MR. SPEAKER: Order, please We will begin the daily routine.
PRESENTING AND READING PETITIONS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on behalf of 430 residents of the community of Terence Bay and area which states, "We the undersigned are in favor of developing the right of way to the Sandy Cove Lighthouse and Lighthouse Beach for use of the public in Terence Bay.". I have affixed my signature - or I am going to do it now - to this petition.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
The honourable Minister of Labour.
HON. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition from the Shore Friendship Group of Summerville who pray that, "Highway 215 between Brooklyn and Walton Hants Co., that services the communities of Brooklyn, Upper Burlington, Center Burlington, Lower Burlington Summerville, Kempt, Cheverie, Bramber, Cambridge, Pembroke and Walton deem this highway . . .", be paved in the year 2000 and are asking if that cannot be done it be resurfaced in areas that are falling to pieces.
MR. SPEAKER: The petition is tabled.
PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS
STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Transportation and Public Works.
HON. GORDON BALSER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to proclaim November 22, 1999 as Winter Safety Day across the Province of Nova Scotia. Winter Safety Day is an initiative of my department that focuses on elementary school children - educating them as to the importance of staying safe all winter.
This week young children from across the province will have the opportunity to examine a 38,000 pound snowplow up close and personal. Mr. Speaker, crews from the Department of Transportation and Public Works will visit over 70 schools across this province to share first-hand their experiences with children about winter storms and to talk about winter safety practices.
Children are wonderfully carefree. When the first snowfall comes, they are out in the yard making snowmen or building a snow fort. Many children are excited to see the plow travelling down their road but with the same carefree quality that can make a child enjoy the winter, they sometimes run out into the road to get the snowplow operator to blow his horn, or they will build a fort on the side of the road in a snowdrift where they can't be seen. This, is extremely dangerous and we have to teach our children about these dangers and that is what Winter Safety Day is all about, ensuring our children are aware of the risks and are not taking those risks.
Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the pleasure of meeting the children and staff at Digby County's Barton Consolidated School. I must admit I learned a couple of safety rules there myself. They were thrilled to see the snowplow up close. I think we all have a better understanding of some of the things that we can do to make winter safer.
I would like to personally thank Eugene Silver and Troy Andrews, the snowplow operators who answered the children's questions, as well as the operations supervisor, Dave Comeau, and Mr. Paul Stone, our area manager from Middleton. They were all there to help out with Winter Safety Day at Barton Consolidated.
I would also like to thank all the Department of Transportation and Public Works staff and the employees of the Halifax Regional Municipality, who are bringing Winter Safety Day to the school children in their areas. Children in the early grades of all schools are being visited by Transportation and Public Works and HRM crews are being given winter safety colouring books. Each school will also receive a certificate of participation. Winter Safety Day is one day of the year, but it is something we have to be aware of throughout the winter.
Mr. Speaker, no one has more influence on adults than their children. This week there will be thousands of children taking a winter safety lesson home to their parents as well. We hope the message hits home - drive safe and play safe this winter. Keep a safe distance from snowplows. Don't pass a plow when it is working. Use caution on the roads this winter to make the season as safe as possible.
Mr. Speaker, despite today's unseasonably mild temperatures, I can assure you that winter is coming and I ask you to support Winter Safety Day in Nova Scotia. Thank you. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable minister for providing, in advance, a copy of his statement. I would like to congratulate the minister on the promotion of highway safety, particularly when it comes to heavy equipment such as snowplows, for the children across this province because all too well many find out, sometimes the wrong way, when they become involved in accidents.
I think it is rather ironic, Mr. Speaker, that this minister will stand and talk about safety at the same time when he is cutting back on the services of our seasonal employees, the snowplow operators, this winter. Generally speaking, they are called back to duty on the first Sunday of December every year, but this year this minister has decided to roll that back another week to try and save a few dollars. So, on one hand he is talking about safety for children and all of the people of Nova Scotia and on the other hand, when it comes to putting the dollars on the table to actually provide that safety to the people of Nova Scotia so they can drive on the road safely, he is actually, in effect, calling the workers off the roads to provide that service for the people of Nova Scotia; thereby leaving the roads in a very unsafe and sometimes deplorable condition. At the same time the minister, himself, took no time in commissioning a study to extend and expand the condition of the road between Weymouth and Digby in his own riding, despite some of the other priorities that were highlighted by the expertise in his own department.
The minister has made politics a priority over safety in this province. He has cut back on the services of our winter crews in this province. When he was in Opposition the honourable minister demanded day in and day out that the people of Nova Scotia be afforded this protection. Yet when he becomes minister he cuts back on that service and at the same time is placing a political priority over some of the prioritized needs that have been identified by the expertise within his department.
While I congratulate the promotional tour of the Minister of Transportation and Public Works, and it does create an awareness for the children of Nova Scotia, I cannot support him on some of his rather ill-conceived, politically-motivated activities. (Applause)
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister of Transportation and Public Works for finally having something to say for that department in this House. Because of the full plate that he has and the attention he has been giving to the Department of Economic Development and the Petroleum Directorate, Sysco and business development, I congratulate him in finally making an announcement with regard to this particular department, a department, unfortunately, that suffered again through some major cuts.
I do know the influence on school children when it comes to those big feather dusters, as it says in that great advertisement on television. I hope that we don't count upon our children to pass that drive safely message on to their parents and adults, that we continue with that very proactive advertisement that we identify with regard to feather dusters.
To Eugene Silver and Troy Andrews, they are the men and women who operate this equipment that should receive this. It is good to see that they are out talking to children however, it seems a concern to me that in some areas - I know that in my area for example - there are no longer two workers in each plow, there is only one. The wing-man has been eliminated, when in some situations on some roads it is extremely dangerous to have one operator in those so-called feather dusters. Those are the men and women who operate that equipment who need a pat on the back. It is good to see that the school children will realize how important they are.
Also, I hope that the minister continues to turn his attention to such factors as school bus safety and those dangerous crosswalks. Those are the kinds of things that children are going to be asking the Minister of Transportation and Public Works about. It is good to see that the men and women on the ground are finally being given some attention in local schools because they do have that very positive effect on school children.
November 22nd of course is remembered for many things and had I had the opportunity on November 22, 1963 to listen and ask questions of a snowplow operator, it would have been something of importance to me on that day. November 22nd is an important day this year for winter safety. I congratulate the minister for this initiative and in particular I congratulate the department for using the workers on the ground who identify with the local school children for being the ambassadors of safety for the long winter ahead. Thank you, Mr. Minister and thank you, Mr. Speaker. (Applause)
GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister responsible for the Nova Scotia Sport and Recreation Commission.
HON. JANE PURVES: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas this past Saturday, Saint Mary's University Huskies and the University of Waterloo Warriors competed in the 1999 Atlantic Bowl CIAU Football game; and
Whereas Saint Mary's University Huskies won with a score of 21 to 14; and
Whereas Saint Mary's University Huskies advance to play in the Vanier Cup at the Skydome, Toronto, Ontario on Saturday, November 27, 1999;
Therefore be it resolved that the members of this House band together to support Nova Scotia's team, the Saint Mary's Huskies, in the national championship Vanier Cup.
[2:15 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker, I seek waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
NOTICES OF MOTION
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Lunenburg West.
MR. DONALD DOWNE: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Premier feels his actions are being misunderstood by all Nova Scotians; and
Whereas Nova Scotians understand all too clearly that the goal of this government is to punish the poor, the sick, and the disabled, despite their small effect on the overall budget of the Province of Nova Scotia; and
Whereas the assault has been driven by the cold calculations of an unfeeling Cabinet led by an uncaring Premier, and not a misunderstood man.
Therefore be it resolved that this House demand that before the Premier feels his is misunderstood, he should first lead by example and restore funding to charities, the disabled and the Winter Works Program.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas AUAA Football Champions, Saint Mary's Huskies, represented this region in Saturday's Atlantic Bowl; and
Whereas this Saturday the Huskies defeated the Waterloo Warriors in a thrilling 21-14 victory to capture the Atlantic Bowl; and
Whereas the Huskies will now move on to play for the Vanier Cup, emblematic of the national university football championship, against Laval;
Therefore be it resolved that this House congratulate Saint Mary's Huskies on their success, with particular best wishes for previous coach Larry Uteck and current Head Coach Blake Nill on their team's accomplishments.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
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 Minister of Economic Development.
HON. GORDON BALSER: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Bay of Fundy Marine Resource Centre has been established to support a growing commitment toward the stewardship of our marine environment; and
Whereas Sunday, November 21st, marked the official opening of this innovative, community-based facility; and
Whereas the Bay of Fundy Marine Resource Centre will provide ongoing technical support and guidance to various marine resource-based industries, associations and agencies;
Therefore be it resolved that the members of this House congratulate the centre as it encourages sound ecologically-based management of our ocean resources.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable Leader of the Liberal Party.
MR. RUSSELL MACLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the late Donald Swainson was a political writer and lecturer who taught at Queens University in Kingston; and
Whereas Professor Swainson lectured about Canadian political scandal, and often used Progressive Conservative politicians as examples; and
Whereas the late professor said he didn't dislike Tories, "They simply happened to pop up more frequently when politics and graft intersected.";
Therefore be it resolved that the astute observations of the late Donald Swainson continue to be as true today as ever before.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas we learned this past week that there is no Deputy Premier; and
Whereas it would seem therefore that the Premier must now always be present for Question Period, because no one within his Cabinet is authorized to speak on his behalf or that of his government; and
Whereas by not having a Deputy Premier, the Premier is himself displaying a lack of confidence in his own Cabinet Ministers;
Therefore be it resolved that the Premier account for his lack of confidence in his Cabinet colleagues as demonstrated by his failure to appoint a Deputy Premier.
