MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We will commence this afternoon's sitting at this time. Are there any introductions? If not, we will commence the daily routine.
PRESENTING AND READING PETITIONS
PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Education.
HON. JOHN MACEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to some questions that were asked in the House yesterday, I would like to table the two answers. The first was relative to a question asked by the Leader of the New Democratic Party about the Cultural Affairs Division and the International Gathering of the Clans. Basically, there has been no request to our department for that but they have requested some general funding.
The second one is relative to a question asked by the member for Kings North where he suggested that our department was not doing anything relative to L.E. Shaw School. I would like to table the letter to Dr. Jim Gunn, the Superintendent of Schools, dated January 19th, indicating the status of the report which is in the hands of the board, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The reports are tabled.
STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS
GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Health.
HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Nova Scotia Hospital in Dartmouth has received a three year certificate of accreditation; and
Whereas the certificate, issued by the Canadian Council on Health Facilities Accreditation, noted excellence in strategic planning and community development; and
Whereas this is a credit to the staff and to the people involved in mental health care in Nova Scotia;
Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House commend the Nova Scotia Hospital on this outstanding achievement.
Mr. Speaker, I would request waiver of notice.
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 unanimously. (Applause)
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill No. 147 - Entitled an Act to Amend Chapter 82 of the Acts of 1982. The New Glasgow Parking Commission Act. (Dr. John Hamm)
MR. SPEAKER: Ordered that this bill be read a second time on a future day.
NOTICES OF MOTION
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas once again while the cat's away the mice do play; and
Whereas while the Premier vacations in Switzerland the Government House Leader threatens to invoke his form of closure on debate to curtail a session whose theme he characterizes as "strategy by opposition"; and
Whereas the reasoning behind the Government House Leader's decision yesterday is that the "business of the Province of Nova Scotia has to go forward", in the "interest", of the people of Nova Scotia.
Therefore be it resolved that this Government House Leader recognize that it was not in the interest of the majority of Nova Scotians that casinos be legislated into this province and, for that very reason, the Opposition has debated it at every turn; therefore, it is the Government and not the Opposition, "obstructing the democratic process.".
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 in 1758, Nova Scotia made history by becoming the birthplace of representative government and parliamentary democracy in the Commonwealth; and
Whereas during the next 227 years, every Nova Scotian administration has responded to public views and informed criticism, through legislative review, gaining approval of its legislation; and
Whereas today, January 25th, no province in Canada places an absolute limit on clause by clause consideration of government legislation;
Therefore be it resolved that this government should meet the high and historic standards established in our province by achieving its legislative goals through the methods of legislative review that ensure legislation takes into account Nova Scotians' strongly held views and constructive suggestions.
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 city council in Nova Scotia's second largest city is dead set against the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia; and
Whereas Dartmouth City Council reinforced that point last night by voting unanimously against the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia; and
Whereas city council voted against the establishment of casinos because of the concern they have for residents of Dartmouth;
Therefore be it resolved that since the members for Dartmouth North, Dartmouth East, Dartmouth-Cole Harbour and Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage are evidently not interested in representing the views of the people who elected them, they should feel free to step aside and allow the residents of greater Dartmouth to be represented by legislators in tune with the views of their community.
MR. SPEAKER: I hesitate to allow that kind of a motion, I think it is - I won't say what I am thinking but I don't like that motion at all. It is out of order. (Interruption)
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 Dartmouth City Council has voted unanimously that this government should not impose casinos upon Nova Scotians, adding its name to the many opponents of this ill-considered scheme; and
Whereas wiping out Dartmouth, squashing debate in this Legislature, and withholding public information about casinos will not change the fundamental fact that this government was elected on a platform opposed to any expansion of gambling, with promises of extensive consultation on all gaming issues;
Therefore be it resolved that Dartmouth MLAs and other Liberal MLAs should leave the shelter of their government bunker long enough to hear the voices of their constituents on the issue of government sponsoring and promoting increased gambling and on all other issues that concern them.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Lunenburg.
MRS. LILA O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Nova Scotia Home Awards were created in 1982 to encourage technical and design innovation; and
Whereas last Wednesday awards were presented by the Minister of Housing and Consumer Affairs to a number of Nova Scotians who have made an outstanding contribution to the field of housing; and
Whereas Charles and June Maginley won in Category No. 5 - Energy Efficient or Alternative Energy, for the Maginley Residence on Long Hill Road in Mahone Bay;
Therefore be it resolved that the members of this House of Assembly extend congratulations to all the winners of the 13th Annual Home Awards Competition for their unique sense of style and commitment to quality homes.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There is a request for waiver of notice.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable member for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour.
MR. ALAN MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Nova Scotia Hospital, under the leadership of Executive Director, Anne McGuire, has been engaged in a strategic planning process to better serve the needs of the community; and
Whereas the Nova Scotia Hospital has served the community since 1858 and is the major psychiatric referral centre for the province; and
Whereas the Nova Scotia Hospital has received a three year certificate of accreditation by the Canadian Council on Health Facilities Accreditation, which recognizes that the hospital has excelled in its strategic planning and community involvement;
Therefore be it resolved that this House of Assembly congratulate the hospital's Executive Director, Anne McGuire, the members of the staff, volunteers and foundation members on receiving the three year certificate of accreditation.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas students across Nova Scotia have questioned the polite public silence of the Education Minister in the face of federal plans to withdraw at least $85 million in transfers for post-secondary education; and
Whereas the minister seems content with plans to, at a minimum, double the cost of higher education, regardless of students' income, offering only still more debt to rub salt into the wound; and
Whereas these federal and provincial Liberal policies imply that Canadians and Nova Scotians are too well educated and that knowledge should not be increased, except among those who can afford it;
Therefore be it resolved that this House join students across Nova Scotia in endorsing the goal of today's National Day of Solidarity for Accessibility to Higher Education in Canada.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Bedford Basin.
MR. GERALD FOGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas February 3rd to 11th will see the World Schools Debating Championships in Cardiff, Wales; and
Whereas team members from Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario will soon meet in Port Hope, Ontario to prepare for this international event; and
Whereas Alice MacLachlan, a Grade 11 student at Halifax Grammar School, has won a spot on the Canadian Debating Team;
Therefore be it resolved that this House congratulate Alice MacLachlan for this outstanding accomplishment and wish her and her teammates every success at the World Schools Debating Championships.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for waiver of notice.
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 Cape Breton South.
MR. MANNING MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas during the early morning hours of May 5, 1994, Sydney Police Constable, Graham Thompson, went above and beyond the call of duty in the course of his shift; and
Whereas a man detained in the Sydney lock-up was found on the floor with no signs of life; and
[2:15 p.m.]
Whereas Constable Thompson, without regard for his personal health and safety, revived the man through the skillful use of mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and CPR;
Therefore be it resolved that members of this House of Assembly commend Constable Graham Thompson of Sydney for his bold and decisive actions of May 5, 1994, which resulted in the saving of another man's life.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver of notice which requires unanimous consent.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried unanimously.
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 on May 20, 1993, in Cape Breton, the now-Premier and Liberal MLAs issued a special pledge that no injured worker would suffer a loss of benefits due to WCB changes; and
Whereas this morning in Sydney representatives of thousands of Cape Breton workers spoke out against the massive loss of benefits that they would suffer if the Labour Minister had his way; and
Whereas neither the Premier nor any Liberal MLA has ever met with Cape Bretoners to discuss an election pledge issued exactly when voters were making up their minds, days before the vote;
Therefore be it resolved that Liberal MLAs should call general meetings with their constituents to discuss their WCB platform and how they intend to represent those constituents in this House.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, I will accept the motion as an expression of opinion. However, I do caution all members against resolutions that would appear to be an attack on members of the House. It is specifically forbidden by Beauchesne to attack a member of the House or to use language that is intemperate or unworthy of the place in which we sit. Those are all among the rules and usages of the House. Resolutions that fly in the teeth of that offend the Chair.
The honourable Minister of Labour.
HON. JAY ABBASS: In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that there are some material falsehoods in the resolution.
MR. SPEAKER: The point is noted.
The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. RUSSELL MACNEIL: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas New Waterford native Ruth M. Goldbloom has been appointed Chancellor of the Technical University of Nova Scotia; and
Whereas Dr. Goldbloom brings a wealth of talent and experience to the position, including service on a large number of national and regional boards; and
Whereas Dr. Goldbloom's leadership carries on the tradition of community activism that her mother, Rose Schwartz, brought to the Town of New Waterford;
Therefore be it resolved that the members of the House welcome the appointment of Dr. Ruth Goldbloom as Chancellor of the Technical University of Nova Scotia in recognition of her background and her achievements.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver of notice which requires unanimous consent.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MR. DENNIS RICHARDS: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas smoking is the number one public health problem in this province; and
Whereas each year an estimated 1,500 Nova Scotians die as a direct result of smoking and 180 non-smokers die as a direct result of their exposure to environmental tobacco smoke; and
Whereas the recent 1994 study on students and tobacco reports that more of our youth are smoking;
Therefore be it resolved that members of this House of Assembly commend the Health Minister for establishing the Tobacco Control Unit, among the first of its kind in this country I might add, to focus on more proactive prevention programs for schools, parents and the business community and health care providers.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver of notice which requires unanimous consent.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Eastern Shore.
MR. KEITH COLWELL: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas Mr. Steve Blasco, a resident of Dartmouth, is an internationally renowned marine geologist with the Geological Survey of Canada at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography; and
Whereas Mr. Blasco headed up the Canadian scientific team that went to the bottom of the ocean to explore the wreck of the Titanic on the joint Canadian-Soviet expedition to the Titanic; and
Whereas this famous international scientist regularly takes time to visit our schools to share with young people his enthusiasm for science, through his fascinating journey to the Titanic;
Therefore be it resolved that this House of Assembly recognize the pioneer work of Steve Blasco in marine geology and applaud his endeavours to inspire young people in the pursuit of scientific knowledge.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for waiver of notice.
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 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 city council in Nova Scotia's second largest city is dead set against the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia; and
Whereas Dartmouth City Council reinforced that point last night by voting unanimously against the establishment of casinos in Nova Scotia; and
Whereas city council voted against the establishment of casinos because of the concern they have for residents of Dartmouth;
Therefore be it resolved that since the members for Dartmouth North, Dartmouth East, Dartmouth-Cole Harbour and Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage are supposedly interested in representing the views of the people who elected them, they should feel free to allow the residents of greater Dartmouth to be represented by legislators in tune with the views of their community.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, it seems very similar to an earlier resolution that I ruled out of order. But with certain words deleted, perhaps with one more word deleted, it might be acceptable, and that is the word, supposedly. With that deletion, I will table the motion.
The notice is tabled with that change.
[Deletion not made; not tabled.]
The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Premier of Prince Edward Island stated yesterday that casinos have no proven economic development benefit and that Islanders are opposed to the establishment of casinos; and
Whereas the New Brunswick Government had already established an anti-casino policy, finding no benefit that would justify such an enterprise even though commercial gambling operates on reserves in nearby Maine; and
Whereas these Liberals once constantly bemoaned the fact that Nova Scotia's economy trailed its Maritime neighbours, due to the foolhardy policies of the then Conservative Government;
Therefore be it resolved that this government should practice the Maritime cooperation it preaches by entering into a common anti-casino policy for the region.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Kentville Board of Trade has this week joined the long list of business, municipal, community and labour organizations who opposed Liberal plans to impose casinos despite Nova Scotians' clear wish that gambling not expand; and
Whereas even the Liberal Party is finally accepting the inevitability of permitting its own members to express their views on the leadership provided by the Premier and his government; and
Whereas this government should in turn agree that regardless of any legislative powers it may gain, no casino will be imposed upon unwilling and hostile Nova Scotians;
Therefore be it resolved that Liberal MLAs angered by the ongoing discussion of their unwelcome controversial plans should try listening, consulting and responding instead of trying to censor and squash all such discussion.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Bedford-Fall River.
MRS. FRANCENE COSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas on Tuesday, January 17th, an historic event occurred in the Town of Bedford when students from Bedford Central, Glen Moir and Eaglewood Drive elementary schools moved into Basinview Drive Community School; and
Whereas the new Basinview Drive Community School, under the capable leadership of Principal, Mr. Tim Allen, has 607 energetic and enthusiastic students; and
Whereas Basinview Drive Community School reflects the needs and resources of the local community in its approach to lifelong learning among its students;
Therefore be it resolved that this House congratulate the Town of Bedford and the students and staff of Basinview Drive Community School and wish them every success in their pursuit of excellence in the field of education.
Mr. Speaker, I would request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There is a request that notice be waived on that resolution.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Are there any further notices of motion or any other business to come up under the heading of the daily routine before we advance to the Orders of the Day?
I wish to advise the House that the Clerk has conducted a draw for the Adjournment debate at 6:00 p.m. The winner this afternoon is the honourable member for Lunenburg. She has submitted a resolution reading:
Therefore be it resolved that the members of the House of Assembly congratulate the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency and all stakeholders who work towards the sustainability of eco-tourism as a healthy and prosperous component of the tourism industry in Nova Scotia.
So, we will hear on that matter at 6:00 p.m.
The Oral Question Period today will run for 90 minutes, the time now being 2:26 p.m., it will therefore run until 3:56 p.m.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
ORAL QUESTIONS PUT BY MEMBERS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: My question is for the Minister of Education. As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker and through you to the minister, the minister released to The Daily News yesterday an outline of his and his government's progress to date on the Atlantic Provinces' response to the so-called Axworthy Report. It was indicated that the response was faxed yesterday to the federal office. I ask if the minister would be prepared to table that response here in the House today, so that Nova Scotia legislators and taxpayers could be aware of the position taken by the Nova Scotia Government in that connection?
HON. JOHN MACEACHERN: I would mention to the honourable member that this is not a response just of this government, it is a response of the four Atlantic governments. It is our beginning negotiating position as we meet with Mr. Axworthy next Monday and it will be part of that negotiations. And as soon as the negotiations are finished with Mr. Axworthy, I will be pleased to present it to the House and to all members.
MR. DONAHOE: In the statements made by the minister, he made several comments about Nova Scotia's post-secondary education. He said, among other things, the minister said and I think I quote him accurately, if the tuition has to go up, there have to be bursaries and summer work to make school affordable for the poorer students. Although, P.E.I., if I read the report directly, is taking the lead on the education component, I wonder if the Minister of Education can indicate to us here today, the position on behalf of the Province of Nova Scotia, which is set out in this document relative to the threat to increasing tuitions for post-secondary education?
MR. MACEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, through you to the honourable Leader of the Opposition, I would like to remind him and all members of the House, that in the two to three years at the end of the term of the previous government, tuitions doubled. In fact, that was a great concern to us and we are studying the impact that that has had on accessibility to students. I present that to all members of the House. As I said last year, as we were discussing this issue, it is not just tuitions that are the problem. We also have to look at such things as bursaries for students in need, student aid with loan remission, income contingency, summer jobs, the whole mix of things are under discussion with Mr. Axworthy.
What has to be recognized and I suggest this to all members of the House, as bad a mess as this government found itself in, the federal government found itself in a worse mess and must address that. We have all seen over the last little while that the debt charges to the federal government are causing great risk to all transfer payments. So, at the present time, the Atlantic Canada sitting with the federal minister is trying to find ways so that we can set priorities and make decisions and stop the financial people somewhere outside of our region from making those decisions for us. So, when we get that final result of the whole mix, not just one thing, we will report it to all members of the House.
MR. DONAHOE: We have all these circuitous answers, or more to the point, circuitous rhetoric, none of which constitutes an answer to any statement by this minister or seemingly any of the ministers, as to what the policy of this government is in regard to anything. May I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, of the same minister, this same minister says that, or is quoted at least as saying, that seasonal work is not necessarily a bad thing, a sentiment with which I agree. But what people, the minister goes on to be quoted as saying, are collecting, is not unemployment insurance, it is an income supplement. So, let's stop calling it what it isn't. I wonder if the minister is suggesting that all UI recipients are, in fact, collecting in his opinion, some form of welfare payment? Is that, in fact, the message that he is attempting to convey by that characterization of the seasonal worker and the unemployment insurance payments?
MR. MACEACHERN: No, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the honourable Leader of the Opposition, I would suggest to him very clearly that what has to be recognized, and what our research over the last two months has identified, is Atlantic Canada has special characteristics. One of those is its dependence on seasonal work and, again, I don't apologize for that nor does Atlantic Canada. What we want the federal government to recognize is that that is one of the characteristics of Atlantic Canada and has to be dealt with accordingly and with respect. To suggest, as the honourable member seems to be implying by his statement, that we are talking to that as welfare, not true; we are looking at the reality of Atlantic Canada and we want to deal with it with respect, aiming very clearly for a sustainable economy and not a dependent economy.
[2:30 p.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Acting Premier. On Wednesday, December 14, 1994, the Government House Leader in this House said the following and I quote from Assembly Debates of that day. "I can say, and I will state categorically on behalf of the government of this province, on behalf of the Liberal Party in the Province of Nova Scotia, we are willing to cooperate; we are willing to consider changes to rules in this House of Assembly. But, what we are not willing to do is to cherry pick, to pick one issue and have a vote on the floor of the Assembly without it going to the Committee on Assembly Matters for a full debate, for some research to be done, well thought out and to try and reach consensus.". And further, ". . . but no one member or no one Party should be able to make all the rules that are going to have to withstand the test of time in this Chamber.".
Mr. Speaker, my question to the Acting Premier, does this remain the policy of this government for handling changes to the Rules of the House of Assembly?
