MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Honourable members, I would like to call the House to order at this time and commence the afternoon's agenda.
PRESENTING AND READING PETITIONS
PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Community Services.
HON. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the annual report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1994, the Department of Community Services.
MR. SPEAKER: The annual report is tabled.
STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS
GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Premier.
HON. JOHN SAVAGE (The Premier): Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas this past Sunday, April 30, 1995, marked the 50th Anniversary of the liberation by allied forces of the Nazi concentration camps; and
Whereas the world will forever recall with horror the history of the Holocaust and the atrocities perpetrated on its innocent victims in such infamous places as Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau and Treblinka; and
Whereas many young Canadian soldiers died in the brave and ultimately successful effort to free many thousands of tortured souls from the confines of the concentration camps;
Therefore be it resolved that this House unanimously condemn fascism and all that it represented, and join with the survivors and their families in remembering those who suffered and, in their memories, promise to do our utmost to ensure that history will not be repeated.
Mr. Speaker, I 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.
The honourable Premier.
THE PREMIER: Mr. Speaker, can I suggest that we have a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the Nazi concentration camps, and also the many young men and women who gave up their lives in the attempt to rescue them.
MR. SPEAKER: Please stand for a moment of silence.
[One minute of silence was observed.]
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
NOTICES OF MOTION
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Premier catered to a crowd of good Liberals in conjunction with the visit of the Governor General; and
Whereas these good Liberals have been catered to for the better part of a year in the name of saving the Premier from his own reputation and deeds; and
Whereas this entire government has been consumed with the needs of a few good Liberals, abdicating for the year the needs and concerns of hundreds of thousands of good Nova Scotians;
Therefore be it resolved that this Premier deal with this leadership review question once and for all so that he can direct his full attention to those many good Nova Scotians whose questions on Pharmacare, Highway No. 104, health and education reform, casinos and so on, require answers and effective action.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MR. JOHN. HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Canadian Mental Health Association, Nova Scotia Division, has undertaken The Open Mind Campaign; and
Whereas this campaign encourages caring, understanding and new attitudes towards people who have experienced mental health problems; and
Whereas today, on behalf of all residents of Halifax County, Mayor Randy Ball is declaring Halifax County to be a community of The Open Mind;
Therefore be it resolved that this House salutes the Nova Scotia Division of the Canadian Mental Health Association and Halifax County for the leadership in The Open Mind Campaign, and recommends to all residents the goals of this campaign.
Mr. Speaker, I would request waiver of notice and passage without debate.
MR. SPEAKER: The request is 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 unanimously.
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 members of the Saskatchewan Legislature are officially on record as opposing the national registration component of Bill C-68; and
Whereas the latest opposition to Bill C-68 took place yesterday in Port Hawkesbury as over 200 Nova Scotians voiced their opposition to gun registration; and
Whereas there is no concrete data to substantiate claims from the federal Minister of Justice that crime will be reduced upon implementation of a national gun registration system;
Therefore be it resolved that all members of this Legislature endorse the deletion of the registration component of Bill C-68.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Shelburne.
MR. CLIFFORD HUSKILSON: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas Mr. Daniel Bower is an avid sportsman who enjoys nature through hunting, fishing and providing knowledge about the outdoors to others; and
Whereas Mr. Bower submitted a letter to the editor of a provincial daily newspaper boosting many of the marvellous qualities of Shelburne County that he has come to appreciate and cherish; and
Whereas Mr. Bower's letter was featured recently as the Letter of the Week in this provincial newspaper publication;
Therefore be it resolved that the members of this House extend congratulations to Mr. Daniel Bower for having his many positive observations about Shelburne County featured.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for waiver of notice, please.
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 Minister of Natural Resources.
HON. DONALD DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the provincial, territorial and federal governments have been working together to develop a coordinated approach to endangered species conservation in Canada; and
Whereas the first in a nation-wide series of public workshops on this national approach is taking place at the Delta Barrington Hotel in Halifax this afternoon and this evening; and
Whereas the Province of Nova Scotia is represented on a national working group to develop a revised national process for listing species at risk;
Therefore be it resolved that members of this House acknowledge and endorse the important work of this group as well as the public consultation that will contribute to development of a national policy on conservation of endangered species in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I 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.
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 May is Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month in Nova Scotia;
Whereas MS is the most common neurological disease in Canada today, affecting about 1 in 500 Atlantic Canadians;
Whereas the Nova Scotia Multiple Sclerosis Society is dedicated to providing information and support to people with MS and their families, generating increased public awareness and raising funds to find the cause and cure for this disease;
Therefore be it resolved that all Nova Scotians support the society in its annual carnation campaign and recognize May as Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month.
I ask for waiver for notice without debate, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Is that 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 Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the idea behind municipal service exchange was supposed to be revenue neutral or a reduction in property taxes for Nova Scotia taxpayers; and
Whereas residents in the municipality of Colchester are facing tax increases this year of 8.7 per cent residentially and 3.6 per cent commercially; and
Whereas the chief administrative officer for Colchester County says that part of the reason for the massive hike in taxes is because of the government's municipal service exchange legislation;
Therefore be it resolved that this government explain to not only residents of Colchester County but to all Nova Scotians precisely when they can expect to be paying less in taxes instead of more.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Guysborough-Port Hawkesbury.
MR. RAYMOND WHITE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Provincial Midget Tier Two Girls Volleyball Championship was held in Canso on the weekend; and
Whereas this tournament involved teams from Middleton, Dartmouth, Antigonish, New Glasgow, Port Hawkesbury and Canso; and
Whereas Melissa MacDonald was chosen the tournament MVP and Melissa Richards was named to the all-star team;
Therefore be it resolved that this House congratulate the Canso team, coached by Principal Bernie MacLean, on winning its first Provincial Tier Two Girls Volleyball Championship.
I request waiver without debate.
MR. SPEAKER: The request is 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 Halifax Atlantic.
[2:15 p.m.]
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas a major concern among health care providers in Cape Breton has been the use of hospitals to provide long-term care, making effective acute care more difficult; and
Whereas 29 Legion branches in Cape Breton have endorsed a proposal that the former St. Rita's Hospital, most recently operated as the Sydney Community Health Centre, be converted to a veterans' home and convalescent facility; and
Whereas local supporters have asked that MPs and MLAs speak out;
Therefore be it resolved that this House urges the federal and provincial governments, at the highest levels, to meet soon with those proposing a veterans' facility at the Sydney Community Health Centre and give the proposal serious consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas Liberal MLAs described the relatively small turnout at January's Liberal Party meetings as a sign of great satisfaction with their own performance in government; and
Whereas Cabinet Ministers ignored the 89 per cent of Bedford residents voting against amalgamation, focusing instead on a turnout which actually exceeded that in many metro municipal elections; and
Whereas Liberals have now agreed that no one should ever, ever, ever know how many of their own Party vote to support the Premier and this government;
Therefore be it resolved that in the opinion of this House the Premier and senior Liberals spoke from personal experience when they stated that anyone can distort and undermine the results of a free, democratic exercise, rather than abiding by the people's wishes.
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 average weekly earnings in Nova Scotia feel 2.7 per cent in February alone, by more than $13 a week, according to information just released by Statistics Canada; and
Whereas Nova Scotia in one of only two provinces where earnings fell during the last year, while the same survey found one of the highest rate of job losses; and
Whereas this illustrates the Liberal Government's race to the bottom, turning back the clock towards unstable, poorly paid, and low-skills employment;
Therefore be it resolved that the Finance Minister and other Liberals who intended to impose a lower standard of living, economic dislocation and more family breakdowns should have honestly presented their goals when they sought Nova Scotians' support in the election two years ago.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the order of business, Private and Local Bills for Second Reading.
PRIVATE AND LOCAL BILLS FOR SECOND READING
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 2.
Bill No. 2 - Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company Limited Act.
Bill No. 6 - Centre Falmouth Cemetery Company Act.
Bill No. 8 - Bridgewater Museum Commission Act.
Bill No. 9 - Train Station Inn Cabooses Act.
MR. SPEAKER: Ordered that these bills be referred to the Committee on Private and Local Bills.
The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 11.
Bill No. 11 - Halifax County Charter.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MR. DENNIS RICHARDS: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 11.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is for second reading of Bill No. 11. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Ordered that this bill be referred to the Committee on Law Amendments.
The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 12.
Bill No. 12 - Hopewell Cemetery Act.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou East.
MR. WAYNE FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I so move.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou East moves second reading of Bill No. 12. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Ordered that this bill be referred to the Committee on Private and Local Bills.
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the order of business, Government Motions.
GOVERNMENT MOTIONS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, I move that you do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House on Supply unto Her Majesty.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried. (Interruption)
If I was a little too quick, I apologize.
The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic. I always look forward to hearing him, so I will resume the Chair to the hear the honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: You're too kind, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak for a few moments this afternoon as the House prepares to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House on Supply.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a few moments today on the whole issue of private/public partnerships. I do so with the clear understanding that this seems to be a trend that many jurisdictions in the public sector are moving towards within the fiscal constraints that they are being faced with. They are looking at options and ways to restore capital projects in their jurisdictions, whether that be highways or bridges or schools or other major construction. The whole issue is a question of how do they come up with the funds at a time when the national and international bond dealers or financial interests are suggesting, in Canada for example, that our public debt is far too high and if we don't get it under control that we will hit what is known in some jurisdictions as the debt wall.
Mr. Speaker, when the hysteria about the debt and coming close to the debt wall is talked about, especially in recent years in Canada, the spectre of New Zealand and what happened in New Zealand over the period from 1984 through to the present time, in terms of the situation that they were faced with, people conjure up the image of, basically, New Zealand going bankrupt and, therefore, being forced to completely restructure itself, to completely unload responsibility for many of its public services and in areas of responsibility, the public sector had a lot to do with.
Mr. Speaker, New Zealand is cited by those who are pushing the deficit hysteria, those people who are suggesting that governments cannot afford any longer to do things like build roads or to do things like provide social programs, even to provide an acceptable level of health care in this country or in other countries. People would suggest that this is an example of the fact that our governments can no longer afford these kinds of payments, at least until we get our deficit better under control.
The whole issue of New Zealand and I have no intention of speaking about that today in any great detail. Suffice it to say that many who have analyzed the situation in New Zealand have suggested, in fact, that it is more smoke and mirrors than it is anything else in that what actually happened in New Zealand in the early 1980's, in particular 1984-1985, is considerably different than the picture that is presented to us in the media and in speeches by what is called the Representatives of the New Right from New Zealand, who are brought to the United States and to Canada to preach the word about how government has to get out of the delivery of public services.
Suffice it to say, I guess that as a result of the changes that have been made in New Zealand, that today in New Zealand most of the major transportation links, most of the national resources and the national industries in New Zealand are now completely controlled by interests outside of the New Zealand economy that, in fact, the majority of the economy in New Zealand is completely owned and controlled by forces outside that country and their deficit has not lowered, in fact, it has continued to grow even though they have made all these drastic changes to get out of the delivery of social programs, out of the provision of better highways and schools and so on and their unemployment levels have gone right through the roof, their levels of poverty and child poverty and violence and crime have grown astronomically over this period and I will talk about that in more detail on another day.
I guess the question that many people would ask is why is it we are looking at New Zealand as an example when that is clearly a case of that particular policy, in other words, the government turning over the handling or the financing of public services to the private sector as the answer to all the problems, that that absolutely and completely failed in that particular jurisdiction. More and more in this country, in various jurisdictions, we are seeing ourselves being faced with an argument that says that if we in the public sector do not unload some of these expenses, do not cut back in terms of the amount of our tax dollars that go to the provision of public services then we will increase our debt and for generations to come we will be faced to make those payments.
There is no question that regardless of what has happened over the past 15 years our debt and deficit has continued to grow. It is not because of the increases in social spending or spending on social programs, in fact, over the past 10 years statistics clearly indicate that spending on social programs has decreased. What has made our deficit grow by leaps and bounds has been a clear and well focused and aggressively pursued policy of zero inflation which has taken our real interest rates in this country to levels that far exceed any of the other G-7 countries or any other countries in the industrial world.
Regardless of what we do in this country, it is the gap between the interest rates that are being charged and the level of inflation that, in fact, is the problem of our increasing deficit. It seems that no matter how much the federal government or the provinces cut back on the amount of expenditures they make on social programs or on infrastructure the deficit continues to grow out of hand. At the same time, so does the level of unemployment in this country. It has grown to levels which are clearly unacceptable to many of us, yet our Government in Ottawa and the Government of Nova Scotia and far too many governments across the country in other provinces are following the game plan laid out by the public sector, which is that we cannot afford to pay for our social programs; we cannot afford to pay for our health care; and we cannot afford to pay for public infrastructure.
[2:30 p.m.]
I guess my point is that I don't agree with the premise. It is not that we cannot forget or dismiss the fact that we have high deficits and debts in this country - we cannot ignore that, Mr. Speaker - but it is a question of how we go at the program and who is it who pays the most. What we have with high, real interest rates in the country is the people who have money are the people who are making money. The people who are looking for jobs and the small business people who are looking for loans in order to get their businesses going, in order to keep their businesses going, are the ones who are paying for the kind of fiscal strategy that we have in this country.
Is it any answer for governments in this country and across this world to go out and hand over much of our public assets to the private sector in exchange for money? Is that going be to cheaper? Well, I guess the jury is still out in many ways, except in most areas where there has been private sector partnering with the public sector on roads or on correctional facilities or other areas, that there has been a problem not only with whether or not any savings are realized but, perhaps as importantly, if not more importantly, it is a question of accountability and responsibility for the provision of those kinds of services, that all of a sudden - whether it be snow-clearing or garbage pick-up - if you lend that off, if you take all of that responsibility and give it off to a private sector corporation, the accountability factor is completely gone.
To imagine that all of a sudden a private sector enterprise, that has to borrow money at an interest rate greater than the public sector, is going to be able to do it cheaper, is something that boggles my mind. What we found across the country and in North America is that where savings are realized, it comes at the cost of employees' wages and benefits. So, it is like all the while we are continually pushing down the level of wages and benefits of working people in this province and in this country and across North America in an attempt to realize better balance sheets in the public sector and in order to ensure greater profits in the private sector.
It is almost obscene in a sense, Mr. Speaker, when you see the private sector courting the government of this province, or federally or any other jurisdiction, about how it is that the public sector has to get out of the provision of these services and that they, all of a sudden, will come in and do the job. These are public services that taxpayers pay for. These are services that benefit all taxpayers, whether that be the provision of a safe and efficient and effective highway transportation system or whether that be health care. What is happening in far too many cases - and you look at the whole question of toll roads - is that if you have the money, if you have the wherewithal, then you can have a speedy new highway that you can go 110 kilometres an hour on with no barriers in between. If you don't have any money, if you don't have the wherewithal, then, of course, you have to take a secondary road somewhere, that undoubtedly will not only be slower but probably will not be maintained as well and so on.
We are getting into that whole situation in the delivery of health care in this country. I do not think that anybody in this country believes that that in fact is the way we have to go, that we have to follow the American model that if you can afford to pay, then you will get a better service. The whole point in this, I guess, is, will the taxpayer save in the long run? We need to have good roads, we need to have effective and efficient and quality high schools and junior highs and elementary schools in this province, we need to have health care facilities, but we need to be in charge of those, because those are public sector services that all taxpayers are entitled to, that all taxpayers are willing to pay for and it is not appropriate that these services are handed over holus bolus to the private sector.