Mr. Speaker, I would request waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable Minister of Health.
HON. JAMES MUIR: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas Johanna Yorke of Carsand Mosher Photographics, Kirk Saint of Unique Images Photography and Bruce Berry of Berryhill Photography were winners of national awards given by the Professional Photographers of Canada; and
Whereas Johanna Yorke was one of the four finalists for the 1999 Canadian Specialist of the Year; Kirk Saint earned a Craftsman of Photographic Arts Award; and Bruce Berry was awarded a coveted Master's Bar; and
Whereas the success of these artists continues to keep the Truro area on the map as a home to a high calibre of artistic talent;
Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House congratulate Johanna Yorke, Kirk Saint and Bruce Berry on their outstanding photographic achievements and wish them continued success in the practice of their craft.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable member for Dartmouth East.
DR. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas according to the Minister of Health, one solution to control costs in the Department of Health is to increase its revenue-generating capabilities; and
Whereas the minister, despite his denial that he is doing so, has started the process of implementing a tax on the 911 system; and
Whereas the member for Yarmouth on a talk show this weekend indicated that he received assurances from the Minister of Education that there would not be a tax on the 911 system, but not from the Minister of Health;
Therefore be it resolved that it should be clear to the Premier that one of the reasons Nova Scotians don't understand him is because of the mixed messages from his caucus members and that of his government, the message of increased taxes and user fees.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MS. EILEEN O'CONNELL: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Premier is feeling maligned and misunderstood according to a local paper today; and
Whereas a children's advocate indicated that the Premier's words to a business crowd have sent a chill through the province's social-activist community; and
Whereas this very House on Friday denied a resolution asking it to support a call by the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children for disabled children to participate fully in Canadian society and was roundly nayed by the government members;
Therefore be it resolved that if this Premier is really serious about public perception, he will reconsider his Party's stance on advocating for disabled children.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Victoria.
MR. KENNETH MACASKILL: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the new Buchanan Memorial Community Health Centre in Neil's Harbour was officially opened this weekend by the Minister of Health; and
Whereas this long-awaited event was achieved through a tremendous outpouring of community support; and
Whereas the work of many generous volunteers was supported by a commitment of funding from the provincial government;
Therefore be it resolved that the current government continue to support the community of Neil's Harbour and the surrounding areas as they work to maintain their new community health centre.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable member for Pictou East.
MR. JAMES DEWOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas a Westville entrepreneur, Yvonne Miske is in her second year of business producing soaps for sensitive skin; and
Whereas Ms. Miske developed her product in an effort to help her son who has sensitive skin; and
Whereas her company, Bluenose Soaps, now have a wide selection of skin care products;
Therefore be it resolved that this House recognize the efforts of Yvonne Miske and wish her great success and growth of her Pictou County company.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
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 Needham.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Premier is upset that the old adage of monkey see, monkey do is now being applied to his government; and
Whereas just like Mike Harris, the Premier's idol, the first victims of Tory cost cutting were those who can least afford it; and
Whereas just like Mike Harris' Government where big business is the real winner, while the disabled and disadvantaged are heartlessly pushed aside;
Therefore be it resolved that in the words of Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew, "methinks thou doth protest too much".
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Richmond.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas after 99 days, our Premier has stated that he feels misunderstood and that if only Nova Scotians understood his message they would find out what kind of great guy he is; and
Whereas the Premier became visibly upset when compared to Iron Mike Harris of Ontario, saying that made-in-Ontario solutions will not work for Nova Scotians; and
Whereas the difference between Mike Harris and Premier Hamm is not in the substance, but in that Mike Harris has done what he had promised to do, while the Premier here in Nova Scotia is implementing an agenda completely different from what he had promised during the campaign;
Therefore be it resolved that this House recognize that the Premier is not misunderstood, but that his actions clearly demonstrate that he is uncaring and without remorse for the cruel decisions inflicted and about to be inflicted on Nova Scotians.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable Minister of Tourism.
HON. RODNEY MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas John Alex and Tena MacMillan of Mabou are celebrating 50 years of marriage on November 22nd; and
Whereas John Alex, a veteran of World War II, and Tena have helped make a difference, not only for their country but also for the Province of Nova Scotia; and
Whereas John Alex and Tena's sons and daughters, like their parents, have made a difference in each of their respective communities;
Therefore be it resolved that the members of this House congratulate John Alex and Tena MacMillan for 50 years of marriage and wish them all the best in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I seek waiver of notice.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
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 Cape Breton Centre.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas in the great Shakespearean play, Julius Caesar, the leader faced rebellion from within his own ranks; and
Whereas he was also stabbed in the back by his closest ally, Brutus, who was called an honourable man for his acts; and
Whereas Tory backbenchers and Cabinet Ministers alike are stepping on themselves in the rush to be the Tories' Brutus and to be an honourable man;
Therefore be it resolved that the voters of Nova Scotia could soon be reminded of another Premier who betrayed them, Premier John Savage and ask, et tu, Hamm?
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas three years ago, the province's Fire Prevention Advisory Council held province-wide consultations on fire safety; and
Whereas those consultations resulted in many recommendations being made concerning fire safety; and
Whereas to date, there has not been any legislation introduced by this government to update the Fire Prevention Act;
Therefore be it resolved that this House encourage the Minister of Labour to immediately act on the concerns of those who made submissions to the Fire Prevention Advisory Council by introducing amendments to the Fire Prevention Act.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear a No.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the member for Cape Breton The Lakes fancies himself as Humphrey Bogart saying, "You must remember this, a kiss is just a kiss"; and
Whereas all the staff of this House deserve the respect of the members of the Legislature; and
Whereas such unseemly conduct as that of the member, whether in jest or otherwise is wrong;
Therefore be it resolved that the member for Cape Breton The Lakes remember another Bogart line, don't play it again, Crusher.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Clare.
MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas more than seven months ago, Department of Education officials held a series of meetings across the province on proposed student loan reforms; and
Whereas participants in those meetings have not, as yet, heard a word from the department-proposed student loan reforms; and
Whereas students, along with university officials, are anxious to find out what the government has in mind with respect to student loans;
Therefore be it resolved that this House request the Minister of Education to immediately inform Nova Scotians of her government's plans for student loans so that these issues can be publicly debated before any decisions are made.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for waiver, please.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear a No.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Eastern Shore Old-Timers' Hockey League is one of the longest running, old-timer leagues in all of Nova Scotia; and
[2:30 p.m.]
Whereas on Friday evening the Musquodoboit Valley Flyers and the Jupiter Foundation battled to a rare nothing to nothing tie; and
Whereas Ship Harbour, Ecum Secum, Jeddore, Jupiter, Chezzetcook, Porters Lake, Musquodoboit Harbour and the beautiful Musquodoboit Valley make up the teams in this league;
Therefore be it resolved that members of the Nova Scotia Legislature congratulate the Eastern Shore Old-Timers Hockey League as they skate into the next millennium.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Parade of Lights is an annual Christmas parade held in downtown Halifax to celebrate the beginning of the Christmas season; and
Whereas this year the parade was held on November 20th and included many excellent floats; and
Whereas the Astral Drive Elementary School PTO entered a float in the Parade of Lights for the first time and ended up winning the 1999 best non-commercial float prize from the organizers;
Therefore be it resolved that this House congratulate Marion Beers, David Beers and the other members of the Astral Drive Elementary School PTO who helped to organize the award-winning float at this year's Parade of Lights.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
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 Cape Breton East.
MR. DAVID WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Premier stated that it would be silly to implement new programs in times of restraint; and
Whereas revenue made from the Sydney Casino specifically earmarked for charities was cost neutral and would not have negatively impacted on the province's bottom line;
Whereas taking this money and putting it to general revenues represents an unprovoked attack on the poor in order to satisfy a twisted Progressive Conservative view that the poor and underprivileged are a drain on the system;
Therefore be it resolved that this House recognize that the Premier has coldly and precisely targeted the poor and underprivileged for heartless reasons and not because it will balance the province's books.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear a No.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas service clubs throughout our province are busy making financial plans to assist those less fortunate in the Christmas season fast approaching; and
Whereas each year the St. Margarets Bay Lions sell Christmas trees with all monies raised going to families in the area; and
Whereas Christmas tree chairman, Jim Swim, has finalized the setup for this year's Lions' tree lot at the Hubley Center in Tantallon;
Therefore be it resolved that this House offer its thanks to Lion Jim Swim and the members of the St. Margarets Bay Lions with best wishes for a successful fund-raising project.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
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 Cape Breton The Lakes.