MR. SPEAKER: I know that notice has been given of a resolution on this matter but, of course, many resolutions are on the order paper.
The honourable Acting Leader, go ahead.
HON. JAY ABBASS: Mr. Speaker, actually, were the Government House Leader here I would refer that to him and I wonder if this question could be raised again later in the hour when the member will be back?
MR. SPEAKER: Is there any supplementary question?
MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I am asking a question on government policy and I am asking it of the Acting Premier. Is somebody in charge over there who can answer this question?
MR. SPEAKER: The Acting Premier indicates that the House Leader would answer, but he is not here.
MR. CHISHOLM: Well, okay. Let me then - if the Acting Premier, let's not forget, is not prepared to answer a question on government policy - let me ask a further question. No legislation before this House has ever undergone even half of the scrutiny to which this government, themselves, when they were in Opposition, subjected extraordinary government legislation for which there was no electoral mandate, and my question for the Acting Premier, is why, when government members know from their own experience the rigorous test of legislative review, would they make such an unequivocal pledge, as that I just quoted, to research and seek a well thought out consensus on rule changes, only to panic a few weeks later and flip-flop when they feel the heat of public opinion?
MR. ABBASS: Mr. Speaker, again I can only say that, were the Government House Leader here, he would be the member who would answer this question and again I would extend to the member opposite that offer, that if he were to hold his question, he would have an answer in due course.
MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I guess I must have prepared my exchange in recognition of the lack of response I would get. In my final supplementary, let me say that it is apparent to every Nova Scotian that what has changed in the last six weeks is that this government is feeling the full heat of public opinion from every corner of this province and they don't want to meet Nova Scotians even part of the way in terms of dealing with legislation in this House the way every single government has for the last number of years. (Interruption)
MR. SPEAKER: Other members of the House are calling for order. I have to call for order. I have to call for order.
MR. CHISHOLM: Will the Acting Premier do the research that his government promised to discover that no other Legislature in this country places an arbitrary limit on clause by clause consideration of government legislation?
MR. ABBASS: Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the member opposite, those are great theatrics and it was much appreciated. Again, I would extend to him that offer that if he were to re-put his question to the Government House Leader then he would receive an answer. In the meantime (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order.
MR. ABBASS: The member opposite has said that this is unprecedented in the annals of the Legislature and everyone present, if he levels with himself or herself, would understand that the Opposition is behaving in an unprecedented manner (Interruptions) in debating the titles (Applause) (Interruptions) of two extremely important bills for an unusually and uncalled for amount of time, that you are holding up . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. Please let the minister reply to the question you asked. (Interruptions)
MR. ABBASS: Again, I would say that the member would want to, or should want to, re-put that question to the Government House Leader when he is back in the Chamber. Again, we are dealing with an unprecedented situation, it has called for unprecedented measures and the Government House Leader can more than adequately spell out the various reasons why that has been called for, such as, for instance, the way in which the members opposite have chosen to, in a very small-minded manner, drag out the debate over the title of two bills. (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition on a new question?
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: No, it is not a question, it is a point of . . .
MR. SPEAKER: There are no points of order in Question Period.
MR. DONAHOE: I rise on a point of privilege. (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: There are no points of order or privilege in Question Period. I will recognize a question.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Last November, the Minister of Finance met with the Mi'Kmaq leaders with a view of discussing reinstatement of the native tax exemption. I was wondering if the minister could inform the House as to whether or not an agreement has been reached?
HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: No, it has not, Mr. Speaker.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, if I understand what the minister said during his press conference on the casinos, he said that approximately 40 per cent, I believe, of the profit from the Cape Breton casino, the casino in Sydney, that is the percentage that is going for charitable organizations and other organizations, that 40 per cent of that profit would perhaps be going to the native community as a share of those profits. I was wondering if the minister would advise the House as to whether or not that 40 per cent is offered as a quid pro quo for the reinstatement of tax benefits?
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the honourable member I made no such statement.
MR. RUSSELL: I wonder if the minister, Mr. Speaker, would advise the House, then, of what the present policy is with regard to the imposition of taxes on native sales to non-natives?
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for bringing up the subject. We have been engaged in a very challenging and difficult discussion with the Mi'kmaq community in Nova Scotia in attempting to reach agreement on gaming and taxation issues as a package and to reach agreement with the Mi'Kmaq Nation as a group. We have had a continuing series of meetings on those two subjects. We have had meetings with various groups. As a matter of fact, I met with a group yesterday and I am going to be leaving Question Period a little early today to meet with another group on that general subject. We have not resolved the issue and until we do, I guess I have nothing to report.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou Centre.
DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Housing and Consumer Affairs, homeowners in coal mining communities have ongoing concerns about the possibility of subsidence due to the collapse of coal mines under their homes. This is a situation over which they have no control. My question for the minister is, how many Nova Scotian homes have been affected by subsidence in the past 18 months?
HON. GUY BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the honourable member for Pictou Centre for the question. Here is the problem you get into in dealing with subsidence. Some people claim they have a crack in the wall that is caused by subsidence and that debate continues to go on. But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, all members of this House, sir, through you, that we have a problem in this province in our mining communities with regard to the subsidence. This government, and the same thing I want to do before I ever leave this Assembly, is develop a program that will help all communities in this province.
We now have the Department of Housing and Consumer Affairs, my department, we have the Department of Justice, the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Municipal Affairs, along with two members, the honourable member for Cape Breton Centre who has worked with us, and the member for Pictou East that had been working on this continuously, trying to develop a program which looks simple in day one, but is not so simple.
I would hope that this government, who has a concern and has made a commitment to resolve this situation, will have some sort of policy or program, be it insurance related, be it funded by government or be it some other type of program. I don't know that at this stage, but I can make a commitment here to all Nova Scotians that if any government ever develops a program, it will be this government because we are committed to this situation.
DR. HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. It has been almost a year since three homes in Westville were partially destroyed by subsidence. One of these homes is still settling to this day and cannot be reoccupied. The other two homes have had temporary repairs carried out, allowing the families to return.
My question to the minister in regards to this specific situation, would the minister provide an update on efforts of the government to provide support for the three home owners on Diamond Street in Westville?
MR. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, at the time we had the problem, we went to those three families and offered them alternative housing and were prepared to work with them. Some of them took advantage of it, some of them moved back into their own homes. We offered them the Provincial Repair Program. We contacted Ottawa with regards to the RRAP Program, which was not in existence then, it is now.
There is not only those three homes, Mr. Speaker, and I can understand that member for Pictou, but we have homes in Glace Bay that have been going on for three to five years that we have to resolve. I have a concern for those people. This government has a concern for those people and that is why we have these four or five government departments put together now, trying to come up with a resolution to a very serious situation in Nova Scotia, which we have not seen the worst of it yet. As these mines get older, there are going to be more homes, in my community of Springhill, Glace Bay, Inverness, Cape Breton, Pictou County. I would say, in maybe ten communities across this province.
So we are dealing with it. I have no further update than that, any more on those three homes on Pictou than I have on the ones in Glace Bay that has been going on for four or five years.
DR. HAMM: Mr. Speaker, by way of final supplementary, would the minister commit to the House then, to aggressively seek a solution, particularly on behalf of those three home owners in Westville whose houses have been very seriously damaged by subsidence, would he look to their case and try and provide some solution for them?
MR. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, we are aggressively dealing with this issue now. We have had a delegation to look at some legislation in the United States. There is no legislation anywhere in Canada to deal with this situation. We had a meeting last week of the four departments over at the Natural Resources offices, plus some other members. We will continue to work and, hopefully, come up with a program because I don't want to mislead people. I don't want to stand here and say, we are going to resolve this situation. But I want to tell you, if any government ever resolves it, we are committed and we will do everything in our power, not only for those three homes, but for the ones in Glace Bay, the ones in Inverness and the ones in Cumberland County.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my question, through you, is for the Minister of Health. I think, after about 18 months of pleading, Dianna Parsons finally had a meeting with the minister, I think on January 11th. I commend the minister for having that meeting.
[2:45 p.m.]
At that meeting the minister assured Dianna Parsons that her health needs related to Hepatitis C contracted from tainted blood would be met. The minister also promised another meeting with himself and the Minister of Community Services within a week or two. Two weeks have passed. I was wondering if the Minister of Health could indicate when somebody from his office or himself would be contacting Dianna Parsons to set up such a meeting?
HON. RONALD STEWART: Yes, if that has not been done it will be done very shortly, Mr. Speaker, to arrange for that meeting within the next week or so.
MR. MOODY: I thank the minister for that commitment and I am sure he is committed to doing that. I know she will be waiting for that call.
Shortly after the meeting of January 11th, Mrs. Parsons' physician made an appointment with a dental surgeon. It has to do with thrush, which is a symptom of Hepatitis C, as the minister knows. The surgery that is needed is not covered by MSI. The minister made a commitment on January 11th that her health needs would be looked after. Would the minister indicate to the House today and to all Nova Scotians that he intends to keep that commitment and that her surgery related to thrush will be covered by the provincial government?
DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable gentleman opposite knows very well, I am constrained by being minister that I do not know the specifics of any given individual's medical condition nor will I seek to find that out. But I will give him assurances, as I have done, that we deal with people in a very just way. We will try our best to certainly fulfil the pledge that I made to, in this case, Mrs. Parsons, in which we were very concerned that her health needs be met. I will pursue that with her, with the Minister of Community Services and with our chief medical officer of health.
MR. MOODY: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed. Dianna Parsons is at home with mouth bleeding, having all kinds of discomfort and was given assurance by the minister that her health needs would be met. When she called Jeff Scott at the department, he indicated it is not covered and would not be covered.
She is also unable to get an expensive prescription, she can't even get her medication. She was told by this minister that her health needs would be looked after until this whole issue was resolved.
I would ask the minister, will he ensure, through his department, that Dianna Parsons' health needs - that is all we are asking - will be met by this government until such time as this whole issue is resolved regarding the compensation package? Will he assure us that her health needs will be met and she is not unduly suffering at home?
DR. STEWART: We would certainly do our best, Mr. Speaker, to ensure no one is unduly suffering at home, without help. I will give that assurance to the honourable gentleman opposite.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to direct my question to the Minister of Health. Following the January 11th meeting with Dianna Parsons, the Minister of Health confirmed that the issue of compensation for people who had contracted Hepatitis C from tainted blood, and I quote his words directly, "is still on the table, it will remain on the table . . .". In fact the minister applauded Dianna Parsons for bringing the issue of compensation to the national spotlight.
Yet in this House, Mr. Speaker, the minister reversed himself, stating categorically, and again I quote from Hansard, ". . . that compensation in terms of Hepatitis C is not being considered by this government.". Period. Not being considered.
Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain why he has retreated from his earlier commitment to Dianna Parsons and to Nova Scotians to work towards compensation for her and other victims of Hepatitis C from tainted blood?
HON. RONALD STEWART: This is typical of the honourable member opposite who declares and takes out of context a second-hand quote which she is attributing to me, in terms of a specific.
I have stated here in this place, as the honourable member opposite has quoted, that this government has taken a stand on compensation. In my discussions with Mrs. Parsons and again, she has said this publicly, I said that compensation would always be in her mind and in the mind of the national discussion on the table for discussion and resolution. I did not shrink from that. That was a key issue and a point that she wished to discuss.
But we have taken, as a Ministry of Health and as a government, the stand that we will not compensate victims of this particular disease. I have made the statement here. I have not reversed anything. But it is on the national agenda through the Krever Inquiry, that has been raised. It has been raised by advocacy groups of Hepatitis C victims and it will remain in the debate. I welcome and pay tribute to her bringing this to national attention. I will continue to do so but we have made a decision. (Interruptions)
MS. MCDONOUGH: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, to applaud someone for bringing a very serious issue, compensation to Hepatitis C victims, to the national stage and then say, but we don't intend to do anything about compensation for victims is, to say the least, an act of hypocrisy.
Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that Dianna Parsons' legal counsel has written to him twice since the January 11th meeting asking the minister to give assurances to Dianna Parsons and to all others concerned about this issue that he is not speaking out of both sides of his mouth, saying one thing to her and another in the House of Assembly. Will the minister address the contradiction that arises in his statements, again today, while he talks about applauding Dianna Parsons and then saying that he doesn't intend, on behalf of her or others similarly situated, to fight for compensation for victims of Hepatitis C?
DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no contradiction of what I said. I have stood in this place and I have said that the government has taken a decision on this. I have discussed this very, very openly in the presence of those who were at the meeting with Mrs. Parsons, that the government had made a decision based on the full knowledge that we had at the time. I said that certainly the discussion was continuing and would continue on a national basis. I credited her with, in part, bringing this to the national consciousness. I will continue to do so. There is no hypocrisy there. We looked at the facts. We looked at what we were responsible for in the health care system and we came to a decision.
This is not to say that the debate is absolutely closed because we have decided not to compensate. The discussion will persist in terms of the Krever Inquiry report, it will persist on a national level and I am not shrinking from that debate. I have made my case here in this place. The government has made its case in terms of compensation for untoward and difficult situations that have occurred in the health care system and we will continue to do that. But to suggest that I have said one thing here and there, that is simply not true. I very openly discussed it with Mrs. Parsons. I reiterate that I said the government had made the decision but that her bringing it to the national consciousness was a credible act.
MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is simply this, with this issue now on the national stage, thanks to the courageous efforts of Dianna Parsons, what does this minister intend to do with that national issue in the national forum of Ministers of Health to try to address this very serious problem of compensation desperately needed by victims of Hepatitis C?
DR. STEWART: I have made the case on the national stage and at the national meetings of Ministers of Health. We have discussed it. We have taken the decision as Ministers of Health across the country that we would not provide compensation for victims of Hepatitis C. There I rest.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the honourable Minister of Transportation and Communications. On the one hand, the government talks about encouraging private enterprise and on the other hand, they do the exact opposite. Because the Minister of Transportation cut the salt hauling rates so drastically, many private owner/operators cannot afford to haul. To that effect, the Department of Transportation at Millers Lake, at the Mechanical Branch, recently retrofitted five tractor trucks with hydraulic wet line kit. A wet line kit enables the trucks to operate essentially and effectively a dump trailer. The cost and installation of these kits is several thousand dollars. The department also leased five or six dump trailers. I wonder if the minister will confirm this was done to haul salt from Pugwash?
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for letting Nova Scotians know that the Department of Transportation and Communications had in place equipment ready to transport salt to sheds in the event that it was necessary.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would submit the reason it was necessary was because that minister cut the rates so low that the independent private operator cannot afford to haul anymore. I wonder if the minister can tell me if he is also planning on cutting the summer gravel and asphalt hauling rates?
MR. MANN: Mr. Speaker, the member obviously has connections in the trucking industry, I would suspect, that is no secret to anyone in the House and individuals who are probably giving him information to use in this House. I would suggest he call those individuals and confirm that I have, in fact, signed a letter with Mr. Colin Sears, the President of the Nova Scotia Truckers Association, confirming that the 1995 summer haul rates will remain as they are.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, again I would like to go to the Minister of Transportation. This is the first winter on record that the Department of Transportation and Communications has ever sent a tractor and trailer combination up to Pugwash to haul salt and I am wondering if that same combination will be cutting in during the summer months on the private owner/operator?
MR. MANN: Mr. Speaker, I think that all members of the House who are critical of measures that are perhaps taken by the Department of Transportation or any department of government for that matter should consider the consequences if those measures are not taken. These individuals know, they sat here through the budget debate last year, they sat here through debate on legislation that was introduced regarding a four year expenditure control plan and they know that budgets within departments and perhaps more so in the Department of Transportation than a lot of others, those operating budgets have been cut substantially. If monies are not saved and cost-savings realized in areas such as hauling rates and other initiatives then, in fact, what may be necessary is to go and deal in saving money with the amount of salt applied to the roads or the hours salt is applied. Those are not alternatives that we will consider.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley on a new question.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I wonder if the minister can tell me if his department put out for public tender the leasing of those five or six dump trailers?
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that we have signed into a lease on them. I think what we did was check with companies to see if there were trailers available to be used with their own equipment if, in fact, it was necessary. I can check on that for the member but I don't think we have leased any trailers because we haven't had the need to use any trailers.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou Centre.
DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance. I have here a document, Joint Operation Sale and Long Term Agreement between Sysco, the province and Minmetals. Perusal of the document reveals that the agreement provides that it become effective on January 1, 1995. My question to the minister is, is this agreement in force today and if so, what is the current status of the previous board of directors?
HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, the document is in effect as of January 1st. The previous board of directors is still acting and will act until the first board meeting which will occur early in February.
DR. HAMM: Mr. Speaker, a review of Orders in Council dated January 3rd reveal that the province has arranged an operating line of credit of some $30 million for Sysco, arranged at two banks, some in American funds and some in Canadian funds. The document to which I previously made reference, the so-called agreement, indicates that Minmetals shall provide a line of credit in Canada of $10 million to be available to assist Minmetals implement the terms of the agreement. That arrangement was to be in place as of January 1st. My question to the minister is, has Minmetals to this date complied and arranged with the agreed line of credit to which they are honour-bound by this agreement?
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I believe the agreement speaks, as of January 1st, of a certificate certifying that Minmetals will have that line of credit and the actual date for the line of credit itself in place is January 30th. We have indications from them that they have arranged such a line and it will be in place by January 30th.
DR. HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I take from the minister's answer then that things are going along reasonably smoothly.
[3:00 p.m.]
