MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We can commence this afternoon's sitting at this time. I would like to call on the honourable Premier.
The honourable Premier.
HON. JOHN SAVAGE (The Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of sadness that I rise to mention that Angus Brown, the younger brother of the member for Cumberland South, died early this morning. Funeral arrangements are incomplete and I am sure that the House will join me in expressing - he is not here - our deepest sympathy to the member and perhaps we might have a moment of silence, if that is appropriate.
MR. SPEAKER: Very well.
[One minute of silence was observed.]
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I would like, if I may, with your indulgence, just simply to make a brief remark following the very sad announcement just now made by the Premier. I did not know Guy's younger brother but it occurs to me that he likely was the kind of jovial and concerned and compassionate and friendly person that we have all come to know Guy to be over our years together. It is truly a sad loss for his family and for the extended community. It is clear that nothing that any of us say here will likely go too far to reduce Guy's sense of loss, but I think it is important that he knows that he and his family are in our thoughts and in our prayers.
I am not sure if the Premier quite said it this way, but I would like to suggest, if it was not intended or if you did not get the message from the comments made by the Premier, Mr. Speaker, that you would perhaps be prepared, in a formal way, to extend condolences, on behalf of all members of the House, to Guy and to his family on this very sad occasion.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to join with those who have spoken earlier, on behalf of my caucus, to extend greatest and deepest sympathies to Guy and his family. I, like others, did not know Angus, although I do know another one of Guy's brothers. Mr. Speaker, from what I have seen, all members of the Brown family, that I have come across, do share the same kind of human characteristics and qualities that we have grown to know and respect in Guy. This is indeed a very sad loss for all of us. I want to make sure that our comments are associated with those made by the Premier and by the Leader of the Official Opposition and assure the entire Brown family, and extended family, that they are indeed in our thoughts and our prayers today and over the next number of days, as they come to grips with this very sad loss in their lives. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I, will, on behalf of all members extend condolences to the family of the honourable Minister of Housing and Consumer Affairs.
Are there any introductions of visitors in the gallery? If not, we will commence 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
Bill No. 138 - Entitled an Act to Authorize the Town of Antigonish to Make a Grant or Gift to St. Martha's Regional Hospital Foundation. (Hon. William Gillis as a private member.)
MR. SPEAKER: Ordered that this bill be read a second time on a future day.
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 this Liberal Government stood before the people of this province, as this sitting of the Legislature began, appealing to Nova Scotians and the Opposition to work together with the government and "to choose co-operation over conflict"; and
Whereas after last night's debate on offering constructive policy alternatives, it became very clear that this Liberal Government's idea of cooperation is that everybody is supposed to blindly agree with everything they say; and
Whereas backbenchers and Cabinet Ministers alike believe that the Opposition is wasting government's time by keeping them in the Legislature while they offer sound suggestions for change to very major pieces of legislation;
Therefore be it resolved that this government realize that some of their ideas are not absolutely perfect and that if they would accept some constructive policy alternatives, in the spirit of cooperation, from the Opposition and from all Nova Scotians, their policies might start to reflect what the people of our province are actually saying.
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 Liberals constantly justify their failure to consult, harsh cutbacks and overzealousness by proclaiming that their mission of reform justifies it all; and
Whereas Liberals' commitment to genuine reform was put to the test yesterday, on both election of the next Speaker by secret ballot and the simple requirement that polling places be fully accessible; and
Whereas when put to the test, Liberals failed so miserably they would not even allow a Cabinet Minister to finish speaking on the accessibility issue;
Therefore be it resolved that Nova Scotians should take notice of what the self-proclaimed Liberal reformers of Nova Scotia really do, when they are given an opportunity to advance reforms.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Pictou West.
MR. DONALD MCINNES: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the cruise ship season plays a significant role in the creation of business for the Port of Halifax; and
Whereas 1994 was one of the best cruise line seasons ever for the Port of Halifax with more than 40,000 people and 39 cruise ships visiting the Port of Halifax; and
Whereas the potential for growth is unlimited for cruise ship business at the Port of Halifax;
Therefore be it resolved that all members of the Legislature commend Marketing Manager Cheryl Bidgood from the Port of Halifax for the port's dedicated efforts to secure additional cruise line traffic for the Port of Halifax.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could have waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There is a request for waiver of notice which requires unanimous consent.
Is it agreed?
It appears to be agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable member for Kings North.
MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Minister for Nova Scotia's Economic Renewal Agency insists on keeping municipalities in the dark as to the status of regional development commissions across our province; and
Whereas the minister went to Bridgewater early this fall and explained that regional economic development funding would be available by October 1st; and
Whereas today is December 7th - I was supposed to read this yesterday (Laughter) - and municipal units are still awaiting word as to the status of regional economic development commissions;
Therefore be it resolved that the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency advise Nova Scotians today of the status of regional economic development commissions so that preparations toward a new form of economic development can proceed.
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 Finance Minister has told one and all that he will save this Liberal Government from electoral disaster by delivering quick tax cuts to induce a happy, forgetful mood among Nova Scotians; and
Whereas the Education Minister speedily returned a House Order proving that, despite extensive contracting-out, he strictly observes open tendering rules; and
Whereas the Natural Resources and Environment Ministers have taken great care to do their homework, consult widely and demonstrate a non-partisan interest in fulfilling their duties;
Therefore be it resolved that the Liberal Party should consider adopting a rule that leadership campaigns are not to begin until the incumbent has agreed to vacate the position, so the Premier need not join the Mayor of Sydney, another Liberal ghost of leadership past, appearing occasionally in the gallery of this House.
[12:15 p.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Hants East.
MR. ROBERT CARRUTHERS: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Economic Renewal Agency is proceeding in the development of Regional Development Authorities; and
Whereas the four municipal units in Hants County have requested that an independent CDA be created for Hants County; and
Whereas the minister has agreed to this request;
Therefore be it resolved that the House congratulate the leaders of the four municipal units and the minister for their ability to work together for the benefit of all.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver of notice which requires unanimous consent.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable member for Pictou West.
MR. DONALD MCINNES: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas a Digby County report states that a transition house for women fleeing abusive husbands is needed, with the closest one for southwestern Nova Scotia being in Yarmouth; and
Whereas government financial support, which has now ended, did come from the victim fine surcharge program which is funding resulting from up to a 15 per cent surcharge on fines levied in court; and
Whereas on Tuesday of this week Premier Savage supported an initiative aimed at preventing family violence by saying, "we must all join together and say no, this will not continue.";
Therefore be it resolved that the Ministers of Justice and Human Resources, when allocating additional funding from the victim fine surcharge program, give the attention required to assist abused women in Digby County until we reach the zero tolerance level of abuse against women in Nova Scotia.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
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 only three months ago Jim Cowan and Jim Moir both agreed to chair the Central Regional Health Board and the proposed QE II mega-hospital board respectively; and
Whereas the QE II hospital board has yet to meet, while the regional health boards don't even assume administrative responsibilities until September 1995; and
Whereas the Health Minister would, nevertheless, have people believe that Jim Cowan and Jim Moir suddenly discovered or remembered that they can't carry out these new responsibilities after all;
Therefore be it resolved that in the opinion of this House the Health Minister is being economical with the truth about why people are jumping overboard before his health reform ship has even left dock.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
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 Liberal Government's performance regarding the tendering of business contracts and positions in this province has sent the wrong message to the business community; and
Whereas the Liberal Government, with its policy du jour approach, is also sending the absolutely wrong message to the very people who elected its members to office; and
Whereas if this kind of performance - Berger being the latest victim - continues, this government and our province will lose any credibility it possibly has left;
Therefore be it resolved that the Premier take the lead and address this very serious situation in which his government has placed the reputation of the Province of Nova Scotia.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas this government has trumpeted its massive layoffs, early retirement schemes, wage roll-backs and suspension of free collective bargaining as the one sure way to reduce the deficit; and
Whereas the Education Minister has reported that in 15 short months of Liberal style downsizing, his department awarded consulting contracts worth $909,093.76; and
Whereas this included $31,065.90 for one consultant to fill one position, money that was spent without any consideration of the cost of using existing staff in the Human Resources Department;
Therefore be it resolved that Nova Scotian taxpayers should have the true picture and bottom line costs of this government's attack upon public services, including the stream of expensive contracts required by Liberal disorganization and distrust of faithful public servants.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Hants East.