MR. BRIAN BOUDREAU: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas many seniors and people with disabilities living in the Cape Breton Regional Municipality depend on the Handi-Trans bus service; and
Whereas this important service has been suspended since the start of the strike of the CBRM outside workers; and
Whereas there is a fear that this service will be permanently stopped after the strike because of a review of the transit services in CBRM;
Therefore be it resolved that this government work with the CBRM to make sure this important service is continued.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
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 Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Premier feels that he and his government have been misunderstood; and
Whereas the Premier states, "We have to be clearer in terms of telling Nova Scotians what we are doing and why we are doing it."; and
Whereas it is very clear to Nova Scotians that withholding funds from charities, scrapping a plan to improve accessibility to public buildings for the disabled, outlawing a paramedics strike and cancelling a nursing home licence for the Sisters of Charity are not the things this Tory Government promised to the electorate during the summer election campaign;
Therefore be it resolved that Nova Scotians do recognize this Tory Government for what it is, a government that is blinded by its simple-solution dedication to cuts, and that puts big business ahead of the neediest in Nova Scotia.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Richmond.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the member for Eastern Shore has recently justified the keeping of an illegal dump on his property by saying, "that's the way things are done in rural Nova Scotia'; and
Whereas most rural Nova Scotians would be surprised to learn that the practice of rural Nova Scotians is to pile garbage on their property in contravention of the Environment Act; and
Whereas most people in rural Nova Scotia take pride in their properties and keep their properties at a high level of cleanliness;
Therefore be it resolved that this House demand that the member for Eastern Shore apologize to rural Nova Scotians for his insult and urge that member to take responsibility for his actions instead of blaming the system.
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Hants East.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Premier is starring in his own remake of the tragedy Hamlet; and
Whereas in this drama he plays the much maligned and misunderstood leader of a government who takes from the poor to give to the rich; and
Whereas in this Hamlet the Premier's best line is, "I am concerned . . . that the majority of Nova Scotians seem to continue to think that we have written a cheque to the Bank of Nova Scotia . . .";
Therefore be it resolved that the next soliloquy the Premier speaks will not be so concerned about how misunderstood he is but about what he will do for the most disadvantaged Nova Scotians.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear a No.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada refused to revisit the Marshall trial on native fishing rights; and
Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada elaborated on its original decision by stating that the native fishery should be regulated; and
Whereas the federal government is entrusted with the responsibility of regulating the fishery;
Therefore be it resolved that this House encourage the Minister of Fisheries to enter into immediate dialogue with his federal counterpart to have these regulations drafted and approved forthwith.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear a No.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MS. EILEEN O'CONNELL: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Raging Grannies have been donning their shawls and bonnets and singing out on social justice issues for years and years; and
Whereas on Friday, November 19th, the YMCA of Greater Halifax-Dartmouth awarded its 1999 Peace Medal to the Raging Grannies; and
Whereas this award was given to honour their pledge to social justice and commitment to preserving alliances with marginalized people;
Therefore be it resolved that this House congratulate the Raging Grannies on receiving the 1999 YMCA Peace Medal.
Mr. Speaker, I seek waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
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 Clare.
MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives recently issued a report on Canadian provinces' commitment to post-secondary education; and
Whereas Nova Scotia was tied with New Brunswick for third place; and
Whereas Ontario, which is governed by our Premier's great role model, Mike Harris, is ranked last among all provinces;
Therefore be it resolved that this House recommend to the Premier that he cease his worship of his Ontario colleague since that will only lead to Nova Scotia replacing Ontario in last place.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for waiver, please.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear a No.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Halifax Needham.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the Halifax Chronicle-Herald employees who are represented by the Canadian Media Guild have approved their first collective agreement; and
Whereas the conclusion of the first agreement is always difficult and requires goodwill from both parties who are forging a new relationship; and
Whereas the Chronicle-Herald is the single largest news outlet in Atlantic Canada and the most significant, independent newspaper in Canada;
Therefore be it resolved that this House congratulate the Halifax Chronicle-Herald and the Canadian Media Guild for successfully concluding a first collective agreement without a management-labour dispute.
Mr. Speaker, I seek waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
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 Cape Breton East.
MR. DAVID WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas Councillor Ron Burrows has served the people of Glace Bay since his election to town council in 1976, and later with the Cape Breton Regional Municipality; and
Whereas Councillor Burrows believes that the most important part of being a councillor is responding to a steady stream of phone calls for help from constituents; and
Whereas Councillor Burrows, who represents District 4, which includes Table Head, New Aberdeen, The Hub, Sterling and Reserve Street area, has announced his retirement from municipal politics and will not re-offer in the October 2000 election;
Therefore be it resolved that the members of this House recognize the important contribution of Councillor Ron Burrows of Glace Bay to the public life of the province and wish him all the best on his retirement from municipal politics.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
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 Cape Breton Centre.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas a former Soviet Premier pounded his desk to emphasize his infamous claim of "we will bury you"; and
Whereas the current Nova Scotia Premier pounded his desk to emphasize his infamous claim that we did not help Scotiabank; and
Whereas Nikita Khrushchev's days in office were numbered when he began pounding his desk;
Therefore be it resolved that instead of pounding, the Premier should ponder and pull together the pragmatic, compassionate government he promised Nova Scotians.
Mr. Speaker, I seek waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear a No.
The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas in the Saturday Daily News, a former Progressive Conservative candidate wrote in to praise Premier John Hamm and his caucus for boldly pledging to stop listening to special interest groups; and
Whereas among the notable accomplishment of this government is cancelling assistance to the disabled and taking money from charities to give it to big banks; and
Whereas the Premier and his caucus know exactly what they are doing;
Therefore be it resolved that the members of this House acknowledge that the motto of the Premier and his caucus was best summed up by George Bernard Shaw, who said "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.".
MR. SPEAKER: The notice is tabled.
The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas cross-cultural experiences are a key component of a young person's education; and
Whereas multiculturalism and education are brought together at Cole Harbour High School and Auburn Drive High School through the hosting of foreign exchange students; and
Whereas the exchange students are a welcome part of the communities of Cole Harbour and Eastern Passage and the host families with whom they live for several months;
Therefore be it resolved that this House recognize the efforts of the staff of Cole Harbour High School, Auburn Drive High School, the host families and the exchange students to promote multiculturalism through personal experiences and mutual understanding.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for waiver.
MR. SPEAKER: There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the order of business, Public Bills for Second Reading.
PUBLIC BILLS FOR SECOND READING
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 20.
Bill No. 20 - Emergency "911" Act.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Speaker, when we left off debate on Bill No. 20 last Thursday, I was setting out reasons for my support of the amendment that was on the floor. The amendment that is on the floor is essentially a hoist amendment. Members will recall that it calls for a six-month interruption in proceeding with this bill. This is the bill that essentially is designed to put in place a user fee for the 911 service. It is a user fee on an emergency
service. This is the bill that would require Nova Scotians who wish to use the 911 in order to call for fire, police or ambulance services to find themselves with a charge on their phone bill the next month.
I have already addressed the whole question of user fees and the circumstances in which user fees are appropriate. In reviewing that, I think I showed that there are limited circumstances in which governments should contemplate using user fees. It may be that if a government wishes to discourage a service, then it might be appropriate to put a user fee in place, but I find it hard to imagine that the Minister responsible for the Emergency Measures Act would be interested in putting in place some measure that would discourage Nova Scotians from using the 911 service; there has never been even the remotest suggestion that it is being abused.
[2:45 p.m.]
Quite clearly, if Nova Scotians believe that they need 911 service the whole point about putting in place an efficient, province-wide, uniform service was to try to put in place something that would assist Nova Scotians in their moments of emergency. It is for those individual Nova Scotians to decide whether there is an emergency. Clearly it makes no sense to try to discourage the use of that service and that is what a user fee would do.
I have reviewed that and I imagine other members will review that part of it, but I also want to turn to another aspect of the bill that I haven't heard any comment on yet, and which equally, along with the inappropriateness of a user fee for the 911 service, should give us pause, and this is the provision in the bill that essentially eliminates any potential liability on the part of the operators of the system.
Now limiting tort liability is not something that we ought to do lightly. This bill suggests that the operators of the 911 system cannot be sued should they do something wrong. Now, why would you want to do this? If someone does something wrong that is of a non-criminal, non-contractual sort of wrong, then the courts are the place in which the question of liability is determined. This is a traditional function of the courts; this is the kind of function that the courts have performed in the common law tradition for hundreds of years. There is a well-developed jurisprudence around tort liability. This is one of the basic subjects taught in law school; this is something in which the courts have expertise. If the government decides that it wants to offer absolute immunity to some entity, there has to be a good reason for it or there ought to be a good reason for it, but we have not been told any reason for extension of immunity of this sort to the 911 operators.
Now if it is a question of who ought to pay if something goes wrong, then that is the sort of thing that could be determined in a contract between the government and the 911 operators. If they are afraid that the 911 operators won't wish to be involved, won't allow themselves to be involved unless they are given this kind of immunity, then perhaps the
government ought to operate it themselves, or perhaps the government should address this question of sharing the risk of a potential tort suit in a contract that apportions responsibility, but how can it be that the government brings in legislation that says, right off the bat to citizens, that there is no possibility of a lawsuit ever being brought?
I can understand that in most of the circumstances one could contemplate, probably the 911 operator wouldn't be responsible, or if they were responsible for some kind of injury it might be seen to be very remote, but do you know what? This whole question of who is responsible for tortious actions, to what extent they might be responsible, and how remote the liability might be, these are exactly the kinds of questions that courts determine. They determine them by looking at the details of any set of circumstances and, as any judge who deals with civil matters or any lawyer who practises in this area will tell you, it is impossible to determine in advance of given sets of circumstances who might be liable. New circumstances come along all the time.
There are certain general principles that guide one, but the general principle is that if you are carrying out functions upon which another person relies, and you either deliberately or negligently fail in your duties thereby causing harm, you are responsible for reimbursing the person for the harms that you have caused. But this bill includes measures that would absolutely rule out any kind of claim. It would do so regardless of the circumstances.
