:00 p.m.
The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask you to revert to the order of business, Statements by Ministers.
STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Health.
HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place to announce that the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination has presented me with a copy of its 1,000 page Canadian Guide to Clinical Preventive Health Care. This book, published this month, is the first comprehensive Canadian reference guide on preventive health procedures to be released in 15 years.
It is the culmination of 18 years of work, Mr. Speaker, by the Canadian task force, and it is expected to serve as an essential guide for doctors and other caregivers in providing comprehensive preventive care.
The work of this task force, Mr. Speaker, has received international attention since its first report was published in 1979. The mandate was to determine how the periodic health examination could improve the health of Canadians and to recommend a lifetime program of preventive health care activities.
This book also highlights many conditions for which the evidence for preventability by current means is inconclusive and, therefore, provides for us an agenda for future research.
Halifax physician, Dr. Richard Goldbloom, is Chairman of the task force and edited the English edition. The guide was published simultaneously in English and French by Canada Communications Group in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, there will be a copy presented to the library for perusal by all members and the public. I would commend this to each of us and to the public since it has great ramifications for the health care system, both here and across the country. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health was kind enough to send this over prior to the sitting of the House, which is much appreciated. I want to congratulate the task force on this work. As the minister has indicated, it is an essential guide, not only for doctors, but for other caregivers. It is nice to know that physicians like Dr. Richard Goldbloom have been involved, Nova Scotians have been leaders.
I do hope that this minister will use this guide more effectively than he has the blueprint. Because many things we get, Mr. Speaker, are very positive. Here is something that is positive, if only the government and this minister will use it in the manner in which it is intended to be used.
I want to congratulate members of that task force and Dr. Goldbloom for a job well done.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to congratulate the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination on this latest publication. I think all members of this House will know, regardless of political stripe, how well Dr. Richard Goldbloom has served the health field and all Nova Scotians over the years. This is one of his many contributions to us as citizens and consumers of health services.
I, too, look forward to having an opportunity to review that new Canadian Guide to Clinical Prevention and hope that there will, indeed, be some blueprints contained within it that can help guide us all as we move forward in health reform to a truly strong focus on prevention as one of the most important reforms that we could pursue.
[12:15 p.m.]
I think it was Dr. Michael Rachlis the health care reformer, Mr. Speaker, that said if you want to really figure out whether health reform is taking place and what the nature of the reform is, then you want to follow the dollars; you want to figure out where the dollars go in the new system and where they are coming from. So far, many who are concerned about health reform are very concerned that we are dealing mostly with a cost-cutting exercise rather than meaningful reform.
I think until we see real allocation of dollars to prevention, then it is going to mostly be a catch-phrase and buzz-word to justify cuts in institutional care rather than any meaningful reorientation to truly preventive focus. So, let's hope that this newest 1,000 page publication will provide some further guideposts in a process of true health care reform. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: We will advance to Orders of the Day. The time now being 12:17 p.m., that means one hour from now will take us to 1:17 p.m. That will be the duration of Oral Question Period today.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
ORAL QUESTIONS PUT BY MEMBERS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Human Resources. I want to ask the minister a couple of questions about the very confusing state of affairs relative to the recently announced appointment of Mrs. Janet Byrne-Morrison to the position of Co-ordinator, Human Resource Development, Department of Human Resources.
I wonder if the Minister of Human Resources would confirm for the House that, in fact, the notice calling upon people to apply for this position went out indicating that it was a secondment opportunity that was open to current Nova Scotia Government employees only -and I stress Nova Scotia Government employees only - and that four applicants from within the provincial government service applied and interviews were held, and the committee doing the interviews did make a recommendation of one of those four who were interviewed to the Minister of Human Resources. Could she confirm that for me, please?
HON. ELEANOR NORRIE: Yes, one name that came forward was a recommended name from another department of government. That is right.
MR. DONAHOE: The minister indicates that the name recommended came from another department of government. Could I ask her to clarify for the House, please, whether she is saying that the recommended person was, at the time of the recommendation, an employee of some department other than the Department of Human Resources and, if that is the case, could she tell us what department that person was working in at the time of the recommendation?
MRS. NORRIE: If my memory serves me, the employee who applied was a member of the Department of Municipal Affairs.
MR. DONAHOE: The recommendation then was sent forward to the Deputy Minister of Human Resources, I presume, as is required by the regulations. I wonder if the Minister of Human Resources could help us understand what it was that was deficient in the recommendation or in the qualifications of the person recommended. Because it is my understanding that the person recommended for the secondment position from within the Nova Scotia Government ranks was recommended having received a rather substantially higher recommendation level than was the case with the other three, who were also interviewed, so could the minister help us understand the deficiencies that resulted in her deputy minister concluding that the person recommended was not appropriate for the position?
MRS. NORRIE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the member opposite that there were no deficiencies determined on the employee who had applied. The employees from other departments, when they apply for positions to be seconded, the home department must, if you look at the fair hiring policy, must be in agreement that their employee move across departments and that was why the decision was made that the person would not be hired within my department.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance responsible for the Casino Project Team. My question to the minister is quite simply this, what steps has the minister taken to ensure that the interests of all Nova Scotians and all casino proponents are protected in situations where one of the proponents and a member of the casino project selection team have common business interests?
HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I can't say what reference the honourable member makes but I would certainly be interested in hearing it.
MR. HOLM: Mr. Speaker, of course the minister will know that one Gordon Hughes is a member of the casino project selection team and that Mr. Hughes and his family are the primary owners, if not the total owners, of the Evangeline consortium of companies. He should also know that one, James Cowan, represents the Austrian group and that Mr. Cowan is a director on two of the Evangeline Trust companies, the board of directors. I say to the minister quite simply, how does the minister expect Nova Scotians and other applicants to have any confidence in the selection process when the door is open for proponents to hire business associates of those who are on the selection process team?
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty in that I cannot confirm the information that the honourable member brings to the House. But even if it were indeed factual, there is no indication that Mr. Hughes, who is a member of the casino selection committee, is involved in any way with a casino proponent.
MR. HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to provide the minister with a list of directors of the various Evangeline companies. I said that Mr. Hughes is on the project selection team and that Mr. James Cowan represents one of the groups in the final selection process applying to have the casino license. My question to the minister is quite simply this, how can the minister ensure that it is not only seemed to be but there is absolute arm's length impartiality in this process, how can anybody expect to have any confidence when the members are business associates?
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, very simple, we asked each member of the Casino Project Committee, before making the appointment, whether or not they were at that time involved with any casino proponent and the answer was no. The second question was are you willing to forego any involvement with a casino proposal and the answer was yes. On that basis, they were appointed and they remain at arm's length from the government in this independent process.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Back in June 1994, the minister's department advertised for a position called an advisor on physician affairs and I think it was advertised at $115,000. Would the minister tell the House whether that position has been filled?
HON. RONALD STEWART: Yes, the contract is under review and it should be completed within the next several weeks in terms of that particular position.
MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I am assuming by the minister's answer that when he says a contract is being completed, would the minister indicate, was this job advertised as a contract position and were there interviews held? I guess that is what I was trying to find out.
DR. STEWART: Yes, it was advertised as such and there were expressions of interest from several physicians because it had to be a physician. The sine qua non, the absolute requirement was that it be a full-time advisory position and the problem that we faced, of course, that any physician faced, was to divest him or herself of his or her practice and to make arrangements and that has been very difficult and hence the delay.
MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the clarification. I wonder if the minister could, in a final supplementary, indicate to me if this is full time, if that has been decided, and the role that the individual would play in the department?
DR. STEWART: Yes, it is intended as full time, however, again, with the problem of divesting practices and so on, it may begin as a part-time advisor. However, it is intended on being full time and given that we can have a candidate who divests him or herself of his or her practice, then we look forward to full time. Now the mandate would be, because of the major changes in structure and the reform specific to health care reform in this province, we felt it required that the physician element of that reform be handled and that we have some advice and someone to concentrate on this within the department at the ministerial level.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West on a new question.
MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Health if he could tell me approximately how many candidates would have applied for this position, if he could recall? Were there several?