In the event that this government is moving forward on more of its private/public sector partnering, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that they at least remember that the answer is not simply a more clean, a more appropriate, a more politically palatable bottom line, in terms of the whole balance sheet, that they still have a responsibility as a public sector, as the government, to protect the public interest, and that if they are going to turn over the control of a highway or of a hospital or of a school to the private sector, then they have responsibilities to ensure employment standards are maintained, to ensure that the additional costs to taxpayers are not exorbitant and that, in the long run, taxpayers are not forced to pay more money simply because of the fact that the government does not feel it is in the position to absorb those costs on the short term, on its balance sheet, for political reasons.
Those are questions of accountability that this government and any other government cannot avoid. When we talk about governing, you know, the government is not there simply to serve the interests of business; the government is there to serve the interests of all taxpayers. Whether it comes to the question of the provision of public services or whether it comes to the question of efficient management of the public sector, this government has a responsibility to do it better in the interests of all taxpayers, not just business. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.
[2:38 p.m. The House resolved itself into a CWH on Supply with Deputy Speaker Mrs. Francene Cosman in the Chair.]
[6:40 p.m. CWH on Supply rose and the House reconvened with Deputy Speaker Mrs. Francene Cosman in the Chair.]
MADAM SPEAKER: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on Supply reports:
THE CLERK: That the committee has met and made some progress in considering Supply and asks leave to sit again.
MADAM SPEAKER: Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Madam Speaker, would you please call the order of business, Public Bills for Second Reading.
PUBLIC BILLS FOR SECOND READING
MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Madam Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 7.
Bill No. 7 - Financial Measures (1995) Act.
MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Madam Speaker, I wonder if you could indicate how much time I have left?
MADAM SPEAKER: You have 51 minutes remaining. (Interruptions)
MR. CHISHOLM: Gee, that's too bad. Madam Speaker, I have an opportunity, perhaps, today to rise and speak a little more thoroughly about Bill No. 7 and the implications of Bill No. 7 on Nova Scotians and how Bill No. 7 is a reflection, it is the bill that carries forward many of the plans that were brought out in the budget of the Minister of Finance in the early part of this session. It is clearly an indication, I think, and this was the point that I was trying to make on Friday afternoon when I began my intervention, that it is clearly an indication of where the priorities of this government rest. That is and as was cited by this government and by this minister and by many people out there in the community, that this budget is meant to ensure that Nova Scotia is an attractive place for doing business. That this government is solely - no, that's not fair, I will not say solely - but is focused quite considerably on reducing any barriers to business coming to Nova Scotia or operating in Nova Scotia.
Madam Speaker, that in itself is not such a bad idea. I don't think anybody in the province is going to suggest that we want to turn business away or that we want to persist in creating obstacles or allowing obstacles to remain in place that prevent businesses from operating or from continuing to operate in the Province of Nova Scotia and generating economic activity, creating jobs, paying wages, salaries, benefits and so on and so forth. Absolutely not. For anyone to suggest that we were arguing otherwise, I think, would be misleading.
The question is, what is the balance that has to be struck in terms of providing for, either through tax breaks or incentive tax credits or through the delivery of services or whatever, a balanced form of people sharing in the pain and sharing in the gain of whatever activities that this government participates in? I think that what we have seen, from this government, Mr. Speaker, in the two years that they have been in office, is that contrary to the promises that were made when they were running for election or when they were in Opposition, they decided the day they took office that, in fact, they were going to focus on the deficit as their number one priority.
They were going to forget about unemployment. They were going to forget about growing the economy. They were going to focus on the deficit as their number one priority and that it wasn't going to be business that was going to be helping to pay off that deficit, it was going to be individual Nova Scotians. In fact, it was going to be many businesses, funny enough, that would end up paying as a result of the slow growth in the economy, as a result of continuing layoffs, as a result of the lack of creativity in terms of developing programs that would assist small and medium-sized businesses to get started and to grow.
[6:45 p.m.]
That is the concern. We have seen two years of this government whacking it to public sector workers. We have seen this government focusing on individuals, in terms of paying the price for the excesses over the past 15 years of previous administrations who have racked up a deficit, contributed though, I must say, Mr. Speaker, some considerable amount by the high interest rate policy of the federal government.
So what this government has done is they have said to individual Nova Scotians, you have to tighten your belt. You have to suffer some pain. You have to be unemployed, if not, for this year, then next year and the year after. You, as small business people, have to incur high, real interest rates in order that other businesses, other individuals in this province, generally people that have sufficient disposable income that they can take advantage of some of the credits, tax incentives like the equity tax credit, in order to avoid paying further income tax, or corporations, Mr. Speaker, whether that be major convention facilities in the province or whether that be in the film industry or other types of industries in the Province of Nova Scotia, the mining industry with the removal of the 4 per cent tax on mining equipment. These people, individual Nova Scotians, have to pay the price in order that these companies enjoy benefits.
We saw it last session with the way this government attacked the unfunded liability in workers' compensation. Who paid for that, Mr. Speaker? It was injured workers. It was working people in the Province of Nova Scotia who are paying for that unfunded liability. It was not companies, it was not employers. It was not a balanced approach. It was, clearly, individuals. In this budget, the most bizarre thing in here is the fact that on the one hand, they give credits to individuals who have sufficient disposal income that they can invest through the equity tax credit, then on the other hand, they remove a very modest program that affects senior citizens, that enables many of them to stay in their own homes or to be able to afford their own apartments. You know what I am talking about? The rental subsidy.
If you look at the information that has come out of the Department of Community Services, it talks about rental assistance and let me just tell you a few of the numbers that we are talking about here. It says, "This program provides a monthly assistance payment to seniors who rent their home and whose monthly rental payment exceed 30 per cent of their monthly income. Rental assistance is available to seniors who receive a guaranteed income supplement, a spouse's allowance, or who are single and have an annual income of $17,600 or less. Maximum rent amounts of $442 are used for single people, and $560 for couples, when determining the level of a rental assistance payment. For single persons, payments range from a minimum of $15 to a maximum of $130 per month. In 1992-93, 1,800 seniors received rental assistance.".
Mr. Speaker, this is a modest program in terms of the individuals, in terms of the amounts involved, but it affects - in 1992-93 it says nearly 2,000 and I bet you that last year was probably more than that - seniors who are living at levels below $17,000 a year. Those people, from this day in, when this bill goes into effect will no longer be able to receive this rental subsidy.
Imagine if you will that you have seniors earning a fixed income of $17,000 or less, who would enjoy a subsidy of anywhere from $15 to $130 a month, are having that program cut at the same time that we are providing $30 million worth of tax credits for the business community, including wealthy individuals. Where is the sense of fairness in that? I don't understand that, for the life of me, and let's not forget that this rental subsidy reduction is coming down at the same time that we have had the burden of Pharmacare shifted from all taxpayers to senior citizens. So low income seniors are being hit by this government in two ways: in terms of the cost of their drugs and the amount of the plan that covers those drugs and, on the other, this rental subsidy.
Now it may save, it doesn't touch very many people, I don't know what the total cost of that program is, but let's say that half of those people receive $15 a month - and $15 a month is not a big deal to you, is it, Mr. Speaker - well $15 to somebody on a fixed income, and many seniors that I deal with in my constituency office have very little extra after they have paid all the bills, so what are we going to do then? What are they going to give up? People who are now receiving the rental subsidy will continue to receive it but those people who are now eligible will no longer be able to receive it. The question is, why is that fair? When people who are much more able to pay in this society, including business, are not only not being asked to pay but they are being given more, it absolutely boggles my mind how this government can talk about fairness.
You know, over the past two years it was stated in the budget that this government has reduced the tax burden on business by $70 million in the past two years. We have the lowest corporate tax rate in the country in the Province of Nova Scotia. Do we enjoy a better unemployment rate than they do in other provinces? Are we at the top of the heap in terms of our employment levels? Over the past two years, have we had a phenomenal surge in employment? In fact, what we are seeing happen is that unemployment levels in areas of this province are becoming at a very critical endemic level. You know that, Mr. Speaker, as well as any of us do, that parts of many communities in Cape Breton are suffering from unemployment levels in the area of 35 per cent, 40 per cent, 50 per cent some of them and that is a very serious concern.
MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable member permit an introduction?
MR. CHISHOLM: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.
The honourable member for Bedford-Fall River.
MRS. FRANCENE COSMAN: Thank you, honourable member. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce in the gallery the 2nd Wellington Scout Troop. They are accompanied by their leaders, David Green and Eric Doucette. They are having a tour of the Legislature and the various buildings. Mary Stewart is accompanying them on this tour. I would like them to all stand and receive the warm welcome of our Assembly. Thank you. (Applause)
MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Speaker, the point is that we continue to hand over all these credits and benefits to the business community, to make ourselves more attractive and more accessible to somebody. I don't know, I think maybe this government has in mind that there are all these businesses out there across the country that are looking for a low tax haven and that they are going to flock into Nova Scotia. Well, I think what we found is that over the last 25 years it has not mattered. Some companies have come, but many of the companies that have come have also left because it is not a question of simply, we don't want a company here that is just coming because we have the lowest tax rates or we have the lowest rates in terms of workers' compensation.
We want a company that has assessed this province in terms of our labour force, in terms of our environment and wants to come here and make a contribution to the Province of Nova Scotia and not stay here for a year until the rebates run out and then head to some other jurisdiction that is prepared to basically prostitute itself in terms of what it can provide to the next runaway business.
This bill, I talked a little bit about this the other day. It has some things in here which, I think, will be helpful. The benefit to the local film industry in terms of the credits in terms of helping to provide jobs within the film industry, I think that will be helpful. There is no question about that. The credit that will affect non-profit and performing arts production companies in terms of the exemption from the 10 per cent amusement tax will be positive and helpful for that segment of the economy that is growing and that is important to the Province of Nova Scotia and to the overall economy.
The equity tax credit, for one, has not shown itself to be particularly effective primarily because it is most simply designed to benefit those people who have a significant amount of disposable income. It is just another vehicle available to those people, of a whole assortment of vehicles that are out there in terms of tax credits and so far it has not shown itself to be all that effective. Now, one of the reasons for raising what is available, the maximums and so on, is done in order to hopefully make it more attractive to individuals with that kind of disposal income.
Maybe if the minister had came forward with other vehicles in this budget to provide opportunity to develop capital within our communities, like a community loan fund or that kind of initiative that would enable local community enterprises to invest money in the community and corporations in the community to invest money in their community. That kind of thing that I know is being developed is being supposedly worked on in the Nova Scotia Economic Renewal Agency. The sooner we get that kind of vehicle in place, the sooner we can begin to see more effective and more sustainable economic development in our communities.
The problem is not simply a question of the fact that some of the measures in here that benefit the film industry or other parts of the cultural industry are not effective.
HON. ROBERT HARRISON: A question, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today there were comments made about public/private partnering and concerns about that. We have just heard a comment about the importance of having local access to capital for entrepreneurs in small and medium-sized enterprises in the community. I wonder if the honourable member would talk about the opportunity for partnership with the private and public sector combining to provide access to capital in communities and what his opinion might be on that subject?
[7:00 p.m.]
MR. CHISHOLM: I appreciate the question and I certainly am pleased that the minister paid some attention, at least, to some of the comments I made, somewhat ragged and disjointed as they were.
My point is that there are some possibilities of vehicles in the community where there can be a combination of funds developed from both the private and public sectors and perhaps through instruments of legislation that will provide an opportunity for the investment of private capital in communities or in community-based enterprises. We have seen it, whether it be the community bonds in Saskatchewan or the community loan funds in some parts of Ontario, in different degrees, in taking different forms, have shown themselves to be quite effective. I think they are important opportunities.
I was in touch with his department. In fact, just the other day, to talk to the director of the Community Economic Development Division to talk about that very thing. I understand that they are working on that. I certainly am encouraging that and that was one of the things that I was just talking about. I do not think that detracts at all from the concern I have and the caution that I am urging on this whole private/public partnership initiative, Mr. Speaker, that there are a lot of problems with that initiative.
I am concerned with when I see jurisdictions that are basically selling off public assets at what seem like fire sale prices that we or that government has a responsibility to monitor and to remain accountable for public service and public assets and that sometimes that is not done and governments forget that in the great haste that they are in in order to basically get a job done and engage in private/public partnerships.
MR. SPEAKER: If I could intervene here, briefly. I know the honourable member was responding to a question, but I do not find private/public sector partnering anywhere in the contents of Bill No. 7. (Interruption) Well, no. While the bill is headed An Act Respecting Certain Financial Measures that does not imply that it covers all potential financial measures that one could imagine. It only covers a certain schedule specific financial measures. I would ask that the debate be addressed, if possible, to those specific financial measures or arguments that might reasonably be connected thereto.
MR. CHISHOLM: I appreciate the Speaker's intervention and, of course, the bill does not deal with that. I think the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency asked me that question when I was discussing the idea of different vehicles to make capital pools available for communities. He sort of prompted me to discuss the whole issue of private/public partnerships in relation to what I had spoken about earlier today.
MR. SPEAKER: Yes. I agree, but I do recall earlier the honourable member making a lengthy dissertation on matters relating to New Zealand, for example. I just caution the honourable member to try to (Interruption) keep it on the track of this bill.
MR. CHISHOLM: I caution the government too, Mr. Speaker. Yes, certainly. (Interruptions) That is two people who were listening. I am impressed, believe me.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have much more to say on this particular bill. My point before the interjection of the minister that I was trying to sort of wrap up on was that there are elements of this bill that are positive. What is happening in this province is that there is not a lack of corporate profits. In fact, corporate profits are increasing at quite a significant rate in the Province of Nova Scotia. What we are not seeing is an increase in personal income because people don't have jobs and the people that do have jobs are not realizing any increase in their wages. There is a significant level of unemployment and as a result of the fact that people don't have money to spend, we are not seeing the kind of growth in the sales tax revenue that we should be.
If we don't do something about those issues soon, we are going to find ourselves in another recession, if we have ever gotten out of one to begin with. You just can't keep shutting off the economy. The pulp and paper industry and industries like that are going to benefit as a result of the relationship of our dollar to world currency and that is benefitting that industry and therefore benefitting their activities in this province. At some point, we have got to get people working in this province. We have got to deal with the high levels of unemployment. A bill like this does not do that. The worst thing about this is that at the same time that they are providing benefits to business on the one hand, they are taking a miserable and a mean-spirited crack at seniors on the other. For that I think that the people of Nova Scotia find it very difficult to forgive this government, with those kinds of measures that are clearly so far removed from any sense of even-handedness that it is difficult to contemplate what the rationale was in the first place.
Let me say that on the basis of the fact that I think that this particular bill is completely unbalanced, that it doesn't recognize at all the problems that Nova Scotia and Nova Scotians are facing in terms of the difficult economic times - the fact that it provides certain benefits to certain sectors is fine - the fact that it takes such a crack at seniors and the fact that it takes a somewhat veiled attack or strategy to ensure that casino revenues are increased in the province, especially in the Cities of Halifax and Sydney, I think this bill should be defeated and I would urge all members to vote accordingly.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings North.
MR. GEORGE ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of the things the honourable member for Halifax Atlantic said. The last part, where he said he was going to vote against the bill, I certainly agree with that.
There are some questions in the bill that I am sure the Minister of Finance will answer quite willingly and anxiously. One of the things is an exemption from the Health Services Tax for the production and processing of non-renewable resources. This is a very good section, a very interesting section but one of the things that is interesting to me is, for several years, the Government of Nova Scotia has been indicating that we want to develop a sustainable economic development policy within this province.
