MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We would like to begin this afternoon's sitting at this time. We will commence with the daily routine.
PRESENTING AND READING PETITIONS
PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS
STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS
GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
NOTICES OF MOTION
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the member for Bedford-Fall River has said, she will toe the Party line on the amalgamation of metro's municipal units; and
Whereas the member for Bedford-Fall River is attempting to have her cake and eat it too by asking for input from residents of Bedford-Fall River on amalgamation even though she has already made her mind up; and
Whereas the member for Bedford-Fall River is certainly not playing a leadership role by wanting a committee in place in four days to examine metro amalgamation plans;
Therefore be it resolved that the member for Bedford-Fall River take her role seriously as a member of this Legislature and not be deciding how she will vote prior to hearing the views of her constituents.
MRS. FRANCENE COSMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the honourable member is reading a quote from the newspaper. He has never heard me say those words nor has the Mayor of Bedford ever heard me say those words. So I think it is quite inappropriate for him to quote from an article in the newspaper.
MR. SPEAKER: I hesitate to give a ruling without researching this matter thoroughly. I do, in a preliminary sense, feel concern about the use of this type of resolution to make an attack on a member of the House, especially a private member rather than one who holds ministerial office. I know that it has been allowed in the past, as an expression of opinion, so to speak. Beauchesne certainly does state that an attack against a member of the House is out of order but that raises the question of what constitutes an attack. It would appear, in this instance, this is an expression of opinion.
I will allow the notice to stand and be tabled.
The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the cast of Windsor's Mermaid Theatre is embarking on a five month tour of the United States as well as Newfoundland to perform their production of Gulliver's Travels; and
Whereas Gulliver's Travels features an array of very talented performers in bringing Jonathan Swift's story to life; and
Whereas the play examines Gulliver and his many adventures as a sailor on the Seven Seas;
Therefore be it resolved that all members of this Legislature congratulate the Board of Directors of Mermaid Theatre and their performers for taking their creative talent on the road and wish them every best success in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I would request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed that notice be waived on that resolution?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas whenever this government is most desperate to rationalize its broken promises, such as the failure to practice consultation and accountability, it claims that someone else was just as bad, sometime, somewhere; and
Whereas this must, therefore, be the only government in the world that claims, accurately or otherwise, the Rae Administration as their model; and
Whereas Liberal MLAs should seek early career counselling in case their Cabinet does achieve a Rae-like 16 per cent in support, as measured by public opinion polls;
Therefore be it resolved that the Government House Leader and his colleagues should recognize that Toronto need not be the outer limit to their inspiration, when Boris Yeltsin, the late Kim Il Sung, or Manuel Noriega provide much more appropriate models of harsh, dictatorial government. (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: I hesitate to permit that resolution. Beauchesne is very clear that the language used in the House should be temperate and worthy of the place in which we are sitting. I feel that the language in that resolution, especially in the be it resolved part, is excessive and extreme and unworthy of this House. I, therefore, rule the resolution out of order. (Interruptions)
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 current sitting of the Nova Scotia Legislature has lasted longer than the five weeks that the Premier wanted; and
Whereas the Government House Leader wants to spend more time in his constituency attending birthday parties; and
Whereas the government members are complaining about actually having to be in the Legislature and not being able to attend important social engagements;
Therefore be it resolved that the Government House Leader be given days off on the occasion of all his children's birthdays, anniversaries and other days he feels are special. (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas during the 1993 election campaign, the Premier assured Nova Scotians that taxes would not be increased under a Liberal Government; and
Whereas Nova Scotians were hit with $78 million in tax increases in the first government budget in September 1993 and they are now being told by the Minister of Municipal Affairs to expect increases in their property tax bills this fiscal year; and
Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs is cowardly blaming the municipal units for not increasing taxes during their 1994 election year as the necessary reason for increases this year;
Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Municipal Affairs stop attempting to blame others for tax increases that is the result of her government's ineptitude to be able to deliver an efficient revenue neutral municipal reform proposal.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, before I allow that resolution, I am going to read the following extract from Beauchesne, Paragraph 491:
"The Speaker has consistently ruled that language used in the House should be temperate and worthy of the place in which it is spoken. No language is, by virtue of any list, acceptable or unacceptable. A word which is parliamentary in one context may cause disorder in another context, and therefore be unparliamentary.".
Now, the relevant reference that I wish to make there is that the use of terms that may cause disorder would therefore be unparliamentary because of the fact that they would tend to create disorder. Beauchesne goes on to list a list of expressions which have been ruled out of order or have caused intervention on the part of the Chair. Among them is the word "Cowardly" and I feel that the use of the word here is inappropriate to this place.
I therefore rule the resolution out of order.
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 Village of Maitland in Hants County is well on its way to becoming Nova Scotia's first community to be designated a heritage conservation district, by having its conservation plan unanimously approved by East Hants Council following a public meeting; and
Whereas in the 1870's and 1880's, a dozen shipyards operated in or near Maitland on the shore of Cobequid Bay resulting in a rich heritage of many fine homes and buildings being constructed in the area; and
Whereas the creation of a conservation district protects all the buildings in the designated area from demolition or significant alteration;
Therefore be it resolved that this House congratulate the work of the Hants County Heritage Committee and its Chairman, Dr. Ross MacInnis, for the fine work they are doing in safeguarding a part of the beautiful heritage of Maitland and the Cobequid Bay area for future generations.
I would ask for waiver, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed that notice be waived?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Government House Leader claims that debate in this House must be curtailed because in his view Opposition Parties are vying for the honour of who fights hardest against half-baked and mean-spirited Liberal proposals; and
Whereas Liberals eager to follow this line of argument might ask themselves in what political circumstances would there be an all out competition to provide effective, determined Opposition; and
Whereas only a government that has dug such a deep hole it cannot see daylight would think that this is the moment for new dictatorial measures;
Therefore be it resolved that Liberals should consider acting in accordance with Nova Scotians' wishes through valid consultation if they wish to avoid relentless opposition inside and outside this House.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Kings North.
MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Liberal Party is holding meetings around the province trying to change their political internal Party rules and blaming trade unions for their Leader's problems; and
Whereas the Liberal Government is trying to change the rules of debate within the Nova Scotia Legislature and blaming the Opposition for their legislative problems; and
Whereas the Liberal Government has introduced poorly researched, poorly written and unpopular legislation with no public mandate;
Therefore be it resolved that this government analyze their legislation and their method of operation in this Legislature before they entertain any thought of changing the rules that have worked for other governments (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I want to hear the resolution. Therefore be it resolved, could you start there, again.
MR. ARCHIBALD: I will, yes, at your insistence.
Therefore be it resolved that this government analyze their legislation and their method of operation in this legislature before they entertain any thought of changing rules that have worked for other governments with much smaller majorities.
[12:15 p.m.]
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 Savage Government has 41 of the 52 seats in the Nova Scotia Legislature; and
Whereas governments with much smaller majorities have passed significant and often controversial legislation; and
Whereas the government majority can't seem to understand who we are sent to represent in this Legislature;
Therefore be it resolved that the Government House Leader look within his own Party to solve the legislation problem and not blame the small Opposition.
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 in December, the Attorney General was contacted with concerns that immediately upon retirement, the former Registrar of Joint Stock Companies launched a business name search company; and
Whereas this company, Namequest Services, gained a market only weeks before the registrar's resignation from the first time imposition of fees for a name search at the registry; and
Whereas despite the Premier's assurances that this government takes conflict of interest very seriously, the Attorney General had barely considered this matter until raised yesterday in the House;
Therefore be it resolved that in times of constant, relentless, early retirement, consulting contracts, untendered deals and Cabinet level wheeling and dealing, ministers should know and apply both the conflict of interest laws and the unmistakable advice of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas during the 1993 election campaign, the Premier assured Nova Scotians that taxes would not be increased under a Liberal Government; and
Whereas Nova Scotians were hit with $78 million in tax increases in the first government budget in September 1993 and are now being told by the Minister of Municipal Affairs to expect increases in their property tax bills this fiscal year; and
Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs is clearly blaming the municipal units for not increasing taxes during their 1994 election year as the necessary reason for increases this year;
Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Municipal Affairs stop attempting to blame others for tax increases that is the result of her government's ineptness to be able to deliver an efficient revenue neutral municipal reform proposal.