MR. ROBERT CARRUTHERS: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the honourable Leader of the Opposition stated in Question Period that the Department of Health had guaranteed interviews to certain physicians who had indicated an interest in an advertised position with that department; and
Whereas the honourable Leader of the Opposition stated that such a guarantee was contained in a letter written by the Deputy Minister of Health to those physicians; and
Whereas when pressed to table this letter in the House, the Leader of the Opposition had to admit that neither guarantee nor supporting letter existed;
Therefore be it resolved that the new Official Opposition should be congratulated for ensuring that no such letter magically appeared in support of its alleged existence. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
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 1993 Liberal campaign pledge of jobs and a job strategy as top priorities were most critical to those in Cape Breton and northeastern Nova Scotia continuing to suffer the highest levels of chronic unemployment; and
Whereas after 18 months without a Liberal job strategy, despite Dingwall dollars, official unemployment in Cape Breton and the northeastern counties remains in the 25 per cent range, just where it was when this Liberal Government swept into office; and
Whereas the holiday season is being heralded in Cape Breton by record high social assistance with more than 5,000 now relying on temporary assistance and hundreds more expected this month alone;
Therefore be it resolved that Liberals who are eager to proclaim that they have created many thousands of jobs for Nova Scotians should be equally eager to accept the consequences of economic failure by enacting the long promised, fair and equitable, single tier social assistance system and by getting on with implementation of a promised job strategy.
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 residents of Sydney, anti-violence advocates and members of city council were outraged when the Minister of Municipal Affairs banned the rehiring of two police officers this spring; and
Whereas those two officers have now been hired back thanks to a new letter, this time from the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, stating that the rehiring was possible all along; and
Whereas one council member stated that, "when the will of the people cries out . . . we as elected representatives have to listen";
Therefore be it resolved that the Municipal Affairs Minister and her Liberal Cabinet colleagues should cease and desist their dictatorial, top-down approach to local services and municipal governments to end the mistakes and misunderstandings that inevitably result from such meddling.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
That concludes the daily routine.
I wish to advise the House that the Clerk has conducted a draw for the Adjournment debate at 6:00 p.m. The winner today is the honourable member for Kings West. He has submitted a motion stating:
Therefore be it resolved that this one and one-half year old Savage Government revisit its guarantee to Nova Scotians that, "Liberals would listen to Nova Scotians before making decisions that affect them".
So we will hear on that matter at 6:00 p.m.
The time now being 12:24 p.m., the Oral Question Period today runs for one hour to 1:24 p.m.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
ORAL QUESTIONS PUT BY MEMBERS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. I want to know from the Minister of Education, as does Danny Graham of Judique in Inverness County, which model of site-based management of schools the Department of Education sees as most appropriate for Nova Scotia schools?
HON. JOHN MACEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, to the honourable Leader of the Opposition and to Danny Graham, in fact I wrote a letter to Danny Graham answering the question. In answer to the House, it depends very clearly on the community involved. We have eight pilots. The model each has adopted is consistent with what their wishes are for their community and that will be our practice as we develop other models.
MR. DONAHOE: Well, I thank the minister for that answer. He may have, in part, anticipated my first supplementary. Could I ask the minister if it is his intention to legislate, at some point, a particular model of site-based management, which would have effect province wide and, if so, by what means does he intend to arrive at that model or are we going to potentially have a patchwork quilt of site-based management schools, community by community, across the province?
MR. MACEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, I did anticipate the answer. In fact, the communities will have much say in the exact model. We are going to give parameters to give guidance to each of the communities so they can work within that framework. We are going to, hopefully, prescribe the kind of membership, for example, to ensure that there is community membership, staff membership and, in terms of a high school, even student membership. So there are going to be parameters defined, but we are not going to step into each community and tell them exactly how to run their model of decision making.
I will give you a tiny example. Some of the pilots that are out there are setting different tasks for themselves. One is working on a discipline policy, another is working on a strategic plan, another one, Mr. Speaker, is working on a dress code, that they believe that is a place to start. I am going to work with them, as is the department and the boards, to support them as they learn how to collaboratively make decisions and work towards solutions. I cannot see how the honourable member or anybody who has faith in the communities out there would have a question about that. (Applause)
MR. DONAHOE: I didn't say here, Mr. Speaker, I had a question about anything except the questions that I put to the minister. I wonder if the minister can, perhaps, clarify. There are a considerable number of reports circulating that have reached me that the initiative to move in the area or the direction of site-based management schools is an initiative principally motivated in an effort to save money, as far as the Department of Education is concerned.
I wonder if the minister could comment on that, that some critics are suggesting that that is the motivation, as opposed to a legitimate effort to improve community input into the operation of our schools?
MR. MACEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, interesting enough, Danny Graham himself was involved in writing the policy that, as we were getting ready for an election, would talk about more community involvement. But I can answer that. First of all, it will not save money. Any critic who is suggesting that we are moving in that direction does not understand it. We have basically, with the eight pilots, given an extra amount of money to each one of them. We have dedicated some support money to each of them, outside the basic formulas. Also, we are developing, within our staff, an expertise outside of our normal expertise to support that.
So, in fact, any critic who would suggest that, is not paying attention to the facts. What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is we are trying to find savings in other directions to support that community involvement. So we are trying to make savings that are away from the schools and the classrooms, so that we can support those kinds of initiatives.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, through you, sir, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health will know that in the contract for deputy ministers, there are provisions whereby a deputy minister can be paid up to a year's salary if they are fired without just cause. The minister will also know that he and his government has reached a settlement with his former deputy minister, one Lucy Dobbin.
Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is, why has the government exercised that option? Why are taxpayers in the Province of Nova Scotia going to be paying about $100,000 if it is not an attempt by this government to cover up yet another one of their own mistakes?
HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the contract to which the honourable gentleman opposite refers is a fairly standard contract which contains a clause regarding termination of employment and legal advice was followed in this case.
I would defer to the honourable Minister of Human Resources for any details, or the Premier, himself, perhaps.
[12:30 p.m.]
MR. HOLM: Mr. Speaker, the government has admitted in the Freedom of Information request that they had replied, that they did not raise the issue or raise any concerns about the fact that Lucy Dobbin had been involved in business with her husband in a health care consulting business, that was never an issue when Lucy Dobbin was hired. It was only when it became a political problem that it became a concern and she was fired. I will direct my question then, since the Minister of Health didn't wish to answer it, to the Premier. I would like to ask the Premier why is it Nova Scotians are being asked to pay approximately $100,000 for a mistake that you and the Minister of Health made?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Dobbin was given one year's salary, this was after considerable legal advice. It was only on the advice of the solicitors in the department that this was decided. It was after she had gone to a lawyer and had threatened to take legal action and it was felt that the best way to deal with this was to be up-front, there was a clause in her contract that contained one year's salary and that was followed on legal advice.
MR. HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the government received legal advice. Of course, the need to pay the one full year's salary is in situations where the government fires somebody without just cause. My question to the Premier is simply, is the legal advice he and his government received that they did not have just cause for firing Mrs. Dobbin? Because the only other conclusion one could reach is that if they did have just cause then, in fact, Mrs. Dobbin would have had to sue this government and the government wouldn't have been paying out $100,000. In other words, is the legal advice that you did not have just cause for doing that which you did?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said before, that after all of the ramifications were taken into consideration, legal advice was sought and the advice of the legal authorities was followed.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. I am quoting from Hansard, the minister said, there were about 12 expressions of interest for the position of Advisor on Physician Affairs. Of those 12 there were three or four that had their curriculum vitaes, et cetera, that were submitted and a number of them were interviewed. I was wondering if the Minister could tell us how many of those applicants were interviewed and who did the interviews?
HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, many of the applicants were contacted by telephone by the deputy and the people on the committee and I am relying on the file in that regard.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if things in government have changed radically of late but if one is hiring a secretary at $20,000 a year, it is normal to have an interview. Surely to goodness when you are hiring somebody for a position that is going to pay $115,000, you do a little more than conduct an interview over the telephone. Would the minister confirm that the only person interviewed for the job was Dr. Dan Reid?
DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, no I cannot confirm that. I might remind the honourable gentleman opposite that in this regard, there were highly specialized requirements that we had. There were requirements in terms of clinicians, in terms of the number of years of practice, in terms of experience and in terms of agreement with the reform process that we had to have in this particular job. I rest on that. The best candidate we could come up with has been hired.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, would the minister please, at the earliest possible date within the next couple of days, table in this House the criteria for that position? Would he also table in this House the number of persons who were interviewed for this job in person and secondly, who did the interviews?
DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, I have researched this as best I can in terms of the files. I had, myself, solicited interest from the medical community in various forms. I had spoken to people who had been on some of our committees and the expressions of interest were very specific. Most of them were unwilling to consider a full-time position. Those were criteria, criteria that I have outlined in Hansard.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou Centre.
DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Community Services, on December 6th, the Premier, the Minister of Human Resources and the Minister of Community Services participated in the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, and this event coincided with the anniversary of the massacre at the École Polytechnique. During the discussion following there was verbal support by all ministers of the transition house program. My question to the minister, is this minister totally supportive of the transition house program in the province?