Certainly by exempting the processing and production of non-renewable resources it is not quite the same as giving a tax exemption to a renewable resource such as agriculture, forestry, for practicing good policies out in the forest in reforestation and that sort of thing. Agriculture is exempted but not totally and not completely. Some aspects of agriculture there is a provincial tax. I do think that we have to be very cautious when we are encouraging non-renewable resource usage, so it is not at the expense of the renewable resources.
One of the things that really bothered me when the minister talked about his budget, is this transient accommodation purchased by persons attending a convention. I mean, just the words, transient accommodation, it gives you, sounds of, perhaps they are undesirables. But really what that means is, folks that arrive at a hotel and say I want to stay the night, that is what a transient is, apparently. But, if you are at a convention from out-of-town, you don't have to pay the hospital tax, now that is to make sure that all of the conventions come here. If you call, as I did, a couple of people who are in the hotel business with conventions and you say, look, what is the first thing they ask you? Not one of them said, do we have to pay hospital tax on the rooms? When people decide to come to Nova Scotia for a convention, it is usually on a rotation basis; they go west, they go east and they go west and back and forth. Then about every eight or nine years they wind up back in Nova Scotia, which is great. Nobody, I don't think, at a convention says, look, we can't go to Nova Scotia because the tax is too high.
HON. ROBERT HARRISON: A question, Mr. Speaker. This question is, that he is in town and I am in town and that is a good way to ask questions to get answers. The question I have is whether or not in the international convention business, whether or not an 11 per cent cut in cost is seen by the honourable member as an important marketing tool to attract international conventions to Halifax?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Well, that is a very interesting question. I would think that the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency would have somebody working for him that could give him the answer. But, look, if he has to come down here, to a poor and humble farmer from Kings County to get answers I am more than happy to give them to him. I think that the answer to his question is bizarre, but I will go ahead and answer it, because, now what it says here, (Interruption) Look, you be quiet and you will learn too, there Slim.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We are here in the House.
MR. ARCHIBALD: There is a mention about being in town to answer questions. Is there a problem with somebody being out-of-town or something? I want to know if there is something we are missing between in town and out-of-town? The minister asked a very misleading question, because he said if you can reduce the price of your convention by 11 per cent, will people come? All you are doing is reducing the cost of your accommodation by 11 per cent.
Now, if your entire convention is based in a hotel room, I am not sure what kind of a convention you are having. But have you removed the sales tax on meals? Have you removed the sales tax that the buses must charge to take these people throughout the province? Have you removed it off the taxi charge? Have you removed it after the clothing they purchased, the entertainment they take part in? You see, Mr. Speaker, the minister asked a question and he hadn't even read the blessed bill, because he thought that if you had a convention, the whole 11 per cent was gone from all of it, but it is not. It is just that little portion on your hotel room and as the minister knows from travelling around the countryside, that the price of the tax to stay in a New York hotel room is more than it costs to stay at a hotel in Halifax, just a little bit of tax, but do you know what? There are more people registered at a hotel today in New York City, than there will be in Nova Scotia in a whole year.
The tax doesn't even enter into it and if the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency had asked me the question before the Minister of Finance brought in the budget, it would have simplified his understanding of the situation a great deal. Because, obviously, the Minister of Finance had not told the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency, that all it applied to was the price of a room, just the price of a room. For that, people are lining up to come, come on, the answer is not a chance. But, at the same time, the other question we want to know is from time to time, when people hold events in Halifax such as a hockey tournament and the biggest one in Canada is held here in the spring.
[7:15 p.m.]
HON. ROBERT HARRISON: A question, Mr. Speaker. I actually got an answer to my question. It took a while, but I got an answer. I think it is the answer, but I just want to clarify it. This is another question, if the member opposite would entertain. I think he said the 11 per cent exemption on certain aspects of convention business, the question was, would that make a competitive difference in an international market place to attract conventions to Halifax and to Nova Scotia and I think, if I heard correctly, and Hansard, I am sure, will substantiate this, is, not a chance. Could I have that clarified? Is that exactly the answer to the question, not a chance?
AN HON. MEMBER: Not a chance you will get an answer.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Kings North is giving the answer, not someone else. The honourable member for Kings North has the floor.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, you tell them, Mr. Speaker. We are together. I think the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency got it. I want to congratulate him. Thank you, very much. There is a lot more to a convention than a hotel room. It was a couple of years ago and there was a convention in this province. It was agriculture and I spent a little bit of time with department staff in the organization of it. The last thing that anybody who came wanted to know was, what is your hospital tax like on your hotel rooms? I mean, nobody even mentioned that and it did not go out in the sales brochures. (Interruption) Yes, they wanted to know how much the rooms cost and they all said, hmm, that is very competitive. That is fine. They are a lot less here than they are in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa or Quebec City. They said, we are coming.
I will tell you something that is very significant about it, Mr. Speaker, is they had more people attend the convention in Halifax than they did at any other location in Canada. They have had them from coast to coast, year by year. When we were talking to the gentleman at the hotel, he said, well, that is not strange. It always happens. People want to come to Halifax for conventions. It was the trucking association. You were probably there, Brooke. Some of your pals were, anyway. There was a trucking association meeting here. They arrived, not just once in 10 years, they picked Halifax because it was a choice location.
I know the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency is having great giggles of laughter and that is fair ball. The point of it is, people come to Halifax and they come to Nova Scotia because of the beauty, because of the people, the hospitality. It is not because the Minister of Finance decided to take 11 per cent off the hospital tax to people (Interruption) Look, if everything was so easy, the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency, we would have jobs. Even in Amherst, we would have jobs.
Mr. Speaker, they have hockey tournaments in this area. There is a hockey tournament, SEDMHA. It is the biggest tournament in Canada. Does that qualify as a convention? Not a chance. When people from the Valley in the winter, a bunch of people get together and they say, look, we will go to Halifax for the weekend. Now, they are all arriving. They book their hotel rooms as a group. Is that a convention? What entails, by this minister's definition, a convention? It is not a hockey team coming to town, because that would involve a lot of Nova Scotians and they are not going to get any advantage of this minister. They are not going to save the 11 per cent. The only way a Nova Scotian can get the advantage of it is if he happens to come to a convention and not many of us come to conventions in Halifax, but if we do, we are certainly going to save tax.
So I think if the minister wanted to do something to help Nova Scotians, perhaps he could have just removed the tax for Nova Scotians and when the convention people come, not say boo about it and just let them go on and pay because most of the conventions are paid for, not on an individual basis, but they are paid for by the company.
Now, The G-7 Summit is coming to Halifax and perhaps he had a call from Bill Clinton and Bill probably said, Bernie, I cannot come. The 11 per cent is too much. Is this is what is going on here because it sure does not make sense to me and it certainly does not make sense when people come to a hockey tournament and I know people who are going to a hockey tournament are not on a lavish expense account like we have been hearing about around here, they have to pay their own way. The parents are coming and the kids are coming. When you register a kid or two or three and if you are paying all the money to register in minor hockey and then you buy all the gear, it doesn't leave a lot of budgeted money left over for some families, but yet they do come to Halifax, they don't have the chance for the saving. If the minister wanted to do something to help Nova Scotians, I would have gone out and said look, if you are having a hockey tournament, no tax on the room, and Nova Scotians could have taken advantage of this tax saving and seen a benefit from this government. But rather than help out, no, he decided not to.
Well, you know there is something that is nice about this bill and what it does for the first time homeowners, they are getting a tax rebate. I think that is in great contrast to over here farther, where the first time homeowners are going to get a tax rebate on some of the taxes they pay but he is going to stick it to the seniors on the other hand; on the one hand you help the young people in Nova Scotia and you really put it to the senior citizens. That is perhaps the thinking of this government, that maybe they feel that by the time there is an election around, that all these new home buyers will have convinced all the seniors that look, it was a good thing to do. I am not sure.
This bill doesn't really do a lot to help local Nova Scotians. It doesn't help the small, the ordinary - look, the ordinary Nova Scotian who feels he is getting hosed and he is getting it in the ear, he has no big tax credit that he can claim, he is not making business investments, he is not in venture capital, he is not going to conventions, he is an ordinary Nova Scotian trying to make a living. He is saying (Interruption) Yes, ever since they shifted the money from here to Japan, how much did it go up this year? What is the total debt? (Interruption) $1 billion in one year, that is some record for the Minister of Transportation.
Well, the Minister of Transportation has an amazing method for mathematics. I know when he leaves the Department of Transportation he will probably be the Minister of Finance and things will be great because he can subtract $26 million from $55 million and it is better, he has new math working for him. I think that is interesting.
The film industry in Nova Scotia is going to get a tax credit, too. Again, an industry that we really, absolutely have to help. The film industry is in dire straits and they are standing around saying; look, if only Nova Scotia would cut the taxes for it, then we are going to start making movies in Nova Scotia.
You know the guy who needs a tax break is the local fellow trying to make ends meet. It is not the film industry; Demi Moore is going to make more money next week than most of the Nova Scotia people are going to see in 25 years. The folks who made the movie probably could have done it and paid the tax and not been too concerned about it. But still the Minister of Finance and the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency think that the only way to attract people to Nova Scotia is to tell people from away that you don't have to pay the hospital tax because the Nova Scotians are going to pay it, so this is good for business; come on in and get a better deal than we will give to Nova Scotians.
Now who is this government working for? Is it working for the people of Nova Scotia or the people from Hollywood? I know the minister - oh, my golly, here we go again.
HON. ROBERT HARRISON: . . . if the honourable gentleman sat down, he would actually entertain a question here.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Well, your questions are so entertaining.
MR. HARRISON: Well, you know it is interesting, there is a small lesson here, the former Chairman of the Management Board. We are talking here about return on investment, about an incentive for a film industry that is now running at about $23 million, and that is not counting all of the wonderful films - that is the local, domestic film industry - not counting all the wonderful input to Shelburne and to Lunenburg and even in Halifax the other day, of companies coming here and bringing foreign currency to the Province of Nova Scotia in a ratio that so far exceeds the input that even Nova Scotians would understand that sometimes in an international market place it is absolutely critical to make sure there are incentives to remain competitive.
I guess the question is, does the former Chairman of the Management Board disagree with a policy that actually takes the revenues that come as windfall revenues and apply them as incentives to attract foreign currency to the province which allows Nova Scotians from one end of the province to the other to find meaningful work and productive employment?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that was a good question and a nice delivery, he is getting good. I want you to know and I want to tell you about the fellow who was trying to make a movie about the Bluenose in Nova Scotia. He is making the movie about the Bluenose in Ontario. Hard to believe isn't it because the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency wouldn't help him finance it. He had to go to Ontario to help get financing to make a movie about the Bluenose. (Interruptions) They are doing it on Lake Ontario and they are making big waves somehow and pretending they were in the Atlantic Ocean.
I don't think anybody came to Nova Scotia to make a movie because Shelburne was in Toronto. They came because Shelburne is here and I am telling you, I have talked to a lot of people that dealt with the people that were involved in the two very large movies, Dolores Claiborne and the Scarlet Letter. I talked to Nova Scotians who were involved with those people and there wasn't a single one of the visiting movie people who said, we are not coming back because your hospital tax is too high. That was not an issue with those people. The issue with those people was the simple fact that Shelburne was there and it has a beautiful unspoiled harbour (Interruption)
Well, I was in Shelburne, I looked all around and was impressed and amazed. You walk down that Main Street and you would think you were back 400 years ago and then you look at the building and it was just a shell. Just like this government, it was just a shell of a real government. They were hiding what their real goals were. In that election in 1993, they were just making a movie, they hid all their real goals behind this sham of (Interruption) They are trying it again in this thing right here, this is just a shell for getting at people like senior citizens.
How can anybody stand up in this House and try to condemn me for sticking up for Nova Scotians, at the same time that they are sticking it to senior citizens the way this government is. What did this government ever think the seniors did to deserve the rough and shoddy treatment they are getting. It goes beyond this budget, it goes beyond the fishing licenses. In this Bill No. 7, it clearly states that the seniors are not going to be getting any rental subsidy.
One of the goals that I thought the government had was that they were going to keep seniors in their homes as long as possible. It is nice to have seniors in their own homes. The government has decided that from now on, seniors are not going to be getting any assistance; if they weren't getting it last month they are never going to get it, no new people coming into the rental program. That is going to mean there are more and more seniors that will have to sell their homes and move probably into government assisted housing. Now, is this good for the Nova Scotia economy to have houses (Interruption). Oh, well, perhaps . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Order.
MR. ARCHIBALD: All right, Mr. Speaker. You see, that is not helpful. It would be helpful to carry on with the program so that seniors do have some assistance.
The property tax rebate helps the people stay in their homes. That was a pretty good program but if you weren't on it in 1995 I guess it is just too bad. Seniors who are living in senior citizens' housing throughout Nova Scotia this year, they have a 4 per cent increase in their rental accommodation. The government just put the rents up 4 per cent and on top of the 4 per cent, now seniors in the seniors complexes have a laundry room fee. I know seniors that have family living close by and as kind of a day out, they take the laundry over to their daughter or their son's house and they do all their laundry there and have a visit and fool around and have fun. That does not make any difference, they are now paying a laundry room fee. They never paid it before, but this government said, look 4 per cent is not enough now we are going to start charging them for the use of the laundry room, $4.00. Now $4.00 is not a whole lot of money to you or to me maybe, but if you were on a fixed income, (Interruption) Well, it is probably more than you have in your pocket, you haven't anything in your pocket.
[7:30 p.m.]
MR. SPEAKER: Those personal references are out of order. Please, back to the bill.
MR. ARCHIBALD: The laundry room fee is not fair either. Well, that is not in this budget, that just slipped in by regulation. So, this is not the only tax grab on Nova Scotians.
The Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency is very concerned and he is very excited about developing Nova Scotia and so on, but look, let us not forget about Nova Scotians and let's not say the people are coming here because they want to have lower taxes. Industries are coming to Nova Scotia to make movies because the dollar in Canada, and perhaps you had not noticed, is now about 40 cents less if you go to the bank to buy it than it was a year ago. That encourages them to come. (Interruption) Well, you go to the store and say, I want to buy an American dollar, and the bank is going to say, give me a $1.40. You go to the bank and try it.
They are coming because the cost of doing business here is lower. They are coming because the talent that we have available to build the sets, to operate the cameras is available. Because there is not a whole lot of steady employment in some of our communities, there are people available to be extras on movies for short periods of time. Sure, movies are great for Nova Scotia. They come in and they spend several million dollars and then they are gone. It is to be encouraged and I hope we make more movies. Let us not think that by reducing the tax that they are going to have to pay that this is going to become Hollywood. This may become Hollywood because of the location, the people and the services that we can offer. This Bill No. 7 is not going to do a thing for them. The whole thrust of this budget, this bill, this government is looking beyond themselves, not looking at Nova Scotians as people who have the answer. The consultants they hire come in from outside. The deputy ministers they drag them in from outside. The only advice that this government thinks is worth having is something that somebody from away told them. The only people they want to give a break is somebody coming to Nova Scotia from away to a convention.
A movie company coming here - but the people who built this province, our senior citizens, are seeing their rental subsidy taken away, they are seeing their property tax rebates taken away and the driver's licenses could be the next. The government is looking at Nova Scotians not with any degree of pride. They are almost looking at Nova Scotians as though they are a beast of burden, just an inconvenience that we have to muddle along with while we deal with the people we really want to deal with. We want to deal with the people that come to Nova Scotia to a convention, they are the kind of people that this government seems to like, or the movie people. Yes, we want to deal with the movie people and at the same time we are going to put it to Nova Scotians.