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 since July 1994 kept secret the Interdepartmental Report on Uranium Mining which addresses issues of great public concern, including the future of the uranium moratorium; and
Whereas any government and this one in particular arouses public suspicion when it acts secretively and refuses to consult on an issue with grave economic and environmental consequences;
Therefore be it resolved that this government should immediately release the interdepartmental uranium report and commit itself to engaging in thorough public consultation before making any decision to lift or modify the uranium moratorium.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas municipal units across Nova Scotia are desperately seeking straightforward answers from this government about municipal service exchange plans; and
Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs is seemingly content to leave municipal units in a state of confusion over her government's municipal service exchange plans; and
Whereas the Warden of East Hants has emphatically stated that the municipality can simply not afford to take over control of roads;
Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Municipal Affairs instead of playing the role of quizmaster and putting forth questions, play the role of leader and provide municipal units with the answers they are so desperately seeking.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
Several members have raised the point that this was the third time at bat for the honourable member but the first resolution he proposed was ruled out of order so therefore it was only the second time for today.
Are there any further notices of motion? If not, we will advance from the daily routine to Orders of the Day.
I should advise the House that the Clerk has conducted a draw for the Adjournment debate. The winner this afternoon is the honourable Leader of the Opposition and he has proposed a resolution:
Therefore be it resolved that since many Nova Scotians are eminently qualified for the majority of the high-paying management positions advertised only in Las Vegas for the Sydney and Halifax casinos, the government should secure a commitment from ITT Sheraton that these positions be filled by Nova Scotians.
So we will hear on that matter at 6:00 p.m. this afternoon. The time is now 12:21 p.m., I will say. That will mean that the Oral Question Period will run for one hour today until 1:21 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 Premier. As you will know, and the Premier certainly will, it has been widely reported that the Minister of Transportation, the Government House Leader, intends, apparently, to legislate closure or to introduce a closure resolution to cut off debate on what is one of the most serious pieces of business that this House has dealt with in a very long time.
I ask the Premier if he will tell this House whether he has directed the Government House Leader to undertake that initiative or, failing that, whether or not the Premier concurs with the Government House Leader coming forward with a closure resolution which would stifle debate on that issue here in this House?
HON. JOHN SAVAGE (The Premier): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader for that question because it does bring up, in public view, what is happening here. I don't think there is much doubt that at $6,000 to $7,000 a day and 40 hours for the title of a bill, that the people of Nova Scotia are entitled to ask what is happening with this filibuster and what is happening to this whole issue of what happens (Interruption)
Mr. Speaker, I would like you to try and restrain them on the other side, if you could.
MR. SPEAKER: I am trying.
THE PREMIER: Because, therefore, we are getting calls about people who are asking how long this is going to happen. I express my concern. At this particular point, I have nothing further to say on any process that is being considered.
MR. DONAHOE: I take it from that answer, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier will leave that matter entirely in the hands of the Government House Leader and we will await further word and performance from the Government House Leader.
I wonder if I may, by way of supplementary to the Premier, ask if what he is saying is that he is concerned about the public purse and that the time being taken here in this Legislature is an expense to the taxpayers to do the people's business and he offers that as his excuse for condoning a closure.
I wonder how he would reconcile that with his Liberal policy document in the election of May 1993, in which he said, "The Premier of Nova Scotia" - in that line referring to the then Premier, Mr. Cameron - "has attempted to put a price on democracy and public debate. His conclusion is that we cannot afford democracy. In answer to demands for a Throne Speech, Mr. Cameron has consistently said the Throne Speech is an expensive waste of taxpayers dollars. The Liberal Party of Nova Scotia rejects this measurement. The Premier is ignoring his responsibility to public scrutiny and accountability. A true measure of Government is its accessibility to the people it serves.".
I wonder if the Premier would be able to relate those words in his Liberal Party election document to the statement he just made a moment ago that he is now concerned that the debate here in the Legislature on highly contentious legislation is an unreasonable cost to the public purse?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is contained in one fairly simple sentence. In Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick and Quebec, the average length of time that they spent in the House in 1994 was about between 40 and 60 hours. The government in Nova Scotia, sticking to its principle of two sessions a year, which is more than they did since the Michelin Bill, spent 94 days in legislation. That, I think, answers his question that we are attempting to, in any way, suppress opportunity for debate.
MR. DONAHOE: By way of final supplementary and, again, to the Premier, I would point out to the Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, that this same Party and this same Premier at the time he was electioneering, said, "Accountability should not be left to the discretion of the government of the day but should entrench the public interest in legislation.". This was the basis for the government's decision to legislate two sittings of the Legislature, and he loves to pat himself on the back that he introduced that legislation.
Now, this same Premier and government is crying that it says it doesn't have time to carry out its own business, which has increasingly been to find ways to save the Premier from a leadership review.
I ask the Premier directly, here this afternoon, will the Premier offer his support today to ensure that open and honest debate to continue in this government's very serious and hefty legislative agenda will not be interfered with, by way of closure motions from him or his Government House Leader? Will he give that undertaking?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I think what this affords, and I do hope it is reported, is the way in which this debate has been taking place in the last several weeks. I don't think the public is aware of what goes on in here. I don't think they understand the kind of 40 hours on the title of a bill, not the bill. I think the more the public knows about this, the better.
What I am saying is that I am concerned, many people are calling me who are concerned. What I am saying is that you ought to be concerned as well.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, thankfully we are still here today and able to ask further questions about the deal that this government has locked us into with ITT Sheraton. Thankfully we have the opportunity, and I do, to direct my question to the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance and the Premier made some very bold pronouncements in support of the deal with ITT Sheraton that they were bringing hundreds of well-paying jobs, averaging in the area of $30,000 to Nova Scotia, for Nova Scotians. Then we learn that, in fact, ITT Sheraton, within days of having obviously cemented a deal with this government, ran off to Las Vegas to advertise all senior management positions, asking for 8 to 10 years experience in casinos, yet not a single job ad has appeared here, in Nova Scotia. ITT Sheraton have told Nova Scotians that they will not make a move until legislation goes through.
My question to the Minister of Finance is, if he wants to tell Nova Scotians that this is anything but the wholesale importation of Vegas-style casinos, with no opportunity for Nova Scotians, can he explain why ITT went first to Las Vegas, so far only to Nevada, in search of employees?
MR. SPEAKER: Is there a question here?
HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity from the honourable member to address this question once again. As they have estimated in their projections, there will be approximately 1,100 jobs involved at the two casinos. I believe 13 of them have been advertised in Las Vegas. Those same 13 jobs will be advertised in Nova Scotia. They will probably be advertised in Montreal. They will perhaps even be advertised in Windsor, where there is a casino now. They may be advertised out West, they may be advertised all over the place. We have a solid commitment . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: They might even be advertised in Mongolia.
THE PREMIER: That will give you a chance, then.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, we have a solid commitment from the ITT Sheraton people that if those people are available to do those 13 jobs, or some of them, in Nova Scotia, they will get the jobs. It is as simple as that.
As well, Mr. Speaker, with this particular proponent, ITT Sheraton, we not only have their word on it, we have their track record down at that hotel, a couple of blocks towards the harbour. (Applause)
MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I think the evidence again shows that the commitments made by this minister with respect to this deal tend to not have any basis. According to the legislation and the deal with ITT Sheraton, it is the gaming corporation that will deal with the whole question of employment and that will be dealt with in regulations.
I would like to ask the minister here today if he will agree to table in this House the draft regulations dealing with this issue so Nova Scotians will understand whether, in fact, there is a basis for the minister's claims that these jobs will go to Nova Scotians?
[12:30 p.m.]
MR. BOUDREAU: The question of the jobs, and I think I said it yesterday, is contained in an agreement - as a matter of fact, I tabled the agreement in principle - between ITT Sheraton and ourselves, the province. The responsibility for policing that agreement and enforcing it and seeing that it comes to fruition will be given to the gaming corporation. We won't have regulations on it. It will be covered by legal agreement. So, that is clearly the answer to the honourable member.
MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, reportedly the Casino Project Team did an analysis of the net economic benefit of these casinos. I would like to ask this minister if he will agree to release this analysis so Nova Scotians can, in fact, see whether this will simply be a case of Nova Scotians going from hewers of wood and drawers of water to drawers of beer and parkers of cars.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, of course, there is always the question, when you have projections, whether or not the performance will match the projections. It is true of casinos, it is true in this case, these are projections. I will say we have made all of this information available to the NDP and their staffers through the Casino Project Committee offices and they have been through them in great detail. However, let me say this, let me refer the honourable member on the question of whether or not the performance will match the projections, to one of the leading experts in the country, the Honourable Marilyn Churley, who is the minister, in Ontario, responsible for the casinos. She indicates that the spinoff benefits there have been quite tremendous, in fact, in activity. In order to establish that they have commissioned a study after the fact, after the opening which our legislation, by the way, authorizes and directs. They have done it in Ontario, you see because they are a few months ahead of us and they have authorized that study and I will table the study. I will table the study but what it indicates quite clearly is that the benefits have exceeded substantially the projections that were given in relation to that casino.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: My question is to the Premier. As many have commented in recent weeks, part of the difficulty that we faced in the session thus far, is that much of the legislation that has come forward, the draftmanship has been questionable, the subject matter has been provocative and contentious. The Premier had made a promise that there would be no casinos without public consultation and there was no such public consultation. I quote from the Liberal Party campaign documents in which this Premier, then Leader said, "Accountability should not be left to the discretion of the government of the day, but should entrench the public interest in legislation.". Well, the public interest is not necessarily to have casinos as evidenced by many thousands who have communicated with us. I ask the Premier again, is he prepared to give this House a definitive, yes or no, answer today as to whether or not he will ensure that his government will not invoke closure in this session relative to the casino legislation or any other legislation?
THE PREMIER: I have answered that once, I'll answer it again. I think the people of Nova Scotia who seem to be asking this question should understand the tremendous waste of time that has taken place in the debate that has occurred so far. The comparisons with the Liberal Party when they were in Opposition are very interesting. Nobody spent 40 hours on the title in a debate. Nobody spent 40 hours on the title alone in a debate. That is the imputation that the people out there should understand. Mr. Speaker, all I want to say is that this government has already given, in 1994, 94 days of debate, including debate on many contentious issues. We will continue to give honest and open opportunity for debating those issues which are important for this province.
MR. DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, I am disappointed with the answer from the Premier because he has not come within light-years of being straight with his answer. The request was to have the Premier say yes or no, he is going to invoke closure or no he is not.
AN HON. MEMBER: Obviously he is.
MR. DONAHOE: The Premier's election campaign documents, Mr. Speaker, said, "Government in a democracy derives its powers through the consent of the governed. To honour the responsibility government has to the people, it must open its activities to scrutiny by the public and the opposition.". That is exactly what has been happening here for however many days it takes. (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Question, please.
MR. DONAHOE: I repeat the question to the Premier. Is the Premier then saying (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, on both sides of the House. Order.
MR. DONAHOE: Is the Premier then saying that the activities here in this House over the last many days have, in fact, not represented what he said he wanted to have, scrutiny by the public and the Opposition? Is that not, in the Premier's opinion, what has been going here and, if it is not, I would like him to explain to the taxpayers of Nova Scotia what it is that has been happening here?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, what I am getting phone calls about is that if indeed you can spend that length of time on the title of a bill, how long is it going to take you to get through the bill? I say that I cannot answer that because the Opposition are the people who are keeping us here. I have always believed, and will maintain to believe in honest and open and full debate. What we are seeing, in part, from some of the people on the opposite benches is characterized not as open debate. (Interruptions)
MR. DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, all that the Premier is exhibiting here today is abysmal political naiveté, imagining that all he has to do is lead an overwhelming majority government and then walk in here and by divine right of somebody, do whatever he wants . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Question, please.
MR. DONAHOE: . . . without any consultation with the public at large. (Interruptions)
May I ask the Premier by way of final supplementary, this question? In my recollection in my time in this House which spans some 17 years, I am not familiar with a situation where there have been rule changes or significant changes to Rules of this House without all-Party committee consultation. (Interruptions) I would ask the Premier if he would give a commitment today if there . . .
MR. SPEAKER: It is becoming almost impossible for Question Period to proceed. If the din does not die down, I don't know what to do.
AN HON. MEMBER: Shut her down.
MR. SPEAKER: I will try again. Please put your final supplementary question succinctly and concisely. (Interruptions)
MR. DONAHOE: Will the Premier give a commitment that if any change to the Rules of this House are contemplated by him or his government, that he would be prepared, as has become past practice and precedent in this House, to involve representation from the other Parties in the House before any such rule changes would be proposed to the House?
THE PREMIER: Let me say first of all, Mr. Speaker, that if I am going to seek political advice from someone who has been here 17 years, I would certainly not seek his. What we have is 17 years of debt that in 1978 was about $400 million and when he and his colleagues left it was up to $7 billion or $8 billion. If that is the kind of experience, I don't need it.
The simple answer to his question, however, is no.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my question, through you, is for the Minister of Health. I have been hearing, and there have been a number of people asking about the new regional hospital in Cape Breton. I know the MLA for Cape Breton South has been taking tours, and I know there were some problems with equipment ordered, and insulation.
Could the minister give us an indication today of an approximate date when the new facility will officially open?
HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, that, of course, is a decision left with the administration of the hospital. I understand it is tentatively set for late February but that may change, given local conditions.
MR. MOODY: Very typical of the minister, he never knows when anything is going to happen. He is never clear, never sure.
MR. SPEAKER: That is not a question, that is an editorial comment.
MR. MOODY: Of course it is a comment. The question I have, the questions I am getting from Cape Breton is, there is a great concern among the people in the Cape Breton region about the level of cancer treatment service which will be available in that hospital.
I asked this minister back in May 1994 about that. He indicated at that time there was a committee studying it. I would ask the minister, since the hospital is about to open at the end of February, has the committee reported on what kind of treatment will be available at the new regional hospital?
DR. STEWART: No, that report has not been received in full as yet, Mr. Speaker.
MR. MOODY: Mr. Speaker, I am not supposed to make a comment; I will ask the question. Given the fact that the hospital is about to open and the minister does not have the report, can he assure those people from Cape Breton who have to travel to Halifax, who keep calling, that there will be radiation available at that hospital, as initially it was built and designed to give that kind of treatment?
DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, the cancer facilities in Cape Breton have already been approached and the program is already in place. We have put several millions of dollars into the improvement of cancer detection, prevention and a program of community study in that region. We have also initiated a thorough study of the cancer facilities that may be in place. In fact the honourable gentleman opposite refers to the design of programs and so on. We have re-evaluated those, the committee is re-evaluating. They have found some major questions that were left to be answered. That committee will, indeed, provide those answers and we will be proceeding accordingly.
MR. SPEAKER: On a new question, the honourable member for Pictou Centre.
DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Community Services. The Small Options Program is the backbone of the government sponsored program to look after the needs of many Nova Scotians with special disabilities. As it stands now, many of the small options homes are, in fact, privately owned and rented or leased by the government.
My question to the minister is, when will a new and appropriate set of enforceable regulations regarding the control and the maintenance and the supervision of these small options homes be available?
HON. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for this question, it is an important question. When I first came to the ministry this was one of the areas that I asked staff to prepare information and move toward regulations and legislation.
I have been advised that I will have a report from staff by the end of this month. It will be in the form of basically a discussion and information paper that we will look for consultation and response from, but, hopefully, to move along that to move toward the legislative process.
This is an important issue and I really want to highlight that this has been one of my priorities, as minister, and I will be very relieved when I receive this report.
DR. HAMM: To continue with the Minister of Community Services, the minister states that he will have the report by the end of the month. I presume that after some study it will be made public. Would the minister comment as to whether or not this report, or any other report, will deal definitively with the requirements for staffing of the Small Options Program.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to bring in order and accountability within this system of small options, certainly staffing will be one of the major initiatives. I have been advised, last week or so, that our report was approved by the fire marshall. So there is a whole host of issues like this, relative to the quality of care of the residents there, and staffing will be one of them.
[12:45 p.m.]
I will note, though, Mr. Speaker, that we do not want to make this system too bureaucratic and cumbersome and put too many controls, but while we balance that with the quality of care within those institutions. So, certainly, staffing is one I know that is of concern generally in homes for special care and, specifically, that will be under that large umbrella under the small options.
DR. HAMM: Mr. Speaker, again, with the Minister of Community Services, would the minister make a comment as to whether or not he anticipates an increase in the training requirements for workers who are involved directly in the Small Options Program at the local level?