To just illustrate how completely misplaced the thinking of these provisions is, I would like to remind the government members that tort claims are broadly of two sorts. It is quite obvious that the drafters of this clause were thinking about negligence, but there is another category of tortious claims. The other category of tortious claims is the intentional infliction of harm, not just doing something inadvertently, carelessly, wantonly or recklessly, that is negligence. The other category is doing something intentional.
Now, it is easy to understand the difference. If you are moving around through a crowded room and you accidentally bump into somebody and you do them a slight harm, perhaps even a serious harm, it is done by accident. That is negligence. But if you haul off and punch somebody, that is deliberation. That is doing something intentionally. Of course, when you do it deliberately, often you can do serious harm. This clause says that regardless of whether it is negligence, or deliberate, you can't sue.
Now I know that it is very unlikely that any of the parties named as being given protection in this bill are likely to do anything harmful, deliberately. Yet, I can imagine one set of circumstances in which that would apply. Now at the moment, everyone contemplates that the service will be handled by MTT, but at the same time, the legislation quite specifically contemplates that some other kind of entity might handle the service. These are called CLECs, that is something entitled a competitive local exchange carrier, a CLEC. But what I want you to imagine is the following circumstance.
Suppose there is a fire at the Sprint office. Remember Sprint? Sprint is a competitor to MTT and other telephone carriers. So suppose they have set up business in Nova Scotia. MTT has the contract; there is a fire at the Sprint office and they call 911. MTT people take it into their heads to say, too bad, we are not going to pass on your call to the fire services, you are just going to have to live with it. Figure it out yourself. Now I am not suggesting that they would do this. I certainly hope they wouldn't do this, but if harm entailed because of the deliberate refusal to pass on a call for help, this legislation says you can't sue. This legislation says you wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
Now others may be able to imagine other circumstances in which someone deliberately fails to pass on a message. You could imagine an employee of the 911 service unfortunately behaving in a mentally ill or erratic fashion and deliberately failing to do it. This bill says, you can't sue. You are calling for police, for an ambulance, for the fire truck, and the 911 service deliberately doesn't do anything to help you out. You can't sue. How on earth can that possibly make sense?
Now when I review the Statutes of Nova Scotia and I look for examples in which tort liability is eliminated, there are very few of them. It is extremely limited, the circumstances in which the government has chosen to refuse to allow private citizens or companies access to the courts in order to seek redress and compensation for tortious wrongs. If there is any justification for that to occur, I would hope that all members at the very least would agree with me that it cannot be extended. That kind of protection cannot be extended in cases of deliberate tortious acts.
Surely that narrows the focus of discussion down to the question of negligence so at the very least this part of the bill needs amendment. In my suggestion it needs further study which is why the hoist proposal makes sense. This is obviously not a well-thought-through proposal. This is a proposal that takes an extraordinary step. I find it hard to have any kind of sympathy for a government proposing to give exemption from the normal rigours of such an ancient and well-respected aspect of the law.
There are categories that we are aware of that are commonly met with. Workers' compensation is an example that goes back almost a full century. The legislation that governs the workers' compensation system says that you cannot sue your employer in negligence if something goes wrong. It says it, but it says it for a reason. The reason it does that is that at the same time as it offers protection from tort liability to employers, it sets up an insurance scheme so that fault does not enter into it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the honourable member allow for an introduction at this time?
MR. EPSTEIN: An introduction, yes, of course, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Education.
HON. JANE PURVES: Mr. Speaker, if you would permit an introduction with a brief preamble. Just a few moments ago, I was honoured to sign a protocol with the Republic of the Philippines and the Nova Scotia Oceans initiative. This protocol is kick-starting a partnership in marine and Maritime education that will last 15 to 20 years. I might add that no other province, no other country has reached such an agreement with the Phillippines.
I would ask the members of the House to join me in giving a warm Nova Scotia welcome to our distinguished guests from the Philippines. We have with us Congressman Dante Liban, Chair of the Committee on Higher Education in the Philippine House of Representatives; Dr. Ester Garcia, Chair of the Philippine Commission on Higher Education. We have Dr. Mona Dumlao-Valisno, Commissioner with CHED; Mrs. Elenita Delgado, Deputy Administrator of the Maritime Industry Development Authority; and Dr. Adrian Arcelo, a private consultant. Would you rise and receive the welcome of the House. (Applause)
MR. EPSTEIN: Mr. Speaker, I was making the point that as we consider the hoist we ought to consider not just the question of whether it is advisable to have a user fee for an emergency service, but we ought to consider another aspect of the bill which is the protection from tort liability that is offered to all the parties involved in the delivery of the 911 service. I was suggesting that this is such a rare occurrence in the law that it should not be allowed to go forward without some kind of specific stated justification offered by the government and, of course, we are not offered any justification. Hence, we are left to speculate.
I was also saying that when we consider when this kind of protection from tort liability has been offered to other entities, it has been in such exceptional circumstances that the force and logic of it tend to be manifest, but that there is usually an offsetting justification. The example I had just given was the example of the workers' compensation system in which we recognize that although employers are given protection from tort liability, it is because at the same time a system of no-fault insurance has been set up in order to offer the workers' compensation. What stands out about this bill is that, no such system of no-fault compensation is put in place to take the place of the tort system.
[3:00 p.m.]
Other circumstances in which liability is limited are the occasional provisions you find in bills which require that a very strong standard be met if someone is to bring a successful tort action. So it is not mere negligence or bare negligence but a kind of reckless negligence that would still attract liability.
Mr. Speaker, that isn't said in this bill either. It is not that the standard is made more difficult for a litigant, it is that the access of the litigants to the courts or potential litigants to the courts is completely eliminated. Now I cannot see that there is any suggestion made of why it is that the government thinks that this is necessary. There is nothing in the explanatory notes, there are no explanatory notes with respect to this provision in the bill. There is nothing in the comments that have been made by the government when it offered this bill to us that explained why it is that they felt that this was necessary. Therefore, we are left to speculate on our own. I cannot see that there is any good motive for doing that.
Surely it is obvious that a hoist for six months to allow further study of this would give us the opportunity, us as legislators together in this House, all three Parties, to study whether there is any justification for this kind of extraordinary clause in a bill. I can't think of one, but it may emerge during a public round of consultations that there is some reason, but at the moment it is unstated, any justification that might exist has not been suggested by the minister or, so far as I have noticed, any speaker whose has risen to support the bill. On that basis alone, I think it would be appropriate to vote in favour of the motion for a hoist.
So just to review, Mr. Speaker, I have suggested that reasons to support the hoist are: first, the fact that it is, as a matter of principle, wrong to look for a user fee when it comes to emergency services; second, I have suggested that since we now know that something like 200,000 or more calls per year can be expected, we actually have some feel for the magnitude or potential magnitude of the tax that is about to be imposed on Nova Scotians and that it is wrong; third, that there is an unjustified immunity from tort liability being offered to all entities associated with delivering the 911 service.
What I have suggested is that any one of these reasons, but certainly all three in combination, which is what Bill No. 20 offers us, amounts to a very clear justification for hoisting this bill for further study and I hope that the government will agree, in the end, having had the opportunity now to consider it in more detail, that this hoist make sense. I hope the government members will support this hoist and I hope the government members will recall that a hoist does not end the bill. All it does is, it gives an opportunity for further study. So with those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I am prepared to vote in favour of the motion for amendment, that is to say the motion to give a six months' hoist to this bill. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to make a number of interventions on this particular motion to hoist Bill No. 20, an Act to Amend Chapter 4 of the Acts of 1992, the Emergency "911" Act. I support the motion to hoist for a variety of reasons. Before I dwell deeply on that, I will give you the background and the rationale for supporting this particular hoist, which I believe is important and is fundamental to the issue at hand for the people of Nova Scotia, and that is the right to participate and to be consulted
on a very important and pressing issue that the Minister of Health has brought before this House of Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, when the minister introduced this particular piece of legislation, it was done, I somehow felt, in a very low-key and unassuming fashion, without the usual fanfare that Ministers of the Crown would deign when implementing a particular piece of legislation. There was no press conference, there was no briefing as to the analysis of this particular piece of legislation. It was just simply introduced in the House of Assembly in a very low-key and unassuming fashion, perhaps designed to not attract a lot of attention, not only for members of the House of Assembly but also for the people of Nova Scotia, in essence the stakeholders who are most affected.
Mr. Speaker, without this consultative process, what we will find, as has been the case in many pieces of legislation that have come before this House on previous days, not only with the present administration but indeed other administrations, to be fair to the government and indeed the Minister of Health, it is a lesson that has been learned by politicians from both sides of the House.
Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation and my intent to support the hoist is premised on the fact that the people of Nova Scotia have not been consulted. They have not been consulted on what is evidently a tax measure. It is a tax measure in a circumvented fashion by virtue of the fact that we are implementing a tax without telling the people of Nova Scotia that it is in effect a tax. It is a user fee.
One has to ask themselves, how many user fees are there in the Province of Nova Scotia that have been implemented by government, in the present and in the past, that essentially drain the very valuable resources that the individual homeowner has in terms of meeting their day-to-day obligations, whether it be paying for their grocery bill, their lights, their telephone, their mortgage, their day-to-day operations, their automotive expenses, insurance.