HON. RONALD STEWART: As I recall, and I am trying my best to be accurate here, we had expressions of interest from three or four people but when they learned that it was likely full time and that we are attempting to get full time, there were withdrawals of two or three from that list.
MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I assume from the Minister of Health, then, there were not many people who really ended up being interviewed for the position because nobody was interested because it was more full time. Will the minister indicate to us today if one of those candidates is Dr. Dan Reid of Pictou?
DR. STEWART: Yes, that is correct, Mr. Speaker.
MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is that I understand Dr. Reid has told his patients that he is closing his practice. Is it an actual fact that Dr. Dan Reid is the successful candidate for this position?
DR. STEWART: Again, because of the difficulty of arranging practices, I cannot confirm that here today except to say that the discussions are fruitful and we expect that given that that can be arranged and so on, then we would proceed along those lines, yes.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings North.
MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Health, I wish to ask him a question. Last week I asked the minister for his assistance in addressing the problems at the Valley Regional Hospital that are being caused by the additional case loads from patients who previously went to the Eastern Kings Memorial Hospital, compounded with the serious budget cuts that the Valley Regional Hospital is experiencing. This weekend, for instance, the intensive care unit, where there are six beds, had to cope with eight patients. Emergency, with 15 beds, had to make arrangements to handle 22 emergency patients instead of 15. The staff is overworked, nurses and technical assistants are being called in to work on their days off and being paid overtime. The problem is going to worsen in March when the Western Kings Memorial Hospital closes. My question to the minister is, what does he intend to do about this problem and where is this plan?
HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, as I have reminded the honourable gentleman opposite, we have been in discussion for some time with Valley Medical Centre in terms of its needs. We have increased budgetary allotments in certain areas to provide for any kind of increase in utilization and I have not had representations from that facility. Reiterating the comments particularly of the last day of the honourable gentleman opposite, I might say that the usage of hospital beds and hospital resources fluctuates on a daily basis and I would like to know if the honourable gentleman opposite has some statistics for perhaps mid-week of last week?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, last week when I asked the minister a very similar question, the minister, if I may quote him, totally misled me and the House, perhaps by error, when he said, ". . . this humble Minister of Health is at a loss to explain, first of all, why exactly one and one-half hours ago the administrator of the Valley Regional Hospital did not mention these statistics when I met and spoke with him.".
[12:30 p.m.]
Well, Mr. Speaker, I and I am sure most members of the House, assumed that they had a meeting. Well they did, in a way, they went through the doorway and the minister said good morning and the administrator said good morning. There was no meeting that took place.
The minister has had an opportunity to explain himself more clearly and indicate an interest in Valley Regional Hospital, instead of trying to mislead me and the rest of the House, indicating that he had a meeting with him, in which case he didn't have a meeting. That is not at all fair, to be misleading people that way.
MR. SPEAKER: I cannot recognize the honourable member unless he asks a question now.
MR. ARCHIBALD: The question is, when will the Minister of Health do his obligation to the people and the Valley Regional Hospital and come up with a plan and a system in the dire straits they are in at the present time?
DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous in the extreme to suggest that that medical centre, which is a fine medical centre and which has resources, is in dire straits. That particular institution has a fully competent staff on-site, which will distribute and utilize its resources wisely and has for some years.
This Minister of Health and this Ministry of Health will not be dictating on a daily basis to any facility as to how to operate. We do not operate hospitals. If that particular facility has particular needs, they will be represented through their board and through their executive director and we would welcome those representations.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Valley Regional Hospital has direct needs at the present time; they need additional funds so they can hire the staff to carry on the responsibilities of a hospital. I am not criticizing that hospital because the people are working so diligently, under great stress. I visited that hospital myself . . .
MR. SPEAKER: This is not a final supplementary question.
MR. ARCHIBALD: . . . and, Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister, will the minister visit the hospital, so he will start to understand the difficulty of working under adverse conditions, when you have more patients than you have staff to look after them?
DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, the honourable gentleman opposite is suggesting that I usurp the power of the board and the CEO of that hospital and this minister is not going to do that.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I got caught up in that exchange and didn't get to my feet as quickly as I should have. I would like to direct my question through you to the Minister of Finance. In the Budget Address with respect to the wage reduction, the statement the minister delivered said as follows: "This wage reduction will not affect anyone who earns $25,000 or less. Nor will anyone's salary be taken below that threshold as a result of this measure.".
Mr. Speaker, we now know that, in fact, as a result of communications from the Administrator and Chief Executive Officer of the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Board, that, in fact, part-time workers who are working regular hours and also part-time workers who are working irregular hours, some of them working a couple of hours a week, maybe a few hours a month, are having their wages or salaries rolled back by 3 per cent.
I guess my very simple question to the minister is, why is he allowing this to happen, in complete contravention of the promises he made to this House and to Nova Scotians?
HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to help the member with his understanding of the program. The 3 per cent reduction came in the wage rate in a classification. So, in fact, somebody who is employed on a casual basis, who came in for a day, worked only one day a year, to use the extreme situation, and earned at that wage rate, would have their amount reduced.
Now they would not have made $25,000 because they would have worked only one day but they came in on a casual basis and because, in fact, the legislation reduces the rate by 3 per cent, they are impacted. Somebody who is regularly scheduled, as an employee of the province and in their regular schedule, makes less than the amount which was exempted under the legislation, $25,000, is not impacted.
MR. CHISHOLM: Obviously, the Minister of Finance when he made the commitment to this House and to Nova Scotians, that anybody earning less than $25,000 a year would not be impacted by this wage reduction, was misleading us. He was trying to suggest to us that something that was contained in the Act in fact was not the case. I would like to ask this minister to explain to me and all Nova Scotians who took him at his word, why he can get up in this House and say that now in fact, the legislation does not provide for that.
MR. BOUDREAU: The legislation specifically provides for an exemption at that level for regular employees. If you bring somebody in on a casual basis they are paid under the rate. Casual by its very nature means they could be employed one day, they could be employed 10 days, they could be employed for whatever amount. In the extreme case in one day when a casual comes in he is governed by that reduced rate. In fact, regular employees, scheduled employees are given the exemption of $25,000.
MR. CHISHOLM: I just want to repeat what I read first off - this wage reduction from the Budget Address will not affect anyone who earns less than $25,000 a year. This minister and his government are penalizing poor people in the Province of Nova Scotia and I would like to ask him to explain himself. Why does he think that it is appropriate for his legislation to penalize the poorest of the poor, those people that are only able to work a few hours a week?
MR. BOUDREAU: People who are regularly scheduled employees whether they work full time or not are covered by that exemption. What is not covered is some casual employee who may be called in for one day. The reason, if I may be allowed to give it is because they might indeed be working next to an individual who works at that job, the very same job, doing the very same duties who works on a full-time basis and does have the rate reduced and this person would not simply because they came in one day and were not called again.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and it relates to the questions which I just put a moment ago to the Minister of Human Resources relative to the position of Co-ordinator Human Resource Development in the Department of Human Resources. The Minister of Human Resources has told us here in the House today that the successful candidate or recommended candidate was one of four people interviewed and that the snag and the reason this didn't all happen is because that recommended candidate was an employee of the Department of Municipal Affairs. The Department of Municipal Affairs refused to give its approval or authorization to the secondment arrangement. I wonder if the Minister of Municipal Affairs could enlighten us a little bit today by explaining as best she can the difficulty that she experienced in the Department of Municipal Affairs which resulted in her or her senior officials concluding that the secondment of her employee would not be an appropriate course of action?
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to get up and answer this question. I feel very fortunate as the Minister of Municipal Affairs that in our department we have many qualified, very well-known, excellent people. The particular individual that has been referred to was considered, was requested for this particular appointment but this person is very important within our Department of Municipal Affairs for a restructuring process that we are looking to go through. The candidate is well aware of that and it has been discussed with that individual.
MR. DONAHOE: I wonder if the Minister of Human Resources could indicate to me when it was that she was alerted to the fact that the Department of Municipal Affairs was not agreeing or concurring with the secondment arrangement?