DR. SMITH: I think, Mr. Speaker, the undertaking we would make at this juncture would be that there would be qualified people available at all hours. I think these are some of the restrictions that we see within some of the current smaller residential facilities, that importance of having someone in a trained position available 24 hours.
I don't see any great wholesale change at this time. I think training is always a continuum of those types of persons that are involved with a commitment to the care of the residents, the monitoring system. I think if the whole system is strong and supportive, then I would hate to see a system evolve that only highly-qualified RNs, for instance, and leave the CNAs and personal care workers out. So I see a mix of personnel with, certainly, emphasis on training, selection and continuing monitoring and support for each other within that process.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. The employment and immigration laws of this country do not even permit the ITT Sheraton to by-pass qualified Canadians in their rush to impose Vegas-style gambling personnel on Nova Scotians. We still, actually, have some laws in this country, despite the best attempts of corporate lap-top governments to facilitate multinationals like Sheraton, that actually require that Canadians have an opportunity, and first opportunity, to be employed, so long as 1.5 million Canadians remain unemployed.
I wonder if the Minister of Finance could explain, therefore, how ITT Sheraton, advertising, first in Las Vegas, for casino personnel, meets the employment and immigration requirements of this country's employment and immigration laws?
HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for that question and it illustrates exactly what we have been saying. First of all, I point out that Citizenship and Immigration Canada has no laws against advertising. They do have restrictions against having people come into the country. So we, actually, have a number of protections against the spectre that the honourable member for the Opposition raises.
We have, first of all, a specific written, legal commitment from ITT Sheraton. That is what we have first. Secondly, we have their record down here in Halifax at the hotel. That is a comfort because they have a proven track record. Third, the honourable member is quite correct, there are rules that say if there are Canadians who are able to do the job, then you hire Canadians. You cannot bring in somebody from outside. So that is a third level of guarantee.
I tell you, the intention of Sheraton and the intention of the Government of Nova Scotia is, where there are qualified Nova Scotians, they will get the jobs.
MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance was confronted with the ITT Sheraton job ads in Las Vegas yesterday, he quickly moved to a damage control strategy to explain that, in fact, these lucky 13 Las Vegas casino personnel were really just going to be here to help train Nova Scotians to fill these jobs and what else would you expect them to do, because we don't have a lot of people with qualifications as cage managers and slot managers. Well, my question to the honourable minister is, if, in fact, there is any basis at all to such a claim, why would ITT Sheraton not be explaining to people who might apply for these temporary jobs that, in fact, that is all they were and that they should apply knowing that they are going to be part of a training and so-called affirmative action for Nova Scotians program that ITT Sheraton has signed on for?
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how much you want to put in an advertisement. I don't know whether you want to explain that there is an agreement with the Government of Nova Scotia, that there have been legal commitments made, maybe you should put the whole contract in the paper, publish it for those people who may apply.
The honourable member suggests that all sorts of things occurred to the government when the honourable Leader of the Opposition produced this advertisement from a Las Vegas newspaper. What occurred to the Minister of Finance was, I wonder how he got it? There must have been a Nova Scotian down there gambling. Pity we couldn't have had them gambling in Nova Scotia.
MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that ITT Sheraton will argue and the Minister of Finance on their behalf will argue, but we can't employ cage managers and slot managers in Nova Scotia because we don't have people with experience as slot managers and cage managers. My question to the honourable minister is, whether he will table in this House the training plan that is in place that he says guarantees and provides triple protection for Nova Scotians, that will ensure that people occupying such jobs as cage managers and slot managers advertised for in Las Vegas, that those people will be trained and employed here and not use the excuse that we haven't been involved in the casino gambling world and therefore we can't possibly expect to come up with people who can adequately fill those jobs?
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I think the first consideration is, obviously, we are running a business that by the projections will bring approximately $50 million a year to the public of Nova Scotia through its government. Indeed, probably with corporate taxation on our partner, probably an extra $10 million if the projections hold true so, it is a $60 million issue for us. We are interested very much in seeing that the casino is properly managed, both because of the money and because we want a world-class operation which can deal with all of the potential difficulties and concerns that have been raised by Nova Scotians. So, we want a first class operation, that is the first consideration. We also have quite clearly put in place, provisions which will ensure that Nova Scotians will get first opportunity and that Nova Scotians will be trained and those will be developed on an ongoing basis. But most of all, if all of that fails, we can still rely on the protection that the honourable member brought up in her first question, which is the protection with regard to the Immigration Canada rules.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the honourable Minister of the Environment. In an effort to divert and reduce certain types of waste from going to our solid waste landfills in this province, different proponents have taken out applications with their respective municipal units regarding construction and debris sites. One such proponent has applied to Halifax County for a C & D site, as they call them, it is basically a construction type dump. The proponent has applied to have the site off the Guysborough Road area and because there are not environmental regulations or guidelines in place respecting this type of operation, the proponents appealed to the Utility and Review Board, which I believe he has every right to do if his application time has elapsed, 190 days have gone by, before he has heard a word back from the municipality.
My question for the minister is simply this, can the minister tell me why there are no environmental guidelines in place respecting construction and debris sites in the province?
HON. ROBERT HARRISON: Mr. Speaker, a fascinating chronology and I would be interested in all the detail in terms of who the proponent is and so on. But I would just like to advise the honourable member of the consultation that is taking place, province-wide, on the whole issue of waste management. The fact that the Construction Association of Nova Scotia is leading the nation in terms of recycled construction debris proposals for using material that is part of demolition and deconstruction and that municipalities throughout the Province of Nova Scotia have a primary responsibility in this province for waste management and now, under the new Act, waste resource management.
So, I would offer the honourable member the response that guidelines for construction debris are primarily a responsibility of the municipalities but we are obviously working with them through the new Act and through consultation to develop innovative ways of deconstructing buildings and using materials over and over again for the benefit of the people of Nova Scotia.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, again I say, getting answers out of this government is like trying to pull a horse's teeth.
Mr. Speaker, there is presently a hearing going on (Interruption) I am not allowed to repeat what . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Please, please. Let's not get off into horses' teeth. Now, let's have a question.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, there is presently a hearing going on down in Cornwallis Place and the proponent is there because the County of Halifax has no guidelines that are sanctioned, endorsed by the Department of the Environment respecting construction and debris sites. I don't know how much clearer I can be to the Minister of the Environment. What I am asking the minister, when will his department be coming forward with recommendations or with guidelines or regulations respecting construction and debris dumpsites in this province?
MR. HARRISON: Mr. Speaker, I suppose as the level goes up the consternation goes with it. As I have already said, the whole issue of waste management, especially construction debris, is an issue that is ongoing in terms of consultation. We are talking about fairly benign materials here that normally get landfilled. Here we are suggesting to the honourable member that the Construction Association of Nova Scotia is leading the nation in terms of innovative practices for recycling construction material and that we are working with municipalities throughout the province on issues that affect them and their primary responsibility.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, that horse is hanging on pretty good to his tooth. I would like to enlighten the minister, perhaps just a little bit and I am sure very briefly. The Metropolitan Authority has let a contract to consult, now I don't know who the consultant is, to come back with recommendation, and I submit that this minister knows full well that a consultant is looking at environmental regulations and guidelines respecting construction and demolition sites in the province. So far the consultant hasn't forwarded those recommendations and until the Department of the Environment, as I know it, gets the recommendations from the consultant there will be none in place. At the very least, . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Is there a question here?
MR. TAYLOR: The question is this, is the minister at the very least aware that a consultant is looking at recommending regulations and guidelines respecting this very type of operation? Is the minister aware of that?
MR. HARRISON: Mr. Speaker, I am just delighted. Oftentimes I wonder when the gentleman opposite, who is not long in the tooth, in fact catches on. But clearly he has, because he started his question knowing full well that the municipalities and the department are working consultatively on innovative approaches for waste management including construction debris and has just said so. So, I compliment him for letting the province know that, in fact, the consultation between the department and the municipalities, in this case the metropolitan area, in fact, includes innovative ways for handling and recycling construction debris. Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: My question is to the Minister of Finance, through you to the minister, Mr. Speaker. I have just learned that on January 1, 1995, an advertisement in identical form to that which appeared in the Las Vegas Review-Journal in Las Vegas on December 28th and January 1st, appeared in The Press of Atlantic City, on January 1, 1995, calling for applications for all of these jobs for the Halifax and Sydney casinos. I guess what concerns me and what I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, upon learning yesterday as he did of the Las Vegas Review-Journal advertisements, I think the minister gave an indication in the House here that he would make contact with ITT and ensure that appropriate advertisements would take place here. Could I ask the minister if he has made that contact or made arrangements that that contact would be made?