Mr. Speaker, this in essence takes that much more away from the average family in Nova Scotia. We have some 950,000 Nova Scotians. I believe the Minister of Health has indicated, during one of his media scrums, that there are approximately 1.5 million telephones in the province, thereby consumers, so that the overall cost of this administration fee, this user fee for the 911 system would be very minimal.
Mr. Speaker, that was the intent several months ago. If we go back several months, in June, when the government, after we had dealt with this had made a commitment that the total administration costs would be reduced. Since then and indeed since this particular government and this Minister of Health has taken charge of this issue, the total administrative cost has increased by somewhere in the vicinity of $100,000. The minister is shaking his head no, so I would welcome his intervention to correct me on that.
HON. JAMES MUIR: Mr. Speaker, the response to his question is there were two employees transferred from the Department of the Environment to the Emergency Measures Organization. They were being billed under the Department of the Environment. The increase to the government is not there.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has really clarified this situation by saying that what he has done is he is downloading a further cost to the taxpayers of Nova Scotia. They are paying for those positions, as I understand, in the Department of the Environment, unless he has reduced the budget within the Department of the Environment to the tune of $100,000 - and he is shaking his head yes - but the overall costs to that department, if he will check, has increased.
So I think, irrespective of where the dollars flowed from - from point A to point B to point C - the bottom line is the cost to the taxpayers in that particular department has not decreased, but yet what we are seeing is a downloading of an increase of at least $100,000 of administrative costs in direct charges to the people of Nova Scotia. So they are getting hit twice. They are still getting hit with that increased overall budgetary measure within the Department of the Environment, and yet they are getting hit with an increase of a $100,000 administration cost of a user fee through the emergency 911 system.
Mr. Speaker, the average homeowner today would have at least one, perhaps two telephones, so the question is the distribution of the cost. The distribution of the cost to the homeowner versus the business operator, the corporate board rooms of this province. How is this fee going to be distributed? Is it going to be distributed fairly, or is it going to be a disproportionate share to the consumer on the domestic basis or who, in fact, will be the primary users of this? So those questions haven't really been answered.
It seems to me to be more of an approach on an ad hoc basis. It is very difficult to support a particular piece of legislation that hasn't really given the full rationale other than the basis of a tax grab. Quite frankly, if we are looking at 1.5 million telephones, for example, in the province, and I believe the minister has kind of hinted at the possibility of a $1.00 per month, (Interruption) No? Zero at this point, but the option is open to the minister, as per the legislation, that the provision is there to implement a user fee. So while the minister is stating today, Mr. Speaker, that it is zero cents, it could very well be $1.00 tomorrow if the legislation were to be approved, and the minister has not ruled that out.
One of the reasons, I believe, we need further consultation, Mr. Speaker, is to question very openly as to how this particular piece of legislation has been implemented and is working in other provincial jurisdictions. As we know, there is a lot of interprovincial activity in terms of MTT, which is now incorporated into a Maritime telephone system - so it is not just for the Province of Nova Scotia - and how is that tax going to be implemented and how are we going to be able to distinguish one jurisdiction from the other? Is that responsibility going to be put on the shoulders of the new Maritime telephone system that we have in existence
today? If so, will that result in an increased administration cost over and above what the government is hoping to recoup in terms of its administrative and operational costs with the 911 system under its jurisdiction?
[3:15 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker, I envisage very easily that the monthly fee that is being charged by MTT, which is now a Maritime telephone system - it is regional for all intents and purposes, taking in a number of different provincial jurisdictions and not just the Province of Nova Scotia and the Province of Prince Edward Island but indeed all four. So what we are seeing here is not only the increased cost to government that the Minister of Health has acknowledged that we are downloading by the transfers of these two employees, which will be a direct charge over and above the people's taxation, but also the cost for the telephone company to be able to implement this service and there has been no analysis to date on that.
What is the impact from other provincial jurisdictions? I think it would only be appropriate to take such an issue before the people of Nova Scotia and, indeed, to consult with other jurisdictions, perhaps the Law Amendments Committee would be the appropriate place to allow these various stakeholders to come and participate or at least for a more thorough research and analysis of the situation, Mr. Speaker, before it is just simply railroaded through the consultative process as this particular government sometimes refers to as being consultative. We saw what happened with the paramedics and I think that turned out to be for all intents and purposes, an unmitigated disaster for the government, certainly from public relations, because if communications is what they are planning on improving through a 911 system, that certainly is not the way that I would have chosen.
Mr. Speaker, then there is also the other aspect of it. How does this particular piece of legislation impact on the volunteer fire departments in Nova Scotia? As we know, we have some 8,000 volunteer firefighters in the Province of Nova Scotia. We have somewhere in the vicinity of 376 volunteer fire departments and, most importantly, is the admission by the Fire Marshal's Office of a plan to download the responsibility of basic investigations onto these volunteers. Now, take that in sync or in harmony with this proposed 911 system and what we have is a recipe for a tremendous amount of liability and a burdensome task for the volunteer firefighters in this province.
On the one hand the Minister of Health through his legislation is providing exemption for the corporate strategies of this particular operation, i.e., the carriers of the service, which was initially extended to MTT but because of the diversification through the directive of the Canadian telecommunications board has expanded that. So what we are seeing is not only a burden to the average Nova Scotian who is paying taxes in essence to provide this service through the provincial tax system to operate this as part of one of the government's agency but now they are going to be asked to pay a user fee over and above that, so in essence that
is a hidden tax, plus many of those consumers who are volunteer firefighters or families of volunteer firefighters are going to be expected to assume a greater liability.
So, Mr. Speaker, what we have, in essence, is a very, very unfair distribution of liability and financial burden. The legal liability, alone, to the volunteer firefighters in this province is becoming such that, as I have noted through a number of resolutions that I have introduced in this House on previous days, shows that volunteer firefighters are now finding problems maintaining their membership because the burden, the legal liability and the increased requirements for training are such that they are simply giving up the ghost. They are simply giving up the ghost because this government has found just another way to download its responsibility without assuming some leadership responsibility in terms of training, in terms of the administration, in terms of financial assistance, in terms of the interactive relationships between volunteer firefighters, the paramedics and now indeed with the operators and administrators of the 911 system.
So, Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing is a hodgepodge attempt by the provincial Department of Health, and indeed the provincial government, to find a resolve to a problem that they in effect have created. They have created it because of their uncoordinated approach to dealing with matters of public policy as it comes to the health and safety of the people of Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the people of Nova Scotia would not have had any great problem in finding ways to come up with additional revenue for the paramedics of the province because they understood quite readily and quite willingly the valuable contribution by the paramedics. The Minister of Health, who supports this particular piece of legislation, in fact being the sponsor, is delivering mixed messages to the people of Nova Scotia and indeed to the paramedics because if you look at the contractual obligation that the paramedics of this province have in carrying out their responsibilities, particularly on the issue of due diligence, they have not been given any exemption, any alleviation, any protection, from this government, or indeed from EMC in terms of its responsibilities.
As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the issue was brought up in terms of whether an employee could withdraw his or her services if he or she saw fit. Then there were considerable pressures put on through the legislative and the legal mechanisms to turn that burden of proof over onto the individual employee, but we do not see that with the corporate giants, such as MTT or, as some have suggested, the possibility of Sprint, or whoever it would be. So I think that is an unfair distribution of liability for those who are part of the system, in particular volunteers.
Mr. Speaker, it is tough enough if you volunteer your service, but then to be held liable while those who are being paid very handsomely for participating in this particular service are given legislative protection, I think that is unfair to the volunteer firefighters. I think that is unfair to the volunteer firefighters' families, to the people of Nova Scotia, to the paramedics
and to all those who are involved in the safety and the well-being of the people of Nova Scotia and, in particular, those who need the services of 911.
That in itself, Mr. Speaker, is ample cause to ask for a hoist of this particular piece of legislation and, as has been noted and according the rules of Beauchesne, that hoist would be for either a three or a six month period that would allow for ample consultation and, indeed, if the government is still set on design to incorporate these financial measures as part of their hard-hitting measures coming up in the spring budget, then there is ample opportunity to incorporate them because, as we know, the government has the majority. They can ram this through whether they continue to go around the clock or they don't, but the fact of the matter is, after a certain period of time, the legislation will pass because it is a simple numbers game. It is a numbers game, not only in terms of the fact that the government controls the majority, but it is an issue of time and the Rules of the House. That is fine, we all accept that and the people of Nova Scotia accept that.
That is why, for all intents and purposes, we have a majority government, because that was their choice. But in a sense a fairness, in a sense of ensuring the proper consultation for the people of Nova Scotia and indeed for the shareholders, what is the problem? The government will still be able to meet its financial targets. If this is part of their financial objective and overall package, then there is no problem. There is no problem in consulting with the people of Nova Scotia. In fact, the government may be very well surprised to find out that the people of Nova Scotia support this. Personally, I don't think so, at least I would be somewhat suspect.
The Minister of Health is suggesting perhaps 90 per cent of the people of Nova Scotia would accept an additional hidden tax. I am not so sure that the people of Nova Scotia are open armed to having more hidden taxes dumped on their shoulders when they are struggling for very precious dollars. But again, that is not for me to decide. I can only assume that from the mandate that I have received and from the consultations and the discussions that I have had with constituents and taxpayers across this province, I would say no, Mr. Speaker, they do not support this. It is a hidden tax. It is a sneaky tax. I think it is most unfair.