I do not know any Nova Scotian that could support this bill, because there is nothing for the ordinary average everyday working person in Nova Scotia. They are the people that have been forgotten by this government and that is really not fair. When you consider what seniors have done to build this country - some of the seniors would be veterans.
HON. BERNARD BOUDREAU: A question, Mr. Speaker. I have heard over the last number of moments how violently opposed this member is to the exemption and I assume his Party is equally as violently opposed to this exemption for hotel rooms at conventions. In view of that, will the honourable member now stand in his place and indicate that when the PC leadership convention occurs in this province and would normally qualify for that exemption, will he forego that exemption on behalf of his Party?
MR. ARCHIBALD: I will tell you what, are you speaking personally or am I to speak on behalf of everybody that goes, all the thousands that attend the convention? (Interruption) Personally, probably the 1,500 or 2,000 that arrive, if it is there and you are the type of government that is willing to give them the tax free, they are going to take it, they would be crazy not to. You take the cookies when they are going by and if this minister has the idea, you see, this is why it is so foolish, his thinking is so foolish.
The convention that we have scheduled for next October 26th and 27th at the Sheraton Hotel was made, the arrangements for it were made prior to the introduction of this bill. But to use his thinking, we probably should have called Moncton or P.E.I. or something, called them and said, look, if we have our leadership convention in Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland, will you drop the hospital tax?
That is how foolish this hospital tax is and I am glad that he brought it up. Many times the convention is coming whether you have the tax or not. We had more people show up and we only had to take one day to do the voting. I think when it comes to conventions there, slim, you had better go talk to somebody else. (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Now, wait a minute. I think matters are getting a bit out of hand. Speakers must address the Chair.
The honourable Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency.
HON. ROBERT HARRISON: I couldn't agree more, I think that was an uncalled for remark and I hope that Hansard perhaps doesn't record that because I am not sure it is totally accurate. (Laughter) The real question that I would like to put to the honourable member and I assume he is prepared to respond again, because he is seated. He mentioned earlier that the consultation process, that we surely must have listened to people from away on the issue of convention tax breaks, on the issue of film tax credits.
I wonder if he would recall during the Throne Speech and perhaps in many other debates the fact that it was Voluntary Planning which is a Nova Scotia organization, the TIANS organization, the tourism industry of the province, it is from the very Nova Scotians who are part of this industry that these kinds of recommendations come and are listened to by this government and built into tax reform. I wonder if he would perhaps be willing to correct what might be a misstatement perhaps on his part, that in fact, the consultation didn't take place with Nova Scotians but with people from Hollywood or some other place? (Interruption)
MR. ARCHIBALD: Who has the floor here, Buster, come on? Mr. Speaker, I know what the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency is trying to say. But the thing is, Voluntary Planning and groups and associations from around the province have made suggestions to this government. But what suggestions were followed and what suggestions were adopted? Was there any group in this province who said we want casinos? Now come on, find the group.
This government, (Interruption) Yes, bingo Bob wanted it, the point is that your taking of advice from Nova Scotians is very selective. I am sure that in a long package that Voluntary Planning said, well, this would be something that might be advantageous but in conjunction with half a dozen other things. The only thing that you took was drop the tax in hotel rooms.
I mean, my gracious, if that is the example of your government listening to Nova Scotians, it is a pretty weak example. I know that nobody in Hollywood would say that because they are not interested.
You know, conventions are here because they have got to be here in some cases and other cases they just pick a spot but, truly, why don't we look after Nova Scotians first? No. What the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency is telling me is the first thing they do is they put on the wall all the taxes in every province. Nova Scotia, they just dropped their hospital tax. We are all going to Nova Scotia. Build more hotel rooms. Why this government won't even help finance the hotel at the airport; they are not even confident that it is going to work. If you were so confident that we were going to be flooded with conventions you would be building hotels and you would be financing hotels and we would see nothing but hotel rooms being built. Even this government knows, Mr. Speaker, that building hotel rooms is not going to make us any more attractive as a destination than we already are. As far as Nova Scotia and Halifax, it does not get any better than it is.
MR. ROBERT CARRUTHERS: I wonder if the honourable member would entertain a short question? I wonder what the member is saying? In the business world of today, when they seek to hold meetings, conventions whether it be from businesses that are outside Nova Scotia or within Nova Scotia, is the member saying that when they select a site that cost is an irrelevant factor? Is that what he is suggesting, that the cost of the convention is an irrelevant factor because that is what it sounds like he is suggesting? I wonder, is he saying that?
MR. ARCHIBALD: I think what is not irrelevant is that people from across Canada and across North America want to come to Nova Scotia and they want to come to Halifax, and one of the things everybody wants to do the minute they get here is they all want to make a beeline for the Shore Club, for the lobster supper. Now they can go down to Pier 21 for the lobster supper. There is not a convention that comes to Nova Scotia that does not have at least one lobster supper and sometimes they have two. Now look, is a lobster supper sort of like bargain food? What you guys are trying to get me to believe is that conventions are coming here so they can live cheap, so, they would be having baloney sandwiches, not lobsters. You see what I mean?
This is the whole crux of the problem. You people are confused and the price is not an object in Nova Scotia conventions because our prices are so very reasonable. Compare the price of a hotel in New York City, Toronto, Montreal with the price in Halifax. Even with the tax on in Halifax, it is still a better buy. Not only that, they come because this is where Nova Scotia is. You are not going to find Nova Scotia in Toronto, Quebec or anywhere else. If you want to go to Nova Scotia, you have to come here; there is no choice in that.
Mr. Speaker, truly, I think I have convinced all members of the House that the tax on hotel rooms should have been left. (Interruption) I am saying lower the taxes to Nova Scotians. If you have so much revenue in this province that you can give outsiders their 11 per cent back, why don't you reduce the tax to 10 per cent for Nova Scotians? Give us back some of the 3 per cent that you put on the power bill last year; 3 per cent on the power bill last year he put on. Give us some of that back if you want to give it to foreigners. Think of Nova Scotians first, the convention-goers can look after themselves, and that is offshore money; that is the kind of money we want. (Interruption)
The minister said if I had 12 pals from Kings County having a convention it is not a convention, the hockey team, not a convention, the baseball tournament. Kentville has more baseball tournaments than anybody else in Nova Scotia, does that count? No. Last year they had 56 teams playing in Kentville, but that is a baseball tournament, not a convention. They are going to have to change the definition of convention and people are going to do that I am sure. They will have a baseball players' convention and book all the rooms.
So, you know, it is unfair because Nova Scotians, our sports teams, our tournaments, and our college teams, they are all going to get stuck with it, but the people from away that can afford it that are on an expense account from a government or a large multinational, they are the ones that can afford it and he is giving them a break. It does not make sense. (Interruptions) What?
MR. SPEAKER: Order please.
MR. ARCHIBALD. My soul, we have got a request. What about the hospital auxiliary, are they exempt? (Interruption)
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, they are; they have exemption.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Are they?
AN HON. MEMBER: If they have enough members they are.
MR. ARCHIBALD: What? (Interruption) Oh at the end he is going to tell us. He is going to have to figure out where the hospital auxiliary is having their annual meeting in Halifax, or are they having a convention? You know, it just is totally unfair, Mr. Speaker, because the only people this government is interested in listening to and catering are people from outside of our province and the local people who make this province strong and great and come up with the good ideas and are providing the jobs for people are getting nothing from this government or this budget. When the opportunity arrives, I certainly will be voting against this bill. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
MR. TERENCE DONAHOE: Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of brief comments that I would like to make relative to Bill No. 7. It is, as is often the case, one of these difficult bills to deal with because there are some elements here which I support, which I think are helpful and there are a few other provisions in relation to which I have some reservation and some question.
This bill, and the issue was raised by my colleague for Kings North, this bill would have the effect of - well to go to the explanatory note - "to remove the four per cent Health Services Tax on tangible personal property consumed or used in the production or processing of non-renewable resources.". Well, that in itself is a reasonable and worthwhile assistance to those who are in the business of producing or processing non-renewable resources, but I think, I really do, I ask the minister when he wraps up if he might do his best to respond to the question which I think it begs. It begs the question, why are we, as much benefit as this may be in the non-renewable resource area, why would he not have attempted to expand the relief to deal with those who are in renewable resource industries in the Province of Nova Scotia, which are absolutely vitally important in the terms of the integrity of the economic fabric of the Province of Nova Scotia?
The problem is, to really do the job, I think, to extinguish all provincial taxes when we get to the transient accommodation issue. I will not go on at quite as much length as my colleague for King North did relative to this particular issue, but I think this is a worthwhile provision. However, I would ask, when he closes if the minister would help me understand, first of all, what is the definition of convention? I think that is vital. I would like him to respond, if he will, to the observation already made by my colleague for Kings North and I would repeat it because it is such a truism.
This province is just loaded, annually, every community in this province, with sporting event after sporting event, hockey tournaments, baseball tournaments, and basketball, and name them all. I recall last winter, or two winters ago, I stopped for gas at a service station at the Strait and I could not believe it, I was virtually overrun by about eight buses, 200 young people and probably 50 or 60 parents of those children. They had just come from a major hockey tournament which, if memory serves me correctly, was held in, I may be mistaken, but I think it was in Richmond County. A major hockey tournament two winters ago. So I ran into these six or eight bus loads of young people and their parents and so on.
[7:45 p.m.]
So the point I am making is, and the thought I want to, as did my colleague, the member for Kings North, put in the mind of the Minister of Finance, and I mean it seriously, that if the definition of convention can be expanded and stretched and worked in such a way as to include sporting events, I think then this particular amendment would be going a very long way to assist the financial integrity of hundreds of local community-based sporting organizations. The minor and amateur sporting community of this province would be greatly benefited if their travel to certain centres across the province did attract some tax relief of the kind that is intended to be made available for conventions of 25 or more registered participants. I really would ask the minister to address that issue.
As far as Clause 6(3), Section 7(12) is concerned, Madam Speaker, and the minister might help me again here when he wraps up, the principle is established that "A corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of a province or Canada is not entitled to the deduction . . .", this has to do with the Income Tax Act, ". . . pursuant to this Section unless at least twenty-five per cent of the wages and salaries paid by the corporation in the taxation year are paid to employees who are resident in the Province and the corporation's head office is located in the Province.".
I really wonder why the minister would settle at 25 per cent of the employees being resident in the province. It is an accommodation clearly being made to out-of-province corporations. My other question in relation to this particular issue is, why it is retroactive to 1993? Clause 6(4) says, "Subsections (2) and (3) are applicable to the 1993 and subsequent taxation years.". All I want to say to the minister is, I don't think I really understand at all why it is he is going back to 1993 with that provision. He may have been engaged in conversation with his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources a moment ago, my other question (Interruption) Oh, well. I did not think that was the section that related to the carry forward, carry back, but perhaps he might, when he responds, help me with that.
The provisions relative to film industry tax credits, I really think are helpful. There is no question about that. We cannot kid ourselves. We have enjoyed some success relative to film production here in this province in the last couple of years for two reasons; even before this present government became government, there was considerable effort made through the development of the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation and making entrées into the Hollywood and the American and the Canadian film development industry and tremendous work done by such people as Allison Bishop and others in the provincial employ, whose work was well advanced long before this government became government.
This government, to its credit, has stayed with it, has pursued it and has come forward with this proposed film industry tax credit, indeed, in the same realm, as you will recall, Madam Speaker, they have made the public pronouncements they have, relative to the potential development of a sound stage, both important elements. I give the government full marks for that.
The second reason, however, and we have to be mindful of this, the second reason, at least in my opinion, that we have in the last couple of years enjoyed some of the success of the film development industry is a rather unfortunate one, it is that our dollar is so abysmally weak, relative to the American dollar, that it is in the interest and big time interest, in financial terms, of particularly the American production houses, of coming to places like Nova Scotia, as they do to other places in Canada, to avail themselves of not only our magnificent scenery and our talented people and so on, but to avail themselves of the reality of the international money market.
So we have to be, I think, mindful and I trust that this Minister of Finance, and through you, Madam Speaker, to the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency and to all the members of the Treasury benches, that as they pursue their dealings with the film industry and in regard to the film industry, that they are good and careful that the kind of foundation and base is laid that is viable and has integrity and has future life in the event and on the occasion of that hopeful day when the economic realities as between the value of the Canadian dollar and the American dollar change to the credit of the Canadian dollar, which we all hope will be the case.
I think this is a very helpful . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: Kind of I like it this way.
MR. DONAHOE: Well, I hear the defrocked Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency say . . .
MADAM SPEAKER: I think that if you would make an effort not to be side-tracked and I think calling a minister who has left his portfolio as defrocked is probably a tad inappropriate.
MR. DONAHOE: Well, I know. My friend knows that I mean that in jest. (Interruption) So maybe as I have been advised, maybe I just better not say it. Okay, I will not say it.
But the comment is made that we kind of like it this way. Well, I don't know that I like it so much this way that
AN HON. MEMBER: Great for tourism, great for exports.
MR. DONAHOE: Well, it is great for tourism and it is great for exports. This isn't the place and this isn't perhaps the bill to get into discussion about the relative merits of a stronger or weaker Canadian dollar, vis-a-vis the American dollar. It might be the place to get into a discussion about the relative merits or weaknesses or strengths of the Canadian dollar against the Japanese yen, but then again that is another matter.
We have enjoyed great success in the last few years in film development. I mean it sincerely when I say to this government that they deserve credit for continuing and expanding on the work that had been undertaken and begun by the predecessor government, and I think some very good work. I don't think anybody can take issue with the hard, cold reality that the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation was, in fact, created by the previous government and evidence of a very real commitment to move in the area of (Interruption) Well, we will not bother with those rabbit tracks either. (Laughter)
Madam Speaker, the bill has a provision which, again, I would ask the Minister of Finance to describe or explain or elucidate a little bit when he wraps up, and I refer to Clause 10, the amendment to Section 19A of the Provincial Finance Act. Section 19A at present reads that the Governor in Council, ". . . may remit any tax or penalty, including any interest paid or payable thereon, where the Governor in Council considers that the collection of the tax or the enforcement of the penalty is unreasonable or unjust or that it is otherwise in the public interest to remit the tax or penalty.".
[8:00 p.m.]
So, we have on the books of the laws of our province, a process whereby, for good or for bad, the Executive Council can make a judgment and, in fact, remit tax and/or penalty, and/or interest to a taxpayer. They can do so on the basis that if they come to the conclusion as a Cabinet, the Executive Council, the Governor in Council, if they come to the conclusion, ". . . that the collection of the tax or the enforcement of the penalty is unreasonable or unjust or that it is otherwise in the public interest to remit the tax or penalty.".
Now we see this proposal here whereby the Minister of Finance wants to give himself an authority in addition to that which is available to the Executive Council, because what we see in Clause 10 of Bill No. 7 is a provision which says, in essence, notwithstanding the fact that the Executive Council has the authority to remit and so on, now the minister can remit any tax or penalty - the same words -". . . including any interest paid or payable thereon, where the amount of the tax or penalty is ten thousand dollars or less, . . .".
I see that is the difference, there is no amount described in the existing Section 19A. Here at least the minister has the good grace to at least limit himself to $10,000 of unfettered jurisdiction, where this minister or any subsequent Minister of Finance, ". . . considers that the collection of the tax or the enforcement of the penalty is unreasonable or unjust or that it is otherwise in the public interest to remit the tax or penalty.".