HON. ELEANOR NORRIE: Mr. Speaker, I don't think I can recall the time precisely when that was happening. I know that we spent most of the summer trying to fill that position. So sometime over the summer as we were going through the secondment, just to give a little background of the position it was a secondment from the Department of Human Resources to help with a pilot project within another department that left a vacancy in my department for a short time. We were in the process over the summer to fill that position on a term position. At that time, it would have been about two years, but it could have been cut short at any time.
I cannot tell the member opposite exactly when I was made aware of the fact that we could not second from another department.
MR. DONAHOE: I wonder if the Minister of Human Resources could tell me the nature of the communication, was it written or otherwise, which she or her deputy minister received from Municipal Affairs advising that Municipal Affairs was not agreeing or concurring to the secondment arrangement?
MRS. NORRIE: If I recall, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there was any written communication on that, that I was aware of.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition on a new question.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: If I may, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, could the Minister of Municipal Affairs indicate to this House whether or not her department communicated in writing to the Minister of Human Resources or any official in the Department of Human Resources advising that it, the Department of Municipal Affairs, was not providing its approval or concurrence to the secondment arrangement we have been discussing?
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take that under advisement. I will have to check in my department.
MR. DONAHOE: Well, I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs if she would give me the undertaking that she would table such communication if, in fact, one exists and, obviously, if none does, she would return to the House, hopefully tomorrow, and indicate to us that there was no such written communication, but that if there is a written communication, she would be kind enough to commit today to table that?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I will check within the department.
MR. DONAHOE: If I may, Mr. Speaker, back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Nova Scotia Government Management Manuals have a rather detailed section on secondment and they define secondment as, ". . . the temporary assignment of an employee from his/her regular position and responsibilities to another position for a predetermined time period to perform a specified assignment.".
It goes on to describe the purpose of secondment. "To provide a mechanism for employee development which enables departments:
- to provide and/or obtain expertise in a timely fashion
- to utilize high potential staff more efficiently . . . ", and perhaps the most important one,
- to provide opportunities for employees to acquire broader managerial, technical and/or professional experience.".
I wonder if the Minister of Municipal Affairs can tell me whether or not she is aware of whether discussions or meetings were held with the person who was the recommended candidate here, the employee of Municipal Affairs, if there were discussions held with that person, who obviously wanted to have the secondment, otherwise this person would presumably not have applied, were discussions held with that person to explain why it was that the Department of Municipal Affairs was not agreeing to the secondment and if any memo was provided to that employee to outline that decision would the minister be kind enough to commit today to table that if such a memo exists?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that in the very first question that the honourable member put to me. As I said, we, in the Department of Municipal Affairs have a number of very qualified individuals and we have people in the department who are putting together a restructuring program in a couple of areas of the department which we will be coming forward with.
This particular candidate did apply for the job, as many of our people do, to try to get an opportunity to get additional exposure. There has been discussion with the candidate to identify what we foresee as the role of that individual within our department.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. On November 2nd, in answer to a question that I asked, the minister said that he had seconded a communications consultant, after being told he needed one quite urgently, if he remembers. He was happy to report that his department had made great progress in designing reports that she had made. The minister remembers at that time, on November 2nd, that he would be happy to table those documents. It is now November 29th. I wonder if the minister would now be prepared to table those documents he promised me on November 2nd?
HON. RONALD STEWART: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I will find out where the process is to table the recommendations and I will do so if I said so on November 2nd.
[12:45 p.m.]
MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister has said on a number of occasions that he would table documents and I understand that he has made a commitment, yet I haven't had any documents tabled. I am wondering if the minister could tell me if some of these materials or this material could be tabled within the next week? Is that a reasonable amount of time or is that unreasonable?
DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I think that is reasonable, assuming that that is in the process. I have given an undertaking with an overworked staff to try and keep up with the demands of the honourable gentlemen opposite and I will continue to do so. I, again, will attempt to do that.
MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, last week the Provincial Health Council indicated that this government was lacking a comprehensive implementation strategy plan for health reform and the council, on behalf of the people of this province are asking for more information. I would ask the minister if he plans to detail any more information such as what has been asked for by the Provincial Health Council, on the health reform package? In other words, this government's response to the Blueprint Report?
DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, certainly this dynamic process which changes and which has a major effect on the delivery of health care programs, will be as we go along, communicated and communicated to the public in a way that I hope will please the honourable gentleman opposite.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to direct my question to the Minister of Health. It concerns a matter about which I raised a question last week that continues to be of concern to a good many people, specifically, the lack of a team leader for the trauma team at the Victoria General Hospital emergency unit. The minister, last week, assured Nova Scotians that patients will receive the exact same service as they do now, in spite of the fact that there is not now a team leader available, on the basis of the accreditation standards that exist in accordance with the Trauma Association of Canada, a provision for there to be a team leader available, 24 hours a day, on 20 minutes notice.
I would ask the minister, has he decided that those accreditation standards and specifications approved by the Trauma Association, need not apply in the instance of the Victoria General Hospital's emergency system?
HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, again I will go into details of the organization of the trauma teams specific to the Victoria General Hospital. Suffice to say that the trauma team leader is a senior emergency medicine physician on duty at the time that the trauma case comes in. There is no change in this, the change has occurred in that the centrally organized trauma team is under discussion, in terms of funding. The trauma team leader, the nurses, the radiologists and all of those personnel who were in place before, are in place now.
MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, we are not just here nit-picking over words or titles. The fact of the matter is that there is no longer a specified team leader, that the doctor on emergency duty may or may not have any training or any experience in trauma medicine or trauma management. If it is not true, then why is that clearly what senior hospital personnel are indicating in their public statements and in response to research questions? Can the minister assure this House that the team leader who is available to serve the trauma team is someone who, without question, has specialized training in trauma medicine and trauma management? Secondly, . . .
MR. SPEAKER: No, one is enough.
MS. MCDONOUGH: All right, I will ask the first question and follow up with the second.
DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely reprehensible in the extreme that the honourable member opposite casts aspersion on the training of the emergency physicians and surgeons assigned to the Victoria General Emergency Department. Let me ask her directly through you, sir, is she is aware that every physician, every person who cares for patients in the Victoria General Hospital is Royal College certified or certified in emergency medicine, and if she finds evidence to the contrary, please either tell me and table it or withdraw what she has said. There is a fully trained team and team leader available as we speak, 24 hours a day, seven days a week in the Victoria General Hospital, and that is the truth, sir. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before we recognize the honourable member for the final supplementary, I would caution that ministerial answers to questions ought to be in the form of a declaratory sentence and not an interrogatory.
MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I suppose this is a classic case of a dispute over the facts because both the Vice President of Health Services at the VGH and the Director of Emergency Services have both clearly indicated that there is no assurance that the emergency doctor in charge has specialized trauma training or trauma management skills.
Mr. Speaker, my final question, to try to get a further indication of whether the Minister of Health knows what is going on with respect to this problem, is to ask the minister, is he falsely assuring people that there is a dedicated trauma team leader in place or will he tell the public the truth, that this is a role that is . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Please, these are unparliamentary turns of phrases that I hear.
MS. MCDONOUGH: . . . now being rolled into the role of the emergency doctor on duty?
MR. SPEAKER: The words "falsely" and "will the minister tell the truth" are not my concept of what parliamentary language ought to be like at all.
DR. STEWART: I will say this, that I have been in communication and have met, since her last question, in the last week with the medical director of the institution, with those physicians who are in charge. They have reassured me that nothing has changed, in terms of who cares for the patient when that patient comes in. The difference is in the organization in the Department of Surgery, orthopaedics and other specialties, in terms of whether or not they take trauma calls. That is the difference we are speaking of. We are talking about an organizational change, not a change in clinical management.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings North.
MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as Minister responsible for the Liquor Control Act, through you, of course, Mr. Speaker, to the minister.
Last week we asked about the identification cameras that were in the Liquor Commission stores. You were going to find out what happened to them. I was wondering if you could give us a report today as to where they went?
HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I stand humbled before the House. I forgot.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. As the minister is well aware, at least I am sure he is well aware, in 1985 there was a moratorium placed on uranium mining. That was done at the request of an organization known as CAPE, Citizens Action for the Protection of the Environment I think is what the acronym stands for.
But anyway, in 1985 Judge McCleave did a study of uranium mining, particularly in the area in Hants County known as Vaughans and decided at that time that there should be a five year moratorium placed on uranium mining. In 1990 that moratorium was extended for a further five years and I think on January 15, 1995 the moratorium expires.
Mr. Speaker, there is considerable concern in Hants County with regard to that moratorium expiring and the interests of certain mining groups starting up a mine. Would the minister give his assurance to the people of Nova Scotia, and particularly the people of Hants County, that the moratorium will be extended?
HON. DONALD DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the moratorium, as the member opposite realizes all too well, the moratorium is in place until 1995, until such time as the government makes a decision. In fact, if the government does not make a decision in regard to the extension or withdrawal of the moratorium; in fact, the moratorium will stay in place by mere virtue of the fact that the decision has not been made. So, at this point in time, the decision has not been made on behalf of my department or on behalf of the Government of the Province of Nova Scotia in regard to whether or not the moratorium will not be extended. I want to reassure the constituents of the member opposite that until such a time, in effect that we have not made a decision, the moratorium is still in place.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that answer because I wasn't aware of that, to be quite honest. It was my understanding that the moratorium period was simply extended for five years from January 1985, and at the end of that five years the moratorium disappeared; at least that is the way most moratoriums work. So, with that assurance from the minister then, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that, indeed, the status quo will remain.
However, I have a further question for the minister on the same subject. Does he now have a copy of Phase I, Phase II, Phase III of the inter-departmental report or does he just have Phase I and Phase II or what is the status of the reports?
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, there is some confusion in regard to the issue of Phase I and Phase II. If the member opposite would recall back in 1990, Judge McCleave, in fact the Conservative Government of Nova Scotia, had asked that it make sure that an interim committee be set up, representatives of the Department of the Environment, representatives of the Department of Health and the Department of Natural Resources, to review the whole issue of the moratorium on a scientific basis. That report is now before me and I am reviewing that report.
In regard to the issue of Phase I and Phase II, Judge McCleave, back in 1985, took a look at Phase I and Phase II, and Phase III was to do a realization of the impact of uranium mining. Realizing that the process would need to have a legitimate mine in operation, in fact the Millbrook uranium deposit was, I understand, not going to go forward, then Judge McCleave had ruled that at that time, back I believe in January 1985, that Phase II and Phase III would no longer be needed. Subsequent to that, we have done the internal review as was outlined previously by the inter-departmental committee to review uranium mining.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou West.
MR. DONALD MCINNES: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency. Recently, the Prime Minister appointed the Canadian Tourism Commission that is expected to makes its $50 million debut early in the new year. I understand that provincial governments and private industry will be making contributions of money to this campaign. Can the minister tell the House today and the people of Nova Scotia, how much Nova Scotia will be contributing to this Canadian Tourism Commission?
HON. ROSS BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this question. It gives us an opportunity to explain what this $50 million is for. The Prime Minister, in his wisdom, appointed Judd Buchanan as a special advisor to the Prime Minister on tourism-related issues and the promotion of tourism in Canada. Mr. Buchanan's first recommendation to the Prime Minister was, in fact, that they needed to fund a body for the good of all Canadian tourism to work in conjunction with the private sector and with the provinces to promote tourism world-wide.
We have been working in conjunction with the new commission, which has been up and running for about a year now, the Canadian Tourism Authority - but it has been without money for some time - identifying areas where we need to spend money, potential new markets and so on. We will be participating in this fund on behalf of and with the other Atlantic Provinces under a cooperative arrangement that we have negotiated. The amount of money at this time, I don't have the details but, within the budgets of the Atlantic Provinces, we will be cost-sharing on programs to promote Atlantic Canada as part of Canada as a tourism destination around the world.
MR. MCINNES: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that answer. I believe it is an important undertaking and I am pleased that we are going to be participating. I also understand that there will be appointments from, perhaps, the Atlantic Provinces to this commission, and will Nova Scotia have representation on that commission?
[1:00 p.m.]
MR. BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure at this time whether we will have our own dedicated Nova Scotia representative or whether it will be one from Atlantic Canada because we do all our outward marketing through this Atlantic group. I will certainly find out and advise the member. I would also like to add that previous to this we did cooperative tourism subagreements with the federal Department of Industry Canada to promote tourism outside of this region under a tourism federal-provincial subagreement. That agreement is now coming to its end and some of the funding that was previously in that agreement will now be replaced under this joint agreement that they have announced out of Ottawa.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MR. JOHN HOLM: I would like to go back with this question again to the minister responsible for casinos. If the government is bent on proceeding with its foolhardy decision to establish casinos, which one hopes of course that they won't, there has to be some confidence. Certainly confidence in the whole selection process has to be shaken if you are going to have one person who is deciding which project will be the final winner is in fact sitting in judgment of a proposal put forward by a business associate. My question to the minister is quite simply, what is the minister prepared to do to try to restore some confidence to the selection process?
HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate that the honourable member's concern is genuine as always, I have to tell him that the test, the real test surely, to be fair, is the test that all Nova Scotians will apply and that is simply this, will any member of the commission or any members' company possibly achieve any financial gain or advantage as a result of the decision? If the answer is no, surely that is the test.
MR. HOLM: I would suggest that surely the test is also to ensure that it is a completely arm's length process and in speaking with the chair of the casino project this morning, staff was told that in fact nobody on the project team has indicated that there are any conflicts of interest or even potential conflicts. My question to the minister is quite simply this, is it the view of the government that the way that anybody who is a proponent can ensure that there is a level playing ground and that they will all be assured of being treated equally is to go and hire other business associates of members on the project team?
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, this line of questioning is bordering either on the silly or the mischievous. Surely, as I repeat again the test is whether or not an individual or his company or her company can in any way benefit or gain any advantage whatever from the decision and if the answer is no then potentially there can be no conflict of interest. To satisfy the level of paranoia in the Third Party would be completely impossible at times. I would simply say there might be a secretary whose third cousin deals blackjack somewhere but surely, the fundamental fair question to ask is the one that I outlined for the House.
MR. HOLM: If you wanted to define the word, silly, all you have to do is look at the minister's answer and you have a definition for it right there. My final question to the minister is quite simply this, will the minister provide instructions that any member of that project team who is a business associate of one of the proponents who is putting in an application, will the minister instruct that that team member withdraw from any consideration of applications that deal with proposals from a business associate?
MR. BOUDREAU: I clearly laid out the criteria when I spoke to these individuals and asked them to take on this task, those members of the Casino Project Committee and I firmly laid out the basis for their action. In my view there is no evidence whatever of any breach of those fundamental principles given here today by this honourable member. I will not, I repeat, interfere in the arm's length process that has occurred and I should not.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: My question is for the honourable Minister of Labour. I wonder is the minister aware that at least 40 former front-line supervisors, former employees of the Department of Transportation, have filed a wrongful dismissal application before the Labour Standards Division?
HON. JAY ABBASS: I am not personally aware of that myself, Mr. Speaker, although it is not unusual that I would not be since that is a matter more for the Labour Relations Board. I am supposed to be, as minister, at arm's length from the board.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's response. The former employees made their application in late April and to date, other than a very brief phone call from the head of the Labour Standards Division, they have not heard a word.
I wonder if the minister could update Nova Scotians today as to when or if an investigation of wrongful dismissal by the Department of Transportation is underway?
MR. ABBASS: I just want to clarify, is the member opposite talking about the Labour Standards Tribunal or the Labour Relations Board? It must be the tribunal.
It is the tribunal. The one thing I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is that within that particular division, we are experiencing delays in getting investigations completed and reports out. That is something that my acting deputy minister and I are actively working on right now.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that response. The reason I am concerned and the reason the former employees are concerned is because they have not heard a word for six months and I appreciate the minister trying to be at arm's length and I would ask him to look into the matter if he would, please.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou Centre.
DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. On October 27th, the minister announced a metro amalgamation. On October 28th, she announced the appointment of a commissioner to look after the amalgamation process. During the course of interviews with the press, she announced a metro municipal election in November 1995 and the new government would take control on April 1, 1996.
Well, it is obvious that there has been a change in that timetable. I would now ask the minister, would she outline for the House her new timetable for metro amalgamation?
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, the timetable, as has been suggested, is April 1, 1996.
DR. HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the answer. The last item on the calender then has been unchanged. Will the minister then tell the House when will the new commissioner be appointed and start his or her duties in terms of metro amalgamation?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer that question. I think, as the House knows, November 30th, tomorrow, is the closing date of the tender call for the coordinator. That has been in the paper and has been notified. We would hope to be able to appoint that individual, whoever the coordinator may be, some time around the middle of December and then have that coordinator start out to do public meetings and public consultations in the earlier part of January.
I would just like to clarify for the House that the coordinator, one of the things that we will also ask that coordinator is to review the time schedule for the election date - and that would be something that we would ask of the coordinator in their job of reviewing the amalgamation and in reviewing the timetables that have been out there - of April 1, 1996, that we would ask the coordinator to take a look at the suggested date of the election and see how that would fit. (Applause)
DR. HAMM: Mr. Speaker, by way of final supplementary, would the minister then reconfirm that it is her absolute intention that the election will occur some time before April 1996, to allow the new municipality to begin on April 1, 1996. Is that her timetable at this time?
MS. JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, certainly April 1, 1996, is the date that the amalgamation will take place and the new uniform city would come into place. Certainly when the commissioner does go through and look at a number of issues that have to be discussed, the election date is one of them that the commissioner will review. But I would suggest that the council certainly would have to be in place prior to the amalgamation.
MR. SPEAKER: I will recognize the honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. The tendering guidelines that have been in effect for about five years say that any space requirements over 2,500 square feet are to be tendered. My question to the minister is quite simply, when you were talking about relocating your office space, why was that not tendered?
HON. DONALD DOWNE: The tendering policy guidelines and exemptions that we followed were approved by Cabinet in February 1989. Those guidelines indicate to us that because of our existing lease that we have, we are able to add to it, so the adding to the lease was totally in line. I think we should congratulate Mr. Terry Donahoe, I understand he was the one who had the foresight and anticipation for these particular provisions to be added to the agreement.
MR. HOLM: When the member who the minister refers to introduced them, I said, and I think the members on the government side were also extremely critical when they were over here because they recognized that the holes were so gaping that you could drive a fleet of 18-wheelers through those holes side by side, Mr. Speaker.
This minister and this government was supposedly bringing in a new broom and a new way of doing things. Now you have decided that you are going to use the old loopholes. In the minister's statement he said that this transfer, this relocation, was going to save over $300,000 a year. Now when you take a look at the cost per square foot in Founders Square and you compare that in the Torrington Place in Dartmouth and the price per square foot, $18 versus $21, plus change, and the reduced amount of space, the saving is nowhere near that, in fact, it is about one-fifth of the amount of the savings.
I would like to ask the minister where the extra $240,000 in savings, which doesn't come from saved rent, is actually coming from?
MR. DOWNE: Now, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the opportunity to answer the question. I wish the member opposite would have read in detail the press statement I made because I also pointed out not only the fact that there is savings in the space but also in the fact that duplication in services and early retirement programs. In fact if the member opposite wants a detailed explanation, I would be very happy to do so. In fact the savings to the Province of Nova Scotia, to the taxpayers of this province, will be in excess of $300,000 a year, merging the graphic and cardiographic service, to avoid replacing one of the four technicians because of the early retirement program, a saving of $42,400.
Transfer of the photogrammetry equipment - I can't even pronounce the word, actually, Mr. Speaker, I went to a number of doctors and lawyers, trying to get a definition. Being a poultry farmer, it was hard to figure this word out - to Municipal Affairs and the deletion of a technician person that was outlined in the report, another saving of $41,500. The relocation, together with the restructuring, will result in a reduction of two persons or positions at the management level and secretarial support, early retirement programs, a saving of $181,200.
Mr. Speaker, reduction in staff travel time between Torrington Place and Founders Square will estimate a saving of a half a person year, plus associate travel costs, a saving of $30,000 a year.
Mr. Speaker, the rent saving alone, on the basis of the Founders Square and Torrington Place, a saving of $60,500. A total saving to the taxpayers of this province of $354,600. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources is his usual loquacious self. My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I want to know and so does John A. Greene from Queens County, can residents be assured that Moose Harbour Road located three miles south of Liverpool will be sanded and salted on time so that people will be able to start work at 6:00 a.m., like it was in 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992? Mr. Greene contends that from the service received on Wednesday of last week, November 23rd, that it does not look as though the residents who live on the road can rely on being able to drive up the hill, even in the event of a heart attack that may happen at 6:00 a.m. and I can certainly table the letter?
[1:15 p.m.]
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, he didn't mention 1993; we would have to wonder what happened that year. Let me say, last week, we gave all 52 MLAs a package, a kit on a communications plan which outlined how the Department of Transportation tries to operate, which roads will be cleaned first of snow and have salt applied, the secondary roads, when they will be done and then the other roads, the trunk roads or county roads, when they might expect to be cleaned. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in the province realizes that with 27,000 kilometres of roads, they are not all going to be cleaned immediately after a snowstorm. We have one of the harshest climates in the world in terms of keeping roads clear, the freeze and thaw cycles with ice, with freezing rain, with sleet, with snow.
If there is anyone and I said this yesterday in debate, if there is anyone that has a method that would see all the roads in this province cleaned as quickly as everyone would like to see them cleaned, please come forward because we will certainly listen to the suggestions people have. If the people have a way to effectively deal with freezing rain as soon as it falls and forms ice on the road, we would listen to those suggestions and we would be willing to attempt to put in place any methods they might suggest that would see all the roads cleaned as quickly as people would like to see them cleaned.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The time allotted for the Oral Question Period has expired.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly on a point of privilege to inquire as to why my opportunity to ask my second supplementary question was not allowed? I appreciate that the minister, in his response to my first supplementary went on at great length and the minister gave a speech. That was not my question and I believe that my privilege to ask my final supplementary was denied because of the minister choosing to be long-winded and to read something that he said that he was going to table.
MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of privilege. I wish to refresh the memory of honourable members on this matter. Both Beauchesne and Sir Erskine May establish that the extent to which supplementary questions may be asked is at the discretion of the Speaker. It is the prerogative of the Chair and it is the prerogative of the Chair to limit supplementary questions where it appears that the line of questioning and answering may be getting out of hand, it is a judgment call on the part of the Chair and it is by all parliamentary authorities in existence, the prerogative of the Chair.
I don't feel that any explanation is required, it was at the tail-end of Question Period, there was another member seeking the floor, he got the opportunity only to ask a single question without any supplementaries at all. In the interest of balance and of giving all members ample opportunity to ask questions, I might note that I feel that the rules are very clear on the matter, it is at the discretion of the Chair. I might further point out that in this House, many years ago, it was customary for a Speaker to allow three supplementary questions to an original question and that Mr. Speaker, Arthur Donahoe, in 1982 made a Speaker's Ruling that the number would be limited to a maximum of two. It is therefore at the discretion of the Chair.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order or a point of correction, perhaps, the honourable member was in the House at that time who is now the Speaker and I am sure that he is aware that that was a recommendation from the Committee on Rules and Procedures, not from that former Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Recommended to the Speaker and he so ruled.
HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence on a point of clarification. In Question Period, the honourable member for Halifax Fairview made some allegations which I think need setting straight in the record, to the people of Nova Scotia, as well as the members of this House.
During that question, she stated that the physicians in the Emergency Department of the Victoria General Hospital were not trained in trauma care. I wish to correct this impression and to inform the honourable member opposite, as well as this House, that the physicians caring for trauma cases in the Emergency Department of the Victoria General Hospital are the same trauma team leaders that were there before last week and last year. Each of them are fully accredited in trauma and emergency medicine by either the Royal College of this country, the College of Family Practice of this country or the American equivalent, which is acceptable in this country for requirements.