I believe the resolution that was put forth by my colleague from the NDP caucus, at the Public Accounts Committee several weeks ago, in terms of asking the Auditor General to do a value-for-dollar audit on the total number of user fees in this province was a clear indication that the people of Nova Scotia have no idea how badly they are being hit. They feel it every day, and they sense that they are really being, kind of, gouged by governments of all political Parties, for that matter. But more importantly, the way this government is going, to gouge the taxpayers even more so, I believe we are at a breaking point. That is why it is important to open up the doors of opportunity, open up the windows of the success that the government espouses and open up their ears and listen to what the people of Nova Scotia are saying.
Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is, we want some consultation. We want some consultation and we are not getting it from this government. That is one of the primary reasons I would support a hoist on this particular piece of legislation. The fire marshal, last week, in dealing with basic fire investigations which tie into this 911 system and is a critical component in ensuring protection and quality service for the people of Nova Scotia, indicated in essence that they were going to privatize basic fire investigations by allowing the private firms, individuals and entities to carry out that service.
Mr. Speaker, what is the purpose of the fire marshal's office? By his own admission, with an internal departmental document, he has acknowledged that they are not able to meet those most important and pressing needs for the people of Nova Scotia. He has, by his own admission admitted that there is insufficient training and professional capabilities to meet the demand of the service that is required by these 376 volunteer fire departments notwithstanding the paid services in this province.
[3:30 p.m.]
So we have, Mr. Speaker, yet another problem. How can the government impose such a measure that will create a chain reaction in such a counter-productive fashion without assessing the total impact? That alone should be a clear indication that the Minister of Health should slow down, take some time to interact, to consult with his colleague at the Cabinet Table, the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for this most important service, and he will find that if they are looking to deliver the message to the people of Nova Scotia that they have a clear course, that they are just simply misunderstood, here is an opportunity for them to do that.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Nova Scotia are not misunderstood. The government is not misunderstood. The government is just simply not doing what it said it was going to do. This 911 service in concert with the basic fire investigative service that is provided by the fire marshal's office, at the rate it is going is nothing short of an unmitigated disaster unless it is the design and the intent of this government to privatize the entire service.
Mr. Speaker, all indications are this is part of the government's overall government strategy to privatize government people services. We are seeing the privatization of the fire marshal's office and I think what might be left of that will perhaps go over to the Department of Housing and Municipal Affairs as some adjunct to satisfy some of the demands and the needs within that legislative body, but also, on the other side, what we are seeing is the move towards the privatization of the 911 service.
Also included in that, with the suggestion or the legislative intent by the government to provide the exemption from liability from the lead agents of this particular service, Mr. Speaker, I think it creates another legal quandary and that is if they privatize, and all indications are there is another aspect to this, and that is with regard to the Workers'
Compensation Act. Under the Workers' Compensation Act there is provision for coverage and for protection for volunteer firefighters in this province. How will this impact?
We are seeing, Mr. Speaker, that this downloading is going to have a negative impact not only for the volunteer firefighters but also for the employers in the province. We are going to see a negative impact. So they are getting hit with a hidden user fee. The indications are they are moving towards a privatization and the liability has to come out somewhere. You cannot expect the people of Nova Scotia to accept a system where nobody is going to be held accountable. You cannot expect just the paramedics to be held liable. You cannot expect the volunteer firefighters to be held liable and not the sponsors and the lead agents of this, i.e. the Government of Nova Scotia.
At what point in time do we stop putting the responsibility on everybody else for our actions and that is essentially what the government is trying to do, Mr. Speaker. I think that this particular issue has not been given a full and clear examination. There are still many issues surrounding the issue of liability with volunteer firefighters in this province as it pertains to the Workers' Compensation Board.
To go one step further, if you look at the Tory blue book, which my colleague, the member for Dartmouth North, is always flogging in this House, you will see that the government is planning on moving the Occupational Health and Safety Division from the Department of Labour over to the Workers' Compensation Board. That is clear. So what you are going to see is a dissection of the Department of Labour, which is one of the parent agencies that has a major impact and a major responsibility for this particular piece of legislation, even though they are not the sponsors of this particular piece of legislation. So what is going to be the impact? If the government is going to privatize occupational health and safety, if they are privatizing the issue of 911 and the government hasn't taken issue with my comments, obviously I can only assume that I am not far off the mark and it is part of their overall corporate strategy.
Also, Mr. Speaker, you can see the way they are slowly dismantling the fire marshal's office because by the fire marshal's own admission, they are not even able to meet the demands that are sometimes caused by this very vital service, and that is 911. So the calls are coming in quicker, faster, more efficiently and that, with the liabilities that are imposed on the individual firefighters of this province, I think unless we have an overall corporate strategy from the government as to where and how this is going to be implemented in a coordinated fashion, how it is going to impact on the people of Nova Scotia, will it meet the needs of those who are demanding the service not only from a human resources point of view, but also from a financial point of view.
So, Mr. Speaker, what we have is a deliberate attempt, as I read, by the Government of Nova Scotia to impose a piece of enabling legislation to impose a hidden tax. We have come full circle. We have to look at that very issue, the issue of tax liability. The consumers
of this province don't have the luxury of writing off this additional charge as a tax deduction. The corporations in this province do, whether it be a small business operator or a large commercial or industrial operator, you could write that off, but the average householder in this province cannot write that off, so that is a double hit. The consumers of this province are subsidizing the corporate write-offs once again. That, in itself, is an issue.
So the consumers, when you add it up at the end of the day, and I am sure the Minister of Finance would have very little trouble coming up with the fact that if one wanted to, for the sake of discussion break it down 50/50 - let's say the total charge is $1 million, $0.5 million to the consumers, the private citizens, and $0.5 million to the corporate structures of Nova Scotia, how much, in essence, does it cost the corporate structure of Nova Scotia? Little or nothing, Mr. Speaker.
Anyone who has operated a business, and I have certainly operated one for more than 20 years, could at times, as has been noted here in the Public Accounts Committee last week, a tax liability can turn into a tax asset pretty easily. So, in essence what is the difference, whether you pay it to the tax man or you use it as a corporate right off? In many cases that is what happens, Mr. Speaker. So we are seeing here the potential by the Minister of Health to impose an unfair tax structure. Again, we are going back to the issue of the hoist. The government, I am sure, would be very agreeable to a three months' hoist and still be able to meet its financial targets for its budgetary measures in March or April 2000 because the budget has been approved for this year. The government has laid out its corporate and its financial agenda for the next four to five months, so what is the problem? There is very little inconsistency with putting this particular piece of legislation on hold so that the people of Nova Scotia would have an opportunity to vent this in a fair and equitable fashion, but it is also an opportunity for the government to reflect on how it has not consulted the people of Nova Scotia on this most important issue.
I will bet you a dime to a donut, Mr. Speaker - I don't have a dime and I don't have a donut, unless I were to go to Tim Hortons, but assuming that I did - I would venture to say that at least 75 per cent of Nova Scotians are not fully aware that they will be getting an additional charge on their tax bill at the end of the month. They won't realize, like most people don't realize, about some of these hidden tax charges until they get hit with it. What the government is doing here is trying to go with the flow, get as many as these subtleties, these tax measures, these charges, in, while the people's attention is focused on other issues and maybe that is part of their strategy.
Maybe it is also part of the government's strategy to impose as many of these measures as possible, in as short a period of time as possible, so that after a while, Mr. Speaker, people become immune to how it is going to impact on them. They just say, oh yes, just another tax. Then all of a sudden, six months later, when they can't afford to pay this bill or that bill, they will say where did this come from. Then where will the Minister of Health be? He will say, look, this was openly debated in the House of Assembly, it was given a thorough examination,
and all the good things that the Minister of Health wished to put in the context of trying to sell this as a good piece of legislation and I think that is wrong. I think it is fundamentally wrong. It is wrong not only for the taxpayers of Nova Scotia because, in essence, it is a hidden tax.
It is unfair to those in the rural parts of Nova Scotia where the 911 system really hasn't been given the full opportunity to be exercised. When this 911 system was introduced in Nova Scotia there were concerns that there were certain jurisdictions in the province, such as northeastern Nova Scotia and, in particular, in and around the Cumberland County area, there were areas that the 911 system just simply could not be implemented in providing the same level of service as it is here in metro or in industrial Cape Breton. So we find that in some cases we are going to have consumers of the telephone service in Nova Scotia that will be paying for a service that, in all probability, will not be using for some time.
Also, for the corporate strategists, are they going to be paying for that service when they use their fax machines? You have to have a telephone number to be able to use your fax; it is a telephone fax number. Is that an additional charge over and above what the government is implementing? The government really isn't telling the people of Nova Scotia, to the full extent of what this measure will do in its implementation.
The government has not given any clear indication as to what's the bottom line. What is the bottom line for the people of Nova Scotia? How much more will it cost the consumer? How much more are we going to be taking out of the pockets of the average Nova Scotian?
[3:45 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker, during our budgetary debates, deliberations, with the Minister of Community Services, we learned the poor children of this province only get 95 cents per meal a day to feed themselves. If the government is going to implement a user fee for this 911 system which will be, for all intents and purposes, if you are looking at a budget of $1 million to $1.5 million, then you are going to be charging more for this service than you will be providing for the 50,000 hungry children of this province. So, on one hand the government seems to be very firm on its commitment to fiscal and monetary responsibility, but yet by its very own actions it seems to take a slightly different course.