My difficulty here is the whole question of remission of tax or penalties or the remission of any interest that might have accrued or been charged against outstanding tax, that is a difficult concept at the best of times and a very difficult concept for all of those thousands of people and taxpayers in this province who religiously pay every single nickel and penny of tax which they owe and they work hard and sometimes at very great sacrifice to do that. Yet, we have those situations where there is a law in our province which says that the Governor in Council, the Cabinet, can make a decision that they can remit, they can forgo the requirement that the taxpayer pay the tax or do all of the things set out in Section 19A.
Now we have the minister coming along and saying that he wants to assume unto himself and for future Ministers of Finance an authority which would allow him and subsequent ministers, up to a limit of $10,000, without any reference to the Executive Council, to be able to himself remit any tax or penalty, including any interest which has been paid or payable thereon, if this minister or subsequent ministers if this clause were to pass ". . . considers that the collection of the tax or the enforcement of the penalty is unreasonable or unjust or that it is otherwise in the public interest to remit the tax or penalty.".
My difficulty is, I don't, unless I have missed it in other places in the legislation, I don't really think that we should allow any Minister of Finance in the Province of Nova Scotia to have an authority unto himself or herself to remit and forgo tax and penalties and so on up to $10,000 where that minister, on no stated criteria whatsoever, at all, considers that collection of that tax or the enforcement of the penalty is unreasonable or unjust.
What does that mean? Who is to say? On what basis is the Minister of Finance to come to the conclusion that it is unreasonable or unjust to force this particular taxpayer to come up with and make that payment? Whereas, taxpayer B down the street, may be in similar difficulties as taxpayer A and on what basis, on what criteria, is the Minister of Finance going to make the judgment that it is unreasonable or unjust to force poor little taxpayer A to make the payment? But there is some reason, unstated, undefined, in the mind of the Minister of Finance of the day, to say that taxpayer B should have the relief.
AN HON. MEMBER: Taxpayer B is probably supporting Dr. Savage.
MR. DONAHOE: I do not know who B is supporting and I was not going to make that comment and I am not going to make that comment.
I am simply going to make the comment on the basis of giving the benefit of the doubt to this and every subsequent Minister of Finance that this province will ever have, if this is the legislation under which that minister would be required and empowered to operate, it is wrong.
MADAM SPEAKER: Would the honourable member permit an introduction from the Chair?
To all members in our Assembly, I would like to acknowledge the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of His Worship Peter Kelly. He is accompanied by Mr. and Mrs. Dixon, Mr. and Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Towill, who are residents of Bedford and they are visiting the House of Assembly tonight and I would ask them to stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. (Applause)
I thank the honourable member for allowing me to interrupt him in full flight.
MR. DONAHOE: I, too welcome our guests, who I know are here to make it known that there is very significant concern about amalgamation in the Town of Bedford and I trust they have had the opportunity to make those views known to you tonight and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and to the Premier and others.
I do not want to be repetitive, I have commented on the principle established by this section. I do not know whether other colleagues share my concern or not, but I believe that the concern I raise is a very important and a very legitimate one. I do not think I want and I do not think too many taxpayers will want, any Minister of Finance, on his or her own hook to be able to say, without any legislated criteria established that he or she, Minister of Finance, believes that it would be unreasonable or unjust or that it would otherwise be in the public interest, to allow somebody to forgo tax. I do not understand that. I really do not understand that.
At least in Section 19A, which is in the bill now, Section 19A(1) which is in the bill now, at least a decision is being taken by an Executive Council. At least, there is the sense and the reality that a Minister of Finance has to walk into a Cabinet Room, has to explain to his or her Cabinet colleagues, that it is his or her intention to forgo, remit the tax, the penalty or the interest and has to secure an approval from his or her Executive Council colleagues.
MADAM SPEAKER: Honourable members, there are a number of conversations carrying on simultaneously. It is getting more difficult to hear the speaker. That is happening on all sides of the House and I would ask you to either try and quiet it down or perhaps take your conversations outside the Chamber. Thank you.
MR. DONAHOE: I leave it at that and the minister might be kind enough to respond to my concern. I think it is a very significant public policy concern that I raise and I just invite all other members to think about it. Do we want - and I refer not only to the current minister - but if this passes, what it says is that all future Ministers of Finance can on their own, without reference to the Executive Council, without reference to this Legislature forgo up to $10,000 worth of tax penalty and so on for any given taxpayer. I think that is a very dangerous piece of public policy, that is all I am saying and I say it as strongly as I can because I believe it fervently to be a very dangerous public policy position.
This bill before us tonight also has the effect of amending the Senior Citizens Financial Aid Act and I guess I need help here as well from the Minister of Finance. I guess I really don't understand why it is that in Bill No. 7, in Clause 11, we are amending a piece of legislation which has as its purpose the following, An Act Respecting Financial Aid to Senior Citizens. Section 2, "The purpose of financial aid under this Act is to provide assistance to senior citizens so that they may remain in their own homes for as long a time as is possible.". As you will be aware, Madam Speaker, I am sure as the Minister of Finance certainly is, there are all kinds of protections, residency requirements and all kinds of things that were built into that piece of legislation to ensure some reasonableness and integrity. The purpose of that legislation is stated in the Act itself, Chapter 419 of the Statues of 1989.
So, here we have in the bill before us tonight a proposal that at the tail-end of the bill which has that stated purpose and has 17 clauses, we have a proposal from this Minister of Finance and this government that they add a new Section 18, which says that, "(a) on and after April 1, 1995, only those people who are in receipt of a rental subsidy pursuant to this Act on March 31, 1995, are eligible to receive a rental subsidy . . . (b) on and after April 1, 1996, only those persons who received a property tax rebate pursuant to this Act in 1995 are eligible to receive a property tax rebate in 1996 and subsequent years.". I really am not sure that I understand the logic or the fairness of the particular provision. It seems to me to fly in the face of the stated purpose of the legislation being amended, Section 2, "The purpose of financial aid under this Act is to provide assistance to senior citizens so that they may remain in their own homes for as long a time as is possible.".
I take it by adding, or proposing to add this section to the Act that the current government does not believe or support the purpose of the legislation which it now amends. It does not support that we should have a piece of legislation, the purpose of which is to provide financial aid to enable senior citizens to remain in their own homes as long as possible. What other conclusion can one draw? I have very real difficulty with the clause, I think it is again wrong, I think it does a financial disservice to potentially many, many seniors. I repeat there are protections in the legislation here in the event that assistance is provided and the senior dies, there are protections for recovery from the estate and so on and I just read this as an assault on one of the very few and modest policies in place in the Province of Nova Scotia designed to be of some assistance to our senior population. I don't understand it. I do not think it is right and I do not think it is fair.
[8:15 p.m.]
This same piece of legislation, Madam Speaker, also would amend if it passes, the Equity Tax Credit Act. Again, I need some help. I was away from the House when the minister moved second reading and he may well have addressed that particular issue in my absence, but the concern I have here or perhaps better characterized, the question I have here is that the amendment, or one of them, to the Equity Tax Credit Act would have the effect of establishing a new definition of corporation and the bill would provide to corporations, Clause 12(a)(f), ". . . incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Province, another province of Canada or Canada;".
I am a little bit concerned about the rationale as to why, and the minister might help me with an explanation, we are moving equity tax credit entitlements to corporations which are incorporated outside of Nova Scotia. I am not sure and maybe I have missed something. I don't think, Madam Speaker, that this same piece of legislation and the entitlements available to a company under this legislation carry with it the requirement for the out-of-province or the Canadian incorporated company that a certain number of their employees and head office be here by - and I may be mistaken. That provision or that protection, such as it is, and I commented on that earlier, that does apply in the case of the, Clause 12(a)(f), ". . . corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Province . . .". The new small business tax reduction. There, at least, the section which the minister provides makes a requirement as to the location of head office here in the province and that 25 per cent, at least, of the wages and salaries paid by the corporation are paid to employees who are resident in the province. Quite frankly, I did, and I don't know whether the minister heard me earlier, I queried why 25 per cent. It strikes me as, frankly, rather a low percentage and it was in that same connection that I was asking, why is that particular piece of legislation, as it would be amended, the new small business tax reduction, why is that being made retroactive back to 1993? I really think I would be helped by some explanation there.
Those, Madam Speaker, are my comments and observations in relation to this particular piece of legislation. As I say, it is a difficult one to deal with in the sense that is an omnibus bill of sorts and there are matters which, as I have indicated, are, I think, positive and helpful and which I support, there are others where I think I have very real problems. So one is torn on whether one supports the legislation or not, being omnibus as it is.
You know, I just want to close by going back to some of the debate and dialogue that, as interesting and, some might think, amusing as it was a little while ago, as between my colleague for Kings North and the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency and others, talking about the relief for conventioneers of the tax on the accommodation, what wasn't mentioned in the course of that discussion, and I found it interesting that there has been relatively little mentioned, is that the unfortunate reality that we are dealing with is we are talking about an 11 per cent tax which, prior to this government coming into place, used to be a 10 per cent tax.
I think it is absolutely vital, and I would be very much intrigued to have the minister make an observation, if he would, when he closes, I think it is absolutely vital that we move in the direction not only of providing tax relief to certain groups or classes of people, and that is what that section purports to do, namely people attending conventions, but that we move in the direction of reducing the tax burden that applies to all Nova Scotians, and, indeed, to our visitors and tourists. I would very much like to hear the minister, as he closes, to make comment on the timeframe over which he would expect he could realistically suggest to Nova Scotians that the tax which his government increased might start to see a downward trend because I think that is fundamental and essential to the long-term financial integrity and the potential for economic growth here in the province.
I have nattered perhaps unduly long, Madam Speaker, in regard to this bill. As I say, I support certain provisions. I have very real, fundamental concerns about a couple of the provisions in it. I will listen with great interest to the minister's comments when he wraps up and will probably find myself supporting the bill, only so that it gets on to the Law Amendments Committee and we can have a further and closer look at some of these provisions. But if the minister was disposed to help with some of the definitional questions we have raised and some of the questions about retroactivity in the one clause and so on, I would greatly appreciate assistance in that regard. I will leave my remarks on the bill at that point.
MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise to speak this evening for a few minutes on the minister's bill, that I guess you might say it is intended to try to put a little bit more profit back into a few pockets and to carry out the thrust of what he has spelled out in his Budget Address.
Now when I take a look at the Budget Address, which really gives a lot more substance to the bill than what the minister did when he opened the debate on it because he basically just stood up and made a few very brief remarks and maybe some people thought that this would just slip by and nobody would notice, but in his remarks, in the address, of course the minister said the government has listened to the concerns of the business community. Everything that this government is doing, quite honestly, appears to be aimed at . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: Truer words were never spoken.
MR. HOLM: Well, my colleague from behind says that truer words were never spoken. Of course when we take a look at what the government is planning in terms of privatization and so on, the minister and the government have already said that they are planning to privatize at least 71 government services and programs that they are planning to put on the chopping block, in the fire sale, so that certain groups can make more money. (Interruption)
But you know, Madam Speaker, while they are talking about listening to the concerns, and I hear that Mr. Heckle is back, but while they are talking about . . .
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, order.
MR. HOLM: . . . having listened to the business community and they are saying that they are on their second year of their program to enhance the business community, enhance investments and to reduce the taxes on the business community, because somehow this is going to be growing the Nova Scotia economy, this is going to be putting people back to work and it is going to be good for all.
Well, let's take a look at their budget projections. When you take a look at their budget projections they are predicting a drop in terms of estimated revenue from income tax, that is the money that is paid by individuals this year, not because there are reduced tax rates but because less Nova Scotians are working and less Nova Scotians are making a decent living wage, they are suggesting and predicting that there will be $53 million less in the way of income tax being collected in 1995 and 1996 as a result of this government listening to business.
What we have here is a continuation of last year's budget direction, that is to be doing and giving everything that they can in the way of tax breaks to the business community at the same time that they are hurting individual families in the Province of Nova Scotia, unemployment is increasing, as they are showing by their own figures where they are predicting that the revenues from personal income tax are going to go down. At the same time they are paying for that by eliminating future programs for people like seniors, the very poor, who depend upon rent subsidies, who depend upon property tax rebates. The most vulnerable, the poorest in our communities who depend upon those so that they can maintain their own homes so that they can live in dignity in their own homes.
To pay for that, subsidies and extra grants that they are providing to those who have the greatest amount of income, they are doing away with programs after this year. Nobody new who would qualify for a rent subsidy under the existing program will be taken on board.
Is there some projection over there? Do they have some magic wand? Are all of the people in need going to somehow disappear as a result of this budget? Are the incomes going to massively increase? Are the elderly, the sick, who are going to now be paying a Pharmacare premium as well, are they going to all of a sudden have new revenues and they won't need property tax rebates any more? Is that what we are being told?
We take a look at this bill that is before us, we take a look at the budget. Corporation taxes are going up, profits have gone up dramatically, they have gone up almost one-third while individual taxes are projected to go down. Yet the government decides that they have to give more in the way of tax breaks, tax loopholes for those who can most afford it and that is what this bill does, gives more tax loopholes.
When I say that, there are some good things in the legislation and I do not take any exception to, for example, the provisions in this that are aimed at helping the film industry. That makes good sense. I have no challenge, no dispute, no disagreement with that. That has shown, I believe, to pay off, that it has in fact in terms of the benefits shown that it is going to produce jobs and it is going to produce revenue in the Province of Nova Scotia. I don't have any dispute with that. But why is it that the equity tax credit is going to be increased from $10,000 to $30,000?
Those are the people who have the disposable income and have the most amount of disposable income and therefore are going to be better able to pay the taxes than those who are now going to be denied a rent subsidy, those who are going to be denied a property tax rebate which may mean if they are unable to have the property tax rebate, those new seniors, those new individuals who fall upon hard times, that they may no longer be able to maintain their own homes and may, in fact, become more costly to the province and to the people.
We have the government providing up to $100,000 in the way of tax credits to offset, as a result of this, for those companies that have the onerous costs, the horrendous costs. In the Speech from the Throne it says, the onerous costs or, excuse me, in the Budget Address of raising capital through public offerings. Such things as legal fees and filing prospectus and so on.
[8:30 p.m.]
To offset that they are going to give up to a 35 per cent non-refundable corporate income tax credit, Madam Speaker, up to $100,000 in value. You know, they are not reducing the tax rates for those who are in the lower and the middle income brackets, not at all. Has the government shown from its actions of last year where they gave approximately $30 million in tax breaks, did that produce increased employment in the Province of Nova Scotia? The answer, if you take a look at the statistics, is a resounding no. It certainly has not led at all to a growth in the level of incomes that Nova Scotians as a whole are making.
Certainly yes, the wealthier are doing better, thank you very much. Certainly yes, the wealthier are going to have more tax loopholes courtesy of the Minister of Finance and this government as a result of this budget, Madam Speaker. No question about it. Just in a few instances individuals and small businesses and those who are trying to get started will in fact receive a few benefits and pluses from this and I certainly think the temporary tax rebate on building materials does indeed pay off and that is helping to encourage the housing industry in the Province of Nova Scotia which does need some help. Especially since the wages of most workers in the province have either been stagnant or gone down and less and less people are able to afford to build or buy their own home.
We have here the government removing, I call it the casino tax, Madam Speaker. Maybe somehow the government by removing the sales tax on the designated conventions that would be coming to our city, the government believes that that somehow is going to be attracting thousands and thousands of new people who are going to be coming from all across the globe to drop their loonies in the one-armed bandits that are going to be down the street from us, down on the waterfront.