They are the same people who have been caring for patients, very well, I might add, Mr. Speaker. I would, again, remind the honourable member opposite that each of those individuals have a certification.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. With all the greatest respect, it is really becoming a sham here today. The honourable member of the New Democratic Party, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, raised with you a concern and I suggest a legitimate one about the fact that he was cut off from his second supplementary. With the greatest respect to the distinguished and learned Minister of Health, he rose just a moment ago on what he described as a point of clarification.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that to my knowledge there is no such thing in our rules, in Beauchesne, or in Erskine May. Yet you allow the Minister of Health to go on at considerable length to take further shots at the member for Halifax Fairview because he, the minister, did not seem to think that he liked some of things that she said in putting her questions.
With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, in order for all members of this House to have respect for you and your degree of fairness and your equanimity as you make your rulings, you surely have to treat all members equally. I say to you, with the greatest respect, that this last little example here in the last few minutes is indicative of the fact that you seemed, at least, to my way of observation, to express and show some predisposition to allow the Minister of Health to proceed on a point that does not exist in our rules, does not exist in Beauchesne, does not exist in Erskine May and was nothing more than an attempt for him to have a further kick at another member after Question Period had ended.
I, therefore, will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by pleading with you to establish with some degree of precision and clarity whether or not, first of all there is any such thing in our rules as a point of clarification and if there is, then fine, I have learned something. If there is not that on a future day this minister or anybody else who gets up and looks for a point of clarification that he is sat down and that you would take a clear look please at the ruling you made relative to the Leader of the New Democratic Party . . .
MR. SPEAKER: I have already done so. I have said that it is at the discretion of the Chair. That is what Beauchesne and Erskine May say, too.
I might say that the honourable Leader of the Opposition rose on what he claimed to be a point of privilege. Beauchesne and Sir Erskine May also state that the proper way to conclude any claimed point of privilege is by way of a motion. There was no motion at the end of the point of privilege and I do not feel that there is any point of privilege here. There is a point of order and the point of order is noted.
I might say that the Chair has no way of knowing in advance what any honourable member is going to say when he or she rises to address the House. It has been a long-time usage and convention in this House, from my many years of observation, that at the conclusion of Question Period, ministers will be recognized by the Chair to make brief statements of further clarification or further elaboration by way of the statements that they made in Question Period. It is not unknown for a minister to get up and volunteer papers that he or she had promised to seek. (Interruption)
I have the floor right now, please. I do not want to stand up. I have the floor. It is a long-standing usage in the House that the ministers in the Executive Council may address the House briefly after Question Period to elaborate or to volunteer statements.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker is not to be interrupted when he has the floor. I will, however, conclude and the honourable Leader of the Opposition may have the floor.
MR. DONAHOE: Well, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I would ask you then, as you say to us now what you are saying . . .
MR. SPEAKER: I had not concluded, I wasn't permitted to.
MR. DONAHOE: Nor had I, Mr. Speaker, with respect, and was therefore unable to conclude what I was attempting to offer as a point of privilege with a motion. But, if I may, let me just respond to what you are now saying, giving us this lecture on giving the ministers opportunities to stand up immediately upon the conclusion of Question Period, to make statements of clarification. If that is the case, I would ask the Speaker to please inform me and all members what is the point of having, on our daily routine, as we do, an order of business called Statements by Ministers. There is an opportunity for the Government House Leader, if his Minister of Health wants to get up and make a statement, to get your attention, ask you to revert to the order of business, Statements by Ministers. If you consider that that is appropriate, you give that authority and this or any other minister can get up and do that.
I don't want to be argumentative, Mr. Speaker, but I simply am frustrated, as are so many members of this House, that day in and day out the consistency or, better said, with respect, lack of consistency of rulings we receive from you, cause us tremendous concern and difficulty. We are attempting, under what we consider to be very adverse conditions, as a consequence of much of your inconsistent ruling, to be able to honestly and effectively represent the interests of the Opposition Parties and, more to the point, the thousands of people whose views we try to bring to the floor of this Legislature.
MR. SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for his remarks. I was in the course of attempting to say, previously, that the honourable Minister of Health, in my view, made one minor procedural error, he got up and stated that he wished to raise that point, I believe he said, of clarification, when he ought to have said a point of order. Had he said a point of order, he could have gotten up and made the same remarks, with no effect whatever on the proceedings.
If the honourable Minister of Health wishes to be recognized on a point of order, he may do at any time and so may any member of this House. That is my ruling.
The honourable Minister of Health on a point of order.
HON. RONALD STEWART: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Very well. That concludes those proceedings.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Did you rule on the point of order that the Minister of Health stood and raised, made further comments? Is that what you call a point of order, you can just stand up and keep the debate going? If that is all that a point of order is, then I would like to stand up on a further point of order to say that there is misinformation being given in regard to the fact that the personnel situation is not as the minister describes it.
Now we could keep this going all afternoon, but is that a point of order? Perhaps what we should do is ask once and for all for the Minister of Health to come in here tomorrow to make a ministerial statement on how this very serious problem at the VGH Emergency Department, whereby we now do not have a trauma team leader in place, is going to be addressed by this government and by this minister who likes to pose as the ultimate authority on emergency care systems.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, that is the honourable member's point of order. Now we all know that Beauchesne states that a dispute as to facts between honourable members does not constitute a point of order but the honourable members have made their points.
The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, I move that you now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House on Bills.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.
[1:29 p.m. The House resolved itself into a CWH on Bills with Deputy Speaker Mr. Gerald O'Malley in the Chair.]
[6:00 p.m. CWH on Bills rose and the House reconvened. Mr. Speaker. Hon. Paul. MacEwan, resumed the Chair.]
MR. SPEAKER: The winner of the draw for the Adjournment debate was the honourable member for Halifax Fairview. The subject matter is:
Therefore be it resolved that this government finally address the continuing child care crisis.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION UNDER RULE 5(5)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity in the few moments available to me in the so-called late debate to address the issue of the child care crisis in this province and, more particularly, the failure of this government to live up to its election commitment to not only recognize what a crisis there is with respect to child care in this province but to actually begin to take action to deal with this crisis as a real priority.
Mr. Speaker, as you will know, I have submitted that topic on numerous occasions and only today finally had the opportunity to address it in this debate. I couldn't help but have my interest in raising it for debate further reinforced by the statement attributed to the Premier over the weekend when he addressed a Liberal fundraising brunch where he made the statement that he wished he could spend his time worrying about day care instead of worrying about deficit reduction.
I guess he helps to make the first point I want to make which is, that I think you cannot forever keep treating the issue of child care as if it is just a cost and take the position that there are not, in fact, some very important preventive measures associated and some cost savings associated with putting in place an adequate, affordable child care system in this province. As the government itself said when it was not just in Opposition but when it took its supposed Liberal child care policy out to the public during the election campaign, we cannot keep dealing with child care as if it is babysitting. We have to recognize that child care is inextricably linked with early childhood development and if we are serious in regarding our human resource as our most important resource and we are serious about recognizing that the education and development of our children and youth are among the top priorities that we should be addressing, we have to recognize the lunacy and the short-sightedness of not seeing a comprehensive, affordable child care system as an extremely important building block and investment, not something that you just look at as an extra cost to the public purse but, in fact, as an absolutely essential investment in the future of this province and its most important resource, namely its people.
There is surely madness in separating out the notion that child care is one thing and that education is something else because we know that the most formative years are the pre-school years and the most important investment we can make is in those pre-school years.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we know what the Liberal Party said during the election, they said it was completely unacceptable that the previous government had not acted decisively on the recommendations of the Round Table on Child Care. They said that leadership was needed, and I quote directly from the Liberal policy platform; to form a coherent and consistent vision of child care to govern the development of these services in Nova Scotia. They went on to recognize the different aspects of the crisis in child care and said they will not go away and that within the first three to six months in office a Liberal Government would get on with developing that strategic plan, that it would get on with being proactive in regard to not further study of the child care crisis but instead, acting on the crisis and getting on with public policy measures to address it.