The Minister of Health has failed to indicate what role the CRTC will play in terms of this particular issue, in terms of control, the administration, the quality of service. How are we going to guarantee the quality of the service, Mr. Speaker, particularly when we get into this very competitive market that we see emerging by the various service distributors in this province? Neither the Minister of Health, nor the Minister of Labour who is responsible for workers' safety and for the volunteer fire service and indeed for fire service in this province, haven't even come close to addressing this particular issue.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is incumbent on the Minister of Labour to stand on his feet in this House and explain to the people of Nova Scotia how this particular piece of legislation will impact the volunteer fire service and indeed the paid fire service and indeed the paramedics and indeed those who are being covered by Workers' Compensation Act and indeed those who are affected by the Occupational Health and Safety Act of this province. I believe the Minister of Labour, as a member of the Executive Council, has a responsibility to stand and make intervention and give that guaranteed quality assurance for the people of Nova Scotia and indeed for those members in this House who are required to vote on this particular piece of legislation. I believe that that is incumbent.
The Premier, himself, earlier in today's paper, says that they are just simply misunderstood, but how can you misunderstand being jabbed with a hidden tax? Any which way you cut it, Mr. Speaker, a tax is a tax is a tax.
AN HON. MEMBER: What do you mean jabbed? We are not only being jabbed, we are being stolen from and everything else.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is very unfair for this government to implement such a regressive, hidden tax measure. Let's be fair, as my colleague, the member for Dartmouth North has suggested, this is not like garbage, you can't bury it. You can't bury this, you know, it is not like (Interruption) There are lots from Dartmouth I am sure, and I am sure they would agree with me. You can't hide these things. Put them out, put them on the table so they will be well vented and the people of Nova Scotia can say, yes, the government needs the money, that is a good issue. It is a worthwhile expenditure and I don't mind coughing up a few extra bucks a month to pay for this service because I know it will protect me, my family, my children, my children's children and, indeed, the community at large, but the government has failed to do that.
Sometimes I wonder if maybe the Minister of Health was just given this directive from the Minister of Finance to meet a corporate target. Okay, we have to start cutting and cutting somewhere. So maybe it is the three wise men in Cabinet. Maybe it is the Baker, Russell, LeBlanc combination. Maybe it is the three wise men. (Interruptions) And the wise woman, perhaps the Minister of Education is in on this. She is nodding her head in a different direction so I am not so sure if she is agreeing or disagreeing, but I am sure that if all things are consistent and if what has taken place in the Department of Health is any indication of what is taking place in other government departments, the users of the education system are going to get hit too, and they are going to get hit hard.
Mr. Speaker, you saw in Ontario where the Harris Government rushed to get a press release out for the Globe and Mail today to state that they weren't going to privatize education in the Province of Ontario. I would certainly look for any measure of comfort from the Minister of Education that she is not going to start implementing a user fee for the people of Nova Scotia in education thereby creating a double system, a double standard. She is not
saying yes and she is not saying no. I guess we can only assume, knowing the track record of this government, that that means yes. My colleague the member for Dartmouth North will certainly ferret it out in his blue book that has been provided to him by the Progressive Conservative caucus.
Mr. Speaker, the impact on municipalities, the government through this 911 piece of legislation has not clarified its role with the municipalities. Through the proposed Fire Prevention Act that was drafted, although not tabled to date, by the Department of Labour in concert and in consultation with the Department of Municipal Affairs will have quite a dramatic impact in terms of who is going to take the lead role and the ultimate responsibility for this 911 service.
As I have indicated before, with the scenario that has been developed between the Department of Health, the Department of Labour and indeed the Department of Municipal Affairs, I think we can (Interruptions) The Minister of Municipal Affairs is saying there is nobody in the Department of Municipal Affairs who will accept that responsibility. I can certainly, perhaps, agree with him, he is the minister and if he can't accept responsibility why would the rest of the staff accept responsibility. If the Minister of Municipal Affairs is asleep at the switch then obviously what he is indicated is that he is not going to accept the responsibility for the 911 system, and hopefully he will give some quality assurance that it will not be downloaded on the municipalities.
Mr. Speaker, if in fact the government's corporate design is to move the fire marshal's office under the responsibility of the Department of Housing and Municipal Affairs, then I think what we will have is in fact a downloading that will have a cause and effect relationship with this 911 system that the Minister of Health is proposing to implement.
Mr. Speaker, as we know, in the Province of Nova Scotia there are 52 municipalities presently - 55 - I am losing count as they start to amalgamate. If we examine, we will find that not all of those municipalities have fire inspectors. They do not have deputy fire marshals or a fire service, investigative service. They have to rely on volunteer firefighters or indeed if you are lucky enough to be within the Halifax Regional Municipality, we have a large enough corporate structured government body that you can provide that, that is fine. But many of these do not.
If we continue to download and compound that problem, it has to come out somewhere. That has to come out somewhere in terms of a tax increase. If it is not going to be a tax increase, it is going to be an increase in user fees. So, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is also incumbent upon the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs to state where he stands within this coordinated approach to the 911 system. As we know, there have been emergency strategies designed, developed and implemented by the Department of Housing and Municipal Affairs, in concert with the Department of Labour, the Department of Health and, indeed, a number of other government departments.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the government is looking for the full approbation and support of Opposition members here who are, in essence, the voice for the people of Nova Scotia who feel that the government is not listening, this is an opportunity for the government, indeed, for the Minister of Health to win support for his legislation. Unfortunately, that is not the case with this particular government. So the Minister of Health is inviting opposition. That is essentially what he and his government are doing; they are inviting opposition by virtue of their silence, by virtue of their reluctance to participate in an open and consultative process.
I am sure that many of the government backbenchers who have volunteer fire services in their respective constituencies, who also count on the interactive and the coordinated approach with the paramedics through EMC in this province, would be quite surprised to find out the impact that this particular piece of legislation would have if they were to take it back to their local volunteer fire departments.
In my constituency, Mr. Speaker, we have 14 volunteer fire departments. All 14 volunteer services do it willingly. They participate in training sessions on a regular basis; they come to the fire school here in Waverley to try to upgrade as best they can, giving up their valuable time for their service. To implement this particular piece of legislation in the fashion that the Minister of Health is planning on implementing it, he is saying to these volunteer firefighters that, yes, we still hold you fully accountable for all your actions, but the other component of this service, the administrators of this 911 service and the distributors, the telecommunications operators, are not going to be held responsible for anything.
Mr. Speaker, what does that say to the volunteer services in the Province of Nova Scotia? Many people don't know but the volunteer service in this province equates to a dollar value greater than the total provincial Civil Service. That is correct. If you look at the total contribution put in by some 300,000 volunteers in this province, you will find that it equates to over $2.2 billion, which is greater than the total payroll for the entire Civil Service in this province, and the government wants to bring in a piece of legislation that is counterproductive and regressive towards the volunteer services of this province.
Mr. Speaker, why wouldn't we want to hoist this particular piece of legislation? Why wouldn't we want further consultation? Why would we not want those who are most affected to participate and to make intervention, to make some very constructive suggestions as to how to improve this particular piece of legislation?
The government is doing very little to enhance its credibility by bringing in a sneaky tax. That is what it is, a sneaky tax . . .
AN. HON. MEMBER: How is it a sneaky tax?
MR. MACKINNON: . . . any which way you cut it because, and an honourable member asks how is it a sneaky tax.
[4:00 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker, quite simply, there is no reduction in the Department of the Environment's budget. The overall Department of the Environment's budget has not been shrunk, so what we are seeing is a shift, a realignment of financial resources to meet some governmental objective. How can the government say we are going to examine all programs, all initiatives and, at the same time, stick it to the people of Nova Scotia? I believe that is very regressive.
If the government were to stand in its place, Mr. Speaker, and say we are going to reduce your personal income tax by one per cent but we are going to implement a user fee for this service, then there could be some balance, some justification. Perhaps not all people have telephones, and there are a lot of communities in this province where people cannot afford telephones, have chosen not to have a telephone or, indeed, the cost of the telephone service is just too excessive for their budgetary needs. So I think if the government was looking for a way of ingratiating itself with the taxpayers or the people of Nova Scotia, they have gone about it in a very wrong and very stubborn fashion.
Mr. Speaker, having a closed mind to the people of Nova Scotia has been a lesson for many governments, including the government that I sat in. We felt that we had made a lot of good decisions but, indeed, one thing this government must realize is it should consult before it acts.
AN HON. MEMBER: Ask John Savage.
MR. MACKINNON: There have been Premiers in the past who have paid the price and I do not want to go too far into history, but Premier Hamm seems to be following the same course as Premier Donald Cameron did. He will act first. You know, pound his fist on the table and say might is right, this is the way we are going to do it, and that is the way it is going to be done and, if you don't like it, too bad.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Nova Scotia don't accept that. They don't accept it. So is there a reason why the Premier and his government is misunderstood? Perhaps we should rename the Premier Dr. C. because many of the things happening over here are a simple cover-up. So we will call him Dr. Cover-up because by ramming this particular piece of legislation through without proper vetting and discussion is a cover-up. It is a simple cover-up because the people of Nova Scotia have not had an opportunity to reflect and contemplate the implications.
What the government is saying is that presently we are using about $1 million of your taxpayers' money for the 911 service, but what we are going to do is take that $1 million, put it somewhere else in the government bureaucracy and we are going to hit you with another $1 million tax. They are not going to call it a tax, they are going to call it a user fee, Mr. Speaker, which will have as I have indicated before a corporate advantage, but a consumer disadvantage.