Well, maybe the Minister of Transportation is suggesting that the machines will be altered to take the twoonies, the double loonies. Well, I think we have got enough double loonies right now in the House, Madam Speaker, and I do not know that we necessarily need any more, but I am sure if they can find a way to get more bucks, more dollars out of individuals through gambling addictions then in fact they will do it. That certainly is what their objective is and that is one of the major things that they are banking on in terms of the ways to recover the economy in the Province of Nova Scotia.
I wonder how many of those companies will qualify for these tax credits and tax rebates? I wonder if the Sheraton or the setting up of the casinos if they are going to qualify for any of that? I wonder if they will, Madam Speaker, be qualifying for any of the tax exemptions that are included in the legislation that we are debating tonight? I am sure that they really need a helping hand after the generous package that has been given out to them.
Of course, we know, Madam Speaker, that the Sheraton right now is projecting that there will be a grand total of 12,000 new tourists attracted to the Province of Nova Scotia. The government is looking for those high rollers, those who have $50,000 a day and who will be able to go to the 2nd floor up to the special gaming rooms for the high rollers. They are hoping to attract thousands of them to the Province of Nova Scotia and that they will be leaving money by the handful, by the fistful on the gaming tables and in the one-armed bandits. I somehow think that those who can afford to be dropping $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, that the government seems to be banking on, if they can afford to spend that kind of money, I do not think that they are going to be deterred from coming to Nova Scotia, as a result of the modest amount of tax that is placed on the accommodations. Surely to Heavens, the government can be more creative in trying to attract tourists to Nova Scotia.
Our accommodations in terms of rates, with respect, are not high, compared to those of other major convention centres either in Canada or throughout North America. Our rates are not high. You know, we have in our province, many beautiful areas of this province that certainly will attract visitors to our shores. The government is afraid, I would suggest, that they won't get as many coins coming into their slot machines and into the casinos and that really is what that is aimed at. It certainly is not aimed at the small operators, the hotel/motel operators across the province of Nova Scotia. That is not aimed at them. It is aimed at the big operators, the ones who are able to have large numbers of beds and so on, to accommodate conventions. The amount of the tax is not going to be deterring those people. What that is aimed at is one more little selling niche in trying to get more people to come to the casinos and try to encourage that. There is not really much doubt or much question about that. To remove that, that is a primary purpose.
When we take a look at the bill and others have spoken on this earlier. The Minister of Finance, according to this legislation, will be enabled to remit any tax or penalty where the amount of the penalty is $10,000 or less. Clause 10, Section 19A(1A), ". . . the Minister may remit any tax or penalty, including any interest paid or payable thereon, where the amount of the tax or penalty is ten thousand dollars or less, where the Minister considers that the collection of the tax or the enforcement of the penalty is unreasonable or unjust or that it is otherwise in the public interest to remit the tax or penalty.".
When you read that, there are no provisions, there are no caveats in there. There is nothing in that other than the fact that the minister is going to have to be deciding that. The minister, of course, would be recommending that to his Cabinet colleagues. Let us say, somebody is lobbying the minister, has the minister's ear and they are friends of the government, does this then not give the minister and this government, the ability to turn away from or decide not to collect, up to $10,000 in taxes, because the minister decides that it is not in the public interest? On what basis does the minister make that decision? Is it because some friend has said, a friend of the Liberal Party has persuaded the government that they want to have a $10,000 tax break, at the same time that the government is saying to senior citizens in the Province of Nova Scotia, you have to pay $215 for Pharmacare co-pay?
At the same time, that they are saying that seniors and others who need a rent subsidy in order to be able to remain in their own home or a tax rebate. You only get those if you are in the low economic end of the scale, not everybody can get that. The levels are very low. Yet somebody here, just because the minister decides $10,000, that is for one. For two, we are up to $20,000; 10 people, that is $100,000, Madam Speaker and 100 is $1 million. Just 100 friends of government persuading them that they need to have a tax rebate or this to be remitted, $1 million can be written off. This legislation does not spell out any terms, conditions or anything. The minister may remit if the minister decides. Not bad.
That is a principle, to my friend who was suggesting that I was getting into clause by clause, because a bill contains, and this one does, many principles. (Interruption) Well, I will not get sidetracked by answering his question, but if he would like to stand on his feet and pose a question to me, Madam Speaker, I would be quite happy to answer that question, if he wishes to pose it on the floor.
MADAM SPEAKER: I know you are struggling valiantly to not be sidetracked.
MR. ROBERT CARRUTHERS: A question, Madam Speaker, the member alluded some time ago to a criticism of the government's allowing, particularly to low income seniors, a rebate of up to $215. Is the member suggesting that this rebate should be given to someone other than low income seniors? Is he suggesting that low income seniors are not the people the rebates should be given to?
MR. HOLM: I say, hello, hello! Is anybody home over there, Madam Speaker? I don't know where the member is drawing his question from. (Interruption) I think that I am being encouraged, I might be a little bit repetitious, but to have to go back and to expand in a little bit more detail and in some time, to explain.
MADAM SPEAKER: Well, I would just suggest that you avoid the repetition, if at all possible, and stick to your point on the debate.
MR. HOLM: Well, thank you, Madam Speaker, I will try to address the question as precisely as I can. I pointed out, through you to the member for Hants East, that the government has decided that it is going to be charging a $215 co-pay for Pharmacare, at the same time as they are giving major tax breaks to corporations, at the same time that they are saying that the Minister of Finance can, on his own, simply write off up to $10,000 per corporation or individual who approaches them under Clause 10. (Interruption)
I also pointed out, Madam Speaker, that in this legislation, the government has said, and not getting into clause by clause because I am not allowed to, but the principle of the points that are raised in a certain clause that came after Clause 10, they are saying that only people who are now currently in receipt of rental subsidies, as of March 31, 1995, are now going to be able to receive a rent subsidy in the future. The bill also says that those persons who were receiving a property tax rebate in 1995 are going to be the only people who will be able to receive that in future years.
In other words, Madam Speaker, it is quite obvious that the government has decided somehow that poverty is going to disappear. There are going to be no people who need a rent subsidy in the future. There are going to be no new people who need a property tax rebate in order to remain in their own home. Yet somehow, those people who are poorest in our society, who are in the greatest of need, the government has decided that somehow they do not need a hand any more. But those companies that want to receive up to $100,000 in the way of a tax credit, to pay off or to counter the costs of setting up that business, Madam Speaker, they can receive up to $100,000 in tax credit, plus, if the minister so decides, he can forgive them for another $10,000 a year, any year he wants, for the taxes that they are supposed to remit.
[8:45 p.m.]
Madam Speaker, this government clearly has double standards. The government and the minister in his statement said, and I will again quote the one line, the government has listened to the concerns of the business community. Those concerns are that the business community want to make as much profit, some in the business community want to make as much profit as they possibly can, Madam Speaker. (Interruptions)
This government is listening to certain individuals, certain interests who want to maximize their profits but you know, Madam Speaker, they are not listening to the community at large. Let me tell you, even those who are involved in business can also have family members and friends and relatives who are in need of programs like rent subsidies, who are in need of programs like the tax rebate. They have and know people who may need those.
I really question, Madam Speaker, if you were to put it to most business community members, if they would say that those kinds of essential programs should be eliminated, simply so the minister would have the power under this bill to, without any stipulation here other than that the minister decides it is in the public interest, to write-off or forgive $10,000 worth of taxes, I would suggest that the majority would say no. Ten thousand dollars, at $400, let's say on average for the tax rebates, $10,000 would provide, if my math is anywhere accurate, something like 25 tax rebates to seniors who need that to be able to stay in their own homes. One hundred of those will eliminate, as I said before, $1 million, that is 2,500 seniors tax rebates. That is where this government's priorities are. They can't believe for one minute the rhetoric that this is somehow going to be building and growing Nova Scotia out of the recession we have been in. If they were, if they believed that these tax breaks were going to be such a great help, they wouldn't be predicting that the taxes paid by individuals in Nova Scotia will actually fall by $7 million from what was forecast to have been collected last year and from $53 million from what they had estimated would be collected in 1994.
If their economic program, that this is a continuation of from last year, was such a success then, Madam Speaker, one would expect that firstly, the unemployment rates in Nova Scotia would be going down and secondly, that the level of taxes being collected through the income tax system from Nova Scotians would be going up. Instead, Madam Speaker, what we see in reality is that this government has somehow or other or for some reason or other decided to abdicate any responsibility, in terms of trying to come up with concrete programs to improve the economic situation in the province. Instead, they are trying to say we will give away more and more in the way of tax concessions and tax breaks to our friends to whom we wish to give that. The average Nova Scotian, the middle class, the working family, the ones also in the lower income brackets who are paying the vast majority of the costs, well, those people, what the heck, we will just cut benefits in those areas where they may need it. What we will do instead is make the middle class and the poor pay more, so that we can give more tax breaks to those who can most afford to pay their fair share of taxes. That, quite honestly, I have to say, is what this legislation is doing and it is a betrayal of the kinds of commitments to social justice and equality that the government had committed itself to when they sought election, not all that many months ago.
MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: I am pleased to rise for a few moments and speak on Bill No. 7. I would have to term this as a somewhat bitter-sweet bill. (Interruption) No, actually, I don't agree with the Leader of the Third Party on everything he said. I do support tax relief and I do support some of the measures contained in this bill. When I look at the bill, I see certain benefits but I also see certain pitfalls and certain burdens and I would be extremely pleased if the minister would remove the burdens and just leave the benefits, but I don't believe he is going to do this.
One thing I do support, I see the minister is taking a step to increase the attractiveness of mineral exploration. I support and commend the minister for removing the 4 per cent health services tax. In the riding of Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley we have a small company, Logan Drilling, in the town of Stewiacke, who employ a good number of employees and this will be an incentive for a company like that to go out, if they are contracted, of course, by a major company and do some geotechnical drilling or some mineral core drilling, so for that I commend the minister and I support that provision in the bill.
Madam Speaker, the minister exempts from health services tax, effective April 12, 1995, tangible personal property consumed or used in the production of processing non-renewable resources. I know and the minister knows that that most likely will pertain to mineral and mineral exploration and monies that would be expended in those types of operations. I think it is important that Nova Scotia companies and companies outside of Nova Scotia see that there is some form of tax relief and that should increase a company's awareness in Nova Scotia and not only just for their business but they will also become more aware of where the government is sitting and perhaps - I believe that recommendation was made by the Taxation Committee of Voluntary Planning and the minister in his summary can correct me if I am wrong I certainly know that they contributed greatly to the minister's measure respecting the equity tax credit, so there are some things in this bittersweet bill that are certainly worthy of supporting.
As we go further along through the bill, Madam Speaker, the bill becomes a little more bitter. What I find is that the bill doesn't really help everyday Nova Scotians as much as I think we all would like it to. It has been mentioned and it has been mentioned at great length and some people elaborated on it more than perhaps others that seniors will be hard hit by this bill. The government is, in effect, eliminating programs that have been dedicated to seniors and they have been dedicated towards seniors for several years. I know we can't go through clause by clause and I certainly don't intend to but if I remember correctly Clause 11 . . .
MADAM SPEAKER: May I just suggest that you don't remember correctly Clause 11 because we are debating the principle of the bill.
MR. TAYLOR: It could be Clause 10 then. I don't know whether it is Clause 10 or Clause 11, but nonetheless, it is cited as the Senior Citizens' Financial Aid Act. You know, there is no help, no relief for a senior who attains the age of 65 after April 1, 1995, and that is a shame because I think we all support, there is not a member in this House that doesn't support trying to keep our fathers, our mothers, our grandparents in their own home, but this Act does absolutely nothing. In fact, it takes away from that incentive. You cannot receive a rental subsidy unless you received a rental subsidy before March 31, 1995, and the same can be said for our seniors who receive the property tax rebate. I know many seniors in my constituency like to stay in their own home, they enjoy staying in their own home, they are on a fixed income and many of them only receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement. It is important that we do what we can to keep our seniors in their homes.
There has been some discussion and some talk about the film industry and just how they will be affected by this bill. In a lot of cases, the film industry is here and gone tomorrow, no question about it. But I understand what the government is trying to do. (Interruption) It is gone in a flick, yes. They are trying to attract the film industry to Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia has a lot to offer. We have beautiful scenery, we have beautiful people, we have beautiful facilities. Who would not want to come to Nova Scotia?
It seems, you know like I said, it is a bittersweet bill. It has a lot of bitter in it. What really disturbs me and I have to go back to it, Madam Speaker, is that the government seems as if they are holding our seniors with scorn and with contempt. I mean, if this government continues to do what I consider discriminating against our seniors, I think you will find that it is a recipe for disaster. That is exactly what it is. There is no question about it. (Interruption)
Our seniors were exempted and the previous Liberal Government, I believe it was the Regan Government that brought in the exemption for seniors respecting fishing licenses. (Interruption) Now, Madam Speaker, a senior has to go out and pay $16.05 to drown a worm. How many members in this government and how many members in this House support that? But the principle of the bill is an onslaught on the seniors of this province. There is no question about it. (Interruption)
MADAM SPEAKER: Now I am going to ask for order. I think the shouts back and forth on the floor can end. The honourable member need not be shouting himself into the microphone. So let us have some order in the Chamber, please.
MR. TAYLOR: I apologize, Madam Speaker, and I support you in your efforts to have proper decorum here in the House. Sometimes that member for Hants East has a way of slipping around from one seat to another and he tries to antagonize the Opposition. You know, sometimes he does not do too bad a job.
I wonder how many seniors have contacted the honourable members and especially the honourable member for Hants East about having to go out and buy a fishing license. I bet you there have been a few seniors who have contacted him. I know there has been some more seniors who have contacted him for clarification on Pharmacare. A lot of the seniors do not understand and I do not know whether it is that the government has not done a good selling and I have mentioned to, in fact, the Minister of Health during debates on his Department of Health estimates that the government maybe should do a little better job in selling some of their legislation.
Get the information out. The seniors do not know. There is a lot of conjecture, a lot of rhetoric. Madam Speaker, I have phoned the Department of Health and I want to commend the minister and the minister's staff because they have provided us with information respecting Pharmacare and it is important that we get (Interruption) He never even looked at the bill. I mean there is no question about it. He does not even understand that Pharmacare (Interruption)
MADAM SPEAKER: Honourable member, you have no idea who in this Chamber has looked at the bill or has not looked at the bill. I would like you to restrain your debate to the principle of the bill, please.
MR. TAYLOR: Madam Speaker, Pharmacare is part of the principle and when somebody, well, anyway we will not dwell on that too long.
Madam Speaker, the Equity Tax Credit Act, now I am pleased that the Minister of Finance has seen fit to increase the tax credit from $10,000 to $30,000. Coming from small business, tax incentives are important. For those who think that small business does not pay their way, for those who do not think that small business does not pay their way, they are badly mistaken. Small business does pay. They pay through the nose. (Interruption)
When you see a tax incentive, I will tell you, small business, I mean, let us not try to obscure it. Let us look at it for what it is. When small business, and I would submit a medium sized business looks at the equity tax credit, they will take advantage of it if they are in a position to. (Interruption) Well, Madam Speaker, I am not sure if it is for individuals or organizations, I think both will take advantage of it. I would be pleased if I was in a position to receive a tax credit. If I decide to invest in a Nova Scotia company, I would be pleased that the threshold has been raised from $10,000 to $30,000.
AN HON. MEMBER: Good government, eh?
MR. TAYLOR: Well, it is a bittersweet bill, Madam Speaker, and there is a federal bill before us now that reminds me an awful lot of it and I wish they would take some of their bad components out and leave the good in and we could support it. That is the way I see this bill, the Senior Citizens' Financial Aid Act, I do not support that, so I have to vote against the bill because the minister found fit to include that in the legislation. The bill does have some good components, does have some good provisions. It has good provisions for small companies.