My final supplementary then, again referring to the agreement, Page 10 of the agreement indicates that Minmetals will appoint five directors and the province four. My question to the minister is, have these directors been named by the province and by Minmetals? If so, who are they? Or, if he is not prepared to disclose that, when will the announcement be made?
MR. BOUDREAU: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have the nominations for the directors, the new board. We will be making those appointments formally at the first board meeting, effective the first board meeting, and the announcement will be made at that time.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, on the issue of contract compliance, I want to direct my first question, if I may, to the Minister of Human Resources. It is not a new topic for the minister. Certainly back in the Throne Speech of 1993 the government said that the Human Resources Department will develop ". . . a contract compliance program which ensures that private sector companies wishing to do business with the government follow generally acceptable policies on pay equity and minority employment opportunities.". Also in April of this year she said that was going to be put into process, once the audit of her department was complete.
My question to the minster is quite simply this, why haven't you developed such a policy?
HON. ELEANOR NORRIE: Mr. Speaker, that is still in the process as we also develop our updated tendering policies as has been suggested in the House here earlier this year. It is all part and parcel of the same package.
MR. HOLM: In the fullness of time we hear, Mr. Speaker. We don't even know when that is. Last April I also asked the Minister of Supply and Services about it since his department is responsible for the tender calls and I wanted to know what his department was doing to ensure that those companies that were doing business with the government and responding to tender calls were involved in or following acceptable practices of pay equity and minority employment opportunities - in other words, contract compliance.
The minister said he would bring some results forward in the ensuing weeks. Well, Mr. Speaker, as of this month, still absolutely zero mention in the contracts tenders called by this minister. I would like to ask the minister quite simply why it is, since his colleague isn't prepared to do something, why it is the minister hasn't assured - to the Minister of Supply and Services - that those issues are not addressed in the tender calls that his department puts out?
HON. WAYNE ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the question was answered by the previous minister, my colleague, who did make reference that we were going to try to make a package of policies and that one would support the other, in terms of the new tendering policies, the new procurement policies and enshrined, if you will, with equal opportunity.
I will say, too, in answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, that we do have some ads that are soon going public for services to buildings that we have severed in the past few months. They will include the first consideration of displaced employees, which is an act of Affirmative Action.
MR. HOLM: I now think that I have an understanding of how limited this government's interpretation is of contract compliance. Mr. Speaker, casinos were a priority of this government . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Question, please. This is a final supplementary. You can put one question, without any . . .
MR. HOLM: Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker. My final supplementary is going to be to the Minister of Human Resources. My question quite simply is this, if the government can move very quickly in establishing casinos, why is it that this government has placed such a low priority on dealing with contract compliance? Why the low priority when it was so important a couple of years ago?
HON. ELEANOR NORRIE: Mr. Speaker, it is his opinion that this is a low priority. It is certainly not a low priority within the government. As we develop our policies and work through this issue, definitely it is a very major concern of this government on how we do, who we hire and who we tender policy work out to, within the Province of Nova Scotia. We try to deal with it in a way that is fair and competitive and as we move forward, that will come forward in the fullest of time.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings North.
MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, my question through you is to the Minister responsible for the Economic Renewal Agency. Yesterday and again this morning, the topic of the International Gathering of the Clans came up, because this morning at the Public Accounts Committee, staff from your department were making presentations. SSANS, the Scottish Societies Association of Nova Scotia, represents 40 community groups, which are helping to keep Scottish heritage alive in Nova Scotia. They haven't been funded by the province since 1993, however, this year is kind of a special year because it is the year for the International Gathering of the Clans. They have requested from the government to have enough funding so that the Gathering of the Clans can take place again this year. I am wondering, will your department fund SSANS, so that the international gathering can be financially secure this year?
HON. ROSS BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, if the organization that he speaks about made application to our department, we would consider it.
MR. ARCHIBALD: They indicated to me that they have indeed made requests to the department for funding. Well, I don't have copies of the letters, I assume they are in your department. Your department certainly are familiar with it. Look, we can't go back, Mr. Speaker, we have got to go through you. Nobody has informed me, they were turned down. Mr. Dan Brennan, who is an employee of the honourable minister's, was at the meeting this morning and he was very familiar with the International Gathering of the Clans and their request for funds this year. Also, the SSANS' people have indicated they have been raising money privately through their own organizations. Forty Scottish societies around the province represent pretty near every district that the members of the Legislature represent and they are a very important organization. They have also made a request with the Department of Economic Renewal to match dollar for dollar what they have been able to raise privately from their associations.
MR. BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, when the honourable member rises for his final supplementary, maybe he would tell us who he has been talking to, who says we won't fund them? Let's get the record straight. We have not turned them down for funding, nor have they asked for funding. We have said on many occasions that we are supportive of that event. My understanding of the event is that they are going to do it community by community and that various communities will be approaching us for assistance, which we are open to receiving and will try to accommodate. But, I don't believe, unless the honourable member has more information than he would like to share, that we have, in fact, been asked or have we turned them down.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Well, SSANS asked for money in 1993 and were turned down, they asked for money in 1994 and they were turned down. They have also been asking, now I was speaking to the Chairman of SSANS, Bill MacLennan, do you know him perhaps? I was speaking to him and he has been talking to people in your department. Now, if there is some confusion between your department and the SSANS organization, I hope that our discussion in the House does not do anything to disrupt it because it is an important organization. But, I do want an indication from the minister if he does get confirmation in writing, directly to his office, will he then agree to fund the International Gathering of the Clans?
MR. BRAGG: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult issue. He has talked to somebody who says we have turned them down. Yesterday, the NDP said they had somebody, and we have checked and today I had my Executive Assistant speak to the President, the gentleman by the name of Jack MacNeil, who is the President of the organization. He tells me that they are happy with our department, they are working closely with our staff, we have been nothing but supportive and they have not asked us for financing.
Yesterday, the NDP told us that they have been talking to somebody that was upset and they wrote the Premier a letter back in June, whoever this Clan Watson Society is. They were very upset and in their closing comment - and I want to share this with the House - we are starting to believe that unless we are native Indian, Black or immigrants from any non-English-speaking country, we have no credibility. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that those letters are not acceptable and that we will continue to support the Gathering of the Clans and the society and help them in any way, as we would any other organization, and that they better talk to the people in charge.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. GEORGE MOODY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. I had a call today from Ian Morrison in Bridgewater, who has a broken neck and is unable to work. He told me they may foreclose on his mortgage. He has called the Minister of Health and he has not received a call back and, obviously, he has a concern about the number of neurosurgeons in our province. As I understand it, there is a long waiting list for neurosurgery. Is the minister aware of that long waiting list?
HON. RONALD STEWART: Let me respond, Mr. Speaker, if I could, to two things. First of all, if the gentleman has called me, I will check our records and see, that is fair game; and second, in terms of the number of neurosurgeons, we have had a complement of neurosurgeons which, I might say, have been hardworking and very diligent in their work here; they are known throughout North America and they have done great work. The complement, as we have seen in the last couple of months, has been decreased. There has been one taken ill and that is one of the situations we are facing very carefully. The waiting lists, again I will be receiving a report shortly on this. In view of that fact, I would certainly share it with the honourable gentleman opposite, if he so wishes.
MR. MOODY: Yes, and I thank the minister for the commitment to call Ian Morrison back, and I am aware that one surgeon has taken ill and I understand that. I understand, too, that the one that is going to operate eventually on this young man may be going to Pittsburg in the very near future. I would ask the minister if he is aware that there is more than one of the present neurosurgeons who is overworked and, as he said, do an extremely good job, and is the minister aware that there are others possibly leaving within the next few months?
DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation to a degree at the Victoria General Hospital, particularly. I have always felt they were overworked. Frankly, back in 1991 and 1992, I reviewed that department specifically and made recommendations vis-a-vis this issue and I would certainly think that with the loss of one of them, that is a serious situation and we have already been inquiring about it.
MR. MOODY: Well, I thank the honourable minister and I thank him for recognizing that the loss of even one that is presently on staff would be a very serious situation. Since this physician told Mr. Morrison that he may be going to Pittsburg and may not be around to do that operation, even though he has had a very long wait, would the minister assure all Nova Scotians that if one or two of these surgeons leave, that the minister will assure Nova Scotians that if they need an operation, we will either have the surgeons here or pay for that operation to be done out of province?
DR. STEWART: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there certainly are alternatives in terms of the pressing situations that might occur in the health care system. We, as a ministry, would be very cautious to look at all of these issues. I would assure the honourable gentleman opposite that all of those issues are very important to us and, in fact, the recent discussions we are having in terms of surgical coverage and the discussions with, particularly, the Victoria General Department of Surgery will be very important in the overall recruitment and retention of neurosurgery.
There has been a major change there, as the honourable gentleman opposite may know, in that the division or the Department of Neurosurgery has now become a division of surgery itself. That is important to the overall approach we take and we are in fairly constant contact with the chief over there.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources. Yesterday, I asked the minister if she would confirm that Ms. Angela Manders came in second to a Mr. Colin Craig in a competition for the job of Director of Communications, Sport and Recreation. The minister thought that that was the case and indicated, I thought, she would make some inquiries.
I wonder if the minister would indicate today whether or not she has been able to confirm that that was in fact the case, that Ms. Manders was a close second in the competition in question?
HON. ELEANOR NORRIE: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe I did confirm that the person he has named was an applicant. Those names and their scores in the job are confidential and I will not release them, as I have stated previously in the House.
MR. DONAHOE: Well, that did not seem to be a problem, Mr. Speaker, in relation to handling the job in the Protocol Office. Not only was the name released, the name of the person who was not the top candidate was given the job. I find it a little difficult to understand why we now have the double standard being applied here.
Short of providing a name then, here on the floor of this Legislature, will the minister indicate to this House whether or not, from her analysis of the file, it is in fact a female person who was a candidate and finished a close second to the male who was appointed? Will she confirm that?
[3:15 p.m.]
MRS. NORRIE: Mr. Speaker, the competition was opened up, I am not sure of the number of applicants. I do know that there were seven persons interviewed for the job, three of those were women, four were men. In the process of selecting the candidate that was chosen, I am satisfied that the competition was handled by my staff in a very fair and open way with all the concerns of this government addressed. We now have a good qualified person in place as the Communications Officer for the Nova Scotia Sports and Recreation Commission.
MR. DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder, then, by way of final supplementary, if the minister would be prepared to explain here this afternoon and follow that by tabling the government's affirmative action policy and point out where in that policy it suggests that the minister should apply affirmative action in some cases but not in others?
MRS. NORRIE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition is obviously on a bit of a fishing expedition and perhaps maybe he should be. But I would suggest that his questioning of this competition and the information that he is releasing here is not entirely true. The competition was opened up, as I have stated, and as a matter of fact, the person who did win the competition was a female. The female was offered the job and that female turned down the job. The second place candidate was indeed the gentleman who was awarded the job.
Further to that, Mr. Speaker, in my responsibilities within the Department of Human Resources and my other areas of responsibility, I have placed 11 persons within government since January 1994. Of those 11, 9 were female and we are applying our affirmative action policies to every competition that takes place. I will not take second place or be undermined in any way in the way that has been applied through the hiring policies of this government. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: I would like to have the opportunity to, after getting the direction from the Acting Premier, to direct my question to the Government House Leader. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, on Wednesday, December 14, 1994, I will read from Hansard . . .
MR. SPEAKER: I cannot permit a repetitive lengthy reading of that. Put the question.
MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, let me say that in participating in the debate of that particular day, December 14th, the Government House Leader said with respect to the changing of rules in this House that it is not a matter that will be taken lightly, it is not a matter that you can pick and choose, cherry pick I think the word was, that it is something that should be well researched and there should be a consensus reached by the committee responsible for doing that. He said further, ". . . but no one member or no one Party should be able to make all the rules that are going to have to withstand the test of time in this Chamber.".
Mr. Speaker, my question to the Government House Leader, does this remain a policy of the government as it was a mere six weeks ago?
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I will answer the question. I think the Rules of the House indicate that ministers answer questions with regard to their ministerial responsibility so, with your permission, I would answer the question.
Mr. Speaker, by tradition in this House, I guess the House has looked after its own affairs; situations have arisen which the House has made decisions, or governments have made decisions, to deal with those situations that have arisen. I can recall, as a member of this House, and sitting, in fact, on a rules committee and with unanimous consent, with consensus of everyone, agreeing to rule changes that the Official Opposition today, who were the government then, I believe took three years, three years after unanimous consent, to bring those rule changes to the floor of the House.
Mr. Speaker, this decision has not been taken lightly and I would clearly say that the government and myself, as House Leader, have not violated any of the Rules of the House in dealing with this matter. (Applause)
MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, as I again indicated earlier, this government, when they were in Opposition, dealt with extraordinary legislation brought forward by the former administration with the kind of scrutiny that is double the kind of scrutiny that we have given some of the legislation here. They spent twice as long reviewing some of that legislation. I would like to ask the Government House Leader, given that knowledge, given their own knowledge of the kind of scrutiny that legislation will receive here in this Chamber, why is it that he made that pledge on December 14th and has now gone back on that pledge and unilaterally are going to impose rule changes without any regard to the Committee on House of Assembly Matters?
MR. MANN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite makes reference to the government members when in Opposition responding very thoroughly to legislation. I would like to think that was the case. I would say there was a remarkable difference in the 100 hours of debate that we applied to the sale or the privatization of the Nova Scotia Power Corporation. There is a great deal of difference in 25 members of the Legislature in Opposition moving through a bill, though the title and clause by clause rather, than sitting here for three weeks over and over again debating the title with no opportunity to make any changes. (Applause)
MR. CHISHOLM: Well, I guess it depends on what colour your glasses are. (Interruptions) Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Government House Leader, then, in conclusion.
MR. SPEAKER: Question.
MR. CHISHOLM: Will he do the research that he promised that he would, six short weeks ago, into the whole question of rule changes, Mr. Speaker, where he will find out that no Legislature places this kind of arbitrary limit that is being proposed here on (Interruptions) clause by clause consideration of government legislation? Will he pledge to do here today what he pledged to do on December 14th and that is research the issue instead of intervening with an arbitrary action by one Party and perhaps by one member?
MR. MANN: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that I have done a lot of research on this matter in recent weeks. Eight of the 10 Legislatures in Canada have very abrupt endings to legislation. They call them time allocation motions. When that time allocation motion is put, then the House sits longer that day and each member is given 10 minutes or 15 minutes to debate that motion and then the debate is over and the debate on the bill is over. In fact, my researchers tell me that in Ontario, for example, this time allocation provision was brought in in 1992 and has been used 40 or 50 times since 1992 to shut down debate on bills. In fact, two bills in particular that we had some interest in - I guess because of the timeliness - were the workers' compensation bill in Ontario and the casino bill in Ontario. Those two pieces of legislation, according to our researchers, were given seven hours debate and then a motion of time allocation and the debate was over. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition. (Interruptions)
Order, please. The honourable Leader of the Opposition has the floor.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I guess all that last diatribe means is that the people of Ontario had casinos jammed down their throats in seven hours and the Government House Leader is proud of that. I guess that is the only translation of that.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. I want to ask the minister if he can tell this House whether or not he has received correspondence from a student or students from the aquaculture course in Shelburne Community College which I am advised is in some real difficulty and there are some very real concerns about the viability of the course and the future prospects for the students in that course. Has he had a communication? If so, has he acted upon that communication?
HON. JOHN MACEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, we anticipated the question. The letter was sent on - it was faxed, actually, on January 6th. Our staff did significant research and the letter was responded to on the 21st of January completely. The course, which is a very significant course that we have added to the program of the community college, was very significant in terms of the preparation required. We made two contracts to make preparation and both of those were delayed.
I will provide this to all members of the House who are interested in the aquaculture course. There were some difficulties up until this time. Most of them are resolved. There are a few other difficulties but the staff in the office of the community college is on top of them and they have reassured the students in the program that they will have the skills when they leave the course. They have acknowledged the difficulties and they are working to remedy them.
MR. DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, my information, relatively current information, is that while there are investigations and so on, the students are not at all satisfied that the difficulties are being remedied. These are students who are being asked to pay something like $6,000 a student, much of it funded by CEIC, and that even now, as we speak, there are course materials unavailable, that the field trips which are supposed to be or were indicated to be a part of the curriculum, have not been organized and that quite frankly, the student population has a very real concern that they have not been exposed to the real world and their prospects for employment at the end of this course are very much in jeopardy. They are very seriously concerned about what is going to happen.
Could I ask the minister for a commitment today that prompted by these questions here today, he would make further inquiry of his staff to determine that the course is functioning as it should and that the students in it are not in any serious jeopardy?
MR. MACEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, through you I will reassure the honourable Leader of the Opposition and, in fact, all members of the House, that we didn't need the question in order to do that. I was speaking to my staff twice this week concerning the matter. In fact it was given to the acting minister last week. Our staff was on top of it. They are visiting the campus and to further reassure the honourable member, we had a similar problem in a course that preceded us arriving here, we made sure that the skills that the students required were there, by bringing in somebody else.
We would not for a moment, Mr. Speaker, send students out into the work force pretending they had skills. We will assure those students that those skills are provided to them. That is a guarantee we gave to the students, not only in this course but in the other courses. I reassure the honourable Leader of the Opposition and all members of the House that we will continue to do that.
[3:30 p.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition on a new question.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Education. The minister stood in the House yesterday and said that he had given the Nova Scotia Federation of Home and School Associations the grant it had been waiting for since last summer and then he stood up later at the end of the day and said he hadn't but perhaps the association could write and ask for it. I have a letter from the association dated October 1994 requesting the funding and making a plea for why they could use more and I have the minister's response to the association dated November 9, 1994. He acknowledges the letter and talks about funding but makes no commitment. I wonder if the minister can offer the real reason that the association has been cut off by the Department of Education?