HON. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Speaker, yes, this did come up in that particular news conference where several positive announcements were made on initiatives for violence against women and families in general. A simple answer to the question is obviously, yes. I think we have demonstrated that by honouring our commitment to the enhancement of salaries, which I might say thousands of dollars were funded into transition home programs. More specifically, I would say, just to broaden on the question a bit, I certainly see the programs so that both the Naomi group in Antigonish and other areas that don't actually have transition homes will have facilities, that I see this as an all-encompassing program that we are certainly looking at other areas of the province to extend that and to support those programs that are in place as well.
DR. HAMM: The minister made reference of expanding this kind of program. I am sure the minister is aware of a report, a 22 page report by the Digby-based Citizens Against Spousal Abuse recommending a temporary shelter to allow in Digby, 24 hour accommodations before a transfer to the established transition house a number of miles away in Yarmouth. This group through this report are requesting some partial funding by the government. My question to the minister, would the minister be prepared to provide support in the form of partial funding for this temporary shelter in Digby?
DR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that has been highlighted in the media. On hearing that in the media I immediately requested a review of any applications before our department and as of now there are no requests before our Department of Community Services. However, not to wait and act more proactively, I have been discussing this with other members that may be able to add support and also with the MLA from the Digby community who has made representations on behalf of this particular group. This has received funding in the past and certainly will be looked upon and in concert with other members. So, not only the Department of Community Services, I think we really have to have initiatives from other departments and we have a commitment to look at that. I would be looking forward to a formal request from that particular group to our department.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier and it has to do with Nova Scotia Resources Limited and I am in possession of a copy of what I believe to be the latest issue of a publication entitled the DOIG Report and if a Page might be kind enough to pass a copy of that to the Premier. This report indicates that, "Last fall the new provincial Liberal government fired NSRL's previous board members and this spring nominated seven new board members. But already two of these board members have resigned.". It is rumoured in the DOIG Report that, ". . . at the centre of the resignations was interference from NSRL's chairman who happens to be an ex-employee of Petro-Canada; is now on contract with Petro-Canada for advice on Atlantic Canadian matters; and who maintains the largest office in Petro-Canada's Dartmouth, Nova Scotia complex.".
I wonder if the Premier might indicate whether or not, to his knowledge, the person referred to there is Mr. Bob Mackay, who is this government's appointment as chairman?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I have just been handed this. I would say, it certainly looks like, I can't give you absolute, but it certainly looks like Mr. Mackay, yes.
MR. DONAHOE: The document which I have just handed to the Premier goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, "It's amazing that a provincial government would choose this person for a supposedly part-time position that was never advertised.". That does not amaze any Nova Scotians. "This is not a normal business association considering the inter-relationships of the energy business on the east coast. It is as though the provincial government, showing its benevolence, has handed Petro-Canada another 7% interest on the Scotian Shelf, free-of-charge.".
My supplementary is, if the Premier makes inquiries and determines that the person to whom reference is made here is Robert Mackay and that Robert Mackay, whom this Premier appointed as Chair of NSRL, does indeed have those connections and linkages with PetroCanada, will the Premier give the undertaking to this House that he will immediately remove Bob Mackay as Chair of NSRL?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I find some of these comments irresponsible. I find they are misplaced and I would certainly not put any credence in most of them. I am seeing them for the first time. This is a slanted, one-sided view of NSRL, of the board, and all I can say is that I would not undertake to do anything like that until we had a much more balanced view than this particular piece of paper implies.
MR. DONAHOE: Well, I would be curious if the Premier could offer an explanation to me, by way of final supplementary, and, more to the point, to Nova Scotians, how it is that he can stand there and respond as he has, saying these words are a slanted view? I would like him to offer to us the explanation that he has that indicates or that would cause me or any Nova Scotian to believe that there is another view. On what understanding of what is going on at NSRL that is in the Premier's head does he base his conclusion that the remarks which are made in this report are, in any way, slanted?
THE PREMIER: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say that very few people who are put on a board like this do not have some contact or association with an oil company. That, after all, is why they are chosen. So that is what I mean by being slanted. I think I am being drawn into a departmental issue in which I am not, obviously, well briefed. Obviously, when the minister is away, I answer the question. I will speak to the minister when he gets back and refer this to him.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. The Justice Minister will be well aware that we have 27 provincial judges in this province, not one of them representative of a visible minority group. The Marshall Inquiry stressed the importance of ensuring that our judiciary include representation from visible minorities. The terms of reference of the provincial Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee explicitly stresses the responsibility to address the non-representation of visible minorities on the provincial bench. Yet, the most recent announcement of two more provincial judgeships once again failed to appoint a visible minority to the provincial judiciary.
My question to the Minister of Justice is simply this, why did the Cabinet choose not to appoint the eminently qualified black Nova Scotian applicant that was reviewed and recommended to the Cabinet for consideration in the most recent round of provincial judgeship appointments?
HON. WILLIAM GILLIS: Mr. Speaker, we have an independent system with a judicial committee that recommends judicial appointments, both to the Family Court and the Provincial Court. I think there is some misapprehension on the honourable member's part. We, in fact, accepted the recommendation of the judicial committee and we appointed the persons they recommended. When the honourable member suggests that a distinguished visible minority person, although they were recommended were not appointed is incorrect, it is not true.
[12:45 p.m.]
MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Justice indicating that in this case and in all instances, the Executive Council accepts the number one and if there are two appointments, number one and number two recommendations that are submitted by the provincial Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee and is it not true that there was a black Nova Scotian among the names recommended to the Executive Council for serious consideration?
MR. GILLIS: Mr. Speaker, to answer the last question first, there was not a visible minority person recommended to the Executive Council by that independent committee. But I also would add, to show that this is done impartially, if the Cabinet does not accept the first recommendation of that committee they must explain, in writing, to the independent committee which I might add includes two visible minority persons, why the Cabinet did not accept the recommendations of that independent body.
MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I think the question I would like to ask is the question that a lot of Nova Scotians are asking and that is whether there is going to be any leadership from this government and I think one has to include in that the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee in finally addressing the total absence . . .
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable minister says he cannot hear the question, could you repeat it please, perhaps louder?
MS. MCDONOUGH: Well, my question is whether this government is going to show some leadership, and I would include in that the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, in finally redressing the fact that there is not a single visible minority among the provincial judges in this province and I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether it has any priority with this government, given that disgraceful situation, given the recommendations of the Marshall Inquiry and given the fact that explicitly in the terms of reference of the provincial judicial advisory body, there is a special responsibility made explicit to ensure that we have some visible minority representation on our provincial bench?
MR. GILLIS: Mr. Speaker, so there is no misunderstanding, there is a visible minority person on the Family Court bench, not that that is particularly much to brag about but there happens to be and that is under my jurisdiction as well as the Provincial Court. I think all honourable members should be aware of the present guidelines so that there is no misunderstanding to help guide that committee and these were adopted several years ago and re-adopted or reconfirmed by the present government, in part, on demographics.
"The provincial judiciary should be reasonably representative of the population it serves. This requires overcoming the serious under-representation of women and minorities. It is also essential for the provincial judiciary to reflect the bilingual nature of the Province. The Committee will recommend the appointment of a well qualified person from an under-represented group if no one else is clearly better qualified.". I think that is a statement in moving in the right direction.
More than that, as Minister of Justice, with the support of my colleagues, I have been making proposals to the committee to further strengthen that to give minorities a better chance than is indicated there and I think there is a reasonable chance there. More than that too, so the honourable member would understand, at the urging of the Premier and a number of my colleagues, some of my Cabinet colleagues and myself, including the women in Cabinet and a visible minority person in Cabinet, have already requested a meeting with the chair of the committee and several of the others involved on the committee to discuss these very matters of gender representation and visible minorities so that we can do a better job, given the pool of people. In fact, I want to be optimistic about this because probably 20 years ago there were very few women in law school compared to today, and visible minorities, but give this a little time, we will get the people with qualifications that will do the proper job and we will have the better balance for gender and visible minorities in this province. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings North.
MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, through you to the honourable Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency, I would like to ask him a question with your permission. My question to the minister is regarding the Ultramar oil refinery in Eastern Passage that is capable of producing about 22,000 gallons a day and employing over 100 Nova Scotians. We all know that Ultramar has been indicating they are willing to sell the refinery but not the tank farm nor the loading dock and, without the accessibility of loading or storage, the refinery is not a very valuable item and, as such, they have not found a purchaser as yet.
In order to enable a purchaser, and there are a few people interested in buying, would the minister consider expropriating the facility, in order that, as the minister of the government and the Crown, in order that the facility could be sold in total and the 100 jobs there could be protected for the future, my question is, will the minister entertain the thought of expropriating the Ultramar refinery?