Mr. Speaker, I realize you are signalling my time has expired, or is about to expire, but I certainly look forward to making further intervention on this most important piece of legislation. I would ask the government, and I would ask the Minister of Health to reconsider this rather bull-headed, stubborn, and non-consultative approach to taxing the people of Nova Scotia. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Speaker, I too will be supporting hoisting this bill. I don't think I will speak as long because I am going to try to speak on the bill.
AN HON. MEMBER: A novel suggestion.
MR. CORBETT: A novel suggestion and, do you know what, I may regret making that statement. The idea of the hoist in this bill, and my rationale for supporting it, is the fact that before there can be any changes it really has to go through a federal commission, the Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission. So before this even saw the light of day in this House, in some respects, I wonder if it would have been much wiser to go to that commission and get approval. Then we would know within this House what we are really dealing with on a dollar value because, for sure, none of us are supporting another hidden tax.
This bill goes a step further and says it is a hidden tax and that again is hidden. We don't know, in this bill, if we are going to be paying a user fee on a per call basis. We don't know whether the fee would be for the amount of telephones you own or the use of your telephones, there are many variables here. That is the problem and it is a large problem, Mr. Speaker. Let's look at it from a side that maybe people in our chairs don't assume to look at it from, but from a corporate aspect. If you are a large firm that has many telephones, and that is the way you access your business, whether you are a call centre, a broadcaster or some form of news gatherer where you would need lots of telephones and access to telephones, is it fair then to place a burden, perhaps $1.00 a phone, on those businesses? I don't think so.
A service charge or a tax? I think most people in this House agree with the fact that whatever you want to call it, that fee you pay should have a correlation to the service received. That is a problem with this legislation because no one really knows what and how this is going to be taxed. So now by hoisting it, I think we give a couple of things. One of them is, when the service fee goes off to the CRTC, and the provincial government then
shines some light on it and tells the commission what it intends to do in a fiscal way of extracting money, now we have been found out. Is it a phone tax, a user fee, what is it? So then they explain it to the commission.
We all know that one of the CRTC's great traits is its slowness in making decisions. One can only look at the mess the broadcast industry in this country is in because of the CRTC's inability to grapple with an emerging industry. Now they are also on the edge of stuff like the Internet. Again, this commission, instead of being on the leading edge, is on the hind end. So one has to wonder about the whole idea of where we are going to go with the commission? Why wouldn't the government go to them seeking the openness that this bill deserves? They would have gone and said, here is what we are going to do. We are going to charge a $1.00 a month fee, we are going to charge a 10 cent service charge per call, we are going to charge a $1.00 service fee per call. No.
This government is playing three-card monte with this bill. They are asking us to pass a bill that has tax implications (Interruptions) You are going to pass a bill which you don't even know the extent of the tax implications. But it is a good bill. We don't know who is going to be affected by this bill financially in this province, but they are asking us to support it. This is a bill that in no way, shape or form reflects the infamous blue book, it is not there. It is just not there.
Why are they so anxious at this point in time to trotting this bill out? You can't even check it off in the proverbial blue book. The only thing one could even in their wildest imagination think of is maybe when we rise that they are going to have a public document that they will circulate around to the media and so on, and tell them, these are all things we have done in the short sitting of the House.
AN HON. MEMBER: It is supposed to be on the website.
MR. CORBETT: Yes. It could be posted on their website with all their other good news. Interesting read. Maybe that is one reason we should really look at the CRTC and its role of what people can put on the electronic airways, via the Internet, via e-mail because sometimes it is just not completely accurate.
Why do this? Why do this bill? Is 911 costing this province too much? Are we going to go and sell this bill to the public in a way that says, your safety depends on it. Well, that is a very mean-spirited thing to do, to deliver that to Nova Scotians and tell Nova Scotians that if you want to stay safe in your home, then we have a cost that goes with that home safety. We are not going to tell you today, we are not going to tell you tomorrow, and we are going to put it through a federal body and they are going to come back and we are going to let you know. What is home safety worth?
Mr. Speaker, that is wrong-minded to do that in the first place, but what is even more wrong-thinking in that is the fact that it is a tax. However they come up with this, whatever way they are going to massage this, it is a tax. That by itself is a good enough reason to hoist the bill; to tell Nova Scotians, look, we are listening, that what you are doing matters to Nova Scotians, and that these things should be thought through more clearly. Truly this bill, even in its title, does not really purport itself to be a service fee, a tax, whichever you want to call it, on 911. Truly the bill, all it says is Bill No. 20 is an Emergency 911 Act.
One would think that bringing in a bill with an innocuous title like that, what you are being asked to do is support better 911 service. Well, obviously on a very short bit of scrutiny, I found out that that bill was not what that was intended to do. The bill was certainly intended to be a tax, and to help. It was two hidden taxes, as I said; one was that it is going to be a form of user fee, and we don't even know what that user fee is or what it is going to be applied to. When you put a flat user fee on something, it always hurts those at the lower end of the economic spectrum because a dollar out of someone's pocket who makes $12,000 a year is much more onerous than for someone who makes $120,000. So is that where this government is going?
[4:15 p.m.]
We can't debate that here today, Mr. Speaker, because we don't know. The government, in its wisdom, decided, no. I have often said in this House, they like to play three-card monte and not show you the game and that is the way they are governing. It is just like keep everything behind their little desk and then ask Nova Scotians to buy into it. Well, as we are finding out, fewer and fewer Nova Scotians are buying into this government.
What do we get by hoisting the bill? We get, I think, a government that will show it is responsive to Nova Scotians and a government if, indeed, they have a plan, it will be time for them to show it, that people in this province will see this plan unfold, they will see this tax unfold and they then would be able to go forward. Instead, they don't want to tell us anything, they just say, pass this bill and we will look after people.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, we talked about the CRTC and the emergence of new technologies and new forms of communications. Just this past week, less than a week ago, when Eastlink Cable decided it was going to provide a local telephone exchange here in metro. How does that impact? We don't know yet. I am sure it will be referred to as a CLEC. We don't know where that is at yet, because that hasn't been substantiated in front of the commission.
So it begs the question back again, why is this government in such a hurry to put this flawed piece of legislation forward? Why wouldn't they, in their great wisdom, decide and tell the people of Nova Scotia, no, there are just too many variables out there, that we don't think we should heap this on this province at this time and that we should get clarity. We will
come back and we are going to do two things, we will tell Nova Scotians what we are going to do and how we are going to do it, whether it is going to be a hidden tax, it is a per user fee, it is going to be when you buy a telephone, whether it will be included in your monthly statement from your telephone company, whoever the carrier may be.
Why not say those things? Wouldn't that make the debate so much more simpler? Wouldn't Nova Scotians then be able to say to their politicians, well, I don't like user fees but I can live with this amount or it would certainly stop a lot of the debate that is going on in this House today of people saying, well, they don't have telephones and they don't have this. I mean we can go down the road later on about who can afford any kind of telecommunication devices in this province shortly.
Mr. Speaker, that is where we are at. We have a tax but we don't know what it is. We don't know whether it is going to be on your equipment or it is going to be on your bill or if it is going to be usage. So we don't know where we are going to go from there. Let's look at those people in Nova Scotia that can't afford the telephone system. It would be interesting if we could grab statistics to look at the type of people who access the 911 service in this province and where they are at in the socio-economic ladder in this province, because I am quite sure it would bear out with other statistics that it would tend to be the poor and disadvantaged, by and large, that is the greatest number.
Mr. Speaker, we are here and we are talking about the poor and a lot of times when we disagree with a government motion and we make statements, they have often said, you guys are fearmongerers.
I will make this statement with that phrase in mind because I am thinking of seniors who are living alone and if they see that they have this monthly stipend coming in and these monies going out, if that bill is a dollar per call - again, maybe a dollar is not much to you and me, but to somebody who is living on $7,000 or $8,000 a year that is quite a bit of money - and they decide, maybe it is just the flu, I shouldn't do that, that may the difference between milk for my toast and tea in the morning, so no, I am not going to do that, that is the type of situation that worries me, Mr. Speaker. We could make that statement and our Party could put it in a press release in the morning and couch it in that way, at this point I would probably tend to agree with your thinking and that would be fairly irresponsible, wouldn't it? Nobody knows if that is true and we would be scaring people needlessly.
The problem with the direction this bill takes is we do not know whether that is fact or fiction. The government refuses to come forward and say, this is exactly what we are going to do, we are going to charge per call, we are going to charge per phone, or whatever. That is one, and another example we could use, Mr. Speaker, is a low-income, single parent whose child is in need of emergency services. Is it the same thing again? Are they afraid to make that call because it will impact on lunch money at school the next day or the next week because,
again, these are not extras. As members are often wont to say in this House, that kids get 90-some cents a day when they are on Community Services.
While I agree with that position, one has to look in the mirror sometimes when you are a former minister in a former government when you make those statements. I think you have to look in the mirror and decide the rightness of that position because while I may have great differences with the government across the way, and I may agree with certain people who say that they have done some hurtful things, they have certainly had some allies since 1993.
So, Mr. Speaker, where do we go? Do we as an Opposition Party move forward and support this legislation? Do we muster the troops and try to defeat it? Well, you are a bright man, you know the numbers in this House. We can use our legislative devices that are here to stall the bill, if that is a way of putting it, but you know, Mr. S