HON. JOHN MACEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, that is almost comical but I will speak to the issue. I read the particular letter that he refers to and the letter is complaining about not having the 3 per cent, it does not request the money for 1995. In fact, the money was budgeted for, the money is available and as I said to the honourable member yesterday, with an official request from them for the money, we will provide it. I would suggest to the honourable Leader of the Opposition that we budget the money but we would be irresponsible to start shipping out money if it wasn't required. So, we require that they ask us for the money and we will provide it.
If the honourable Leader of the Opposition would table the letter for all members of the House, he would see that there is no particular request for that money, it is simply complaining that we are not giving them enough and complaining about the reduction and my letter addresses that complaint.
MR. DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, in a related matter the organization indicates to me that the minister's comments yesterday to the effect that secretarial assistance was being provided to the association hasn't been forthcoming and the association asks if this is an indication of a new commitment by the minister to the association?
MR. MACEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, if I might, I would suggest that the honourable Leader of the Opposition in his next conversation to the leader of the home and school, if she wishes to negotiate with us she can do that; if she wishes to negotiate with the Leader of the Opposition, he can provide the assistance. (Interruption)
MR. DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, that sounds to me like pretty small-minded arrogance, if I may say so. I ask the minister by way of final supplementary so that there can be absolutely no question, since the members of the association are prepared to talk to me and have been unable to get satisfaction in their attempts to communicate with the minister, I would like to communicate an accurate answer and commitment back from the Minister of Education, would the Minister of Education say to me in this House now that if this association brings him tomorrow a letter requesting $10,000 assistance which had earlier been promised and secretarial assistance, that the minister will provide both?
MR. MACEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday and what we budgeted very clearly for was $10,000 minus the 3 per cent. I told the honourable Leader of the Opposition yesterday and I repeat today that when the letter comes requesting that, it will be provided. I might mention to all members of the House that last year there was discussion, one request by the Home and School Association to meet with me. I met with them without hesitancy and I offer that as well. Any time that any association that is involved with education in Nova Scotia wishes to speak with us on any issue, we would be pleased to do that and I re-offer that in the House of Assembly today.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the honourable Minister of Natural Resources. The Province of Quebec recently negotiated and secured an extension to their current Canada-Quebec Forestry Agreement. I surely hope that Nova Scotia is afforded the same treatment and the same opportunity that Quebec receives. I had the opportunity and the pleasure of attending a meeting of the Forest Group Ventures of Nova Scotia in Truro on Saturday and the Minister of Natural Resources was there. Also in attendance was the Chairperson of the federal Parliamentary Standing Committee on Natural Resources, the Central Nova Liberal MP, Roseanne Skoke. The chairperson of that standing committee suggested that there will be no federal funds coming in relation to a new Nova Scotia-Canada Forestry Agreement and I am wondering if the minister, in light of her comments, is going to take a different approach to securing a possible Nova Scotia Forestry agreement? I might add that the minister said, I didn't say, but the member from Central Nova said, that she felt that we didn't have a strong enough voice coming out of Nova Scotia, she commented that. I am just wondering if the minister feels that he should take a different approach to securing an agreement, based on those comments?
HON. DONALD DOWNE: As we go through this again, for it must be the tenth time debating this issue. Clearly, to begin with the information the member opposite refers to in regard to the Quebec situation is, in fact, information I gave him and information that I have written to every MP from Nova Scotia pointing out this fact that there was an extension to a program within the Quebec Forestry Agreement for an extension, a period of time and use that, in fact, as an argument on behalf of Nova Scotia for an extension or for the ability to be able to sit at the table and negotiate an agreement. So, that information he is referring to is, in fact, information that I have presented to him as critic to be aware of what types of activities we are doing as a ministry as well as to reassure to the Members of Parliament in Ottawa that they are to be as tenacious on this matter on our behalf.
Now, in regard to the meeting on Saturday that the member attended for which I was very honoured to represent the province there. In fact, I might point out that Group Venture was established back in the 1970's by the Liberal Government and I might point out I believe I am the only minister that has attended any of their annual meetings since 1974 or 1975 or whenever the organization was established. Now, showing the support of the Group Venture Program to this province, the 18 organizations are very important to us all.
Now, if I recall correctly, sitting in the audience listening to Ms. Skoke, the MP for Central Nova, she made it very clear to the industry and to the province, as is my understanding, my interpretation of her comments, that all Nova Scotians should be aware of the importance of these agreements and I concur. Ms. Skoke made it very clear to organizations such as Group Venture that they need to be more vocal and more visible about the importance of these agreements and I concur with her as we have worked together so well over the last eight months to a year on this issue, she would attest to the effort that this province and this minister has made on this issue and will continue to do so.
MR. TAYLOR: I too, was very pleased that the Minister of Natural Resources did attend that meeting. I am also pleased that the Minister of Natural Resources concurred that the federal member suggested that the voice from Nova Scotia is not very effective. I am pleased that he, at least, concurs with my assessment. Now, there are two stories that don't add up here, Mr. Speaker. I have asked that minister for a copy of letters that he has sent and he has said on different occasions, many occasions, that he had sent numerous letters to different people regarding the procurement of Nova Scotia-Canada federal forestry agreement. Now, he told me that he would forward a copy, I have yet to receive a copy. Again, this begs a question. So, far I haven't received a copy of any of those letters. I have to ask the minister, will he table a copy of the letter, his most recent correspondence that he sent to the federal Minister of Natural Resources, I believe her name is Anne McLellan.
MR. DOWNE: I want to just clarify a point the member made and he has a tendency to kind of want to spin words as per spin doctors appoint in assessing the meeting. I don't think this member has the right to say that the industry of this province has been sitting on their laurels. I want you to know that, yes, we all continue to fight this issue strongly. (Interruption) Well, that is fine, that is what Ms. Skoke said, that is fine that Ms. Skoke said what she said. I am telling this member opposite that every organization, whether it is the members of the Maritime Lumber Bureau, the Nova Scotia Forest Products Association or the Group Venture organization or all the organizations in this province have been fighting hard on this issue. For that member opposite to turn around and say that representatives of those organizations, reputable organizations in this province, are not doing enough, then I want to say that is not what this minister is saying, that is what the member opposite is saying.
I want you to be assured, Mr. Speaker, and members of this House, that we are putting a concerted effort forward on behalf of this ministry, as all the industry is concerned, to make this issue a very visible, vocal issue in Ottawa. I want to inform the members of this House that in the early part of February, I, as Minister of Natural Resources; the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency, the Honourable Ross Bragg; the Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable Wayne Gaudet; and the Minister of Fisheries, the Honourable Jim Barkhouse will be in Ottawa bringing this issue forward at the federal level with the appropriate ministers and we will resoundingly bring forward the concerns of these agreements to the ministers appropriate.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, after that somewhat petulant discourse, I must ask the minister, through you, of course, the minister has made another statement recently. I think it was back on December 15th and I promise not to read Hansard and I know you will not allow me. But he said something along the line that you cannot negotiate an extension to a present agreement - something Quebec was able to do.
I am going to ask the minister if he is trying to negotiate an extension to the current agreement? Surely to Heavens there should be an answer to this question, just a plain simple yes or a simple no.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, I remember the member opposite at the meeting that took place in Truro indicating that, as far as he was concerned, the governments of the day should go and borrow and go deeper into debt to look after these programs. This is the kind of mentality.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question through you, sir, to the Minister of Education. My first question is just, quite simply, has the minister received the reports and recommendations of the Funding Formula Review Committee and has the government made any decisions on those recommendations?
HON. JOHN MACEACHERN: No, Mr. Speaker.
MR. HOLM: Mr. Speaker, he has not received it yet. (Interruption) No, I have not either, I would say to the Minister of Transportation answering his question. But yesterday, the Minister of Education told this House, in response to a question that I asked, that school boards have been given their budgets back in December and so that they are able to plan. I have contacted a number of school boards, or my office has, and found out that what in fact they were given were very preliminary figures back in November. They were told that they are, indeed, preliminary and that they may change quite dramatically.
So my question to the minister is quite simply this, was the minister inadvertently misleading this House yesterday, or have those figures been made official?
MR. MACEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, if I might, to the honourable member, there was no suggestion at all to the boards and he is misleading the House I would suggest, in assuming that or someone is misleading him. I would suggest that we gave them the numbers and we told them that there might be some small changes, but they can plan on those numbers. We told them that and I repeat it in this House.
For the honourable member to suggest that just because the Funding Formula Review Committee has not reported back to us, that is in terms of long-range changes that might occur, Mr. Speaker, not in terms of every budgetary year. It is indicating, for example, they may suggest that a board with a particular population size might require additional monies of a particular kind. Special education money should be adjusted in the following way. Those things come back to us from that committee and they advise us.
I repeat to the honourable member, through you, and to all members of the House, the numbers given last November-December to those boards are numbers that they can work on confidently for the next year, Mr. Speaker.
MR. HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I certainly also know that the Funding Formula Review Committee makes a lot of recommendations and those recommendations are either accepted, rejected or modified and then put into effect for that coming school year.
[3:45 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker, my last question to the minister is quite simply this, and the minister has argued, quite correctly, that they want to eliminate any waste that exists and they want to make sure there isn't a waste of either energy, time or money. My question to the minister is this, then, if that is the position of the government and if the government is planning amalgamations, will the government tell the boards not to bother preparing their budgets, which would be a waste of time and energy and money which will have to be duplicated again, until the government has made up its mind what its plans are for the next school year?
MR. MACEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the honourable member's understanding of school financing, I would suggest to him that the assignment of staff, based on the enrolment, the assignment of programs and all those things that cost money can be done. They can do this and I can assure the honourable member, through you and to all members of the House, that, in fact, it is being done in most boards.
If somebody has informed him that there are one or more boards not doing that, I would suggest that he call them and suggest that they get on with the job because again, the numbers that we gave in November and December, they can go ahead and do this and the changes in board structures, if any, will not affect that, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings North.
MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency. Over the weekend I talked to Mr. Don Wallace, who wishes to rebuild or build that airport hotel that is out there. He has about one-third of the financing in place. The federal government has indicated it is going to cost $1 million to tear the building down; about $500,000 would put windows and bricks in it, so it would look finished while they do the work on the inside.
He indicates also that he has financing to complete the job but it is just going to take a little bit more time. I am wondering if the minister would ask the federal government to give a little more time to Mr. Wallace, so he can arrange the financing, something he has had great difficulty doing, as you well know, so that he could have time to make an asset out of what would be just a hole in the ground?
HON. ROSS BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, let's get the facts out before we go any further. Mr. Wallace had over six months to arrange his financing. Mr Wallace is an outstanding business person and runs a variety of successful business ventures. If he has been unable to arrange financing, even after he found one-third of the financing, through the Immigrant Investor Program, he could not find the rest after six months, a man of his calibre and ability, and I have seen the list of the financial institutions he approached, I don't believe there is anything else we can do.
As we discussed here in the past in the Legislature, the provincial government is following a policy started by the previous administration, not to get involved in financing hotels in the metropolitan area. We have had various discussions, we have asked if we could help Mr. Wallace get involved in some other immigrant investments. We have given him some names of people and introductions to people. We have done everything we can possibly do to help him.
If he needs assistance to get the federal government to give him an extension on the demolition, I would be delighted to write a letter to Mr. Young to do that. It is certainly an issue that is between the federal Government of Canada and the minister and Mr. Wallace.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, I know that the letter the minister indicates he will write will be of great assistance to Mr. Wallace in his dealings with the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, through you again to the minister, the federal government also indicates that they are going to spend $1 million to tear the building down. In that letter would the minister also ask the federal government, rather than spend $1 million to tear it down, why don't they donate that $1 million to the hotel project so that an asset can be created and it would be better than wasting the money tearing down a perfectly good structure?
MR. BRAGG: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that I will write a letter to the federal minister, urging him to reconsider giving the proponent an extension. What I will not do is get involved in the decision-making process or the financial impact that the federal government will deal with in this project.
I think if the members opposite are so concerned, they should talk to their federal Members of Parliament. I believe they have one in the Valley also. Perhaps they should even consider resigning their seat here and running for the federal Parliament, if that is where their interests lie.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, I was not suggesting, through you to the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency, for a minute that the province do any financing. I was merely asking the minister to write a letter, and he has agreed to do that. Mr. Wallace has also, I want him to know, they have done an economic study showing that this airport hotel would have no adverse effect on the other hotels in the metro area. So, I will certainly forward to Mr. Wallace the information we have received today and I know that he will await with great anticipation the letter to go to the federal minister.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the honourable Minister of Education. Our office received a call the other day asking why our children's school bus drivers are not given a standard training course. I wonder if the minister is considering setting up a standard or mandatory school bus driver training course for all drivers in Nova Scotia? I understand Judge Curran has forwarded such a recommendation.
HON. JOHN MACEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to inform the honourable member that they are not employees of the Department of Education and the training of bus drivers rests with the board. If the honourable member is basically putting a request that we see if such a thing could be done, I would be pleased to do that. We could only suggest that it be done because, in fact, it is not under our auspices. But I would be pleased to do that if that is the request of the honourable member.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the minister right, he is telling me that the bus drivers' training is the responsibility of the individual boards but I wonder if the minister does not believe that when transporting our very young to and from schools, sometimes in some very trying weather conditions and things of that nature, does he believe himself that all drivers within our province should meet a standard for provincial training criteria?
MR. MACEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit puzzled. Is the honourable member suggesting that the school boards are putting people to drive buses in the Province of Nova Scotia who are not trained and put the students at risk because that is what the honourable member is saying. I have had no letters of any kind or no instruction that that is so. It is my understanding that the bus drivers across Nova Scotia are well trained and the safety of the students is the major concern of all the boards and that is my understanding. If the honourable member knows of a particular case where there is not a qualified bus driver who is trained to protect the students, I would be more than pleased to take that information and deal with it personally.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley on a new question.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Community Services. The review into the Lunenburg Family and Children's Services Agency recommended the case load of social workers across Nova Scotia be reduced so there will be a far less chance of anything such as the situation in Lunenburg ever happening again. I had the opportunity to recently go over child protective service statistics from the minister's department and it showed that the average case load, per social worker, averaged some 29.2 cases in Colchester County.
I am hearing that some social workers are very stressed out and we just talked about stress and things in a bill I know you would forbid me from talking about in Question Period. I am hearing that workers are stressed out, in fact, with case loads, some 20 or so. My question is, does the minister expect this case load to be reduced in the near future?
HON. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Speaker, certainly there are issues that recommendations came from the Lunenburg agency review but it also has been highlighted in other areas. We have actually recently put in extra workers within the Lunenburg community, certainly in the Dartmouth area as well. I think the area of 29 would certainly be a good area to be looking as a goal. It is a difficult job and it is one that we want to take as much of the stress off as we are able.
We are looking forward to making good reductions and shoot for case loads that are manageable and I certainly will make an undertaking to the House, as I have to our department, that the initiatives will be coming forward and we are looking forward to this next year to be considerably reducing those case loads.
MR. SPEAKER: Is there a question from the NDP? We have time for one short snapper.
The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health a question, specifically, about the Berkeley Consulting contract, an untendered contract that came to public light in the fall. My question to the minister is whether the consulting contract report from the Berkeley Group is now available and will he be releasing it publicly in the very near future?
HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report in full and I would suspect that it would be available shortly. I will check, though, and I can let you know then.
MR. SPEAKER: A short supplementary?
MS. MCDONOUGH: Will the minister agree today to table the terms of reference that pertain to that Berkeley study in participation of the release of the Berkeley Report?
DR. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I believe those are contained in the report itself in the preamble, but I will double check and certainly see to that.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The time allotted for the Oral Question Period has expired.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During my last question to the Minister of Natural Resources, he suggested that up in Truro at the Nova Scotia Group Venture Association meeting that I said we should borrow and borrow and further add to our deficit. I never made any such comment. What I did say was that money invested in the forestry, for every $1.00 in the first taxation year, government sees a return of $1.38 in the first year. That member who suggested up there, that he will soon be shuffled out of this Cabinet, for him to stand up and say that is entirely erroneous.
MR. SPEAKER: Order. There is no point of order. (Interruption) A good point, perhaps, but not a point of order.
OPPOSITION MEMBERS' BUSINESS
MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Opposition House Leader.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Resolution No. 1420.
Res. No. 1420, re Nat. Res. - Uranium Exploration: Decision - Make - notice given Jan. 9/95 - (Mr. R. Russell)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Hants West.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, this Resolution No. 1420 was introduced in the House on January 9th by myself and it was with regard to uranium mining and it reads:
"Whereas the Minister of Natural Resources was extremely vague when questioned about his government's plans for uranium mining when asked in this Legislature on Tuesday, November 29th; and
Whereas it is a proven fact that uranium waste products are just as deadly as the prime product, whether it be from mining or power generation; and
Whereas the present moratorium on uranium mining in Nova Scotia expires at the end of this month;
Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Natural Resources come forth sooner, rather than later, and make it clear to Nova Scotians that uranium exploration or mining will not be permitted in Nova Scotia.".
Mr. Speaker, since introducing that resolution and others, I have questioned the minister on several occasions with regard to uranium mining. The reason that I have done that is because I have very definite views on uranium mining, as do thousands of other Nova Scotians.
Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of all in this House and others, I think we, first of all, should be aware that uranium is a heavy metal that appears in quantities in many countries in this world and Canada itself is, indeed, very rich in uranium deposits. But it is, as we well know, a radioactive metal and it has all those disadvantages associated with those metals or elements that are radioactive.
It takes, Mr. Speaker, 4.5 billion years for uranium to reach its half-life stage, at which time it has progressed down the chain and become a metal known as thorium. It further breaks down over the next 5 billion or 6 billion years through the stage of radium, radon gas, polonium and then bismuth and then, finally, it becomes inert when it becomes a lead.
Mr. Speaker, to get to uranium and to commence mining, the surface burden must, obviously, be removed, because in Nova Scotia, the uranium is generally very close to the surface and it is lying, normally, in granite rock. So to get down to the rock level and to take out the ore, the overburden must be removed. Some of that overburden is also radioactive, but to a lesser extent. However, once you have disturbed that level of top soil, that permits a much greater amount of radiation to escape from the bedrock because the overburden, in actual fact, acts as a cover to the permeation of radiation.
So once you get the rock out from the ground, Mr. Speaker, and you start moving it around and start the initial crushing, then you are starting to create dust. This dust is radioactive. It can be picked up by airborne currents, by the wind and it can be distributed over many miles. In fact, it is not unknown for the airborne radioactive particles to arrive at a destination perhaps 40 to 50 miles from where the actual mining is taking place.
[4:00 p.m.]
Also, Mr. Speaker, this dust that is being collected is also capable of being leached by rain and by snow and permeating the soil and finally ending up in the water table.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that radiation has been proven, without any doubt or argument, to cause various forms of cancer and to be a large contributor to cancer in other cases. Many of those who were engaged in early research on radioactive materials, and you can think back to the time of Marie and Pierre Curie, Conrad Röntgen, et cetera, working on x-rays, et cetera, and, for that matter, miners in Saskatchewan who have worked mining uranium, that indeed, the proximity to radioactive material is fraught with danger.
Mr. Speaker, a tremendous amount of ore must be removed from the ground to obtain a uranium product which is suitable for further processing. In fact, to gain four to five pounds of uranium in a fairly raw state, approximately 2,000 pounds, or a ton of ore, must be processed through the milling process.
Now in the milling process, Mr. Speaker, what we are really doing is putting the rock through a crushing process, mixing it with various chemicals, et cetera, to remove the uranium and, at the same time, we are again creating a great deal of dust that can carry in wind currents, et cetera, for a long period, a long distance.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this dust in the atmosphere can be deposited by rain or snow or can just fall out simply by virtue of gravity, onto plants, et cetera. The plants, in turn, may well be eaten by - well directly, I guess, by people, if there was a vegetable crop, but most of the time it will fall on grasslands or in woodlands, where those plants will be eaten by animals and, in turn, in many cases the animals will be eaten by humans and the radioactive poisoning just spreads up through the food chain, very similar to what occurred, as we all know, with regard to mercury in the food chain, ending up in tuna off our coast. A few years back we had to stop the consumption of tuna from our local coasts, because of the high mercury content. The same thing happens with radioactive material.
So anyway, Mr. Speaker, the ore goes through the process of milling and we finish up with a product known as yellow cake. First of all, yellow cake is yellow, a dry powder which is compressed and that is the end product from this initial mining process. Ninety-eight percent of what is removed from the mining product ends up as tailings, 98 per cent of the total tonnage.
Mr. Speaker, the 98 per cent that is removed, after crushing and mixing with chemicals and other liquids, forms a waste which is a slurry or a sludge in liquid form and has to go to a tailings pond to settle out. Now, that sounds fairly simply I suppose in that a tailings pond is not very difficult to set up. You have to make sure that you have something that is incapable of leaking or damage from, I suppose, fire except that it may indeed cause a breach in the tailings pond. But, the thing is, the problem with these tailings ponds is not setting them up initially. Where you are dealing with radioactive material, you are setting up a tailings pond that is not going to be in existence for 20 or 30 years, you are setting up a pond that is going to be in position there for hundreds of years and must be continuously maintained for hundreds of years to ensure that the radioactive material produced does not escape.
At the present time, as the minister I am sure, when he gets to his feet if he does indeed intend to get to his feet will tell us, not to worry because there is no market for uranium at the present time anyway and I agree that the price of uranium is depressed at the present time. In fact, the receipts in Canada for yellow cake, I believe, were over $1 billion back about seven or eight years ago and now the total value, I think, of yellow cake that is being produced in Canada is down to something in the order of $500-$600 million, so in other words, the price of yellow cake has decreased. The output is around the same but the actual dollar value of the product has fallen in half.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I think that the people in the constituencies of Hants and Lunenburg are saying, no, to the formation of a uranium mine. Canada has no use, for industrial purposes, any increase in supply of uranium. The only uranium that we use in this country besides research is essentially for the production of electricity. However, the product that is presently being produced by the Province of Saskatchewan is capable of supporting this country without any problem whatsoever, until the year 2025. In fact, there will always be a surplus that will have to be exported. So, what is the advantage of a mine? Well, it is going to provide a few jobs, probably something in the order to 20 or 25 jobs and I am sure that the residents of Hants West would welcome jobs and I am sure they would in Lunenburg County. But I am not sure and the people in those areas are not sure that it is worth the risk of taking the few jobs that would materialize when you weigh them against the cost of the environment and the potential health risk that would be occasioned by commencing a mine. Particularly when you consider that that particular area, of course, does not have serviced water and sewage to their residences and they have to rely on wells, primarily dug wells. Anything that would affect the water table would destroy any property values whatsoever in that area and there are a large number of persons living in that area.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of bringing this to the Legislature today is to convince the government to extend the present moratorium. The reasons are simply those that I have described to this point, plus the fact that I think the situation has not radically changed since1990, when the last moratorium was put in place; that is the moratorium that will expire in a few days from now, on January 31, 1995. The only thing that has possibly changed has been the position of Premier John Savage when, back in 1985, he was one of a panel of three doctors who came out very strongly against the mining of uranium in this province.
Nothing has changed since that time; there has been nothing that says that uranium mining today is safer than it was back in 1985, nothing that I know of, anyway. Now I see the minister smiling, maybe he has thought of something. But anyway, as far as I know and I think as far as we have been able to determine in our particular area, nothing has changed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are not asking the Minister of Natural Resources to say no to uranium mining forever. We are simply saying, put the matter on hold for a further period of five years and during that five years perhaps things will change, perhaps they will overcome those problems that are generated by uranium mining, that are still being generated in other uranium mines across this province.
I don't know why there is a reluctance by this government to do that, unless there is some hidden agenda there, Mr. Speaker. I don't know, is there a hidden agenda? Does the minister know some mining company that is going to move in there, come February 1st, and start exploring a mine? Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a minute left.
I hope that is not so, Mr. Speaker. But, nevertheless, it takes very little effort for this minister, this government and this Premier to come out and say no to uranium mining in Nova Scotia for a further period of five years. They signed the Order in Council and bingo, for five more years we have peace of mind, for five more years the industry has the opportunity to make their case that, indeed, they can mine uranium safety. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Natural Resources.
HON. DONALD DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I do appreciate the opportunity to discuss this matter today. In fact I compliment the member opposite for bringing the issue forward, as I believe he has brought the issue forward as a matter of concern and as a representative of the area that people have brought these concerns forward. In that light, I do respect the fact that this issue is brought to the legislative floor for discussion, as it has been brought here previously in Question Period. I believe the member is obviously representing his constituency in a very positive way. Certainly I respect the way it has been presented.
I want to point out a little background if I may, Mr. Speaker, just for the members' interest. Exploration of uranium did take place in the Province of Nova Scotia from 1977 to 1981, about a four year period. Of course that was during the time that uranium prices were extremely high and there was a lot of interest in uranium mining in Canada.
Between 1977 and 1981 the exploration industry spent about $16 million in exploration activities and contributed to the economy approximately $4 million. Uranium deposits at Millet Brook, Hants County, were discovered in 1978 and Millet Brook was considered a significant discovery at that time. As the member opposite pointed out very well, times change and history and as time goes on, things do have a tendency to change. What was important and significant at that time obviously is not very important or significant today, based on the fact, as the member opposite pointed out, the price for uranium in Canada right now is less than $9.00 a pound and we would need, for example, in that particular site, prices between $50 and $70 plus, a pound, to make that operation even viable.
I think the member opposite made it very clear, and I compliment him for his research, that Canada is very rich in uranium and there are many jurisdictions in this country that have much more significant deposits and, in fact, a higher grade than what we have in the Province of Nova Scotia.
[4:15 p.m.]
At a time when the industry prices, commodity prices are as low as they are, obviously, the industry, if they are going to mine it, are going to go and gravitate to where they can get a return on investment. And that certainly is in every other province other than the Province of Nova Scotia with regard to the present pricing structure and the quality of the uranium that we have.
I think the honourable member opposite brought this forward to point out also that other jurisdictions in Canada that have uranium also have the ability to mine that uranium. In fact, I believe the Province of Nova Scotia is the only province in all of Canada that has said no to uranium mining. Now, whether or not they have brought that decision, based on a sensitivity issue, an emotional issue, I would assume that many of the provinces in Canada, in fact, have made their decision, predicated their decision based on good science and knowledge.
Now, either every province in Canada is stupid, or bad, or not concerned about the environment; are not concerned about the health and safety of their people and we are, or in fact, we have really maybe reacted to the issue without doing the study or the science to determine whether or not uranium mining is bad or good.
I would assume that the Province of Saskatchewan or the other provinces of this country like British Columbia, do have a government and have had governments that have been very concerned about the economic well-being and health of their people very similar to the Province of Nova Scotia, which also is concerned about the economic well-being and health of their people in all forms.
In 1982, the moratorium on uranium exploration and mining was imposed and the McCleave Inquiry was established. Three years later, in 1985, the government of the day extended the moratorium for a five year period. Along with the 1985 extension, an inter-departmental uranium committee was established. Now, I want to point out to the honourable members of the House here and to the public of Nova Scotia, that was about 10 years ago. And 10 years ago the previous administration said in their wisdom and I concur, an inter-departmental committee should be established and that committee consist of representatives of the Department of Health, who have no interest in mining but have an interest in the health and safety of the people of Nova Scotia. They also involved in that committee the members and staff of the Department of the Environment, obviously they are out there to look after the environmental security of the Province of Nova Scotia for its people. And, of course, the Department of Natural Resources, that is always well-balanced in trying to have an understanding and with regard to the science of mining as well as the economic and social well-being of its people.
Now, that study has been going on for 10 years and it was brought forward and I honestly believe that if it were such a pressing issue back in 1985, that they would have asked that report to be fast-tracked or moved forward as quickly as possible. The reality is that the report has only come to my attention in November 1994.
In 1990, going back in history a bit, first the extension and the moratorium has been put in again in 1985 and again in 1990 the moratorium was extended for a five year period until at least 1995 and the inter-departmental committee's work was going on. I want to make it very clear to the honourable member opposite and to the number of Nova Scotians, that obviously, it is a very emotional issue and I respect that. I respect the people who have brought these issues forward and I respect the honourable member opposite for bringing this matter forward as well, because I believe that he is truly trying to represent his people in a fair way.
There is no magic to the date of January 31, 1995. If the Cabinet of the day does not make a decision on the inter-departmental recommendations, the moratorium will remain in effect. I want to say this again, if I haven't said it already four or five times in previous discussions, the moratorium will remain in effect until such time as we, as a government, make a decision.
Now, as Minister of Natural Resources, I want to make it very clear that I will not comment at this point on the inter-departmental committee recommendations. The recommendations in the reports are to be dealt with by Cabinet and will be dealt with at the time of Cabinet. But I want to point out again, in December 1989, just prior to the 1990 decision to add an extension of a five year period to the moratorium, ministers at the time were Jack MacIsaac, John Leefe and David Nantes, clearly stated in the recommendation that was presented to Cabinet that the uranium moratorium shall continue until at least 1995.
In our interpretation of the Cabinet memorandum, in the term at least until 1995, clearly states to the member opposite, who at the time was a member of Cabinet if I recall, and members opposite, who clearly realize that that terminology, until at least 1995, means that, in fact, it can go on as long as the government of the day wishes it to go on.
I want to inform the members that we have accepted that. This would indicate that there is no need for us, as a government, Mr. Speaker, as the previous government has stated earlier, to make hasty decisions on this extremely sensitive issue.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: On a point of order, the minister is saying that the moratorium was extended until at least 1995. That may have been the recommendation, but the actual action was to extend the moratorium until January 31, 1995, a date definite.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sensitivity to the question. I am telling the member opposite and informing this House, as well as the people throughout the Province of Nova Scotia, through this discussion and as through our letters, that clearly states that the moratorium in effect will stay in place until we as a government decide to make a change. That takes either an Order in Council or a Cabinet decision. The memorandum to Cabinet, signed by the three ministers at the time stated: "The moratorium shall continue until at least January 31, 1995.".
The point I am trying to make here is that we indicated, and I am sure the member opposite understands all too well, that we do not want to make a very hasty decision. This administration, Mr. Speaker, has had this issue to deal with for quite some time. I believe the member opposite would agree that they have really looked at this issue since the late 1980's. They have dealt with it again and again through a process of a moratorium and asked for 10 years that an inter-departmental committee do a study, coming back with some factual, scientific, academic points of view, proving the test, as it were.
Well, I want to inform the House and members here today that this is a sensitive issue and our government will not, and I, as minister, will not be pushed into making a decision, a rash decision, for which we have been in power 18 months, Mr. Speaker. They were dealing with this for in excess of 10, 12 or 14 years and they did not make a decision. We, obviously, are not going to make a decision in regard to this (Interruption) on the basis of a hasty decision. In fact, I listened to this member opposite with a great deal of respect and I did not interrupt at any time. So we will not be making a hasty decision, but I want to inform the members opposite and the general public that until the Cabinet makes a decision, this moratorium in effect is still in place.
You know, I believe that we must consider the facts and the advancements that have been made. The member opposite made the comment, that hidden agenda. I know he does not mean that we would ever consider a hidden agenda, but the reality is that the advancements that have been made in the industry to date and the environmental type of review process, certainly, that we have in the Province of Nova Scotia, that, clearly, if the issue is uranium mining in Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec or any other jurisdiction in this great country, was so degrading to the environment or to the people, obviously they would have imposed the same process.
So, Mr. Speaker, in concluding here today, I will refer again (Interruption) No, no, you guys have had your chance. You have had 15 years on this issue. Let me finish my speech.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: I am just curious as to whether or not the minister might happen to have in his materials here with him today, a copy of the Order in Council under which the moratorium was established and, if so, might he table it?
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a copy of that with me today. So I am sorry, I will not be able to table it to your satisfaction today. But I want to say that the Cabinet will be weighing the pros and cons of this. How long do I have?
MR. SPEAKER: Three minutes.
MR. DOWNE: Oh, gee, great. (Interruption) Well, I am not as fast as I used to be, maybe I could only walk over. I am a little out of shape from sitting in the House. I am so out of shape from sitting in the House for 107 or 108 or 109 days that we have been in the Legislative Assembly debating for hours and hours the titles of the bills that no wonder, Mr. Speaker, we are a little out of shape. In fact you know I can understand that if they were wanting to deal with the substance of issues in the House, in the Legislative Assembly in the Province of Nova Scotia, that we would be moving forward on the important issues that we are supposed to, instead of just hearing rhetoric on the title of the bill. (Interruptions)
In fact, I think . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: Don't get side-tracked.
ANOTHER HON. MEMBER: Don, move both arms.
MR. DOWNE: Yes, well I can move both arms. Mr. Speaker, although some want to make light of the fact that we have been in the House and it is a good, worthwhile cause to them, I want to say that we take being in the House very seriously. I know that the taxpayers of this province do as well because they are paying the bill for it.
The reality, Mr. Speaker, in concluding my comments, I really want to inform that we are sensitive to the concerns. It is an emotional issue to many people in this province. For the people that it is emotional to, the government is sensitive to that. But we are also very sensitive to dealing with the issue, dealing with the facts, dealing with the science and the reality that we are dealing with.
Mr. Speaker, I want to inform members again, and I believe I have done this so many times, that until Cabinet makes a decision, the moratorium will remain in force. Secondly, I have had absolutely not one company come knocking on my door about wanting to mine uranium in the Province of Nova Scotia. Thirdly, there is no economics mining uranium in the Province of Nova Scotia under the present pricing structure of the commodity today. Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that we will deal with in due course, with due consideration and sensitivity to the total issue. Thank you very much. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Hants West for bringing forward his resolution today on the question of the moratorium on uranium mining and exploration in the Province of Nova Scotia. It is a matter that we both have raised on a number of occasions over the past few months, in response to concerns from our constituents and other people across the province, as the date of the expiry of the moratorium draws near, that being January 31, 1995.
Mr. Speaker, part of the concern that arises and the uncertainty that people are feeling about what is going to happen with this moratorium comes from the minister himself when he makes statements to suggest that what was important and significant 10 years ago is not necessarily as important and as significant today. We have had quite an increase in technology and our ability to deal with the negative effects of uranium mining are much more advanced. When he says that so many other jurisdictions in the country participate in that kind of mining and, therefore, it is almost as if he is suggesting that well, maybe today it is okay.
He has before him the report of the inter-departmental committee that was struck back in 1982, in order to consider the question of the whole issue of the moratorium and uranium mining exploration in the Province of Nova Scotia. He has had that report on his desk since the summer and the public of Nova Scotia has not seen that report. The minister is now indicating that the report is on his desk, that there are recommendations made by the report and that it is the Cabinet that will make a decision on whether the moratorium will continue, whether it will be extended or whether it will be allowed to lapse or whether it will be discontinued specifically by this government. People want to have the opportunity in Nova Scotia to participate in that decision.