HON. ROSS BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the suggestion, too. I had not thought of expropriation. I will certainly speak to my staff who are working on this file. It sounds to me like a pretty dramatic effort, but I am as disappointed as anybody in how Ultramar has behaved in this. I don't believe Ultramar has made every effort to sell the refinery and I think this may be a suggestion that is worth looking at.
I certainly can't promise this Legislature we are going to rush off and expropriate but let me tell the honourable member that I will ask my staff about this matter.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Thank you very much, I appreciate the answer. I know the minister will look into this matter as quickly as possible because those 100 people working over there - the union members and the employees - are doing everything they can to try to ensure their jobs continue. So I do appreciate the answer that the minister gave and I look forward to hearing more from him on an expropriation shortly.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health will remember that the Certified Nursing Assistants Association and the Registered Nurses Association were asked by this minister to identify a scope of practice for the profession, I think he remembers that. These two groups had asked, I think, a personal care worker representative to participate, I believe. They went through the process and, at the end, were handed a report called Continuing Community of Care. I am sure he is familiar with that. This was prepared by another group. I would ask the minister why he would ask the RNs and CNAs to do a report that was already being done by another group?
HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, the effort that I requested particularly from the CNA group and the Registered Nurses Association, RNANS, was to look into the possibility of some joint credentialling and some joint programs in terms of legislation that might come forward. That was the specific request in that regard.
There were some other issues that came into discussion with those groups separately and the report to which the honourable gentleman refers was from a separate group. That, of course, is included in some of the discussions apart from the original request I had, which was for the CNA and the RNANS to discuss common issues that might be contained in credentialling legislation.
MR. MOODY: I thank the minister for the explanation. I wonder, then, if the minister could tell us whether there will be legislation coming next spring on the credentials for CNAs, who have been lobbying very hard, that would affect them as well as RNs, I guess, whether he would be able, by spring, to bring forth the kind of legislation that I know the CNAs have been lobbying very hard for?
DR. STEWART: Again, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hope that some common ground and, in fact, legislation could be made available, or at least constructed, by that timeframe. However, I am doubtful, in terms of what is coming in the spring budget and so on, that it would be realistic to say it would be this spring and guarantee it. However, certainly we are working toward doing it as soon as we possibly can. As the honourable gentleman opposite suggests, certainly the CNAs have been at this for some time.
MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I will try to narrow it down because I appreciate that in the spring there may not be a lot of legislation. I guess I would ask the minister then, would he kindly give us a guarantee that we would see something introduced in the House in 1995 and if the RNs and CNAs cannot come together with a package, that at least the CNAs could go forward with their legislation because the RNs already have theirs? I think it is important not to let this group keep hanging out there forever.
DR. STEWART: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the honourable gentleman opposite that we must proceed on this. It has been a while and I understand from the previous administration, they had been working hard on this as well.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. I wonder if the Minister of Health will tell me why it is that he refuses to tell this House how many applicants for the job - which has been given to Dr. Dan Reid - were interviewed? Why does he refuse to tell this House how many other applicants were interviewed?
HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I am not refusing to tell anything to this House. I have, again, emphasized that I have been reconstructing the events from a group, from my previous deputy and the work that was done in that regard and I have tried to be accurate. I have avoided making absolute guarantees and statements which I cannot back up.
AN HON. MEMBER: Let them make light of it. The people of Nova Scotia . . .
MR. DONAHOE: Yes, they can make light of it all they want. It occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that the answer to the question which I seek requires one question to be put by this minister to his former deputy and that question is, Ms. Dobbin, please tell me how many candidates for this job were interviewed? I would expect that Ms. Dobbin would then give him, the minister, an answer and that is a 30 second conversation and that would then put the minister in a position to come to this House and give us that answer.
I ask the minister, has this minister asked Lucy Dobbin, or any other person connected with the interview process, the question as to how many other candidates, other than Dan Reid, were interviewed? Has he asked that question?
DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the file as it currently is. I am not involving people who are no longer with the department. I will take the responsibility and not foist it off on anyone else.
MR. DONAHOE: Yesterday we were advised by this minister that they interviewed approximately two. I am not really sure what . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: Give or take one or two.
MR. DONAHOE: . . . approximately two interviews is. I just simply do not believe, and I do not believe thoughtful Nova Scotians believe for a minute, that it is not possible for this Minister of Health to determine the answer to that question. I ask him again, will he table in this House tomorrow, a statement in writing indicating the number of applicants and the number of those applicants who were interviewed for this job?
MR. SPEAKER: I believe that question has been asked already. Has it?
DR. STEWART: It reiterates what I have been saying. I have tried to be accurate and put it on the record. I have tried in every way to research carefully what is current in the file and the people who were dealing with the issue at that time. I have placed it on the record and I trust that that would satisfy the honourable gentleman opposite.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the Public Service Superannuation Plan. The minister will know that back in June, the then Chief Executive Officer of the Valley Regional Health Association, Mr. Peter Mosher, took advantage of the government's early retirement package. But before people had a chance to wish him a happy retirement, we found out that Mr. Mosher was, in fact, back in his position as Chief Executive Officer for that association, being paid with his pension and a top up from the association.
I guess my first question, off the bat, is this what was intended, to use the superannuation fund and that the contributors are paying for someone to supposedly retire and then come back and fill their former duties?
[1:00 p.m.]
HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, to the honourable member, I am not familiar with Mr. Mosher or that particular circumstance. But if the honourable member will share that information with me, I will certainly take the question on notice.
MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I have an article here from The Advertiser, Tuesday, November 29, 1994, and I would be happy, when I am through here, to send a copy over to the minister to bring this to his attention. But the issue here and my understanding is that in Kings County alone there are a few other instances of senior civil servants taking advantage of the early retirement program and coming back to work in positions that they were formerly in. My question, again, I guess, to the minister in terms of a policy issue, is this the intention of the early retirement program, that is to provide for early retirement for some senior civil servants so that they can come back and fill their former duties and receive a top up?
MR. BOUDREAU: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult with oblique references to certain civil servants. I don't know exactly what the information the honourable member is referring to. If he is referring to individuals involved in the health field, perhaps he might direct his final supplementary to the Minister of Health.
MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was much more clear in my first supplementary to the Minister of Finance when he suggested that he couldn't answer the question because he doesn't know of the specific incident that I referred. So what I am asking is for a policy clarification here. Is it, in fact, the practice of the government that the early retirement program that the minister is responsible for is going to be used to provide opportunities for senior civil servants to take advantage of the package and then come up and perform their former duties with a top up? It has been called, in the past, I think, an enriched pension plan.
MR. BOUDREAU: If the honourable member wants a general statement, the purpose of the early retirement plan is to have people retire early from the Civil Service and to have most of those positions not in-filled. So that we can reduce the size of the Civil Service. Now, if the honourable member has an individual who he wants to question me about and he will give me the details on that individual, I would be more than happy to discuss it with him.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. I wonder if the Minister of Health can confirm that he has now had access to the contract of employment with Dr. Reid in the position of Advisor on Physician Affairs and that, in fact, Dr. Reid is to be paid $115,000 per annum. Is that correct?
HON. RONALD STEWART: Yes, that was the figure to which the Leader of the Opposition refers was agreed in the contract, the contract has not been sent back to my department yet; I am waiting for it. However, that figure was mentioned in advertisement, yes.
MR. DONAHOE: By way of supplementary, I wonder if the honourable minister might be able to tell me even if he hasn't perhaps yet gotten it back from Human Resources, if he could tell me what is the amount that is intended to be paid in contractual obligation terms to Mary Jane Hampton, the Health Reform Commissioner?
DR. STEWART: Again, that is under discussion at the moment as I understand it. I would stand to be corrected by the honourable Minister of Human Resources but I believe that is just to be finalized.
MR. DONAHOE: Well, there must be a pretty sizeable petty cash box, I guess, in the Department of Health. I can't believe what I am hearing.
I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Health if he could offer me an answer to this question; it is my understanding that the Deputy Minister of Health, Mr. Armand Pinard, who is one of the most highly regarded public officials in this province, in my experience, and certainly highly enough considered by this Premier and this government to have recently moved to become this minister's deputy, which is a significant expression of confidence in him, how is it that he, Mr. Pinard, as deputy, with overall and total responsibility for a health care budget of about $1.4 billion, is paid less than $100,000 and yet Dr. Dan Reid, the classmate and friend of the minister, who is going to be Advisor on Physician Affairs, to do the things set out in this agreement and this advertisement, is to be paid $115,000?