[1:00 p.m.]
HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Actually, what I did was contact a member of my staff who indicated to me, yes, they fully intend to publish those ads and others, I might add in the Halifax and Nova Scotia newspapers.
MR. DONAHOE: In light of that fact then, I wonder if the minister will tell us what report he got back from his official as to what commitment he got from ITT that the advertisements would appear here and when they would appear?
MR. BOUDREAU: Well, I didn't actually ask them for a commitment to the day when the ads might appear. I asked my official if he had any kind of notion as to when they would appear and it was indicated perhaps before the end of this week or perhaps early next week.
MR. DONAHOE: I wonder if the Minister of Finance on that same issue might be able to offer us an explanation as to why it is that the host cities of the two casinos which we are talking about here are apparently, the last of a number of centres to have their populace made aware of the fact that some very important jobs, some paying $125,000, $181,000, $150,000, $106,000, $90,000. Jobs such as controller and we have lots of people here, local, able. Director of Human Resources and lots of people locally able to do that. The fear and the concern notwithstanding the immigration-laws question that has been discussed here this afternoon and so on is, we have hundreds of people here in Nova Scotia who have the skills and the talents to fill most of those jobs and I ask the minister why it is, if he could please explain it, that it appears that the last place in the world where the advertisements are going to appear are in Halifax and Sydney and Nova Scotia newspapers, if part of the underlying philosophy of this whole operation is to maximize the employment of Nova Scotians? Can he offer any explanation in that regard?
MR. BOUDREAU: Well, I am not sure if Nova Scotia will be the last place in the world that these ads appear. If the honourable member has some indication of that, he might share it with me but I don't know if we can take that as a given. The timing of the ads for employment strictly were up to ITT Sheraton and, in fact, I neither offer any explanation nor do I feel the need to ask them.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings North.
MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, my question is through you to the Premier. In late November the Premier indicated in an interview in one of the local newspapers that the government was thinking of loosening rather than tightening up the government's tendering policy because you indicated at the time that the rules might not work in the province's best interests. At that time, holding the document, you said that this document in my view needs revision. I want to ask the Premier, are you in the process of revising the provincial tendering rules at the present time?
THE PREMIER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
MR. ARCHIBALD: That was an excellent answer right to the point. Now, the Minister of Transportation, through you to the Premier again, the Minister of Transportation also indicated that a review would be undertaken by him and by members of Cabinet because the tendering rules were too restrictive. Since the Premier has indicated that indeed there is a review going on at the present time, would he too indicate which of the rules he finds too restrictive?
THE PREMIER: This is a matter of significance to us. There is an important subcommittee, between the Department of Finance and the Department of Supply and Services, they are meeting, they are looking at the options and when they are ready we will certainly publish them.
MR. ARCHIBALD: I appreciate the Premier's forthright answers but you know, what the people in Nova Scotia and what the people that are calling me and asking on the telephone, what they want to know and I would like to know as well, Mr. Premier, through the Speaker, of course, is what is so difficult about following a tender procedure for all articles purchased by the government in excess of $5,000? Could you explain to us why your government cannot follow simple rules?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I will just answer the question. What we are saying is that there are professional services, for instance, that were not included in the one that your government published in January 1992. Professional services for architects, engineers, were not included. They are exempted, specifically in the legislation. So what we are saying is that we are looking at that. We are looking at the difficulties that the Minister of Transportation has mentioned. We are looking at a whole variety of issues ranging from fisheries and to all the departments. Such a report is thorough because it also has to take into consideration the arrangements among New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and ourselves. So it is not a simple matter, as the member over there obviously thought it was for 15 years.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question through you to the Minister of Finance. Back in December, I raised an issue with the minister with respect to civil servants taking advantage of the early retirement package and then being re-employed. I raised that question because the stated intention of the early retirement package, as I recall, was to free up positions in the process of downsizing the Public Service and to make openings available for other people.
We spoke about a specific case where somebody had taken advantage of the Public Service superannuation early retirement package and had then been rehired by their former employer. The minister and I appeared to have different information on that and he challenged me to check my information and we would clear that up. I have gone back and checked with the Acting Director responsible for the Public Service Pension Plan and it has been confirmed that the instance, as I reported to this House, that individual did take advantage of the Public Service superannuation early retirement package. I would like to ask the minister if he, himself, has checked that out and what he could report back to this House?
HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member says I challenged him. I don't know about challenged, challenged is such a harsh word. I thought we should both go back and check and the honourable member did that and he came back and reported to the House and I accepted it. I accepted his information and I do.
On the general question, we certainly do not support as a matter of principle and as a matter of policy, someone going on early retirement, taking the full pension and then being rehired.
MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, just for the record, whether you call it a challenge or not. Wednesday, December 14th, Page 5740 of Hansard, the Minister of Finance said, "Now I think one of us may be wrong about whether or not Mr. Mosher was a civil servant. So I think both of us should check and whoever is wrong should perhaps stand in his place and indicate that to the House.". Of course the question had more to do with whether this individual had taken advantage of the early retirement package. That was the information that I have returned back.
I am glad to see that the Minister of Finance is concerned, as he indicated, that people would take advantage of the early retirement package and then be rehired because this example . . .
MR. SPEAKER: This has to come to a question soon, please.
MR. CHISHOLM: It will, Mr. Speaker. This example is a case of where there is pressure put on the early retirement package and it is not fair to people that are paying in to the package.
My first supplementary to the minister is, Mr. Speaker, there are indications that these cases are arising within the Public Service and I would like to ask the minister if he and his staff are monitoring what is happening with retirees and if he can report to this House whether, in fact, this situation is happening elsewhere with retirees popping up again in the Public Service?
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member quoted Hansard and was quite correct. I indicated at the time that one of us, obviously, was not getting the proper information. The honourable member checked, he came back and informed the House. As I would always do, I took him exactly at his word when he did so. If, in some measure, the honourable member thought I was being harsh, I certainly did not want to convey that attitude to him.
Mr. Speaker, on the general question, it is important that we monitor this and keep track of it because it is not a practice that we want to encourage. There may, I suppose, in some rare circumstance, be an excuse for doing it, on occasion, but it is certainly not a practice we would like to encourage. It covers across all of the various departments. We have made them aware of what the policy statement has been and I am not aware of any further breaches, but if the honourable member is, I would certainly take the information very seriously as he gives it to me.
MR. SPEAKER: I would ask that your final supplementary be brief.
MR. CHISHOLM: I will try as best I can, Mr. Speaker, within the rules, to be brief, but we are not all silver tongued devils like the members opposite. My final supplementary to the Minister of Finance is, it is not my job to monitor, but when I do, when evidence does come available, I will provide it to the minister. But I would like to ask him if he would make a commitment to this House today to, in fact, have his staff evaluate whether retirees who took advantage of the early retirement package are popping up within the different departments across the Public Service and will he make that report available to this House?
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, when the honourable member checked his information and came back to the House and stood in his place and said, the information I had was correct. I have checked and it was correct. That very day, I went over to the department, informed my deputy minister what the honourable member had indicated and such a review began immediately.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Before the Premier was elected to this House, and when he became Leader of the Opposition, he was quite adamantly opposed to uranium mining. I was wondering if the Premier would tell us today if he is still as opposed to uranium mining as he was a few years back?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, I am glad for the opportunity to comment on that. I, personally, would not support lifting any moratorium without being completely satisfied of the safety that I questioned back in 1983 or 1984. At that time, I was one of three doctors who recommended against it. It reflected my feelings and concerns, then. I still have these same concerns and I remain to be convinced. I have told my Cabinet colleagues that. I should add, as the minister has said, it has not come to Cabinet, so it has not yet been a Cabinet issue.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Premier realizes that on January 31st of this year, that present moratorium expires. (Interruption) The moratorium expires January 31st of this year, whether you like it or not. I am asking the Premier will he ensure that, between now and January 31st, a further moratorium is imposed upon uranium mining and exploration?