Well, what have they done instead, Mr. Speaker? I have only a couple of minutes in which to outline. It won't take me very long because what they have done does not add up to very much. In August they increased fees to parents on full subsidy. That is a mean-spirited, short-sighted policy that says those who, by definition, are among the poorest who are affected by our child care system will be faced with paying higher costs, a policy that goes against everything that was outlined by the Round Table on Child Care about ensuring that child care was as accessible as it possibly could be.
Secondly, Mr. Chairman, a little known and, I think, almost unreported decision by this government was that recently it eliminated, within the Department of Community Services, the position of day care financial services officer. The minister is well aware of the high level of dissatisfaction from this decision made by the government. The non-profit operators, as an association, the non-profit directors association has written to the minister to express their grave disappointment in that decision to wipe out the position of the financial officer, because, as they said so clearly, this was not only very important to their ensuring their full financial accountability to the department and to the public, but it also was one of their few venues, one of their few avenues for any kind of meaningful consultation with the government.
That brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the third concern that is very much out there. I guess I would be so bold as to seek assurances from the minister that the threats that are now out there and the cause for concern will not be carried out, and that is the concern that the government will reduce the salary enhancement grants that were finally brought in after years and years and years of struggle, the salary enhancement grants that were brought in to recognize how unacceptable it is to have underpaid child care staff in this province that have to struggle to try to live on the inadequate child care salaries; the very difficult problem it poses for child care centres to ensure that continuity of staff and the development of experienced staff, because of the high turnover that results from paying such pathetic wages to child care staff.
So, Mr. Speaker, after a very high-profile round of lobbying in this province, literally on the steps of the Legislature, there were salary enhancement grants brought in. We know that, overwhelmingly, the child care workers in this province are women and women who are underpaid, any suggestion that this government would go backwards instead of finally getting on some kind of a proactive child care path to begin to carry out its commitments made to families in need of child care and to child care workers in this province, I hope the minister will take the opportunity this afternoon to give an absolute assurance that the rumour that is very widespread will not, in fact, be made true, and that this government will not reduce the child care salary enhancement grants that were finally brought in a couple of years ago by a reluctant government, but in response to a very strong demand by the public and particularly those concerned about our having a quality child care system in the province.
Mr. Speaker, the minister knows how inadequate the salaries are now, how much difficulty child care centres are having maintaining quality staff and ensuring that there is not further high turnover, and if this government acts on the suggestion that seems to be very much on the table that the salary enhancement grants will be reduced, I think it is breaking faith with the child care community, it is being very short-sighted and I hope the minister will give a clear and unequivocal statement and an undertaking to this House that that will not be done. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou Centre.
DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on child care services this evening as part of the late debate and pleased that the member for Halifax Fairview has brought this very important issue to the House this evening.
It is particularly relevant, I think, in that just the other day the minister declared November 20th as National Child Day. Of course, 1994 is also the International Year of the Family. So I think it is very important that when we look at this that we address it in terms of the family and the child.
The issue and the importance of child care has become a very big issue and grows in leaps and bounds each and every year. It is very important, not only in the support of the working parent, but also in the support of our work force which depends on many of these people to be able to participate in the work force and, most particularly, the health of the children progressing along with assistance to the child while they are under the care of day care workers.
In the Axworthy Report it states that for most Canadian parents, "finding and paying for child care is one of their real big concerns. In many cases, the lack of affordable, high quality child care is an insurmountable barrier to a job.". This is a very serious barrier, not only to individuals finding jobs, but also to the very growth of our economy. The seriousness of child care is something that not so long ago simply was not of great concern.
I would have to say that most individuals in this House had their mother to come home to while they were of pre-school age and throughout their school years. It is truly an amazing shift and a shift in our economy today that, as the Axworthy paper states, "Most Canadian Parents - including lone parents and those with pre-school children - are now in the labour force.".
The federal discussion paper, Agenda: Jobs and Growth, states that the federal government is committed to supporting the provinces with a view to expanding the availability of child care in Canada. The Liberal Red Book outlined a commitment of $720 million over three years to provide for the subsidization or creation of up to 150,000 new spaces.
In the February budget the federal government set aside $360 million over two years for this very purpose, to begin after a year of 3 per cent economic growth. The report indicates that they are forecasting for 1994, growth in excess of 3 per cent. This will be good news, if it occurs.
The federal government each year spends $400 million in child care, mainly through the Canada Assistance Program. There are 360,000 regulated child care spaces in Canada and 150,000 of those are subsidized for low-income families. There are some 2,150 subsidized spaces now available in Nova Scotia.
But we must assure parents of the quality of the service. We must provide effective child care in a good environment to allow them to grow and to learn. Effective child care can help to ensure the future employment success of children who might otherwise be at risk. The federal government has articulated a commitment to expand child care in this country, a commitment of $720 million over three years to create 150,000 new child care spaces.
The design and delivery of child care and social services are a provincial responsibility. In some areas of the country, new spaces are needed, but in others more affordable spaces are needed.
Innovative programs beyond the babysitting function is indicated to maximize this great investment in all of our youngsters. Child development services, proper training with clear objectives should be defined in terms of all of our child care programs.
[6:15 p.m.]
We must link early childhood education and development into the day care program. This must not just be a babysitting operation. Employers should be more proactive in providing spaces. The adequate availability in the Civil Service of day care spaces, certainly I think is one objective that needs careful attention. We must have flexibility in the hours of operation to allow parents to partake in various occupations with unusual hours. The subsidy, I believe, at this point is some $16.85 for every space, bearing in mind that the full fee is something over $20 per day.
One of the studies that was mentioned in the Liberal platform was an all-encompassing review by the Round Table on Day Care. The round table recommended that 500 subsidized new spaces each year for five years be created. In the three years since their report, the Liberals have created some 100 spaces. I would challenge the minister today to offer some substance behind the obscure offer that a Liberal Government would provide 500 spaces each year for five years.
To date, we have seen one announcement in a year and a half for a total of 50 new spaces, bearing in mind, the previous government did not do much better but in fact, in the last two years had created 100 new spaces. While I commend the minister for the addition of 50 spaces, it does not even come close to the number requested by the round table and which was endorsed by his Party's platform.
The Axworthy Report rightly advises that the choices made for any support that the provinces will receive by way of child care are very important, I would even say critical. In some parts of Canada it states that affordability is the problem. Some need new spaces and some areas are simply looking for new types of child care to accommodate such things as non-standard work.
Any additional investment over the next several years could pay multiple dividends and in the future, provide a more productive work force and jobs for child care workers, reduce pressure on over-burdened income support programs and most important, enhance development of our children.
The Liberal Party in Nova Scotia like its federal counterpart rose to power on a platform of jobs, jobs, jobs. This government has made several attempts to offer solutions to our job crisis but as yet we have yet to see a great deal of those efforts come to fruition.
Child care is one of the areas that does have to be addressed before we do make any headway on eliminating unemployment in our province. It is almost as clearly and demonstrably a part of necessary infrastructure as are our road systems. The families of this province of all shapes and sizes, need to see that this government is committed to solving the crisis. They need more solid proof that the Savage Government will act on the difficulties inherent to Nova Scotian's needs in child care.
The Liberal Party spoke of engaging professionals from the child care industries in a process of strategic planning, to develop a timetable and fiscal strategy for implementing the recommendations of the round table in their platform. I know the minister has sought advice from the Round Table on Day Care in making his first choice for the 50 spaces allocated last September. My hope is that he is continuing to consult with his advisory group as this government seeks to add further spaces and further solutions to the crisis. One suggestion in the platform was to reduce the per seat cost of child care. To do this, they said, there are idle classrooms in school and idle spaces in other public buildings for which the overhead costs are already being paid. Piggy-backing child care in these facilities would reduce per seat costs, bringing money for use in other aspects of child care provision.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I encourage the efforts of the minister who fulfilled the Liberal pre-election strategy in terms of child care. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Community Services.
HON. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the honourable member for putting the issue of child care on the late debate. Certainly, it is important that all of us as legislators in this Assembly, renew our commitment to the child care issues that face our society and that we give each other support and, as I look to my colleagues within the Cabinet, for ongoing commitment as they have made.