[9:00 p.m.]
The Minister of Finance suggests that in his first budget over a year ago the government introduced temporary $3,000 health services tax rebate on building materials used in the construction of new homes by first time homeowners. It is a very good thing. Who could speak against that? I certainly cannot speak against it and I don't intend to. A $3,000 rebate has to be seen as a positive.
Now there has been talk about conventions and conventions will be exempt from the sales tax. The minister indicated in his, I believe it is called the Budget Address, the minister indicated that convention activity is a thriving industry in Nova Scotia. I do not think there is any question that it provides a tremendous business for our hotels and motels. I hope the minister will, and I am sure that he will because he has been requested to different times here this evening, when he sums things up, I hope he indicates just what constitutes, in terms of numbers, a convention and perhaps what kind of conventions are eligible. There has been some talk about our minor sports whether or not they would be eligible and I don't believe they are, but nonetheless the hotel and motel activity in the province probably will increase as a result of this.
I do have some difficulty with that because some members have suggested that a lot of the convention-goers are pretty well, I suppose, financially secure. I have attended different conventions and some members of this House and perhaps we are, I would submit, all in different financial situations, but a lot of convention-goers may not be quite as well off as others. Some will see that as more of a benefit, so I cannot really speak against it, but I can't really speak in favour of it. It should increase business at our hotels and motels.
What type of money is going to be spent by the Economic Renewal Agency advertising that fact, that feature? How is the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency going to get that out to the public, out to people in the United States, out to people in the rest of Canada? Is the cost of advertising going to exceed the actual loss that the province is going to incur as a result of exempting convention-goers?
With those few words, I find it extremely difficult to speak too harshly against Bill No. 7, but there are a couple of components in there I would be much more satisfied if they were removed, but I know the minister has no intention of removing them, so I will vote against the bill and I will now take my place.
MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member for Pictou West.
MR. DONALD MCINNES: Madam Speaker, I want to rise tonight to spend a few moments to speak to Bill No. 7, An Act Respecting Certain Financial Measures.
I have to say at the outset that I think there are some good things in this bill and I think there are some bad things in the bill. I will take a few minutes and try to tell you what I think is good and what I think is bad. I know we are not supposed to go clause by clause and I will try not to do that, but one of the first items in the bills is in regard to the 4 per cent health services tax used in the production or processing of non-renewable resources. It is only 4 per cent now, but I think the fact that we are going to remove that and encourage the mining in the province, I think it is very acceptable.
I might say that in the minister's Budget Address to us earlier in the session he said he had talked to the Taxation Committee of Voluntary Planning, and I commend the minister for doing that, I think that is important that we listen to the volunteer organizations of this province, Voluntary Planning, to take their advice. That was certainly one of the items that they referred to, to remove the 4 per cent tax from the processing of renewable resources.
As it goes on it talks about removal of 11 per cent sales tax on convention-goers. This, as I understand it, is only for their hotel rooms. It is not on meals or on any other expenses that may occur.
I did ask the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency in the Legislature a number of days ago about that particular item. I just don't know how they are going to promote it. It seems to me that a lot of conventions, people who go to conventions, are on expenses. They are sent there either by an organization or whatever, maybe they are on their own. I just wonder how many more conventions we are going to get in Nova Scotia because of the removal of that 11 per cent sales tax.
I am not against encouraging conventions to come to the province, I don't want you to misunderstand me on that. If we could get more conventions to come here, fine, but I am concerned as to how much it is going to cost to promote it and how the Minister for the Economic Renewal Agency or the Minister of Finance is going to advertise that to businesses or organizations that may be coming to Nova Scotia.
The bill talks about new credit, to help companies raise capital. A 35 per cent, non-refundable corporate income tax credit will be available, beginning in the 1995 taxation year, on eligible costs of preparing and filing a prospectus, up to a maximum of $100,000. I did talk to my colleague here from Pictou Centre about I wonder how many companies would be considering filing a prospectus in Nova Scotia. Maybe there are quite a few but I guess a 35 per cent reduction for them would be commendable and perhaps it may encourage businesses to do that.
Perhaps when the minister sums up he could tell me how many prospectus were filed, say, in 1994. He may not be able to have the answer to that question tonight or when we do finish but I would be rather interested to see how many companies really did file.
It talked about the 4 per cent tax on mining. Last year the government introduced the measure of a $3,000 health services tax rebate on building materials and we congratulated him for doing that and now he is going to extend it for another year, which will expire on April 1, 1996. I think that is a big saving for anybody building a new home, that they are able to recover that sales tax. It is $3,000 and anything we can do to help young people or any age people, as far as that goes, to build their home, the first time home, we should encourage them and I congratulate the minister for doing that.
Now it also talks about removing the amusement tax from the performing arts, to help build the potential of this industry, non-profit performing art production companies will be able to apply for a certificate exempting their performance from the 10 per cent amusement tax. I get to ask the minister, I would think this would apply to buildings like the de Coste Entertainment Centre in Pictou, who are a non-profit organization and I would hope that would be a reduction in the cost of the tickets. Perhaps the minister could answer that question, too, but I would think the de Coste Entertainment Centre in Pictou would be one that would qualify under that 10 per cent amusement tax. (Interruption) I didn't say I was going to vote against it.
The film industry assistance to small, local film makers in regard to cost of production in Nova Scotia is a good thing. I am not into films, but anybody who saw the film, Delores Claiborne, a wonderful film of Nova Scotia, and I am sure the member for Digby was proud of the Joshua Slocum, the boat of Brier Island and the scenery, if you didn't see it, go and see it. For the price of the movie, it is worth seeing the Nova Scotia scenery. I don't know the Lunenburg area as well as some of you would but I could certainly relate to Digby and to Brier Island and to the pictures that were taken there and I say that is a good thing too, but everything is not good in this bill, I can't say that.
The other point I wanted to make was in regard to that section which refers to the rental subsidy to seniors who become seniors after March 31, 1995. Those seniors would normally be eligible, because of receiving the supplement, to receive a receipt of rental subsidy but are not going to be eligible. Here sits one fellow who is 65, getting the supplement, he or she is going to get it and here is another person over here who turned 65 after March 31st and they don't qualify. I don't think that is fair. Only those persons who received a property tax rebate in 1995 are eligible to receive a rebate in future years. So those people who are 65 years old who are getting the property tax now because they get a supplement, those who turn 65 won't be getting it. That is not fair. So, it puts a person in a difficult position whether to vote for this bill or not to vote for this bill.
As I said, there are a lot of good things in the bill. I will say how I am going to vote to the Minister of Transportation in a minute, but I am disappointed that the bill is really hard on the senior citizens. What in fact they are doing is they are going to end the rental subsidy and the property tax rebate because when those people who are qualified now pass away, the program will be over. It is as simple as that; it dies with the seniors. Those who are turning 65 - and some of us are getting pretty close - those who get the supplement will not be able to receive it this year. I think that is hard on the senior citizens.
Madam Speaker, I didn't really intend to speak this long on the bill but, as I say, there are some good things in the bill, there are some bad things in the bill. I don't know what our caucus is going to do but I, personally, am going to vote for the bill to go to the Law Amendments Committee so we will be able to hear any presenters, get their views and I will think about it when the bill comes back to Committee of the Whole House and give consideration to it then. As I say, I will be supporting the bill. Thank you.
MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member for Queens.
MR. JOHN LEEFE: Madam Speaker, I noticed when one of the members was speaking not too long ago that he referenced the fact that here in second reading we are directed, and quite properly so, to deal with the principle of the bill. I looked at this bill and found it difficult to define a principle to address. I thought perhaps that was a shortcoming on my part and not fully understanding just what the word principle means, I went to the Webster's Dictionary to avail myself of a clear meaning of the word principle. I find that a principle is, "a general or fundamental truth: a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine or assumption on which others are based or from which others are derived:".
[9:15 p.m.]
I must say that in this relative hodgepodge that we find before us dressed up in the title, An Act Respecting Certain Financial Measures, I fail to see any of those things which would cause us to be able to define a principle with respect to this bill.
Not long ago, a young neighbour of ours was married and I was reminded, in looking at this bill, of an expression that very often is applied to a wedding when the bride is advised to take on something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue. Well, here we have some things old; for example, we have the continuation of the rebate on building materials for first time home builders. We have something new with respect to the assistance provided to film corporations. We have some things borrowed from other governments in other days. We also have, certainly, something blue and that would be the senior citizens who are going to be denied the rental subsidy as a result of this initiative by this Minister of Finance and by this Liberal Government.
It is unfortunate that the bill is laid out in such a way that we have a mixture of positives and negatives. We do not even have all of the clawbacks in one section and the initiatives which will provide tax benefits in another section. They are mixed up higgledy-piggledy and one is, therefore, even more hard-pressed to define any kind of principle encompassed in it whatsoever.
MADAM SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is getting more difficult to hear, higgledy-piggledy. So if you could sort of lower the clamour, I would appreciate it very much.
MR. LEEFE: For example, Madam Speaker, there is a 4 per cent health services tax reduction with respect to tangible personal property which is consumed or used in the production or processing of non-renewable resources. Now I do not see, and perhaps the minister can help me out here when he closes on this bill, I do not understand, and this may well be a failing on my part, how this provision dovetails with this government's stated commitment, to the concept of sustainable development, particularly in this case with respect to the sustainable development of non-renewable resources.
Well, there is nothing in the explanatory notes or in the body of the bill itself or in the minister's introductory remarks to suggest to us what incentives or disincentives are built into this tax measure to ensure that by further driving forward the non-renewable resource industries in this province, that that will be done in a sustainable way. Now this is the minister, Madam Speaker, that I hasten to remind you, is also the minister who chairs the Priorities and Planning Committee of Cabinet. Surely that committee of Cabinet, which should be coordinating every economic effort in this province in such a way that it, in fact, does follow the basic principle laid down by this government and by the one-time Minister of the Environment, now Minister of the Economic Renewal Agency, that all economic development in Nova Scotia will be done in a sustainably developable way. There is nothing here which gives us any cause to hope that any thought was given to ensuring the sustainable development of these resources through this fiscal measure.
As we all know, we are used to having command control, regulatory regimes available with respect to protecting the environment and we are greatly encouraged by business and by modern thinkers who look beyond command control techniques to look to using fiscal instruments, taxation instruments in order to create sustainably developable economies.
We do not see this here. This is a very simple measure on the face of it but, in fact, it could have a negative impact on the environment of Nova Scotia, on our capacity to develop our non-renewable resource industries in a sustainable way and it behooves the minister to explain to us in taking this measure, not how it might be done but how, in fact, he is going to build into this, in his capacity as Minister of Finance, in his capacity as Chairman of the Priorities and Planning Committee, in his capacity as the principal Minister of the Crown other than the Premier, to ensure that this basic tenet of government policy, that is sustainable development, is going to be realized and not undercut by this measure.
I also have listened carefully to the arguments with respect to the proposal which would seem at first blush to support the tourism sector and, which the minister and several other ministers have advised us, were requested by the Tourism Industry Association of Nova Scotia itself, that is an exemption from the health services tax for transient accommodations that are associated with those persons who attend conventions. For a very long time I have listened to many people involved in the tourism industry in this province who talked about the high cost of taxation here, the high cost of providing services to tourists and how those costs, among others, have a detrimental impact on our capacity to draw tourists into Nova Scotia.
Well, let me say to you that if it were true that significantly reduced costs and lowering of taxes was the major way to attract tourists into a particular area then today Europe would be empty. There would be no tourists there, they would be flocking here. I, for one, am sick and tired of people in the industry, and outside of industry, here in Nova Scotia running around and wringing their hands and apologizing to visitors in this province for the high cost of things here.
The people who come to this province come here and they get a bargain. You visit any jurisdiction in the United States of America and almost assuredly when you pay your accommodations bill you are going to be paying state tax and you are going to be paying city tax. Mr. Speaker, you will never get one penny of that rebated. Yet, when anybody from a foreign country comes to visit this province in this country, they know that all they have to do is to file a very simple application and they can have every penny that was spent on the goods and services tax rebated to them. It is much easier to get the GST rebated here than it is for you or me in the United Kingdom or other countries in Europe to have the value added tax rebated, a much more complex and a much more difficult system there.
People talk about the high cost of fuel here. Yes, fuel does cost more here but let's also remember that the American gallon does not equate necessarily to the Canadian litre. Let's remember also the many other ways in which people can come here and have a very cost-effective vacation, not the least of which is a very favourable exchange rate. It is very favourable for Americans, it is even more favourable for most Europeans but particularly, for the Germans and that is one reason why Germans come here, because they know that the Deutschmark has a very high rate of return to them with respect to spending it here in Canada.
I am fed up with the people who run around apologizing for the high price we charge people to come and share Nova Scotia with us. I think they get a pretty good bang for their buck, thank you very much. I don't think we have to go around and apologize for ourselves and introduce measures of this nature in order to attract tourists here to Nova Scotia. People not only will come and enjoy themselves once but will want to return again.
Mr. Speaker, we should be doing everything we possibly can to assist new home buyers, first time home buyers here in Nova Scotia. It is increasingly difficult for young couples to acquire the hard-earned dollars they need in order to pay for housing here in this province. This is particularly true as we find at least outside the metropolitan area, and I am not so sure that this is not also true of the metropolitan area as well, that young couples are finding it more difficult to have dual employment in a family, that most of the burden is once again falling on the back of a single income earner, with perhaps the other partner in the couple earning a few dollars here and there through sporadic work, yet those young people aspire, just as you and I did when we were their ages, to being able to buy their own homes. One of the ways we can do that is to provide fiscal measures which will give them real, honest encouragement and cause the cost to be somewhat less to them. In this instance I say that this is a good measure that is built into the bill and it is one that I think the minister should take a bow for and I am pleased to see it is here.
I noticed there is also, again with respect to economic development, reference to research and development tax credits. Now what we are supposed to have with our bills is explanatory notes which tell us in a pithy way the substance of each of the measures laid out in the bill. I must say that I find less than pithy and less than self-explanatory the notation ". . . makes several technical amendments . . .". I think it behooves the minister to explain to this House and to Nova Scotians just what those amendments are. Surely the minister is not suggesting that Nova Scotians are not sufficiently well educated to be able to understand the technical side of these amendments. I would hope that before he takes his place, after moving second reading of this bill, that he will be a little more forthcoming with respect to explaining to Nova Scotians the technical side of those amendments and exactly what they will mean. That is pretty fluffy language for a tax bill. The minister deserves, and Nova Scotians, to be on the mark and explain precisely what it is that he intends to do. If we don't understand it, that is fine, but he should assume that every Nova Scotian is capable of understanding it and he should explain it in exactly that way.
Mr. Speaker, I should also say that I find interesting the references to a new small business tax reduction, to corporations and cooperatives incorporated outside the province. Then we find out that there is a little caveat to that, two, in fact; one that 25 per cent of the wages paid have to go to residents in the province and that the head office has to be in the province. I don't understand why the minister didn't simply have one clause which offered that reduction simply to corporations that have their head offices in this province and are incorporated in this province. Perhaps there is a rationale for that. I don't know and I look forward to his explanation respecting it.