[4:30 p.m.]
You have heard a bit today and I want to add a bit to the history of this. It dates back to 1981-82, Mr. Speaker, when the decision was reached that there would be a moratorium applied to this question. At the same time, an inquiry was set up in order to review a number of the questions that were still to be dealt with. Now, during that review, headed up by Judge Robert McCleave, the inquiry that was supposed to have three phases to it only dealt with one phase. It was set up to elicit the opinions of Nova Scotians. That was it. It wasn't a matter of dealing with expert testimony, that was for the next phase. So what happened was, that there were a number of public meetings. Some had some concerns at that time and comment on that today, the fact that they were not publicized public meetings but nonetheless the concerns were such that all the meetings were well attended. There were approximately 242 briefs that were presented by people that had concerns; I understand 211 were opposed to uranium mining and 26 favouring it and 5 were neutral.
There were a number of groups and organizations represented at that time, including the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour, the Canadian Nature Federation, the Nova Scotia Wildlife Federation and the Nova Scotia Medical Society, Mr. Speaker, who raised concerns and brought a whole host of concerns to the attention of Judge McCleave at that particular time. There were a number of concerns raised with respect to the serious environmental and health hazards of uranium mining. The fact that tailings produced can be remain radioactive for up to 400,000 years, that they continually produce radon gas which can travel up to 1,000 miles and which has been linked in many cases, unquestionably, to cancer, birth defects and so on.
The issue at that time, and this has been raised by many of the people that made presentations to that committee, was that they ended the inquiry at Phase 1 and left it to the inter-departmental committee to come forward with a report. Now, since 1982, the moratorium has been extended on two or three different occasions, Mr. Speaker, awaiting the release of the inter-departmental report. I think that the important question that has to be asked and my request of the minister is that this inter-departmental report should be released to the public of Nova Scotia for their discussion before this minister and his Cabinet colleagues sit behind closed doors and make a decision simply on the basis of those recommendations. The decision with respect to the moratorium was made after there was public consultation. The decision to change the moratorium now should not be made unless there is public consultation.
I don't know, nor do Nova Scotians concerned about this issue know, on what basis the inter-departmental committee has made its recommendations. But it is important, as it is in so many other areas, that before this kind of decision is made the public of Nova Scotia are able to consider the recommendations of that committee and have the opportunity to provide further evidence in Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the original inquiry that was set up to deal with this whole issue but put on hold because it is Phase 2, for example, when people opposed would have the opportunity to bring forward expert testimony, in the way that groups bring forward expert testimony in interventions before environment assessment review panels under the Federal Environment Act.
The fact that other jurisdictions have decided to go this way is not something for us to simply accept. I understand that in Saskatchewan the decision has been made or was made by an NDP Government, Mr. Speaker, to go forward with uranium exploration and mining but it was done after some considerable amount of public discussion, hearings that were held around the province, taking into consideration all the different characteristics of the geography and the geological factors of that province. Let me say also, in addition to that, there was some considerable debate, I understand extremely raucous at times and contentious within the Party of that government, before the decision was made because of the fact that it was a policy, the NDP in Saskatchewan, a Party policy where they were opposed to uranium mining. They had that debate out and there are a lot of people to this day who aren't very happy about that final decision.
I think the important thing for us, here in Nova Scotia, is to have access to a process whereby we can participate in the eventual decision that is made by this government. It is no comfort to me and it is no comfort to many Nova Scotians to have the Minister of Natural Resources stand and say, well, there are no mining companies knocking at my door to carry out mining exploration, uranium exploration or mining or that the world price is such that, for the quality of uranium in this province, that there is no worry, it is not going to happen. Well, that is not good enough because if we let it lapse or if any other decision to take the moratorium off is made then there is nothing to prevent a mining company stepping forward pretty quickly if given the indication by this government that it is okay.
It has been stated in study after study that uranium mining and milling is recognized as environmentally the most disruptive and potentially most harmful phase of the nuclear fuel cycle. It has been said that in a brief submitted by Environment Canada to the Nova Scotia inquiry that they warn that this province's rainfall patterns combined with the generally acidic or acid surface water could combine to lead to more serious radioactive contamination of ground water.
It is concerns like that that need to be addressed and not by Cabinet in isolation with a recommendation of an inter-departmental committee but I would suggest we need, the government needs to take that information and make it available to the public of Nova Scotia and we need to have a full and hearty debate because the type of mining that has been suggested in the Province of Nova Scotia, with the negative impacts that it can have on our health and our environment, will be sufficient to cause irreparable harm. Surely, Nova Scotians are entitled to have and to play an important part, an essential part and perhaps the most important part, in making the decision on whether or not the moratorium is going to be extended or if we are going to allow it to drop.
Mr. Speaker, we have asked the Premier of this province who, when he was President of the Medical Society, appeared before the inquiry back in 1982 and strongly opposed the decision or the prospect of proceeding with uranium mining and milling in the Province of Nova Scotia, we urge him as we urge all Cabinet Ministers including the Minister of Natural Resources to take a look at the concerns that were raised in 1982, not to dismiss them because of the fact that they were raised 12 or 13 years ago, because things have not changed that much, I would say, certainly not the concerns of Nova Scotians about this important issue.
Take those things into consideration; take a look at the report and the recommendations, but make that report public, establish a process now, not after the moratorium has lapsed. But do it now, Mr. Speaker, to give Nova Scotians a sense of confidence that this government is committed to not moving forward and changing the decision that was made by a previous administration on the moratorium and to engage in public consultation, giving people the opportunity to provide expert testimony and expert advice on this question before any decision is made on this important issue that that will, undoubtedly, have a very significant impact on the environment and the health of Nova Scotia and Nova Scotians.
So, once again, as I take my seat, I want to thank the member for Hants West for having raised the issue. I, again, want to urge the Minister of Natural Resources to be up-front with Nova Scotians and to present the interdepartmental committee report and recommendations to the public before any decision is made by him and his Cabinet colleagues.
MR. SPEAKER: The time for the debate for Resolution No. 1420 has expired.
The honourable Opposition House Leader.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Resolution No. 1559.
Res. No. 1559, re Health - QE II Board: Hospitals Merger Effects - Employees Inform - notice given Jan. 23/95 - (Mr. T. Donahoe)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I tabled Resolution No. 1559 some time ago because a considerable number of people have made inquiry of me as to just where we are going with the merger of the four metro hospitals, which the Minister of Health and the government announced in the summer of 1994, and you will know from the language of the resolution itself. I said:
"Whereas while the membership of the new Queen Elizabeth II board for the merged institutions was filled within months of the announcement, the work of the board was delayed pending further instruction by the Health Minister; and
Whereas there was further confusion when the new chairperson stepped down and the board awaited a successor;
Therefore be it resolved that while the community awaits the board to be completely operational, the Minister of Health offer answers to the questions that the health professionals and employees of the institutions now governed by the QE II board have been asking since the announcement was made while the Queen visited the city some six months ago.".
As recently as two nights ago, Mr. Speaker, I had occasion, along with my colleague from Kings West, to be at a meeting at the Victoria General Hospital where a number of serious questions are still being asked. There are, for instance, a great many workers at all of the affected institutions who have, for the last six or more months, been in a state of very real uncertainty, if not total confusion, as to just what is ahead for them.
I might say that I had a sense as well, at that meeting, that even senior members of the Human Resources Department of certain of those hospitals were expressing, at that same meeting, some uncertainty and when certain questions were put to them about what would the status of many of the employees at many levels - senior and very junior levels of the staffs -of the affected institutions be, the Human Resource personnel, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, were required to indicate to those meetings that they, too, were still awaiting a great many answers to a great many questions.
One of the most significant issues, and in relation to which, to my knowledge, unless the minister who I hope will participate in our discussion this afternoon can help me or clarify, one of the most significant issues that is concerning the hundreds, some thousands of employees affected is that there appears, at least to this point, to have been little or nothing done to address the questions which must be answered relative to the melding or the merging of the collective agreements which pertain at all of the respective institutions.
[4:45 p.m.]
There are a number of collective agreements, there are quite a number of individual and separate and independent bargaining units which represent certain parts of the staffs of the institutions in question. My colleague and I were asked by a number of people the other night, could we, either of us, tell them what union we felt would ultimately end up representing the workers? Obviously we had to say to them, in truth, that no, quite frankly, we don't have the answers to those questions. I must say that the meeting to which I refer was attended by something close to between 80 and 100 registered nurses. They are professionals and they are concerned about their work and their professional status and about just what might be happening.
There is a great deal of concern that we heard at that meeting and have been hearing as a result of various people contacting us at our caucus office over the last number of months, as to whether or not there will be, as the rumour seems to indicate - and I repeat, rumour, and the rumour may be unfounded and the minister may be able to allay some fears in that regard, but there are, I can tell him and tell you, Mr. Speaker, and all members, that there are many rumours afloat across all of the staffs of the institutions intended to be merged in the QE complex - that there is going to be a very substantial reduction in the number of people who will ultimately, when the merger comes to its conclusion, a very substantial reduction in the number of staff in the employ of the merged institution.
None of those staff have, to this point, heard of any studies; none of them, as they say to me at least, have been invited to meetings with the minister, with the minister's staff, with the senior people at the respective institutions, with the unions affected, whereby they are being given even preliminary information that this is the process we are going to follow, this is what is going to happen, these are the steps that we have to get through to effect this merger.
The fact of the matter is, and this question was raised with me and it was an issue that I raised and I think my colleague for Kings West raised with the minister himself some considerable time ago, around the time of his announcement of this merger, I have no knowledge that there was ever a full and complete and professional and sophisticated study which addressed the very question of the merger of the institutions. I believe that there have been a number of studies which talked about the consolidation and the merging and the integration of the delivery of various and sundry of the programs offered by the individual institutions. But I know of no study which addresses the issue of the official and formal merger of the four institutions into the one body.
The ultimate question that I think it is incumbent upon the minister to answer is, having taken the decision which he and the government have taken now, to mandate that this merger will take place, I think it is important, I think it is fundamentally essential that the minister give some assurance, with some detail, not just simply with the words but with some background and some detail, that the merger which will take place will, in fact, result in the improvement of the quality of health delivery across all of those four, what are now four institutions and which, upon merger, will be the one.
It is my sense that the minister made this announcement of this merger which would amalgamate the Victoria General Hospital, Camp Hill Hospital, the Nova Scotia Rehabilitation Centre and the Research Foundation, frankly somewhat out of the blue. He made the announcement, in my opinion, without providing any information as to why he was proceeding in that direction. He made that announcement without outlining in this place or to my knowledge in any public place, criteria, no evidence that such a merger would, in fact, deliver better care or achieve cost-savings. In fact, some who have communicated with me have indicated that just to go back for a moment to the amalgamation or merger of the staff complements and the reductions in staff that will take place, and the minister knows this well, that there are very real differences in the collective bargaining agreements that exist across all of the workers affected in these four institutions.
The human condition being what it is, you and I, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, can be absolutely guaranteed that when it gets down to the nitty-gritty and the hard discussion as to how the merger will take place relative to what the ultimate collective agreements will look like, you know as well as I do and I would be shocked if the minister would suggest otherwise, the attitude of the workers is going to be, if we are going to be merged we are going to be merged and move in the direction of coming to the highest common denominator and not to the lowest common denominator.
We simply will not have the hundreds and hundreds of men and women who enjoy certain rights and benefits under existing collective agreements going into meetings which are intended to merge the collective agreements, walk in and open up the meeting by saying, by the way folks as we embark on this discussion, please be advised that our union is prepared to take very much less than we have now in our current collective agreement and we would be prepared to sign a new collective agreement which has far lesser benefits and pay scales and the like. That is simply not going to happen and the minister knows that.
Well, there are those who have done some analysis of this and have communicated with me. I am advised that potentially the price tag to merge all of the collective agreements is in the range of some $30 million of additional cost to bring parity and equity to all of the work force. We have repeatedly asked this minister in correspondence and in the Legislature what the impact will be to the staff of those facilities. For example, will the Camp Hill and Infirmary staff now be paid at the higher rate of staff at the Victoria General? Will there be pay equity adjustments to those employees as well? Frankly, with respect, we have received no answers from the minister. When I say no answers I mean, in fairness to him, we have received no answers which provide any degree of precision or specificity in them.
That being the case, I say and ask through you, Mr. Speaker, whether or not nurses will lose jobs as a result of this merger if one of the drivers behind this move is to lower costs? If, in fact, it is found that the cost to meld and merge collective agreements as but one example, has something like a $30 million price tag, in these difficult financial times, I have every expectation that we may well hear, maybe we won't, but I expect that we are going to hear, well if we are going to have to dedicate some $30 million to equate and integrate these collective agreements then that means that we are going to have to lay off one heck of a large number of staff in order to make up that $30 million. If that is the case, it is no wonder that many hundreds of men and women, professionals all, are very frightened at the prospect of what is ahead.
This minister has, Mr. Speaker, since taking on the Health portfolio, demonstrated, I think, one consistent characteristic. That is, with respect, it appears that on very many occasions he ploughs ahead with ideas he gets into his head without seemingly evaluating the impact or doing all the research. This merger, as far as I know, I have no solid evidence to the contrary, might well be ill-conceived. If it isn't, and if it is well conceived and if, indeed, it is clearly thought out and there is a work plan which the minister can articulate and perhaps even table here for our consumption in this House, I would ask why it is that it took him so many months and months and months to seemingly get the board to the point where they got to a stage where they felt they were able to function? If it isn't, why is it that meetings such as the one to which I just referred a moment ago of affected nurses could raise so many questions about the future?
I say, until I hear otherwise from the minister, Mr. Speaker, that the plan is not there or at least no plan has been articulated. References have been made to we are following the blueprint and trust us it is all going to happen in the fullness of time; well, that is not a plan, that is language and words and rhetoric but it is not a plan. I don't see any evidence, nor do many who speak with me, to indicate that the infrastructure is there; the benefits haven't been clearly articulated.
Our caucus is here to commit ourselves to attempt to raise the questions, I will conclude with simply this, to raise the questions as I do now with the minister, to lay out for us and for all of those affected by this merger, just where we are headed and, most importantly, to provide a detailed, precise, costed document which will give some comfort to all concerned that there is, in fact, a plan which is understandable and which will, in fact, be followed.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Health.
HON. RONALD STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity introduced by this resolution to speak to the issue such as contained in the document submitted for debate in this place this evening.
I suppose I am a bit taken aback by the admonitions of the honourable Leader of the Opposition when he talks about being careful and then, at the same time, rushing ahead; that I get an idea and rush ahead with it and yet he complains that it has been six months since the announcement of the merger of the four facilities in the city. I am not sure on what side of the issue he is falling. We are, and I will restate it here, being extremely careful about what we do in respect to the melding of these resources.
In order to help us here this evening, I wanted to look at precedent and to talk about why one would bring together in a city of this size resources in terms of tertiary care or speciality care, certainly resources. I went back to have a look at the merger of the Halifax Infirmary and Camp Hill. I wondered what major studies had been done to effect that change. Why did the government of the day and the Minister of Health of the day push to have those two tertiary care and honourable facilities, having worked with the tradition it is, why do this?
Very simply, it was the right thing to do. Why was it the right thing to do? It was the right thing to do because the advice of the medical staff, the advice of the staff in place and the duplication of programs and the competition that existed, that was not at all in a health care sense, healthy competition, brought the government of the day to the decision that this was by virtue of the examination of experts and medical staff and people on the ground in those institutions the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do. It produced what we have today in that complex.
In that complex, and I am referring to the Camp Hill, Abbie Lane and Infirmary site, a consolidation of programs which allowed for greater resources to be directed towards patients, to people, service to people. The government of the day, with some difficulty and criticism - I am sure, I have heard it, I have read it in Hansard - did this and did it well. It was done by the staff, they took the decision, yes, but it was done by the staff. Lo and behold, cost-savings resulted. But, more than that, financial resources, human resources, could be redeployed to enable an improvement of services. That happened, it was a good thing. At the time some of us didn't think it was a good thing, I will admit to that. We had traditional loyalties, and I was one of those who questioned that, but gradually, as we saw the reasoning that the new Board had brought to the table and to the information of those of us who were affiliated and who were alumni of those institutions. We said this is better, because it focused on the people and the service to the people who might need it, service to Nova Scotians throughout the province.
[5:00 p.m.]
We now have major programs in place in that complex, which now will join the larger, that have stood out nationally as programs not only to emulate but, indeed, on the national scale, to be copied and complimented around the country. I refer to the sleep laboratory, to the programs in cardio-vascular health and the resources of research laboratories there. They are superlative; the Department of Family Practice, which today occupies an eminent place in the annals of that specialty around the country, could not have done as well, if I could put it that way, if these resources had not been brought together in order to allow program merger. That is some of the base upon which we can look with confidence to the future, in the further merger of the four facilities to which the honourable gentleman refers in his resolution.
There is another reason for this. The reason is that we now have the opportunity in this merger to build on the current programs and to allow the savings, in terms of human resources, in terms of fiscal resources, to be put into newer programs. The likelihood is that the reputation of the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, will be augmented in a very real way by the merger and pooling of resources that we have pledged ourselves to and the decision we have taken.