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, in case the member was out yesterday, I think the Minister of Natural Resources gave a commitment that that would be done. Let me assure you that I will take it under advisement. Given what I have said before, there obviously must be concern felt by people like myself.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I carefully read yesterday's Hansard and in no way did the Minister of Natural Resources give a commitment that that moratorium would be renewed. He simply said that no mining can take place without the consent of Cabinet. That is not good enough. Why not reinstate that moratorium on uranium mining for a period of three to five years?
[1:15 p.m.]
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, he was long enough around the table to know that it has to come to Cabinet for that to happen. It has not come to Cabinet. I can assure him that the moratorium (Interruption) - Yes, I understand, Mr. Speaker - exists until the 31st of January. It is our understanding that it would still be there because the policy of the government has not changed on this issue. Whether it technically requires further extension, we will discuss it, we will let him know in due course.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The minister, I presume, will be joining the federal minister, the Honourable Allan Rock, along with other provincial and territorial Justice Ministers in Victoria for meetings next week. Could I first of all confirm that the Minister of Justice will, in fact, be attending that national and federal-provincial meeting of Ministers of Justice in Victoria?
HON. WILLIAM GILLIS: Yes.
MR. DONAHOE: It has been reported, Mr. Speaker, that among other things on the agenda, the issues that will face the Ministers of Justice, are the issues of strengthening the anti-stalking law and addressing some badly needed changes to the laws relating to prostitution. Nova Scotia, especially Halifax and Dartmouth, as the minister will know, have experienced their share of very real problems because of the effects of prostitution on the streets of those cities. I wonder if the Minister of Justice will tell us whether or not, when he attends those meetings, will he be going to those meetings with proposals to be put to that meeting for improvements and strengthening of both the anti-stalking and prostitution laws or will he simply be there as a passive observer, to see what other ministers are proposing to say?
MR. GILLIS: Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon I will be involved in briefing sessions with my senior officials, to prepare for a wide-ranging agenda that occurs at that meeting. We have some studies in relation to federal proposals, which is on the federal law on anti-stalking. On the prostitution matter, we have been involved with consultations with the Government of Canada. We expect the federal government to cooperate in some consultation processes in the various provinces. We feel we should do that here and we plan to do it, even though they don't take part.
I have been in touch with Mr. Rock, in writing, in the last few weeks on this particular matter. I will certainly bring it up with the Honourable Allan Rock in person, in B.C.
MR. DONAHOE: Well, let me try it this way, perhaps the Minister of Justice could give me a yes or a no. Will he, as the leader of the Nova Scotia delegation to this highly important meeting, be going to the meeting with written proposals which he would present to that meeting and to the federal minister and to his provincial colleagues, with specific proposals for changes, improvements and strengthening to the anti-stalking laws and the prostitution laws, realizing that they are in the federal jurisdiction? Will he be going with written proposals, representing the Nova Scotia position as to how those laws can and should be improved?
MR. GILLIS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that I will be making written proposals on the anti-stalking law, although as I indicated, a lot of work has been done. I have been involved with my staff in preparing to go to B.C. next week. Later today I will have more information on the anti-stalking matter.
As I said to the minister, my officials have been involved in discussions on the matter of prostitution. I have written material and I intend to raise this matter of concern to a lot of people in Nova Scotia. In Dartmouth, it has been raised by the members for Dartmouth, particularly the member for Dartmouth North and members for Halifax. I have already been in touch and I intend to follow up. As I said earlier, I intend to follow up the matter in person with the Honourable Allan Rock.
MR. SPEAKER: We have time left for one short snapper.
I will recognize the honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, it is a short snapper. My question is through you to the honourable Minister of Natural Resources. I want to know as does, F. Dauphinee, whether the minister is considering shortening the deer season by two weeks since the deer population, she suggests, is in decline and the buck law has not solved a decline in population?
HON. DONALD DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. In regard to the actual deer hunt this season we reported, I believe, the take is up about 8 per cent. We are reviewing with our wildlife biologists the actual counts of deer within the province through different means, whether it is through pellet count or other vehicles of counting. We are also reviewing a lot of the road kills that have been taken in the Province of Nova Scotia to determine the health of the herd and the stock. When that information is available, then we will be reviewing it as a department, coming back with recommendations as to whether or not the season should be extended, shortened or in fact, whether the buck law will be in place and continue to be in place or if there are any other changes within the deer harvesting process.
MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time allotted for the Oral Question Period is expired.
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the order of business, Private and Local Bills for Second Reading.
PRIVATE AND LOCAL BILLS FOR SECOND READING
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 145.
Bill No. 145 - West Hants Offices Change of Name Act.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West for second reading.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I hereby move second reading.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is for second reading of Bill No. 145.
The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, on my order paper Bill No. 145 is the Dartmouth City Charter Act. We can deal with Bill No. 146 first if that is agreeable to the House but the numbers may be mixed up there.
MR. SPEAKER: I made an error and I apologize to the House. It was Bill No. 145 that was called and I mistakenly called Bill No. 146. We will now deal with Bill No. 146.
Bill No. 146 - West Hants Offices Change of Name Act.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, my motion was for the second reading of Bill No. 146.
MR. SPEAKER: A motion has been made for second reading of Bill No. 146 which is now before the House. Are there interveners on Bill No. 146? The question is called.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Ordered that this bill be referred to the Committee on Private and Local Bills.
The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 145.
Bill No. 145 - Dartmouth City Charter.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Community Services for second reading.
HON. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I so move.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is for second reading of Bill No. 145. Are there interveners on the debate? If not the question is called.
Would all those in favour of second reading of Bill No. 145 please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Ordered that this bill be referred to the Committee on Private and Local Bills.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, I move that you do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House on Bills.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.
[1:24 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: Order, please. The winner of the draw for the Adjournment debate this afternoon was the honourable Leader of the Opposition. The subject of the resolution he proposes is:
Therefore be it resolved that since many Nova Scotians are eminently qualified for the majority of the high-paying management positions advertised only in Las Vegas for the Sydney and Halifax casinos, the government should secure a commitment from ITT Sheraton that these positions be filled by Nova Scotians.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION UNDER RULE 5(5)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a few minutes as we engage in this late show debate to speak to the resolution which I entered today, and I will read it so that the remarks I make will hopefully be in the context of the operative clause:
Therefore be it resolved that since many Nova Scotians are eminently qualified for the majority of the high-paying management positions advertised only in Las Vegas for the Sydney and Halifax casinos, the government should secure a commitment from ITT Sheraton that these positions be filled by Nova Scotians.
The issue arose, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, by reason of the fact that our research indicated that as far back as December 28th of last year and January 1st of this year, a very extensive ad appeared headed, "ITT Sheraton Casino Operations Halifax and Sydney Nova Scotia Canada". That appeared in a publication called the Las Vegas Review-Journal in Las Vegas, Nevada. We have since learned, and you are also aware of that as a result of other discussion here in the House, that that same advertisement appeared in a newspaper in Atlantic City, the name of that newspaper being The Press of Atlantic City. It appeared there in Atlantic City on January 1st.
Now, the advertisement is interesting and, as far as I am concerned, annoying and, as far as I am concerned again, somewhat threatening to the potential or the possibility of Nova Scotians having a reasonable chance or shot at these jobs.
The advertisement by ITT Sheraton Casino Operations, Mr. Speaker, as you will be aware, a copy of this advertisement having been tabled, refers to the fact that there will be casinos in Sydney, Nova Scotia, and it describes it, "14,700 sq ft, 325 Slot Units, and 20 Table Games," and in, "Halifax - 38,500 sq ft, 800 Slot Units, and 50 Table Games.". ITT Sheraton says that they have, ". . . several key management position available for qualified applicants.". They list them. They are: General Manager, Director of Human Resources, Director Casino Operations, Director Security, Engineering Manager, Cage Manager, MIS Manager (Interruption) Well, actually it says MIS. Manager and, quite frankly, my inquiries have not confirmed for me whether that MIS is intended to be miscellaneous or is it intended to mean MIS, Management Information Systems Manager, which is I think the term that is in common parlance in the computer world these days.
It goes on further to seek applicants for: Controller, Director Property Services, Director Marketing, Director Surveillance, Public Relations Manager and Slots Manager. It describes qualifications necessary.