I would particularly like to pay tribute to the Premier and his long-term commitment to child care in areas that child care was unknown, in communities that the Premier and his other work had gone into those communities and helped the groups initiate child care, and the support that we have had.
I just would like to make a few comments and then share some issues with the members in the debate this evening. The issue that we are debating here this evening is extremely important, both in terms of social development of our children, and in terms of supporting the needs of working families. Those families, for whom the lack of day care makes finding a job difficult, if not impossible. Adequate, affordable and quality day care is extremely important as we work to expand our economy. No one would deny that the lack of affordable day care is clearly an impediment to the economic prosperity of many families who cannot look for work or seek training because of the absence of suitable child care arrangements. There is absolutely no question, Mr. Speaker, that this is a critical area of concern for the province and for our government.
As members would know, the federal government's social security reform proposal calls for the creation of an additional 150,000 day care seats across the country over the next three years, at a cost of $700 million. We have been pressing the federal government, through our ongoing discussions on social security reform, for the need for additional subsidized spaces to accommodate both the social and the economic aspiration of Nova Scotian families. I think, as other speakers have done this evening, Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to underline the importance, not only of allowing all equality women and men within the working population to share in the economic renewal across our province, but also the social development and the needs of children in their early development years.
We have stated that we require not only more subsidized spaces through the federal government, but better cost-sharing arrangements with them. As well, we have been pressing for more flexible day care arrangements to meet the different needs of Nova Scotian families who work outside the regular nine to five work day. This is a pressing issue for many Nova Scotian families.
Mr. Speaker, this government has created, as the other speaker had mentioned, 100 subsidized spaces since assuming office. With the 50 initial seats, we have an additional 50 that are being budgeted for, and in consultation with the Round Table on Day Care, will be allocated early in the new year. The cost of these spaces, approximately $250,000 net cost to the province, represents a significant investment in a time of severe restraint. While I believe we have made progress, I also recognize that it falls short of meeting the existing needs. No one would stand in their place here today in this House, and say that we are meeting the needs of the children and the families of this province.
The issue, though, of 26 cents on the dollar that is coming in as revenues, that are going out for debt servicing in this province, really has handicapped a new government, and any government, that wishes to practise some economic control, or an expenditure control program. We are hopeful that the federal government's reforms will position us to significantly expand our ability to fund additional spaces and to meet the needs of Nova Scotians with young families.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to address a number of other day care initiatives that are presently ongoing. As many members would know, the legislative subcommittee on the Round Table on Day Care has been developing a draft discussion paper on a new day care Act and regulations. This draft document has been circulated to all day care centres, for their input and comments. The responses are now being consolidated by the round table and following further review, they will be presented to the department early in the new year.
Mr. Speaker, I have been particularly appreciative of the efforts of the Round Table on Day Care. They are a cross-section of parents, those in the academic setting, and training of those within the child care givers, and from the profit, non-profit, and a good cross-section of people representing the needs of child care across this province and they have been very supportive.
The primary reason for developing a new day care Act is to improve standards and to ensure that day care centres throughout Nova Scotia provide quality care to our children. I am looking forward to receiving the round table's final proposal and to introducing legislation and supports that meet our objectives of enhancing child care services across this province.
Mr. Speaker, in summary, the issue of child care is one that, while the government must show leadership and these points are well taken by previous speakers and we must somehow find within our means the economics and the monies into this system. But further, this is an issue of great societal concern and, with that, society must address the issue.
For some reason, in this country, we have not really seen the importance and, particularly, in the early childhood development area. I did want to just highlight a few of the issues that I think our society has to buy into and has to support and we, as legislators, have to respond to that particular need.
The socialization issue and child development, the early childhood educational experiences. The child that presents at school at the age of five, without an early childhood educational experience, is really already quite behind. So, there is a flow of this learning process and we now have a better idea of how children learn and how they process information.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the importance of the preventive programs, both for child health and that of personal safety and those issues that we have tried to develop within our particular department that work within the preventive programs throughout this province. In particular, I would mention the early intervention programs for children with special needs, both physical and behaviour. Because some of these needs are presenting very early and can be identified.
The primary school teachers can identify behaviour issues that really do need special attention, both within the special education needs, but also, perhaps, in the support services of a mental health and a true preventive mental health issue. To wait until later and the intervention programs that are called early intervention that are dealing with adolescents and older age groups are just really not effective and must be in place in our child care system and our early primary schools.
Mr. Speaker, particularly in Nova Scotia, one area in which we have done well and I think the other speakers have mentioned, I think the salaries that are being offered are an embarrassment right across this country. I will pay tribute to the staff and those day care centres that I have visited, particularly the one in Dartmouth, and we had a good discussion. We sat around and it was easy to see that these young people have been trained well, 88 per cent of the child care workers in this province have a post-secondary degree or diploma. There is only one other province that ranks to that across this country and that is Ontario.
So, we have the people, the resources of staff and the commitment of people. But what is happening is they are spending some time in child care. They are looking at their salaries. They are wanting to have families of their own. They are looking at helping support a home and a family and a house and the basic needs of families. The salaries are not able to do that. That is one that I am very conscious of as a minister. I take that very seriously and certainly will be making representations to the Cabinet during budget times.
To answer, particularly, some questions that were raised, I will try just briefly. As far as the reorganization and as members would know, our department, our head office is collapsing. We are moving more people into the field and the financial services will be provided to child care, but they will be regrouped in another way. We are not withdrawing from that service and I make that commitment.
The other one, the salary enhancement grants, while we cannot increase them like we would, we certainly will be holding them. I have heard the rumours, as well. Apparently they were on the table somewhere that they might be reduced and this is not so and I am pleased to inform the House of that tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to close and make the commitment on behalf of our government, as Minister of Community Services, to the children and families of Nova Scotia and their special needs, with child care as a continuum of a learning and a social development process of the children of Nova Scotia. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The time allotted for the Adjournment debate has expired. The House will now revert to Committee of the Whole House on Bills.
[6:30 p.m. The House resolved itself into a CWH on Bills with Deputy Speaker, Mr. Gerald O'Malley in the Chair.]
[7:58 p.m. CWH on Bills rose and the House reconvened with Deputy Speaker Mr. Gerald O'Malley in the Chair.]
MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on Bills reports:
THE CLERK: That the committee has met and made considerable progress and asks leave to sit again.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Tomorrow is Opposition Day.
The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, it is the Official Opposition's intention tomorrow following Question Period to call for debate Bill No. 130. It is our intention, our thought that we will probably finish Question Period around, we are guessing obviously, at about 4:15 p.m., we will call Bill No. 130 at 4:15 p.m. and debate that for one hour; at 5:15 p.m. approximately, for one-half hour, debate Resolution No. 1128 and for the remainder of the time, 5:45 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., do our best to pass a few House Orders.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, I assume we will be sitting then from 2:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. and with that, I move that we adjourn until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion for adjournment has been made and carried.
The House will now rise to sit again tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.
[The House rose at 8:00 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 Nova Scotia Economic Renewal Agency:
(1) A breakdown of funding arranged between three local stevedoring companies and the provincial government concerning the writing of a three year marketing plan for the Sheet Harbour Industrial port;
(2) A list of the 28 vessels which called at Sheet Harbour in 1993 and a list of the products being carried and the destination the products were destined for; and
(3) A list of the vessels which have called at the Sheet Harbour Industrial Port to date in 1994 and a list of the products being carried and the destination the products were destined for.
By: Mr. Brooke Taylor (Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley)
I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return showing, with respect to the Department of Natural Resources:
(1) A costing of what the lease at Torrington Place in the Burnside Industrial Park cost the Department of Natural Resources in the 1993-94 and 1994-95 fiscal years;
(2) A costing of the necessary renovations being made at Founders Square to accommodate the move of staff from Torrington Place effective December 1, 1994;
(3) A costing of what the additional 6,000 square feet at Founders Square will be for the Department of Natural Resources; and
(4) Cost of the newspaper ads advising Nova Scotians of the move from Torrington Place to Founders Square.