Now, the reference by the honourable gentleman opposite, I must take issue with this, to the meeting the other night of casual workers. This does not speak to the merger, it speaks to the current state and difficulties of casual workers in the health care system, particularly at the Victoria General Hospital. They have questions which exist now and which have existed in the past and are not, in any way, related to the current merger. The questions and uncertainty of change, do not make their position or other workers' positions any more comfortable. I agree with this and I have every sympathy with that, but the actual meeting and issues that were discussed at that meeting, were current to the current situation and have existed for some years. It is not tied to the merger and I would not want that to go unchallenged.
The casual workers have issues that must be answered, that they have brought to the table. But we see another issue at work, another element of the health care changes that we have proposed here at work, in this decision to merge. That is, that the decisions and the creation of this institution, carefully done, must be placed in the hands of the board that we have appointed to do the job, who only recently, within the last month - meeting at least four to five times over that period of time and meeting almost weekly, bi-weekly or whatever - will take up the challenge, have taken up the challenge. And, as the honourable gentleman very properly refers to, one of the challenges will be labour adjustment strategy.
In true terms, if you were to select one issue in all of the health care changes that we have proposed, the single issue that creates the challenge and the uncertainty and the issues that have been raised by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition opposite, it is labour adjustment and issues of labour and employees. That is quite correct.
One of the issues and one of the ways that those issues can be better met and better set before the public and, certainly, before the board, is through communications with those people affected, by the employees and the workers and those who are involved in a very real sense. That is why I was quite taken with the efforts just beginning to communicate information and facts to the workers who are there and to the public at large, through mechanisms such as a newsletter to be published frequently. I have just gotten a copy called the Merger Memo, put out by the public relations department, introducing some of the issues to date, giving background information and actually setting up a line for information.
This is where the honourable gentleman opposite, referring to rumours, one of the most destructive things, I think, can be lack of information and rumours and I would pay tribute to the board as it takes up its challenge and attempts to communicate in a real way, both by telephone and then by print. Along with this Merger Memo, they have a suggestion page that you can mail in, questions that you can ask and so on. These are but concrete examples of how the changes can be communicated and, indeed, the board's work and the work of those who are charged with the responsibility of bringing programs together can work.
The priority in this case, as the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition refers to, is to ensure that people receive service and, on the other hand, that workers' rights, collective agreements and other issues that are so important, receive proper priority and proper attention in the work that is before the board.
I would not, Mr. Speaker, and I am trying to be measured in my comments, presume to usurp the decision-making power of the board or to, in any way, give direction so directly as to stand in my place here and make specific comments, except to say that that board has undertaken a major challenge to do this work. The board itself was chosen carefully by the boards of the other facilities to represent a cross-section of both the professional and the citizen participation so characteristic of the honourable work that those four boards had done in the past.
Yes, we have announced what we would do early. We did that. We have stated that we were going to carry out the merger. We stated the reasons why we were going to carry out the merger. We did that early on and then carefully began to set the groundwork in place. The boards were created. The orientation was given. The board is now up and running and I am very proud of the work that they are beginning to do.
What can we expect from this? Certainly, as I said, if we were as successful as the merger of the Infirmary and Camp Hill complexes, we will be doing ourselves proud, and the citizens of Nova Scotia. I want to pay tribute to that and I don't want to wax terribly eloquent on that, if I could possibly do it, but to say fully that the right decisions will, in time, be looked back at with pride on the part of those who have worked so hard to bring them about, but also by those who have made those decisions.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we do that, if we carry this forward carefully and with the proper attention to the elements and the issues that have been raised by the honourable members of both Parties in the Opposition but also raised by the board themselves, by the board in place who have made it very clear what their priorities and what their sensitivities will be then we will have done, I believe, the job that would at least be worthy of the previous administration's decision to merge the other tertiary care institutions.
Consolidation of facility resources, consolidation of the programs will mean in a very real sense that we can look toward the improvement of the service to people. We anticipate and it has been said that the creation of this institution will allow us to better compete internationally for grants, for academic pursuits, for academic projects, in fact, competing for human resources in a more effective way. I would from my own background agree with that estimation and say that yes, indeed an institution with the honourable foundation stones of those four institutions placed together to work together will be a flagship in the health care system of the province and we will pledge ourselves to do this as well as we can with the help of that board that is now in place.
I might say that also, in doing this, in bringing those four institutions together we are very encouraged by the input of the staff to date, by those who work on-line who continue to work despite the uncertainty referred to by the honourable gentleman opposite and which we ourselves recognize. But, the board is now beginning to operate to try and assuage some of those fears in trying to give information as I have illustrated and will do that for that is one of their priorities. So, the public of Nova Scotia and the workers, the thousands of workers there can rest assured that those priorities indeed are there with the board, they will be attended to and will be done indeed very well if I am to judge by the past record of these members who have given so much of themselves and will give much of themselves and have taken up that challenge.
It is true it is no longer business as usual, it is true that we have indeed taken a major decision but as I mentioned, and I would hope and I would pledge to try my best and try the best we can do in terms of the Ministry of Health to do well as has been done in the past in two of the institutions of both Camp Hill and the Halifax Infirmary and build on that foundation and build on their traditions. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to enter this debate which I think it is fair to say is a debate of a resolution that was introduced in this House by the Official Opposition out of sheer frustration, about the chaotic manner in which this government is approaching health reform in this province. Before I focus more narrowly on the particulars of the resolution as they relate to the QE II change process, I just have to say that I think earlier this afternoon we saw as clear an example as we are ever going to see of how this government is going about its planning for health care reform in a backwards manner, in a cart before the horse way.
Earlier today I asked the minister who now is not in the House if he could inform the House when the report of the Berkeley Consulting Group was going to be available, a consultant contract that was let untendered, terms of reference still not made public in the order of $40,000 to $50,000 to deal with the organization and reorganization of the Department of Health, to ensure that that department is well-situated, well-placed to carry out its mandate to oversee the health reform process in this province.
[5:15 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer was very significant. The minister stated here in this House today, "I have not seen the report in full . . ." from the Berkeley Consulting Group, the report that is to guide the reorganization of the Health Department to carry out its health reform mandate. He went on to say, ". . . I would suspect that it would be available shortly. I will check, though, and I can let you know then.".
Now, Mr. Speaker, a week ago today this Minister of Health's deputy circulated a detailed, extensive memorandum, outlining precisely what the reorganization of the Department of Health was going to look like; organizational charts, flow charts, all kinds of mission statements, rationale for the changes, on and on. Is this how the Department of Health is doing its reorganization? A week ago today the Deputy Minister of Health announces an extensive reorganizational plan, presumably based on the advice and recommendations and the outcome of the Berkeley Consulting effort and today, one week later, the Minister of Health stands in this House and says, well, I have not actually seen that report yet but it should be coming soon and I will let you know.
Now, Mr. Speaker, which is it? Is the Minister of Health actually telling us, and if he is, we better think clearly what it means, that he has not even seen the Berkeley Consulting Report, on the basis of which we now have a major reorganization of his department, to enable it to be effective in carrying out the health reform mandate of this government? No wonder there is chaos in the health care system in this province today. That is as clear an illustration as we are ever going to see, it seems to me, of the chaos that is going on.
The particular resolution before us talks about the chaos at the hospitals that are affected by the mega-hospital merger, the creation of the Queen Elizabeth II hospital. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, the resolution urges the Minister of Health to offer answers to the questions that health professionals and employees in the institutions now governed by the QE II have been asking ever since the announcement was made six months ago, when the Queen visited this city.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you quite frankly that when I spoke out very loudly and clearly, expressing my disgust at the manner in which the QE II mega-hospital was launched, I braced myself for a fair amount of flack. I know that we live in a province where there still is considerable respect for some, at least some, of the traditions of the monarchy. Now I am not always sure about why but there is still such respect for some of the traditions. One of the traditions is, you don't drag the Queen into the middle of a very heated political controversy.
I think, Mr. Speaker, and I said it then and I still believe it to be true, that it was a calculated, cynical decision to have the blessing of the Queen on that QE II mega-hospital and just sweep all those unanswered questions under the carpet and hope that it was somehow going to be considered dirty pool after the fact, to say, for Heaven's sake, what are the answers to these questions about how the employees in those four hospitals affected by the merger are going to be affected by what this government has done; what is the process whereby there is a transference of the responsibility and the authority from the old boards to the new QE II hospital board, and on and on. The unanswered questions that existed at that time that made it, it seemed to me, a calculated, cynical manoeuvre, are the same questions that remain unanswered six months later.
Mr. Speaker, there was not a lot of flack from my having said I thought that is what the government was doing, because people agreed that that was what the government was doing. I think what has happened in the subsequent six months has clearly borne that out. We heard the minister this afternoon say, well, now, we are getting on with a communications strategy; the QE II board is putting out a metro merger newsletter. Is that what he called it? I think that was it.
The Merger Memo, that is what it was called. Mr. Speaker, that is not exactly what the Blueprint Committee for Health Reform had in mind when they talked about a labour adjustment strategy, when they talked about involving health care providers and health care consumers in the process of reforming our institutions and in reforming our health care system. A Merger Memo is a one-way communications strategy and an awful lot of people have asked the question, what in the name of Heaven's it says about this government's priorities at the time that they cannot come up with dollars and cents for the most basic health needs of Nova Scotians, that they run ads for not one, but two new public information officers in the Department of Health and state as the required qualifications, of those new public information officers, excellent skills in news writing.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this government would have to be less concerned about its public relations and trying to generate excellent news if it would get on with the health reform process that needs to be done with maximum consultation of those people affected. That would generate good news; that would generate positive results, and the government would not have to be quite so concerned about fabricating rosy propaganda through metro mergers and other excellent news writing efforts to persuade people that what is needed in health reform is well underway.
Mr. Speaker, I think yesterday the minister gave us another example of how this government's priorities are just dead wrong. When this minister was asked to address the unfairness and the injustice of nurses working at the Victoria General Hospital, in some cases darn close to full-time, still working on a casual basis without benefits, you know what the minister's response was? Well, that is really a question for the Minister of Finance, as if that is a financial question.
Mr. Speaker, this minister knows perfectly well that the build-up of frustration of the casual nursing staff of the Victoria General Hospital arises from a number of conditions created by this government, under this minister, such as the decision that casual nursing staff, even if they are earning as little as $10,000 or $15,000 a year, will be hit with the 3 per cent roll-back that has been shoved down the throats and imposed on workers earning over $25,000. Why wouldn't they be frustrated? The government said that would not happen.
The minister also knows that the frustrations arise out of a flagrant abuse of what are supposed to be existing personnel policies at the Victoria General Hospital; that if a nurse is working more than 24 hours in a two week period, she shall become a member of the bargaining unit, and that exists for a very good reason, Mr. Speaker. That exists to ensure that people get the benefits that they ought to be entitled to and, frankly, it exists so that a government cannot create chaos, or a hospital or any other employer cannot create chaos and engage in the hopeless exploitation of staff by having them at the complete mercy and the complete call, on any day of the week, without there being proper scheduling, without there being any kind of proper staffing plans. That is why we have unions in this province and in this country and in the health care system, to prevent that sort of thing happening.
The most convenient thing of all is what I think this government just delights in doing and that is creating the impression that the tensions and the strains that exist around those casual nurses at the Victoria General Hospital, in fact, are the result of some external force, something that is left over from the past and I agree, that if the transition agreement that had been reached between the VG Hospital and the Nova Scotia Government employees with the previous government had been fully ratified by the previous government, then a lot of these abuses would not be taking place. That it why I think that the representatives who rise to be the champions of the casual nurses should be asked some tough questions about why that transition agreement has not been fully put in place and many of these abuses would have been avoided.
Let me just say that when the minister rises in his place and he talks in the vague, lofty terms with all the vision in the world about how things are going to get better, he is only adding to people's frustration because people want answers now about how people are going to have the opportunity to participate in the development of a meaningful labour adjustment strategy so that the health care system will be secured so that health care consumers will get the services that they need and health care providers will get the justice that they deserve in the chaos that is being created by this government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The time for the debate of Resolution No. 1559 has now expired.
The honourable Opposition House Leader.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, would you please call House Order No. 184 and on behalf of the member for Queens I so move.
H.O. No. 184, re Environ.: Companies - Criminal Code Infractions (11/06/93-31/12/94) - notice give Jan. 17/95 - (Mr. J. Leefe)
MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable minister wish to comment on the request?
The honourable Minister of the Environment.
HON. ROBERT HARRISON: That is public information and we will be happy to comply with that House Order.
MR. SPEAKER: The request has been complied with.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable Opposition House Leader.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, would you please call House Order No. 183 and on behalf of the member for Pictou Centre, I so move.
H.O. No. 183, re Premier: Social Reform (Can.) - Response - notice given Jan. 11/95 - (Dr. J. Hamm)
[The House Order was read by the Clerk.]
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Acting Premier, would you want it stood?
HON. JAY ABBASS: No, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in the absence of the Premier, we would not want to agree to return the House Order in his absence but I believe that House Order No. 182 is almost identical to that. Perhaps if we could stand House Order No. 183 and if you want to call House Order No. 182, we could dispense with this at that point.
[5:30 p.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: Shall the order stand?
House Order No. 183 stands.
The honourable Opposition House Leader.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, would you please call House Order No. 182.
H.O. No. 182, re Educ.: Social Reform (Can.) - Response - notice given Jan. 11/95 - (Dr. J. Hamm)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou Centre.
DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I so move.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Education I can indicate, as he did today in Question Period, I believe in response to a question, that following his meeting in Ottawa on Monday with the federal minister involved in the social programs, he would be very pleased to release all this information to the members opposite.
MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable Opposition House Leader.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, would you please call House Order No. 181.
H.O. No. 181, re Commun. Serv.: Social Reform (Can.) - Response - notice given Jan. 10/95 - (Dr. J. Hamm)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou Centre.
DR. JOHN HAMM: Mr. Speaker, I so move.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable minister wish to have the House Order read?
The honourable Minister of Community Services.
HON. JAMES SMITH: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't need to have it read. I would address it, it is fairly wide-searching and it does say, in fact, all background documents as well as the department's response. I would certainly be prepared, as the Minister of Education would be, to table documents relative to our visit in Ottawa with the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy on Monday. But some of the responses have been in the form of reports to Cabinet and I am not sure that I would make an exception. I think that would follow the regular rule relative to Cabinet.
I would think that where there are other House Orders other than House Order No. 181, relating to paragraph (2), if those departments themselves could respond. We worked closely with the Department of Education preparing our Atlantic position but I would not be prepared to make a commitment for other departments. I think we have already addressed this in the House this afternoon.
So I would, under paragraph (1), make an undertaking to bring forward information that is relevant to our response to the federal government but some of this background information would be within Cabinet documents.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou Centre.
DR. JOHN HAMM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that certainly is acceptable.
MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable Opposition House Leader.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure whether or not the House Leader is asking for (Interruption) Would you please call House Order No. 178.
H.O. No. 178, re Educ. Hammonds Plains: Junior High School - Armoyan Group - notice given Jan. 5/95 - (Mr. T. Donahoe)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: I would so move, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader, on behalf of the Minister of Education.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty with this one, it simply involves a letter from Mr. Armoyan seeking information and a response from the department giving him the information he sought. There were no offers as such but the minister has agreed to return that.
MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable Opposition House Leader.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the floor for an introduction.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for yielding the floor briefly, to allow me to make an introduction. It is my pleasure to introduce in the west gallery a number of representatives of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers who have joined us here today to express their concern about proposed WCB changes that will adversely affect their own members who may require workers' compensation in the future and also all other workers, whether organized or unorganized. I would ask members if they would welcome the representatives who have joined us here this afternoon from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: It was my understanding that the requirements of House Order No. 177 had been fulfilled and, therefore, it is no longer standing on the order paper.
The honourable Opposition House Leader.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Would you please call House Order No. 175, Mr. Speaker.
H.O. No. 175, re Educ.: Sackville High School - Air Quality - notice given Dec. 13/94 - (Mr. T. Donahoe)
MR. DONAHOE: I would so move, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader on behalf of the Minister of Education.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Yes, again, Mr. Speaker, I thought that we had dealt with this and dispensed with it. In fact, the minister had returned the order before it even was issued by the House some time ago. So, this has been returned, perhaps over a month ago and it keeps showing up on the order paper, but, in fact, it has been dispensed with.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Opposition House Leader.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I think I have called this one and it has been returned. So can we insure that it is removed from the order paper?
MR. SPEAKER: We will strike it from the order paper.
The honourable Opposition House Leader.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, would you please call House Order No. 103.
H.O. No. 103, re Transport. - Road Work (1993-95) - notice given Nov. 3/94 - (Mr. B. Taylor)
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: I so move, Mr. Speaker.
[The House Order was read by the Clerk.]
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many times we have to go through this, but we don't keep track of road work in each constituency that way anymore. It is done by district and there are only four districts in the province. So to say how much road work is done, for example, in any one constituency, you are not able to determine that. The funds, the budgets are not allocated based on constituency. There is a flexibility of the district directors to disburse their funds and juggle their resources - financial, human resources, and equipment resources - from area to area within a district. So it is impossible for me to return the House Order as it is written there. Perhaps if the member wants to bring it back with respect to other matters, I can, but as it is written here, I have to refuse to return that.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased if the minister would forward the public tenders that have been let by his department relating to the years I have mentioned for gravel, paving, pulverizing of asphalt and that sort. I certainly can decipher out which district and which constituency the work was awarded in. I can do that for the minister.