Near the tail end of the advertisement it says, among other things, "Relocation assistance to Nova Scotia, Canada will be provided.". It offers an ITT Sheraton Gaming Division, Human Resources, Howard Hughes Parkway, Las Vegas, Nevada address. They want "No phone calls . . . Resumes . . ." and so on. That same ad, as I have said, appeared in The Press of Atlantic City on January 1st.
Now, it was some couple of weeks prior to that that the Honourable Mr. Boudreau, the honourable Minister of Finance announced here in Halifax, Nova Scotia, that it was the government's intention, more to the point, that the government had in fact executed agreements in principle with ITT Sheraton. It concerns us and the reason we raised this issue is that it is clear from the fact that ITT Sheraton which we now clearly understand is calling the shots and pulling the strings as to what is going to happen by way of the staffing of these casinos and the rates of pay of the people who will work in the casinos and so on, it is clear that they initially at least or certainly up to this point, and up to this point means over the last three to four weeks, are interested relative to casinos which they propose to establish in Halifax and Sydney, Nova Scotia, with the support and the concurrence of our Minister of Finance and the government of the day, it is ITT's approach to go advertising in the United States of America in Las Vegas and in Atlantic City for men and women to come up and work in these casinos. These are not chintzy jobs, Mr. Speaker, by any means.
If you read, as you perhaps have, documentation provided by the Nova Scotia Casino Project, ITT Sheraton Gaming Division, you will find a review of a whole range of jobs that they suggest are going to be necessary. Obviously and as you might expect, all of the jobs which they set out in this advertisement that they have put in the American newspapers are in that list. In the list they describe for the Sheraton casino in Halifax the salary levels in three columns, min., presumably meaning minimum; mid., meaning middle range, I guess; and max., meaning maximum.
Those jobs, to give you the flavour and so people understand what kind of money we are talking about, the General Manager of the casino here is going to make a minimum of $77,969 and a maximum of $125,000, it will be one of the highest paying jobs in this province. The Director of Human Resources, the same amount of money, maximum up to $125,000. The Director of Security, up to $106,000; the Engineering Manager, up to $55,000; the Controller, $150,000; Director of Property Services, $125,000; Director of Marketing, $125,000; Public Relations Manager, $106,000.
If you add the columns, min., mid. and max. for these 13 positions, the minimum amount of money that would be expended on these jobs is $905,000, for the sake of discussion, $1 million. The middle range for those jobs is $1.126 million and the maximum range, if they were all paid at the maximum, would be $1.455 million. This government should secure a commitment from ITT Sheraton that these positions are filled by Nova Scotians. We haven't even so much as seen an advertisement in a Nova Scotia publication, to my knowledge, even in a Canadian publication that lets Nova Scotians know that these jobs are available and that it is possible for Nova Scotians to apply. I don't know how many Nova Scotians are subscribers to the Las Vegas Review-Journal but I doubt very few and I don't know how many Nova Scotians are subscribers to The Press of Atlantic City but probably very few.
It concerns me greatly when the other day I asked the Minister of Finance a couple of questions about all of this and he got off some smart, might I with respect suggest, childish comment in response to one of my questions saying, well, I suppose that the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that if we only advertised in the newspapers in Mongolia, that only Mongolians would apply for the jobs. Well, that was an infantile and an offensive remark as far as I am concerned, relative to the fact that this same minister and this government have been saying repeatedly that they are serious about ensuring that Nova Scotia employment in these casinos is maximized.
What is going to be available to the Nova Scotians in these casinos, Mr. Chairman and I know you understand that I mean it when I say, that while I object strenuously to the notion or to the principle that the casinos be established at all because I don't think they will be in the long-term best interests of the province, the jobs, if we are going to have them and this government is certainly making it clear that by dint of their 41 seat majority government they are going to have the casinos, I would hazard a guess that the jobs that will be available to Nova Scotians will be Porters and Bar Porters at $6.50 an hour and Bartenders at $7.75 an hour and Beverage Servers at $5.50 an hour and so on. Meanwhile, ITT Sheraton is out inviting Americans to apply in Las Vegas and Atlantic City and so on for jobs worth $150,000.
I have seen no evidence that our Minister of Finance has taken the bull by the horns and made it clear and made it known forcefully and aggressively to ITT Sheraton, that they get serious about ensuring that Nova Scotians have an opportunity at all these top jobs.
My final comment, there are at least seven of these jobs, human resources, security, engineering, Controller and so on, which surely are available to Nova Scotians who live here in this city or in Sydney or somewhere in Nova Scotia with the skills necessary to handle these tasks to run these casinos. I challenge the Minister of Finance and call upon the government to ensure that every step is taken to ensure that those jobs are available to Nova Scotians. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the opportunity to continue this discussion around the meaning and the likely implications of the ITT Sheraton ads which we now know are running in Nevada, in Atlanta and also we are advised, I am sure accurately advised, by Sheraton officials, running in Mississippi.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we heard earlier today and yesterday as well, the defence of the Minister of Finance that we still should remain confident that Nova Scotians are going to be given not just favourable consideration but consistent with the employment and immigration laws in this country, given preferred consideration for these jobs. In fact, he reminded us earlier this afternoon, in response to my questioning on this, that in fact this exists as a protection against Canadian jobs being taken away, that it is a protection that our laws say you cannot just ship out our jobs to non-Canadians without first satisfying yourself that there are not qualified Canadians who can fill these jobs.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance believes that any such protection exists, in reference to these 13 jobs, I guess 13 is the lucky number here, then he clearly has not read the fine print in this ad. Furthermore, when the Minister of Finance suggests that these jobs are really going to be here for a period of time, to make sure that we train Nova Scotians in a suitable way, so they can assume these jobs which add up to well over $1 million for 13 people, then he again has not read the fine print, nor has he done what he has been urged to do in this House day after day, that is to bring forward one shred of evidence that there is any kind of binding commitment with ITT Sheraton that Nova Scotians will be in any way favoured.
Mr. Speaker, when I first ran for political office, I was working at the Institute of Public Affairs. I was specifically doing economic and social policy research on recruitment and hiring practices of employers. One of the things that is very clear and well documented is the ways in which employers set up recruitment measures and job qualifications when they advertise, to ensure that they can keep within a hair of the law and get away with discriminating against candidates in a variety of different ways, depending on the work situation.
I don't want for one moment, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that every single employer engages in those kinds of thinly veiled, discriminatory hiring practices, but let me say that such discrimination is well established when it comes to multinational corporations that have every reason to be interested in bringing their own employees into the country and getting around the existing employment and immigration protections that would not allow jobs to be filled by people from outside this country when there are 1.5 million people unemployed within this country and when there are clearly people who would have the appropriate skills to do the job. That is the issue, Mr. Speaker.
Look at the fine print; the job spec very clearly reads for very good reason, "A bachelors degree and/or a minimum of eight to ten years of directly related casino experience in their particular disciplines.".
Mr. Speaker, the reason for it being stated as directly related casino experience is because ITT Sheraton knows perfectly well that there are not Nova Scotians that could meet the qualifications of having directly related casino experience, as a Cage Manager or as a Slots Manager, because that is what we are dealing with here. What Nova Scotians have had directly related casino experience in public relations?
[6:15 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker, casino gambling in this province was against the law, is against the law, is still against the law in this province until this government puts its legislation in place. What Nova Scotians are going to be able to meet these carefully crafted, carefully worded, exclusive qualifications that are spelled out? So, it is not an accident that this is how ITT Sheraton is proceeding with its hiring practices. It starts to become clearer all the time why this government has had such a deep interest and a great investment in trying to get the legislation through here before people get a really careful look at ITT Sheraton's proposal.
The Minister of Finance earlier today said well, go on over, you can go over and read the proposal. There is no problem with gaining access. That is right, Mr. Speaker, if you can line up. You can do it if you recognize that you cannot copy one single scrap of paper. You cannot walk out of there with one single bit of information copied so that you can reliably refer to it. Why would you have such a policy if your interest was to ensure that Nova Scotians were as well-informed as possible with what is happening here.
Mr. Speaker, we live in a province today where this government is saying we have to shave down the earnings levels of workers in every single part of this province and it is actively doing so, slashing the earnings levels of its own public servants. Yet, this government has no problem at all in rolling out the red carpet to say, bring in 13 people from outside of the country to fill these jobs and make sure you describe them as requiring direct casino experience, because that way you will not have to worry about any Nova Scotians competing effectively.