I read with interest the tax credit which is going to be made available to the film industry, 35 per cent of the eligible expenses to a maximum of $100,000 with respect to that sector. Over several years now there has been a growing interest in and growing participation by the film industry filming here on location in Nova Scotia. It began in a relatively modest way and has grown increasingly through the years, so that Nova Scotia is now beginning to develop a pretty fine reputation, not only as a physical location because of our geography and our climate, but also because it is seen to be a place where the communities in which filming is done are capable of providing all of the necessary types of expertise to cause it to be able to put a film together and to shoot it and to can it and then to present it to the public.
[9:30 p.m.]
Anybody who took the opportunity this summer - to give one example - to go down to Shelburne and have a look at The Scarlet Letter being filmed there, could see what a tremendous impact that film making has on the economy of Nova Scotia and particularly on local economies. While that film was shot in Shelburne, it nonetheless had a very positive economic impact on communities from Clare in Digby County, right down through Yarmouth County, up through Shelburne County and at least into Queens County and, indeed, into Lunenburg County, as well, now that I think of another example. So most of southwestern Nova Scotia had a very significant economic benefit apply to it as a result of the shooting of that film over a quite a long period, over several months through this summer.
My colleague, the member for Pictou West, referenced the filming of Dolores Claiborne. There is another film which is now going to be made, I understand, in Chester, and so we should be endeavouring to use fiscal measures in order to continue to attract these people here to Nova Scotia.
What I would ask of the minister is to explain to us, and I am sure there is a rational explanation, how the $100,000 level was arrived at. They must have done some figuring to settle on that particular amount and perhaps he can help us there. Presumably, this was done not by the Department of Finance in isolation, but in consultation with people in the industry and some solid advice must have been given to the minister in this respect.
There is, again, one of these inexplicable explanatory notes with respect to Clause 9 in the bill and I would ask the minister to help us out with a full explanation, which indeed may be simple. The minister is pretty good at explaining things and that is, what the technical amendment is that is requested by the Department of Finance. What does it do? Is it of any real significance? Clearly, we are required to change the law, but why are we required to change the law? I think the minister would want to explain that to Nova Scotians.
I am uncomfortably inquisitive with respect to the tax measure that the minister proposes whereby any minister, and I am not referring specifically to this minister because it would be unfair to suggest that he would do anything untoward, but none of us can set bond for his successor, why is it that a measure is being introduced which would allow the minister himself, not the Executive Council, not the House of Assembly which by all traditions has the power of the purse, to remit any tax or penalty where the amount of the tax or penalty is $10,000 or less? I do not understand why that is so.
Most men and women who work and earn livings in Nova Scotia pay every penny of tax which is required of them. They pay it out of their pay cheque and their provincial and their federal income tax. They pay it when they go to the store in their provincial sales tax, and on the goods and services tax. They pay it when they go to the gas pump when they pay their tax on their gasoline and diesel fuel or their oil that they purchase. Very, very few Nova Scotians have any way in which to be able to escape paying a tax that is required of most Nova Scotians to pay.
I know, for example, in my own community, of many fishermen, who have been caught up in the difficulty of not having taxes taken from them at source and they intend to put it aside, many do. Some, for whatever reason, find they are unable to do that and they end up in trouble with Revenue Canada. Revenue Canada does not say, well, in your case, you do not have to pay it. Revenue Canada says in every case, you have to pay it because, as a citizen, you are responsible for meeting the payment of any taxes that are due by you.
I wonder what kind of circumstances could possibly arise, which would cause a Minister of Finance, sitting in his office across the street in the Provincial Building, to look at any particular case and say, this person owes $10,000 or less in taxes, I am going to write that person a letter and say, do not worry, you do not have to pay?
You do not have that opportunity, Madam Speaker, I do not and I do not believe any person in this House does. I do not believe there are very many Nova Scotians who do. So, it behooves me to ask the minister, who are the Nova Scotians, who potentially are going to benefit from this and why should they benefit from this? What will the cost be to the taxpayer, because if the minister loses revenue, as a result of remitting these amounts, then surely that revenue has to be picked up somewhere else and where is the somewhere else? The somewhere else has to be in your pocket, in my pocket and the pockets of all of those people who do not have tax remissions available to them. I do look forward to the minister's description, with respect to that.
Perhaps the greatest travesty in this bill, is the title which is applied to this section which references senior citizens. This is the amendment to the Senior Citizens Financial Aid Act. Well, Madam Speaker, in this instance, we see the seniors once again having their economic security eroded by this government. In small ways and in large, this government has taken action, fiscal measures, policy measures, which militate against the senior citizens of this province. Whether we look at Pharmacare, whether we look at the closure and the downsizing of local hospitals and the requirement there for senior citizens in rural areas. They have to drive further to try to or even arrange for someone else to drive them to get treatment, whether we are talking about fishing licenses or whether we are talking about rental subsidies, as is the case here.
The senior citizens in this province, have been hit hard by this government. I do not understand why it is necessary for the minister to reduce this rental subsidy, a subsidy which is certainly required by so many senior citizens across this province, particularly, senior citizens who live in areas where there is a low vacancy rate and therefore, the cost of rents are higher than in areas where there are moderate or high vacancy rates.
Nova Scotia is not the same everywhere. In fact, very often what one finds is that seniors and renters in small communities in Nova Scotia have to pay proportionately more out of their income for rent than is the case for people who live in the cities. That is because the vacancy rate is very often much lower in the smaller communities and therefore, the rents that the market can demand are higher. I do not, for the life of me, understand why this minister, has chosen in this bill to further erode the economic interests of the senior citizens in this province.
There is another equity tax credit advantage provided in this bill. This time, this one gives 25 per cent to 30 per cent. It moves from 25 per cent to 30 percent. It increases the maximum investment from $10,000 to $30,000 and I think that probably, if that has a measurable outcome, that will be a good thing.
This is a bill of bits and bites. I really don't see any kind of a focus, let alone a sharp focus here. I don't see what Webster would define as a clear, concise, comprehensive principle in this bill. I don't see anything in this bill, for example, which would enhance the long-term development of the smaller communities and the rural communities in this province. Community economic development, if it is affected by this bill at all, is affected only obliquely. I don't see this as a bill which is going to have a significant impact on the overall economy or the overall economic direction of this province. It is a bill which is going to have a positive impact on some groups, but it is going to have a very negative impact on some people who can afford it least and, most particularly, on the senior citizens.
So it is a bill of little principle, a bill of some interest and a bill of only sporadic benefit. There are some measures in it that I like. I always think, excepting in the case of the most odious of legislation, that it is important to give any bill an opportunity to pass through second reading and go on to the Law Amendments Committee where the general public have an opportunity to address it. I look forward to hearing what the senior citizens have to say about this bill in the Law Amendments Committee; I look forward to hearing what other groups who are adversely affected, as well as those who are positively affected by it, have to say at the Law Amendments Committee and, for that reason, I will be voting for the bill at second reading.
MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MS. ALEXA MCDONOUGH: Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that, as my two colleagues in the NDP caucus have already indicated, we will not be voting for this bill because we think there are a couple of very fundamental principles in this bill that represent severe violations of, really, the concept of fairness and equity. So, in that regard, although there are some positive measures in the bill - and I had the opportunity to make reference to those when I had an opportunity to respond to the Budget Address by the Finance Minister and I will again refer to them in my wrap-up - the basic thrust of this bill is not one that we are able to support because, frankly, it is a very unfair budgetary document in terms of the differential impact on different segments of Nova Scotia society.
I am not the first to make this point, that it is extremely disappointing when a Finance Minister stands up to introduce a bill and I don't know whether he uttered three sentences or four sentences when he did that, and we are talking about a bill with many different implications for many different groups of Nova Scotians, we are talking about a bill that implements a budget of (Interruption)
Well, that is right, we now have a little help here from the Minister of Finance's cheering squad, that we already heard the Budget Speech so what do we need to hear any explanation about the budgetary measures for? The fact of the matter is that when you go through this bill there are a great many things about the impact of these budgetary measures on which the Budget Address was absolutely silent and now, because of the sparseness or almost non-existence of explanatory notes, we are absolutely no further ahead, thanks to the Minister of Finance, in being able to fully understand what the implications are, what the impacts are of the various measures that are here proposed.
Certainly, a careful combing of the Budget Address doesn't leave us any the wiser. I suppose if one considers the political implications instead of the real human considerations and consequences of this budget, it is not surprising that the government did not choose to outline in any kind of detail who really are to be the beneficiaries of these budgetary measures in the main and who are really to pay the penalties, who are really to be negatively impacted and who are to be in receipt of the positive impacts of these budgetary measures.
[9:45 p.m.]
Well, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, you do not have to go very far to see that, in general terms, the day after the budget was introduced, you had an almost unanimous round of applause from those representing the interests of the big business community, the major corporate citizens in this province. Although I think it is interesting that even some of the usual spokespersons for business raise the question of whether there were not, in fact, some measures in this budget that are not even of such important consequence to business that they were justified, given the fact that there are a number of really quite mean-spirited measures in terms of who is going to pay the penalty for the general thrust of this budget, which is one of being almost entirely consumed with what will benefit the corporate elite in this province.
I think the Minister of Finance did sum up these budgetary measures with a fairly honest statement that really the only thing that is of real importance to this government is that it allows the government to say that we have moved ahead with promised tax reductions, underscored the fact that Nova Scotians, in the coming year, would be burdened by $31 million less in taxes than in the previous year. That is where the explanation stopped, Mr. Speaker. What the minister failed to do in his Budget Address and certainly failed absolutely to do in his introductory comments to Bill No. 7, is to give any real explanation of who those Nova Scotians are that will benefit from the $31 million in tax reductions and who those Nova Scotians are and what their circumstances are that will be paying the price for that $31 million of tax revenues forfeited by this government's tax measures.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I might say that earlier today I had a chance to attend a senior citizens forum where there was a discussion about health reform in general and an extremely highly respected advocate on behalf of the interests and needs of seniors in this province, herself a wonderful senior that is, perhaps, best known to many Nova Scotians as the host of the long-playing, although not still playing, program called Seniors in Action, carried on cable TV across the province for many years, a woman by the name of Roberta Way Clarke, who comes from Cape Breton but has more recently been living in the Halifax-Dartmouth area. I see that the member for Cape Breton South is nodding, I believe in approval, so I have his attention, not necessarily because of the views she espouses but because there may, in fact, be some blood relationship there to the member for Cape Breton South. Well, you don't always get to choose your relatives, but if you could choose to be related to Roberta Way Clarke, I am sure there would be no one that would not be honoured to be related to her.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, in talking about what kind of indicators there are, what kind of societal indicators one can identify that reveal the health of a citizenry and the health of communities or that would indicate healthy communities, the foremost indicator that this senior citizens' advocate referred to was that of what sort of income spread there is between the rich and the poor in a society. By actual research documentation there is considerable evidence that the greater the gaps in a community and in any jurisdiction - and that follows for a province or a nation - where there are immense gaps between the rich and the poor, then it goes without saying it is almost axiomatic that you have a higher incidence of unhealthy citizens and unhealthy communities.
Conversely, Mr. Speaker, where there are narrower gaps between the rich and the poor and, most importantly, where the gaps between haves and have-nots are narrowing, by and large there is substantial evidence that you have both a healthier citizenry, you have healthier people and healthier communities.
Now, Mr. Speaker, for that reason I think it is a fair test to look at this budget, if we are serious in this province about the overall priority of this government being to promote healthy citizens and healthy communities, that it is a fair test to apply to this budget. What is the impact of these budgetary measures?
MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, is the debate on the budget now? I thought we were on Bill No. 7.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh but she was away for a while. (Laughter)
MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I am glad you have rejoined us because it is exactly on the impact of this budget and specifically on the budgetary measures that are contained within Bill No. 7 that is now before us that I am addressing my remarks to.
MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I see, we are now on the bill.
MS. MCDONOUGH: Maybe I can use a couple of examples to illustrate my point, Mr. Speaker, because I would hope that not just you but that all members would be concerned about this topic. We have, for example, in this budget . . .
MR. SPEAKER: Budget? This is Bill No. 7. (Interruptions)
MS. MCDONOUGH: . . . in this bill implementing the budgetary measures, considerable pride being taken by this government in having introduced exemptions from the health services tax for transient accommodations purchased by a person attending a convention.
I want to take a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, to talk about who really are likely to be the beneficiaries of that particular budgetary measure. I would like to juxtapose, I would like to compare, the beneficiaries of that particular budgetary measure with those who will be . . .
MR. SPEAKER: I fear this discussion is too wide-ranging to be addressing Bill No. 7 on second reading.
MS. MCDONOUGH: I don't believe it.
MR. SPEAKER: The debate has to focus on the bill and on the principles of the specific measures contained therein.
AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him the clause number.
MS. MCDONOUGH: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking precisely about the budgetary measure that provides for exemptions from the health services tax for conventioneers. If I start talking in detail about the specific clause, you will tell me that this is not a clause by clause debate. I am talking about the very principle that I feel is the most important principle that you can put any budget to and that is, how fair are the measures in this bill? Therefore, I am going to compare those who are going to benefit from that particular measure in Bill No. 7 with those who are going to be paying a price for another very important measure in this bill, which is the elimination of some very important financial assistance, small amounts of assistance admittedly, but nevertheless extremely important budgetary assistance measures for senior citizens in this province. I think that that is not only pertinent to the bill but that is the ultimate test to which any budget in any democratic jurisdiction should be put. Is it fair? Is it equitable? Does it do anything to try to create a better sense of equity in terms of how people are treated by their government in regard to budgetary matters?
We hear, of course, the government trying to sell the measure that proposes basically a tax break for conventioneers as being ever so important to our tourist industry. Who could argue against the importance of our tourism industry? I don't think anybody trying to consider what the real purpose of this measure is, who are really going to be the beneficiaries of it, could seriously advocate that it is going to be tourist operators and those involved in the tourism industry across the province that are going to benefit from this measure because first of all, by and large, conventions tend to be scheduled, tend to be located in the largest urban centres, primarily in Halifax-Dartmouth metropolitan area, industrial Cape Breton and to a much lesser degree to some of our smaller facilities in places like Digby Pines and Keltic Lodge but to a very much lesser degree. I don't think there is any question that those who are going to benefit from such a tax exemption are going to be the operators of the largest hotels in a couple of the largest centres in this province.
I don't know what that does to fulfil this government's commitment to small business, to try to spread across the province greater prosperity, greater economic activity, certainly seems to be completely out of touch with this government's supposed commitment to community economic development. But, I don't think it is just with the view to anybody benefiting that this government has seen fit to introduce this measure. I think that what will never be possible to really fully ascertain, be impossible to really document but I don't think that there is very much mystery surrounding what the real purpose of this budgetary measure is and that is to make sure that the casino operations to which this government (Interruption)
MR. SPEAKER: There is only 60 seconds left this evening, 60 seconds left. Do you want to adjourn the debate?
MS. MCDONOUGH: If you would like me to adjourn the debate right now, Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to do that. I was once again making the mistake of looking at the clock over the Speaker's head which says five minutes to ten but now that you have reminded me, I am supposed to be watching the clock on my left, then I would be pleased to adjourn the debate.
MR. SPEAKER: The debate is adjourned.
The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RICHARD MANN: Mr. Speaker, we will be sitting tomorrow from the hours of 12:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. Following Question Period we will be doing Committee of the Whole House on Supply in the Chamber. The Minister of Justice has advised me that Law Amendments Committee will be sitting in the Red Room and following Supply in the Chamber we will be going back to Public Bills for Second Reading. I move that we adjourn until 12:00 p.m. tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House do now rise to meet again tomorrow at the hour of 12:00 noon.
The motion is carried.
[The House rose at 10:00 p.m.]