Can the minister explain why the work that Dr. Reid will be doing is worth at least $20,000 more than the work being done by the man who is deputy and responsible for the total $1.4 billion health care budget?
DR. STEWART: Again, Mr. Speaker, as I think the Minister of Finance referred to yesterday, most of my senior people earn more than a Cabinet Minister earns, so the differences in remuneration are evident in whatever profession one is in. The remuneration, the salary scale offered the Advisor on Physican Affairs was in keeping with previous medical consultations that we had to compete, as I understand.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my question, too, is for the Minister of Health. I think the Minister of Health will agree when I say that the early detection and treatment of cancer is very important. I would ask the minister if he knows that in this province it is recommended that we have nine radiation oncologists on staff and I would ask the minister if he could tell me how many radiation oncologists are presently working at the Cancer Treatment Centre?
HON. RONALD STEWART: I can't give that exact figure today, but that is one of the specialty areas in which we are significantly lower than recommended and we are recruiting actively at the moment for radiation oncologists.
MR. MOODY: I thank the honourable minister. Yes, it is nine that is recommended. I can tell the minister, so he won't have to look it up, there are three working presently. I know the lists are growing larger and they are getting calls daily and when people are told, or it is discovered, that they have cancer, they know the treatment they get early is so important.
The problem in recruiting is the policy this government has had toward physicians. I would ask the minister if he could tell us what he is going to do to attract some radiation oncologists quickly to this province, before it becomes a greater problem than it already is, because it is a problem today?
DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the honourable gentleman opposite for this question because it hits on a very important issue, and that is recruitment and retention of professionals. There has never been a policy or a program within the Ministry of Health or as a responsibility of the Minister of Health, to do just that, to recruit and retain physician specialists. Over six months ago, we began discussions with the Medical Society and with other groups to put into effect a program that would, in fact, recruit and retain specialists and other professionals that we need in this province. That was the first effort ever made on behalf of the Ministry of Health or the Minister of Health to do that.
I might say that it is extremely important, but we have to work with our colleagues in the Medical Society and we have to work with other professional groups in the province. I look forward to that program coming forward very soon.
MR. MOODY: My final supplementary is to the Minister of Health. I am pleased that he wants to work with the Medical Society because that is the problem. I am asking the minister why it is he is not working through the joint management committee that has been set up to work with the Medical Society and he has hired Dan Reid to circumvent the joint medical committee that was set up to solve the problems, to work out the problems of recruiting, so that the people of this province can get the kind of specialized care they need today and not have the delay that this minister is causing?
DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, this is reprehensible in the extreme for the honourable gentleman opposite to cast fear and aspersion on the fact that we have specialists in this province that are dedicated, that are coming into this province and are being recruited as I speak.
The fact is that there was never an initiative in the Department of Health to go out and recruit and retain specialists or any other kind of physician in this province. We have begun that and we will take that forward and that is the truth, Mr. Speaker, and we will, indeed, produce results, which I am sure the honourable gentleman opposite would stand on his feet and congratulate once we got started on this. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Earlier this year, we passed legislation in this House respecting compensation in the public sector. Section 5 of the Act that we passed states that employees of agencies, boards and commissions will be subject to the 3 per cent roll-back, or can be exempted, providing the government deems that that particular section or specific group be exempted.
I was wondering if the minister could explain why this 3 per cent cut was not made straight across the board? Why would some boards and commissions and agencies be exempted?
HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, let me address one in particular. In those areas where commercial operations were involved, for example, Sydney Steel, for reasons which have been discussed previously in the House, that was not extended. I don't have a full answer to that, but I will certainly get any additional information the honourable member wishes.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, the Community Services Appeal Boards, the members on those boards, they do not meet, specifically, for very long periods of time and they get approximately $30 per meeting. They have been hit with the 3 per cent roll-back.
I was wondering if the minister could advise me if the Electricity Regulation Review Panel, which gets paid approximately $600 a day is faced with a 3 per cent roll-back?
MR. BOUDREAU: With respect to that particular group, that did not exist, I think, when the legislation was passed. Those rates were negotiated subsequently, but I will direct that question, specifically, to the board responsible for administration of the Act and return a reply to the honourable member.
MR. RUSSELL: Because here we have two boards. We have one board where they are paid something like $30 a day, which is probably something close to minimum wage, and another board which is paid $600 a day, which comes to some staggering figure of like $3,000 a week, $150,000 a year, and it has not been cut-back because the minister says it was put in place after the legislation came in place.
But, however, my understanding of the legislation, Mr. Speaker, (Interruption) Well, yes, George Unsworth would not be cut back. He is a member of that board.
MR. SPEAKER: Please, let's not be mentioning private individuals in this House.
MR. RUSSELL: But what I am saying to the minister, the Act as I understand it, the piece of legislation says that anybody coming into the employ of the government that is paid from the public purse will, indeed, have their salary rolled back at the rate of 3 per cent, under the legislation that was passed.
Would the minister agree that he will take a look at this situation and advise the House what he intends to do about it?
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I think in my last answer, I indicated to the honourable member that I would refer the matter to the board and bring back a reply as to how this particular board was going to be treated. I did not say they were exempt. I said they came into existence after the legislation and I would refer the matter and get the answer for the honourable member from the board.
The other off-handed suggestion, I think, is somewhat beneath the normal level of questioning of this honourable member.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question, through you, sir, to the Minister of Human Resources. We had it confirmed earlier this afternoon by the Premier that the government has exercised the option and is providing Mrs. Dobbin, the former deputy minister, with a full year's salary. in other words, exercising the clause which permits the government to fire somebody without just cause. My question to the Minister of Human Resources is simply this, was the legal advice that she and her department received, that the government could not win a just cause dismissal case?
[1:15 p.m.]
HON. ELEANOR NORRIE: Mr. Speaker, at the time of termination there was discussion with legal advisors on the contract and the termination of the person that he indicates and we followed the legal advice of the legal advisors.
MR. SPEAKER: I would caution the House that Beauchesne requires that oral questions should not ask a legal opinion or require an answer involving a legal opinion. Those are the direct words of Beauchesne.
MR. HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you I am not asking the minister for a legal opinion, quite to the contrary.
MR. SPEAKER: Questions shall not require an answer involving a legal opinion, that is what Beauchesne says.
MR. HOLM: Mr. Speaker, after being helpful to me in the way I phrase my question, is it the government's opinion based on all of the advice that it has received that it could not have won a case against wrongful dismissal? Is that the reason why the government made the decision to pay approximately $100,000 of taxpayer's money?
MRS. NORRIE: Mr. Speaker, the decision was made following opinion from our legal advisors.
MR. HOLM: Mr. Speaker, will the minister table in this House the opinions that she received that provided her to make the decision or, in fact, I might even ask if the minister has read and understands the advice she has received?
MRS. NORRIE: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Queens.
MR. JOHN LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries of Nova Scotia and, I believe, several other provincial Ministers of Fisheries have supported the initiation of a seal cull for the seal herd, various species of seal off the East Coast of Canada. I wonder if the minister could advise what support he and his colleague ministers have received from Mr. Tobin with respect to a seal cull?
HON. JAMES BARKHOUSE: Mr. Speaker, certainly the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Tobin, has given tentative support to a seal harvest and he does not talk about a cull but a managed seal harvest, utilizing the full carcass and a lot of research is to be done yet. I think there will be a forum held in the near future with the industry and with the various Departments of Fisheries to do a further in-depth study on the seal harvest.
MR. LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, the minister is right, there is a distinction between a cull and a harvest and his term is the appropriate term. My second question to the minister is to ask him what scientific evidence he employed in order to bring him to the conclusion that Nova Scotia should support a seal harvest?
MR. BARKHOUSE: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. The recent report of the Fisheries Resource Council of Canada, which recently held a news conference in Halifax tabling their recommendations to the federal minister, that was the findings of the FRCC and that conclusion was reached after many meetings with fishermen throughout Atlantic Canada in the last year and in previous years. It has been well documented from other research initiatives by the federal government as well and those conclusions were reached by the FRCC.
MR. LEEFE: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary, we would understand and the minister understands full well that there is always the potential of market dislocations as the result of protest against the initiation of a seal harvest by Canada. I wonder if the minister could advise if he has available to him and could make available to the House any information with respect to surveys that have been done which forecast any potential, negative impact for Nova Scotia fish products in the international market place should a seal harvest be initiated?
MR. BARKHOUSE: Mr. Speaker, the question is very good. That is why the federal minister has called for a forum to be held so that more input can be brought to the fore by the international wildlife organizations and many other groups. There is still that aspect to be discussed with the industry and with other interested parties; industry is certainly in support of it but there are other components of our society that do want to take part and the federal minister has called for a forum on this particular issue.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: My question is for the Minister of Finance. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if contracts signed at the present time or since the passage through this House of the Public Sector Compensation Act, are those contracts which are made for a certain amount, say for argument's sake, $50,000 a year, are those contracts then rolled back 3 per cent like for instance, Dr. Reid's contract? It is signed as a contract at $115,000 per annum, is Dr. Reid's salary reduced by 3 per cent from that contract figure?
HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, well, I think as the honourable member knows that particular contract would not come before me either as Minister of Finance or Chairman of the Priorities and Planning Committee, however, as a general measure salary levels, wherever they might be, are reduced. If somebody comes into position subsequent to the passage of that bill in the normal Civil Service position and assume that position at the given salary range, that salary will be reduced by 3 per cent.
MR. RUSSELL: That was a very nice response I got but it didn't answer my question. I am not talking about somebody coming into the Civil Service and taking over an established position, I am talking about the government going out and bypassing the normal hiring practices, hiring somebody under a contract and that contract is time-specific, maybe it is 5 years maybe it is 25 years, but it is for a certain amount for the first year. During that first term of the contract, is the stated amount in the contract rolled back by 3 per cent?
MR. BOUDREAU: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is why I avoided the question specifically on the particular contract. I don't know what was contained in the contract, I don't know how it was worded, how it was addressed. It may be that a figure has taken into account the reduction already. I can give the honourable member the general principle, which I have attempted to do.
MR. SPEAKER: Is there a short snapper? We have half a minute left.
MR. RUSSELL: All I am asking for is what is the policy? This gentleman is the Chairman of the Priorities and Planning Committee, surely to goodness he is the person who makes the rules for the rest of the ministers with regard to contracts. What are the rules?
MR. BOUDREAU: The rules as the honourable member refers to them are not policy, they are law. We passed the legislation and that is that employees have their salaries reduced by 3 per cent.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The time allotted for the Oral Question Period has expired.
The honourable Minister of Justice.
HON. WILLIAM GILLIS: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last, the member for Pictou West asked me if a study on spousal homicides had been completed. I just wanted to report back to that honourable member and to all honourable members that last month a draft of the report was submitted and currently the draft is being reviewed by a committee involving the Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Transition Houses of Nova Scotia, the Departments of Community Services and Justice, and maybe some other groups and it is hoped that the report will be completed soon and it will eventually be available hopefully not too far in the future.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and through you to all members of the House, former Cape Breton County Councillor and long-standing resident of Reserve Mines, in Cape Breton County, Mr. Cotter Oliver. I would ask Mr. Oliver if he would stand and receive the warm welcome of the House. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.
MR. ALLISTER SURETTE: Mr. Speaker, I move that you do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House on Bills.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.
[1:26 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: We have now reached the hour of adjournment. The motion this evening has been presented by the honourable member for Kings West. The subject for debate is:
Therefore be it resolved that this one and one-half year old Savage Government revisit its guarantee to Nova Scotians that, "Liberals would listen to Nova Scotians before making decisions that affect them".
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION UNDER RULE 5(5)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise tonight and this issue tonight, be it resolved that after one and one-half years of this government, that it revisit its guarantee to Nova Scotians that Liberals would listen to Nova Scotians before they make decisions that would affect them.
I go back through some of the ads that the Liberals ran to get elected. It said, open doors, open minds. Can you remember when government asked for your opinion and actually took your advice? It has been too long, let's move on. John Savage will bring new people, new ideas. A Liberal Government will listen and respond. We both have the same goal - jobs. Let's move on together. Let's make sure that the general public have an opportunity to have input.
Another ad, throughout the campaign, I have committed that Liberals would listen to Nova Scotians before making decisions that affect them. It goes on to say, vote for me and I will make sure that happens. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on about ads. But I think, as we come here in the Legislature, and I know that the days are getting long and we all say that we should go home or we have been here long enough.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this government promised that we would sit two sittings a year, which they have kept that promise. I have been thinking about how many promises they have kept, and that was about the only one I could remember. But they sure kept that and I think I can remember that because I came here in the spring and in the fall.
They talked about accountability and it, ". . . should not be left to the discretion of the government of the day, but should entrench the public interest in legislation.". I think that is what we have been doing, entrenching public interest in legislation. They go on to say that, "Nova Scotians cannot afford to have important public issues lost in a welter of concentrated government activity, punctuated by long periods without real, public accountability.".
I think, Mr. Speaker - and you have been a member of this Legislature for a long time - you and all members, especially members like yourself that have come here a long time, agree that accountability for any government starts in the Legislature. I think that is where the general public believes that the accountability takes place. So, we come here to debate. We have seen, in this session, some very important pieces of legislation that I think every member of this Legislature has some interest in, probably, also, has some opinion on. Others, I know, have more opinions than others and I understand that.
In looking through the commitment by this Liberal Party, they said we are, ". . . committed to delivering an annual State of the Province address between legislative sessions.". We sat last fall and then the new session began in the spring. Well, I don't remember any State of the Province Address and I don't remember - it says, also, "At the time of the State of the Province Address, Liberal Cabinet ministers and MLAs will hold Town Hall meetings simultaneously throughout Nova Scotia. Each meeting will be for the purpose of reporting on . . .", what we are doing as government, ". . . and accounting for the record of the government.".
Now, I have not been to any of those or heard of any of those meetings, but I know they are going to take place because this government said it was going to take place. So I am looking forward, although as I read this, Mr. Speaker, you would appreciate this, they said, between legislative sessions and I guess that is between the fall and the spring. But, somehow, we get into one session that runs over from spring to fall and sometimes there is a very little timeframe between actual sessions. So I am not sure how that commitment is going to work.
I want to say, too, Mr. Speaker, that accountability is pretty important; no question, the public scrutiny. It does not matter if you represent government or are in Opposition, I think you understand. That's why we have democracy. In democracy there is a time for accountability. Some people might say that accountability is every four to five years, when you go to the polls and somebody decides whether or not you get re-elected or whether you have done a good job for your constituents or whether you have not. So there is some accountability for you, as an MLA.
But then again, you are also affected by - if you are a government member, which I was during the last election - the performance of government because you are held partly accountable for the government you represent.
But you know, Mr. Speaker, what I find difficult to understand, and I think the best example of accountability in this government is one on casinos. If you look at Sydney and you know that the majority in Sydney said no, the people in Sydney said no, the City of Sydney said no, but this government is putting a casino in Sydney.
I read Arnie Patterson's comments in the Daily News on Sunday but I don't have it with me. He was dead on when he said - and Arnie Patterson is not a friend of our caucus. I followed his writings, I am sure you have, Mr. Speaker. He made a lot of sense in that article when he said to the government and to John Savage, Mr. Premier, will you please listen to what is being said by the general public about casinos?
Somebody said to me, well, we are not getting a flood of calls so it must be all right to go ahead with casinos. Well, do you think before the election we were getting a flood of calls telling us we were going to be booted out? Of course we didn't. Do you think we got a flood of calls because we did things wrong and people wanted it changed? No, you can't judge all the issues by the number of calls you get because a lot of times people call you on certain issues because they have a particular interest in that particular issue. Many times it is very small groups or pockets that end up calling you, as an MLA, about an issue.
I think if you really want to know what is happening, you listen and watch what is in the news, you watch what the public are saying and you get a sense. A good example of that was when this government put through Sunday shopping. I know that I said when we tried it, as a government, the majority of Nova Scotians did not want Sunday shopping. Now this government put it in and, in fairness to this government, they went back and said, let's find out what the people want to say. Now that was after they had tried it.
What they found out after they tried it was that the consensus was that the majority of people didn't want Sunday shopping. My problem with casinos is; Sunday shopping was easy to close the books, it didn't cost anybody anything. The casino issue, once you build them and once we get tied into contracts with these foreign companies, what is it going to cost us to close the books? Here is an issue where we should be very sure before we make a decision.
I know that most members of the government know about the recent poll, where this government and Nova Scotia received the lowest performance assessment of any government in Canada, lower than Ralph Klein, lower than the Tory Government in Manitoba, lower than the NDP Government in Ontario, lower than the NDP Government in Saskatchewan. You have to ask yourself, why did we get the lowest performance of all the governments in Canada?
If I was a Liberal and I was in government, I would have to analyze that because I will tell you, you may or may not believe in polls but let me tell you, the reason you have the lowest, I may not know all the reasons but one of the reasons I hear in the streets is that this government is not listening; they are not available and they are not listening.
Now that may not be, you have to go into it a little further, and I am sure you have people in the Party who can. But I will tell you right now, if I was a member of the government that had the lowest performance rating in all of Canada, when I hear this government say, Bob Rae won't get re-elected, if his performance is rated higher than this government's, what do you think your chances are?