HON. RICHARD MANN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe he indicated and perhaps answered his own question. They are public tenders. They are available to him at the Public Tenders Office. So if he wants to do that and decipher them out, he is free to do that.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been to the Public Tenders Office and that minister knows full well that all tenders, whether it is Supply and Services, Natural Resources, they are all lumped in together and it is very time-consuming. But that minister can very easily go to his department and just forward the tenders that were let by his department. He knows he can do that. In fact, he requested, because I went through the journals of past years and that minister made similar requests and the government of the day forwarded those requests and they did not stand the House Order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the matter before the House, I believe that the honourable member has access to a very competent and quite large research staff, which is paid for by the taxpayers of Nova Scotia. I suggest maybe he might have one of them go to the Public Tenders Office.
MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the minister is telling us that in the last year and one-half, under his direction, that his department is being run so sloppily that they don't keep track of the tenders that have been awarded, then we are in worse trouble than the taxpayers of Nova Scotia expect.
HON. RICHARD MANN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised to hear that member stand and refer to the operations of the Department of Transportation, the staff and the way they do their business as being sloppy. Based on past performance by that member when he was the minister, I am not surprised to hear it at all. But, I will make sure that every staff member in the Department of Transportation has access to the remarks he has made today.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will not permit an interchange across the floor that is off the title of the motion before the floor.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Well, it is not a big request for that minister to raise such a fuss. The question begs answering, what is that minister trying to hide?
MR. SPEAKER: I rule that out of order, that is imputing motives and the honourable member knows that that is out of order and I would ask the honourable member to withdraw the remark. It is an unparliamentary remark.
MR. ARCHIBALD: What are the consequences if I don't withdraw the remark?
MR. SPEAKER: Well, I know the honourable member to be just that, a very honourable member and he is not imputing motives. Maybe in the heat of debate he has made a remark that he would just wish to withdraw so that the House has a Parliamentary decorum appropriate to his desires.
MR. ARCHIBALD: I wouldn't want to say anything that you find offensive, so I would certainly try to rephrase my words but you know, it is a funny situation where the minister . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, some decorum.
MR. ARCHIBALD: . . . requested similar information, when I was over there and when other people were over there, it always was tabled, however, at this time he can't provide the information. Even when the member wanted very technical information, people in the staff were happy to get it, they felt, well, if a member of the Legislature is requesting it, it must be a legitimate request. However, there is a new rule apparently from this minister and he is being . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I asked the honourable member - simply the remark of imputing motives of the type that are not acceptable in debate in the quorum of the House and I know the honourable member will withdraw that.
The honourable Minister of Transportation has indicated that he is unable because of the structure of the Department of Transportation to supply the requirement. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is denied. Carried in the negative.
The honourable Opposition House Leader.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, we will go back to the Department of Transportation again. Would you please call House Order No. 111.
H.O. No. 111, re Transport.: Constituencies - Budgets (1992-95) - notice given Nov. 4/94 - (Mr. J. Holm)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MR. JOHN HOLM: I so move, Mr. Speaker.
[The House Order was read by the Clerk.]
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Is that my constituency, Mr. Speaker? I cannot comply with all of that. As I have just said I can comply with the capital budget part of it, my constituency. In fact, the 1992-93 and I think 1993-94 has been probably tabled in this House at least twice now, in response to House Orders in the last session in the spring and so I suspect you could find them in the Clerk's office.
The operating budget for 1994-95 is not done by constituency and that information is not available. We can get it by area, we can get it by district, we cannot do it by constituency because the directors and the managers have the authority within their district or within their area to move human resources, physical resources equipment or financial resources around as they determine the need. The budgets are not broken down as Richmond, Inverness, they are broken down as eastern, western, central, and northern. They can move them through constituencies as a flooding problem occurs, as culverts are required as ditching is required and they do that, they set the priorities and they do that.
So, if they want I will comply with the capital part of it as I can and if necessary we will try and find what we have already tabled from previous years. I would be happy to do that. The member knows full well he has done extremely well in his riding, on the Highway No. 101 project and some sidewalk work out there, very happy to demonstrate that to him if we can.
[5:45 p.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his cooperation. What I am looking for, however, under the maintenance is certainly not the manpower or individual requirements. I am just looking for the budget allocations that are provided and as it is broken out. Now, if the department or the minister do not have that, if he says that cannot be provided, I certainly will have to do with the best information that he can provide. It is my understanding that under the different sections, the various foremen or managers have budget allocations for maintenance within their areas but I will accept the best information that the minister can provide.
MR. SPEAKER: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable Opposition House Leader.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, that completes the Opposition business for today.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will be meeting from the hours of 12:00 noon until 8:00 p.m. and the Government Business following the Orders of the Day and Question Period will be debate on Resolution No. 1563. That is not on the order paper yet but it is the resolution I introduced yesterday with respect to our rule changes. I move that we adjourn until 12:00 noon tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion for adjournment has been made and carried. The late debate this evening was won by the honourable member for Lunenburg. The resolution reads:
Therefore be it resolved that the members of the House of Assembly congratulate the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency and all stakeholders who work toward sustainability of eco-tourism as a healthy and prosperous component of the tourism industry of Nova Scotia.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION UNDER RULE 5(5)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Lunenburg.
MRS. LILA O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to this resolution on eco-tourism.
Nova Scotia's tourism industry experienced a remarkable season in 1994, a season where Tourism Nova Scotia recorded a 7 per cent increase in room sales during the peak period from July through September and a 26 per cent increase in requests to the Nova Scotia Information and Reservations Service. Included in these statistics is a dramatic growth in eco-tourism.
The Tourism Industry Association of Nova Scotia President Don Wilson, attributes one of the reasons for this banner year to members of TIANS specializing in eco-tourism. However, it is important to note that eco-tourism is only one aspect of the vast numbers of venues available to tourists travelling throughout Nova Scotia.
The term eco-tourism is a relatively new buzz-word and the definition can range from the purist's definition of only activities which directly benefit the natural environment to a more general definition of any outdoor activity. Eco-tourism can include travelling to a specific area in our province to experience and learn about the natural environment of that particular area. This can range from enjoying a scenic view, taking a boat tour to watch birds or sea mammals, hiking through a forest, ocean kayaking to a camp on a deserted offshore island, or participating in a dinosaur dig. More and more tourism operators throughout Nova Scotia understand the benefit of long-range planning, packaging, cooperative marketing and collaboration.
Last week I had the privilege of attending the Atlantic Canada Eco-tourism Conference and Workshop at the White Point Beach Resort. Over 100 delegates from the tourism industry and government representatives from Tourism, Environment, Natural Resources, and Sport and Recreation from across the Maritimes attended this conference. Delegates spent one week of intensive learning. This study spanned the principles and philosophies of eco-tourism, sustainable tourism and green management and explored their applications for Atlantic Canada. At the conference, case studies of successful ventures were presented by operators and community groups with the hope that sharing their practical experiences would assist others in their endeavours.
Guest speakers at the conference included the Honourable Ross Bragg, Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency; Andrew Blaza of the World Travel and Tourism Environmental Research Centre in Oxford, England; Anna Nibby-Woods, who presented on aboriginal and nature-based tourism experiences; and Tim Dedan of the Eel River Bar Band in New Brunswick who, through the Smithsonian Institution, will be creating an organic and medicinal plant farm.
At the Atlantic Canada Eco-Tourism Conference and Workshop, the common themes that emerged as most important in all future developments and planning were: environmental protection and restoration; green management; sustainable tourism planning; and a respect for cultural diversity. The conference concluded that the long-term viability of our eco-tourism industry is dependent upon the health of our natural, cultural and historic attractions.
Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotians have always maintained a close relationship with the land. Our economy and way of life have been shaped by how we have valued and used the natural resources of the province. In particular, Mr. Speaker, our traditional industries of fishing, forestry, agriculture and mining are based directly upon these natural resources. Our scenic natural areas have also been the cornerstone of establishing Nova Scotia as a tourism destination and seeing tourism grow to be one of this province's most significant industries. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that continued prosperity and living standards are directly dependent upon striking a balance between the economy and the environment.
Toward this end, Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to several initiatives which will profoundly impact our future as an eco-tourism destination. One such proposal will establish a system of protected areas as a cornerstone to our objectives relating to the long-term and sustainable use of the province's natural resource base. We are also working inter-departmentally to develop an eco-tourism strategy for Nova Scotia, to help guide decision-making. The mission of this strategy is to encourage nature tourism as a vital component to the Nova Scotia tourism industry, through initiatives which will foster conservation and management, sustainable development and use and increased public awareness of nature tourism resources.
It is interesting to review the past few years as the interest in eco-tourism has grown and to note the number of small businesses which have been established throughout Nova Scotia specifically catering to this market. These businesses can only be viable with the ongoing commitment of government, the tourism industry and all Nova Scotians to strike the balance between the economy and the environment. This balance is one which requires vision and leadership.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it will be vital for this government and all stakeholders to work towards the sustainability of eco-tourism, to help ensure a healthy and prosperous future for the tourism industry in Nova Scotia. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to stand and speak for a few minutes on the importance of eco-tourism and what I have to see as a slight misguided approach that this government is taking on another component which I fear will have a very negative impact upon eco-tourism, not only the potential that exists but that which currently is in place.
I certainly want to congratulate the previous speaker and I think that she did give an excellent speech this afternoon and outlined many of the advantages that we do have. I know one of the things that I have noticed as I have been travelling around the Province of Nova Scotia, certainly all the things that we sometimes take for granted, certainly the beauty of our landscape, the friendliness of the people, the warm and very rich culture we have which is different for many areas. I know that I have seen many tourists, many people from out-of-province who have been coming here to enjoy that.
You know, one of the very rewarding things of all that is that the tourists are not just sticking Halifax or Sydney, but that the tourists who are coming for eco-tourism, to enjoy our rivers, our natural beauty, our mountains in Cape Breton, the Apple Blossom Festival and all the other things, the fishing villages and everything that goes with that around our coast, they are providing employment from one end of the province to the other; they are spending and depositing their dollars in all parts of the province. That is something, if we truly believe in real economic development and spreading it around, that is the kind of business that we want to encourage.
You know, Mr. Speaker, add to that, the government is talking about something which is supposedly going to complement tourism in the Province of Nova Scotia, eco-tourism, supposedly which is going to be helping the tourist industry, and that is the development of casinos in the Province of Nova Scotia.
Well, we know, Mr. Speaker, that according to the projections that are being put forward - and you can see them next door over in the casino project office - they are projecting that there is going to be a grand total of 12,000 new tourists coming to the Province of Nova Scotia. If you divide that out, if you do the math, that means we are going to have approximately 30 new tourists a day, on average, coming to Nova Scotia as a result of the casinos.
Now, what I have some difficulty with is if these casinos are supposed to be generating 27 per cent of the revenue, which results in many millions of dollars . . .
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member is aware that you cannot debate . . .
MR. HOLM: Oh, I am not debating a bill, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: There is a bill before the House on that matter and we cannot inject any matter that is before the House in the form of a bill in debate into the debate of this resolution.
MR. HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to bring forward some concerns on behalf of eco-tourism, I certainly am not talking about the bill. I am talking about the ITT Sheraton, which I am not permitted, when we are on clause by clause debate, to even discuss. Certainly, the ITT Sheraton, their wish, their agreement, that which they want to establish in Nova Scotia, is calling for the introduction or the bringing of 12,000, or as I say, approximately 30 new tourists a day, they are projecting that 27 per cent of the revenue - that is ITT Sheraton and which the government appears to have bought the argument - will come from these tourists.
Presumably, Mr. Speaker, if the casinos are not to hurt eco-tourism and the tourist operators who exist, whether that be in the Valley region or in the South Shore, wherever they happen to be, presumably those 30 tourists a day are going to somehow or other be providing the 27 per cent of - I think it is $160 million or $170 million worth - revenue that those casinos are going to bring in.
So all I have to say, Mr. Speaker, is that those 30 people a day have very deep pockets. If they don't, the reality is that those Nova Scotians who have worked hard to develop eco-tourism, and we see that in the summertime, certainly, we see biking tourists, where people come in from not only other parts of Canada, but from the United States and bike around our province, who go out and stay in the bed and breakfasts around the province, visit the Valley, visit the South Shore, the Eastern Shore, Cape Breton and that is a very valuable way to distribute the money.
The member who spoke before me, from Lunenburg County, comes from a very beautiful area. It is an area that I am very familiar with and I like to spend as much time down in that general neck of the woods, Mr. Speaker, because I have a summer place down there that I like to even visit occasionally in the wintertime, on weekends when you want to get away and enjoy the scenery and the peace and the quiet and walk the beaches and all of that. There are many businesses in that area that cater very directly to that; for example, Mahone Bay - where the member who spoke before me actually represents - as does Lunenburg. I am very concerned for the businesses in Lunenburg. I have been there in the summertime and even during the winter when you have many tourists who are spending their dollars in those tourist accommodations and in the gift shops and the restaurants, as they do in Mahone Bay in the various retail and other establishments.
[6:00 p.m.]
I am therefore very much concerned that if the ITT Sheraton proposal goes forward and those 30 tourists a day who they say are going to come to Nova Scotia as a result of the casinos, if they aren't able to spend this 27 per cent of all the revenue that is going to come in, it will draw those who are coming for eco-tourism and the other brands of tourism to Nova Scotia away from those areas, away from Lunenburg, away from Mahone Bay, away from all of the other parts of the province, drawing them instead to Halifax, to the downtown waterfront, where they will be then spending their loonies in one-armed slot machines, instead of buying the products that are made within those communities.
I very much support the whole idea of eco-tourism and the ways that we can develop on that. I would say to the government and through you, Mr. Speaker, to them and to the previous speaker, I would urge them to get their priorities straight. Nova Scotia is known world-wide and we have heard and the Minister of Tourism has released quite correctly and very proudly the kinds of statements that have been said about Nova Scotia in countless magazines across North America and some even in the states, wonderful things that are being said. That is the kind of thing that will genuinely attract people to this province and certainly that is the kind of thing we want to build on, our strengths.
That then will help to strengthen our entire province. People will travel to the Valley, they will travel up to the area of the Canso Causeway and the Strait area. We have so much to show. Surely to Heavens, we don't want to compromise our abilities to develop that province-wide tourism by compromising that, as I say, by developing casinos or allowing them to be developed, that will draw those tourists away which means that those operations that have been developing are no longer economically viable.
That is why we hear from, as we did in an article and I think it was even referred to today from councils like Kentville which are opposed to the establishment of casinos for the way it will hurt small businesses in their area and in their community. When we are talking about small businesses that can be hurt, for example, many of those are involved in developing the important and much underdeveloped eco-tourism business in the Province of Nova Scotia. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The Adjournment motion has been made and carried.
The House will now rise to meet tomorrow at the hour of 12:00 noon.
[The House rose at 6:04 p.m.]
QUESTION NO. 141
By: Mr. Ronald Russell (Hants West)
To: Hon. Bernard Boudreau (Minister of Finance)
I want to know, as does Carl Adams of Yarmouth and Paula Berringer of Mahone Bay, what steps the ministers and senior bureaucrats are taking to reduce their wages and perks as they expect the general public to do?
QUESTION NO. 142
By: Mr. Ronald Russell (Hants West)
To: Hon. John Savage (Premier)
I want to know, as does Lester G. Beeler, if Premier Savage and his ministers are prepared to further reduce their salaries to help eliminate the debt?
QUESTION NO. 143
By: Mr. Ronald Russell (Hants West)
To: Hon. Bernard Boudreau (Minister of Finance)
I want to know, as does Ivan Cassidy, Ph.D., of Wolfville whether the government is prepared to consider further rolling back the salaries of all members of the Cabinet and the Legislature?
QUESTION NO. 144
By: Mr. Ronald Russell (Hants West)
To: Hon. Bernard Boudreau (Minister of Finance)
I want to know, as does Wilfred McNutt of Truro, how the province can fight a provincial deficit when every fluctuation in the federal system and the price of our dollar rises and lowers affects equalization payments, interest on debt and funding for programs?
QUESTION NO. 145
By: Mr. Ronald Russell (Hants West)
To: Hon. Bernard Boudreau (Minister of Finance)
I want to know, as does Ardan Stevenson of Bridgewater, what has been done by the Liberals to reduce the number of civil servants working for the provincial government? Mr. Stevenson feels that rather than cutting programs, reduction of the Civil Service should be the number one priority in reducing government spending.
QUESTION NO. 146
By: Mr. Ronald Russell (Hants West)
To: Hon. Bernard Boudreau (Minister of Finance)
I want to know, as does Bruce Stevenson of North Sydney, if civil servants who have had their salaries rolled back by the Liberal Government will be issued a tax credit?
QUESTION NO. 147
By: Mr. Ronald Russell (Hants West)
To: Hon. Bernard Boudreau (Minister of Finance)
I want to know, as does Allan Barclay of Kentville, if the government can provide a copy of their economic and financial plan to pay off the provincial deficit and debt and has the minister provided the Right Honourable Jean Chretien with a copy of this report?
QUESTION NO. 148
By: Mr. George Moody (Kings West)
To: Hon. Bernard Boudreau (Minister of Finance)
I want to know, as does Olive Smith of Dartmouth, how much money will the Nova Scotia and municipal governments contribute to the building of a casino in Halifax, specifically in the area of additional road work, water, sewage, police protection and committees to assess the concerns that will arise? Also, is the government prepared to take over the whole enterprise should it fail?
QUESTION NO. 149
By: Mr. Ronald Russell (Hants West)
To: Hon. Bernard Boudreau (Minister of Finance)
I want to know, as does Susan Bethune of Yarmouth County, how the government can constantly justify raising taxes and cutting programs, such as health and education, and yet continually raise the salaries and expense accounts of members and ministers at the expense of the public?