By the way, even though every cent of what is going to be paid to those 13 lucky winners of those high-priced jobs is going to come out of the pockets of Nova Scotians, don't worry about the fact that, on average, we are talking about $100,000 per job being paid to the lucky 13 who are going to come here and show us what expertise it takes to be a Casino Public Relations Person or a Casino Director of Security. Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with Nova Scotians that have experience in public relations and in security?
Is this government going to tell us, or maybe admit to us, that what we are getting ourselves into in terms of this so-called exciting new industry, is so different and so challenging and really so potentially hazardous that we can only have people that understand what terrible things can happen here if it is not done right by those who have worked directly in the industry in places like Nevada and Mississippi, Mr. Speaker?
So I think there is a lot of answers needed to these questions, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to hearing those answers from the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency.
HON. ROSS BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the first opportunities I have had to participate in the so-called late show debate and I enjoy the opportunity to participate in the debate. I have listened, attentively, to the members opposite and their comments.
But, Mr. Speaker, let me start out by saying that the foundation of the arguments that they make are flawed. First, let me cover the points that the former Leader of the NDP made about the Nova Scotia Government participating somehow in this sham, as she calls it, of allowing ITT Sheraton to bring all these jobs from the U.S. instead of here. If for a moment we take a flight of fantasy, and decide that we believe her conspiracy theory that the Nova Scotia Government is working with ITT Sheraton to bring just Americans into these jobs, why would the Province of Nova Scotia have done that? What benefit would there be for the Province of Nova Scotia to participate in her theory that we somehow worked in cooperation with ITT Sheraton to make sure that the jobs just went to Americans? There is no foundation or basis for us to have wanted that in the first place and of course, we don't.
Let me move on to some of the points and perhaps to the public of Nova Scotia and the members of the Legislature that will watch, listen, and read about this debate that they have made. The ads will run here. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, made that very clear when he spoke here yesterday that the ads will run here and that Nova Scotians will have an opportunity. The Leader of the Opposition made great fanfare of the fact that they appeared first there. Well, they did but let me throw this question out, is it not reasonable to think in any commercial endeavour where the success of the venture depends on making sure that it is well run and well done that you do advertise in the markets where you are most appropriately, most likely to find suitable people to respond to the ads and fill those positions?
They will advertise here, we are assured, for the positions and let me add that we will not expect that these jobs will be filled the day after the ad was placed in Las Vegas or Atlantic City. In any hiring there is an appropriate period of advertising that goes on and once the resumes have been received and the applications have been received in any case that I have ever witnessed in hiring, once there is an appropriate time limit given, so that the applications can come in from all places that it is advertised, then the process of selecting the best candidates will take place and then we will pick, in case of government hiring, the best candidate and I assume ITT Sheraton will do the same. No matter where the applications come from whether it is Las Vegas or Nova Scotia they will make sure that they try to review them in such a way that they find the best candidates.
Would we expect or would we for a moment, Mr. Speaker, wish that ITT Sheraton would hire somebody less qualified or unqualified for a job instead of seeking the best person? What credibility would they have that they could run a professional, well run, successful and profitable venture if, in fact, they didn't hire the best people they could find.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fundamental tenet of business that you hire the best people that you can find and you do everything in your ability to find those. I understand, while the Opposition has a problem with that, for 15 years they didn't practice that. They went out and hired anybody they wanted based on politics or any other reason and didn't practise the best person for the job theory. When you go to private business, no matter where you go whether it is in a small business in rural Nova Scotia or whether it is in the biggest industries in the world, they practise the belief that you surround yourself with the best people that you can attract and to do so you have to advertise in the appropriate places.
The Minister of Finance has said that we will ensure that the ads come and will be here and the people in Nova Scotia will have the opportunities but I believe we are fooling nobody and we are not fooling the people in Nova Scotia when we go on the charade that Nova Scotians are being left out. If there are qualified Nova Scotians who apply for those jobs, I am as sure as I am standing here they will have an opportunity to respond to those. No one has been hired yet, the advertisements have been placed and as we say they will be advertised here and after an appropriate length of time people will be selected through that process.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, would the member answer a question? (Interruption) then that the law of this land can be flaunted in terms of saying, we are not going to select this candidate from the qualified pool of Canadian applicants. We are going to create a pool that includes the American applicants and choose from that larger pool when the law clearly says that if there are qualified Canadians then they shall be hired?
MR. BRAGG: Not for a moment, Mr. Speaker, and I think the member opposite knows that full well. I am not advocating any breaking of laws when it comes to the hiring practices of ITT Sheraton and I am sure they don't want to get involved in breaking the laws of this land when it come to hiring.
They will do everything, as they have undertaken to our Finance Minister in their agreement. They will follow the rules of the land and they will ensure that the people who apply for this job are hired on the basis of all the existing rules in Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, let me move on for a moment. In her debate, the member opposite talked about the fact that this government is driven to slackening or lowering the earnings of all levels of Nova Scotians, including the Public Service. I think I have that right or the gist of it. She says the general premise is that we are driven by doing that.
Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. We, as a government, would like to see everybody's earnings rise, so they have more spending power to provide more for their families and so on. (Interruption) But we had a responsibility as a government, when we were elected, to do something about the uncontrolled spending of this province and the problems that the associated financial mess brought with it. We are not driven to lower wages or cut wages, we are driven by the fact that somebody had to finally do something to protect the future of this province, and we are trying.
Mr. Speaker, let me go on for a moment and remind the members of this Legislature that, in fact, we, as a government, are doing everything within our democratic right. We were elected with a mandate to change the path of this province. We have fooled no one; we were elected to do what we are doing. The decisions we take, whether it is to go in the direction of casinos or whether to go in the direction of controlling our deficit, we were elected and given a legal and democratic mandate for the next three and a half years, for a five year term or less, as the rules of this province dictate, to run the government. We were given the right to do that, under the democratic laws and rules of this province and we are doing so.
We don't expect the Opposition to agree with us. They can hardly agree on what time it is, they are so driven to just be a critical Opposition, instead of being responsible.
AN HON. MEMBER: That is a bit harsh, isn't it.
MR. BRAGG: After 100 hours of debate and 105 days this year and the last year in this Legislature, I don't think that it is a bit harsh at all, Mr. Speaker. But we were given the authority to do what we are doing, to run this province as we see fit, as elected representatives of the people. If, in the next election, the people say we didn't do a good job and we didn't do things right, they will tell us at the polls. But we have a right to do what we are doing, as we were elected to do. (Interruption)
Mr. Speaker, we have a right to continue on and go the path that we have chosen. We will live up to the commitment we made to the people of Nova Scotia to make significant changes and reform in this province and to make this province a great leader in the Atlantic economy, as it once was. The members opposite would like to make us out as if we have totally abandoned our responsibilities as a government. Nothing could be further from the truth, nothing. We are doing what the people elected us to do, to change this province, get the fiscal house in order and ensure that the future of this province is as great as it once was and to restore credibility to the economic viability of this province. (Applause)
Mr. Speaker, we don't expect the Opposition to support us on this or on anything else. What we do expect from the Opposition is at least some responsibility for the democratic process and get on with the job they were elected to do, instead of the silliness we have watched over the last few days and the last two weeks.
Mr. Speaker, they are fooling no one; everybody knows they are filibustering and trying to take away the agenda of the province. Our government will persevere and we will continue our mandate that we were elected to do in May 1993 and as we were sworn in in June of the same year. We will continue in this direction; we will ensure that Nova Scotians get jobs. I don't believe for a moment that anybody in Nova Scotia is fooled by what we have watched from these members opposite over the last few days. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The time allotted for the Adjournment debate has expired. The House will now revert to the 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.]
[7:59 p.m. CWH on Bills rose and the House reconvened. Mr. Speaker, Hon. Paul MacEwan, resumed the Chair.]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on Bills reports:
THE CLERK: That the committee has met and made some progress and begs leave to sit again.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
The honourable Acting Government House Leader.
HON. SANDRA JOLLY: Mr. Speaker, I would announce that the hours that we will be sitting tomorrow are from 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. We will be in the Committee of Whole House on Bills and on Bill No. 122.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now rise.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House do now rise to meet again tomorrow morning at 8:00 a.m.
The motion is carried.
[The House rose at 8:01 p.m.]