You say, oh, we will turn it around. I am telling you, when you have a great big ship out in the middle of the ocean, it is not that easy to turn around, it is not that easy to change the attitude.
So my advice to this government is, if you want to receive a better performance assessment by the people of this province, then you have to change your attitude. Some of the things you are doing, I agree with. But what I hear in the street, it isn't all what you are doing, it is the attitude and that you are not taking the time to really hear what is being said. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Bedford Basin.
MR. GERALD FOGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to respond to some of the comments made by the honourable member for Kings West in his resolution that Liberals promised they would listen to Nova Scotians before making decisions that affect them. I am happy to say that I think, for the most part, what I heard from the member for Kings West was we listened on the subject of Sunday shopping because we brought it in as an experiment. We said it was exactly that, an experiment at about this time last year leading up to Christmas and the end of the year. We listened when Nova Scotians told us that they did not want Sunday shopping on a permanent basis. This government has said, fine, we won't give you Sunday shopping on a permanent basis. It was an experiment, it is over and done with. Did we listen? I think we listened.
The member for Hants West also alluded to the casinos.
AN HON. MEMBER: Kings West.
MR. FOGARTY: Kings West, I am sorry. I should know that because we got to know each other very early in my term, shortly after this government came to power because we both served on the gambling committee that held public hearings throughout the Province of Nova Scotia. Of course, casinos was one of the major issues, but not the only one.
Now I want to say that I would be less than candid if I said to this House and to Nova Scotians that I don't have concerns about this business initiative, the government moving into the casino gambling business; I do have some concerns. I want to say that the recommendation brought in by the Community Services Committee, which I chaired, was that the government at this time should not move into the casino gambling business.
The number one reason - and the member for Kings West knows this because he served on the committee - was that at this time this province is in a sordid mess vis-à-vis the regulations not only that would oversee any form of casino gambling but with all forms of gambling in this province. We found, when we conducted those public hearings around Nova Scotia, that it is an embarrassing situation this province is in with its lack of regulations and rules that pertain to all forms of gambling, with the result the committee recommended we have a gaming authority.
We are going to have two bodies that will oversee the operation of the casinos in Halifax and in Sydney. We will have a corporation which will look after the business end of the operation. We will have a commission that will ensure that the regulations and rules are properly enforced and there will be very, very stiff fines that will be meted out to those who don't follow those regulations.
So, again I want to reiterate, I am not totally comfortable with the casino initiative and this new business that this government, of which I am a member, is going to embark upon. But I can live with it because of the very strong rules and regulations in Bill No. 120. I think the Minister of Finance who is also the Minister responsible for the Lottery Act, has brought in some very tough regulations that must be adhered to.
What did that committee also recommend vis-à-vis other forms of gambling? Nova Scotians told that committee they did not - I repeat not - want video lottery terminals returned to corner stores, laundromats and bowling alleys. We heard, in no uncertain terms, that Nova Scotians wanted video lottery terminals kept in licensed liquor establishments where young people could be refused entrance. That was the main concern that Nova Scotians had, video lottery terminals should not be returned to corner stores, laundromats and bowling alleys. That was the recommendation the committee made and that is exactly what the government followed.
The recommendation was also forwarded by the committee to government on bingo, charitable and commercial bingos that operate in this province. We found out in that area too, there is much to be desired; a lot of tightening up has to be done on these regulations. This government is going to proceed in that direction and do that. I mentioned the gaming authority, which was the number one recommendation of that committee to government, and that, too, is going to be done.
The Minister of Municipal Affairs held meetings will all 66 municipal units in this province before embarking upon her legislation to bring about the reform of this province that Nova Scotians have been demanding for years and years and that is we have too much duplication. We have too much overlap of services, we need a single-tier welfare system, that is what the Minister of Municipal Affairs was told by Nova Scotians when she met with all 66 municipal units and that is exactly how she is proceeding with this municipal reform bill. If that is not listening to Nova Scotians, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what better example I could provide.
[6:15 p.m.]
The Minister of the Environment, one of his main concerns shortly after this government came to office was the fact that Nova Scotia had something like 18 Statutes and 40 sets of regulations that acted as some sort of, I was going to say an Act but of course, it wasn't an Act at all because we didn't have an environment Act in this province. The Minister of the Environment, one of his first priorities was to put together a new Environment Act and it has been brought before this House of Assembly and has been debated and we saw earlier today after third reading in Committee of the Whole House and it will become law very early in the new year. This is a very badly needed initiative that Nova Scotia is finally going to come to the level of other provinces in the area of the environment.
Nova Scotians also told the Minister of the Environment, here in metro, in particular, they were not comfortable and they could not agree on the subject of an incinerator to handle the disposal of waste in metro. The Burnside incinerator and it was a very controversial and contentious issue for many years and those who have served at the municipal level of government in metro here they know that better than I but they also know that no decision can ever be made on this incinerator, this waste-to-energy incinerator. Some were for it, some said we must burn some of our waste, others said that it would be a mistake. The environmentalists and the ecologists here in metro felt that they weren't being listened to. But when this new Minister of the Environment bit the bullet and came in with his ruling that the Burnside incinerator issue be put aside, that it not go ahead, it was too expensive and then again, Nova Scotians didn't want it.
Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on a few more issues as to how this government indeed has listened and listened intently to Nova Scotians. We have had in this province the Minister of Justice has brought in what is called the Maintenance Enforcement Act but what it is, is very tough child support legislation. Nova Scotians have told the government of this province for years that something had to be done about parents, primarily fathers, who default on the child support payment, not entirely fathers, but primarily we heard in the Law Amendments Committee just a couple of days ago, a percentage something like 98 per cent of those who default on payments are the fathers.
Nova Scotians told us, do something about that. I had calls from my constituents who felt it was an extremely important issue, do something about it. Those Nova Scotians who bring children into the world, they have a responsibility to maintain the support and provide for support of those children.
Workers' compensation is an issue over which I had many calls from my constituents in the first six months of this government's administration. The Minister of Labour also refused to do what the previous administration had done for how many years, probably in the entire 15 years of their administration and that was to throw it on the back shelf, there would be another report as to how there had to be a revision of the laws that govern workers' compensation, the board and the appeal board but they preferred to shove it to the back of the shelf or to sweep it under the rug.
The Minister of Labour wanted to bring fairness to the 1,800 Nova Scotians who had not had their appeal cases dealt with and I heard from many of them, we all do, all 52 members of this House of Assembly, I am sure, hear from their constituents, those who are affected by the lack of fairness in this system and that is what the Minister of Labour has embarked upon and he has brought in a new workers' compensation bill.
If I have time I want to mention one other example if I may of how the Minister of Natural Resources listened to the people of Nova Scotia when he was told - I know very little about hunting, I am not a woodsman, Mr. Speaker, and I know nothing about . . .
MR. SPEAKER: You're heading into overtime.
MR. FOGARTY: I am running into overtime, I have a few seconds left. (Laughter) But I do think that it has to be brought to the attention of this House and Nova Scotians, the Minister of Natural Resources listened to Nova Scotians who said they did not want a spring bear hunt. When the minister made his decision, that is exactly how he stated it. Nova Scotians told the Minister of Natural Resources they didn't want a spring bear hunt, we are not going to have one, Mr. Speaker. There are many other instances of how this government has listened to Nova Scotians, those are but a few. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Queens.
MR. JOHN LEEFE: Well, I see we have evidence right here in the Chamber this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that this government is not listening. The member who just spoke did not listen to you when you told him his time was up. (Laughter) He did not take a seat for some seconds after that. However, it is always a great pleasure to listen to him in the stentorian tones of that wonderful voice that we used to hear over the airwaves and the tones that now those of us who are his colleagues in the Legislature are able to hear from time to time when he gets up and speaks in the House.
I won't detain the committee long and certainly probably not 10 minutes. I thought I might take an opportunity to respond to the resolution that was brought forward by my colleague, the member for Kings West this evening.
I was thinking of education. This is a government which, when it was in Opposition, said that it was going to put tremendous emphasis on education. Education was something that we couldn't afford not to afford. Yet, what do we find? We find that the Department of Education, schools, school boards, students across this province are facing the very same kind of across the board cuts, as other departments in government.
Those cuts will, invariably, have an impact on the classroom. It may take a little more time than one might at first have anticipated, but mark my words, sir, by the end of the four year period when the full cut is in place, we are going to see some rather significant and negative impact in the classrooms of Nova Scotia. That is going to be compounded by the then impact of the now very popular early retirement program for teachers. I venture to say that that is an impact that although not measured now by the public it will be measured by the public when that time comes.
Another aspect of education which was promised by this government those many months ago, now, when they were seeking the approbation of the people of Nova Scotia was the need to employ our community college system to put in place an apprenticeship program. Yet, here 18 months later, we see no evidence of such a program being put in place. I think that that is not only most unfortunate with respect to the credibility of the government but I think it is also very unfortunate with respect to the young men and women who are involving themselves in our technical colleges and in our community colleges, who very much need that kind of practical, on the job educational experience. That is an area that we certainly would be pleased to support the government in doing. However, like most Nova Scotians, we continue to be disappointed as we wait for government to take action in that area.
We have before the House a bill with respect to municipal reform. Yet, I say, sir, in looking through that bill, which one might call the dog and cat bill, because there is as much in it about controlling dogs throughout Nova Scotia as there is in municipal reform, that we will find that while there may be some change resulting from that bill, the change will not necessarily be measured with respect to reform.
One of the great disservices of the way in which this government is approaching municipal exchange and the rearrangement of who pays for what, arises out of the fact that it is not being equally applied across the province. That inequity, I think, is going to stand this government in very ill stead when it goes out to the people again seeking their support at the polls, whenever that time should come.
I don't think that there has been any better example, or perhaps any worse example, might be a more appropriate way to express it, than the - not the reluctance but the entire failure - abject failure of this government to deal face to face and head to head with the people of Nova Scotia respecting the implementation of casino gaming in Nova Scotia.
I was one of those who was probably, I would say, somewhat ambivalent with respect to casino gaming when the concept was first brought forward, excepting that I understood clearly that there were many of my constituents who were greatly disturbed by the concept, and knowing that that strong sense was with my constituents, I felt I had an obligation to support them.
But as we have gone on and learned more about what it is the government intends to do, and as we have learned that the government has not undertaken the studies, has not listened to Nova Scotians, I have become convinced that my constituents were absolutely correct, and I am so pleased that I followed their good advice in the position that I have taken with respect to casino gambling. The government has not listened at all with respect to that.
Last year the government went through an abortive effort to begin Sunday shopping here in Nova Scotia; again, without consulting the people but, finally, they did listen to the people in retrospect and that, I suspect, is probably why we don't have Sunday shopping this year.
So many communities around Nova Scotia are concerned about the future of health in their communities and their health care institutions, yet we have a Minister of Health who has refused to go anywhere in Nova Scotia to meet with Nova Scotians. He wants to do everything either through his office across the street in the Joseph Howe Building or here in the Chamber or via television, by interview out in the foyer.
People have tried to meet with the minister; he has refused to listen to them. This government has refused to listen to them, the people of Nova Scotia, with respect to health reform and they will pay the price, not the people, but the government. Unfortunately, the people may be hit with the ricochet, but they will heal, the government will not.
We have a government which promised jobs. We have had a turnaround in the economy. The turnaround has been substantial; so substantial, in fact, that the Minister of Finance tells us know that he may be $100 million ahead with respect to the revenues that are coming in. (Applause)
I hear the applause in the Chamber and I know that that applause is for those other provinces which, through transfer payments, have made that $100 million, or much of it, flow into the Minister of Finance's coffers. We should applaud the other provinces in Canada which are doing better than Nova Scotia and, which as a result of Confederation, are prepared to share their wealth with us. But if we were doing so well in Nova Scotia, why would it be that the unemployment rate in Cape Breton, in fact, has gone up and not gone down? I think it is an interesting question and one which behooves a government, which promised jobs, to answer.
We have heard the government talk - and I think I saw something in their campaign literature - about legislative reform and, yet, we have not seen significant reform in this Chamber and I hope, indeed, that we will. Reform does not consist of a majority of two-thirds from the government side ramming through what they want to see happen, and curtailing the opportunities for the Opposition to question government in a legitimate manner. Reform consists of all legislators sitting down and, by consensus, finding ways to do the people's business better in this Chamber.
One of the areas that I hope we will see reform engendered in this place is through the election of the Speaker by secret ballot, whenever you should decide, sir, that you are prepared to step down and that is a decision which is yours to take and I do not suggest for a moment that by encouraging the election of the Speaker that I am, in any way, intending to hasten your departure from the Chair.
I think it is high time we had the Party Whips off on a lot of our legislation, so that Party members, in fact, are not obliged to vote with the Party line. Time and time again we have heard the Government House Leader say that, for his caucus, every vote is a free vote, every member of his caucus has the right to make up their own mind. But one did and we saw what happened to him. He is now sitting somewhere in no man's land, somewhere in limbo. That hardly strikes me as being reform.
Just before I finish, sir, I want to touch on the final remarks of the member for Halifax Bedford Basin, who seems to think the current Minister of the Environment invented environmental reform. I can tell him that while the current minister did, indeed, bring the bill into the House, that was a process which began a few years ago and I had the pleasure and the honour to be part of that process. I think we should remember that no single person deserves all of the credit for the good things that Legislatures deal with. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The time allotted for the Adjournment debate has expired. The House will now revert into a 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.]
[7:52 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 considered the following bill:
Bill No. 115 - Environment Act.
and the chairman has been instructed to recommend this bill to the favourable consideration of the House, with certain amendments.
MR. SPEAKER: Ordered that this bill be read for a third time on a future day.
The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.
MR. ALLISTER SURETTE: Mr. Speaker, would you please revert to the order of business, Presenting Reports of Committees.
PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Justice.
HON. WILLIAM GILLIS: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee on Law Amendments, I am directed to report that the committee has met and considered the following bills:
Bill No. 120 - Gaming Control Act.
Bill No. 124 - Maintenance Enforcement Act.
Bill No. 128 - Farm Registration Act.
and the committee recommends these bills to the favourable consideration of the House, with certain amendments.
MR. SPEAKER: Ordered that these bills be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on Bills.
The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.
MR. ALLISTER SURETTE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the members of the House that tomorrow we will sit between the hours of 8:00 a.m. until to 4:00 p.m. The order of business following the daily routine will be Committee of the Whole House on Bills and Bill No. 114.
I move that we adjourn until 8:00 a.m. tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion for adjournment has been made and carried.
The House will now rise to sit again tomorrow at the hour of 8:00 a.m.
[The House rose at 7:54 p.m.]
By: Mr. Terence Donahoe (Halifax Citadel)
I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move that an order of this House do issue for a return showing, with respect to the Department of Health and the position of Advisor on Physician Services:
(1) Names, addresses and resumes of each applicant;
(2) Date on which each application was received by the department;
(3) Terms of reference for the job;
(4) Names of individuals interviewed by telephone, date of telephone interview and names of departmental staff/ministers who participated in the telephone interview;
(5) Names of individuals interviewed in person, date of interview and names of departmental staff/ministers who participated in the personal interview;
(6) All correspondence between each applicant and the Department of Health in relation to this position, including details of follow-up phone calls and/or letters; and
(7) Names of individuals involved in the departmental selection committee.
QUESTION NO. 43
By: Mr. Brooke Taylor (Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley)
To: Hon. Donald Downe (Minister of Natural Resources)
(1) I want to know, as does Mr. D. Ward of Halifax, about the depletion of Nova Scotia forest land. Mr. Ward is concerned about companies such as Stora and Scott Paper Ltd. and the work being done by these companies in Nova Scotia's forests. Mr. Ward wants to know if the minister will stop these companies from doing any additional work in our forests because Mr. Ward believes these companies will be gone in the near future when their money runs out and our forests are depleted?
QUESTION NO. 44
By: Mr. Brooke Taylor (Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley)
To: Hon. Donald Downe (Minister of Natural Resources)
(1) I want to know, as does Mr. R. Crossman of Amherst, that if gas prices remain at their current level and government cutbacks continue, if government will assist residents with lower taxes. Mr. Crossman wants to know why prices cannot be lowered considering the fact that the price for a barrel of crude oil is nearly as low as it was before the energy crisis in the early 1970's?
QUESTION NO. 45
By: Mr. George Archibald (Kings North)
To: Hon. Ross Bragg (Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency)
(1) I want to know, as does Tina Turple of Halifax County, what action the provincial government is taking in response to the federal government's plan to cut unemployment insurance benefits for seasonal workers over the next five years? A great number of people living on the Eastern Shore are seasonal workers, many of whom work for the provincial government. I will appreciate receiving, as would Ms. Turple, any communications between the province and the federal government with regard to the impact of the social security reform proposals on seasonal jobs and the overall maintenance of the seasonal work force.
QUESTION NO. 46
By: Mr. George Archibald (Kings North)
To: Hon. Ross Bragg (Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency)
(1) I want to know, as does Bradford Oickle of Blockhouse, Nova Scotia, how the Liberal Government can justify giving $800,000 to Sears for 300 part time jobs when the President of Sears said that they would have probably created the jobs without the hand-out. We have health and education that is being eroded while our tax dollars are being wasted on things such as this.
