HALIFAX, MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2025

[Page 1372]

Sixty-fifth General Assembly

First Session

4:00 P.M.

SPEAKER

Hon. Danielle Barkhouse

DEPUTY SPEAKERS

John White, Marco MacLeod, Tom Taggart

THE SPEAKER » : Order. The honourable Chief Clerk.

JAMES CHARLTON: Speaker, in the excitement of Friday, I neglected to advise the House that the Committee of the Whole House on Bills had met and considered Private Bill Nos. 30 and 48 without any amendments, and that the Chair had been instructed to recommend those bills to the favourable consideration of the House.

THE SPEAKER « » : Ordered that the bills be read a third time.

PRESENTING AND READING PETITIONS

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Richmond.

HON. TREVOR BOUDREAU: Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition from residents of Richmond County. The operative clause of the petition reads:

Whereas Grande Greve Road . . . located in Richmond County, Nova Scotia, is currently a gravel road which receives minimal annual maintenance; and

Whereas Grande Greve Road has many current residents along with lands available for future housing developments located less than three kilometres from the Village of St. Peter's, a growing commercial/retail district in Richmond County; and

Whereas Grande Greve Beach is a popular destination for residents and tourists that is well situated for future development and is located at the end of the Grande Greve Road;

Therefore we, the undersigned residents of Nova Scotia with an interest in improving safety for residents and visitors to Grande Greve Road call upon the Minister of Public Works to pave the Grande Greve Road from where it begins on Route 247 to the Grande Greve Beach.

[Page 1373]

There are 172 signatures on the petition, and I have affixed my signature on the front page, as per the rules of the House.

THE SPEAKER « » : The petition is tabled.

PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Bedford Basin.

TIM OUTHIT « » : Speaker, as Vice Chair of the Committee on Public Bills, I am directed to report that the committee has met and considered the following bill:

Bill No. 24 - Temporary Access to Land Act and Joint Regional Transportation Agency Act (amended).

THE SPEAKER « » : The report is tabled. Ordered that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on Bills.

TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS

STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS

GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NOTICES OF MOTION

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Truro-Bible Hill-Millbrook-Salmon River.

HON. DAVE RITCEY « » : I beg leave to make an introduction.

THE SPEAKER « » : Oh, please do.

DAVE RITCEY « » : In the gallery today, we have Charlotte MacKinnon and her cheer teammate and friend, Juliette Hyndeman. Charlotte and Juliette and their team will be representing Canada in the Under-16 Level 2 division in Orlando, Florida this April, and we look forward to cheering them on as they represent our country at the Summit championship event. I would like to ask all members of the House to welcome and wish Team Luxe the best of luck in Florida. Go, Canada, go. (Applause)

[Page 1374]

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome to the House. We hope you enjoy your time here, and good luck in your competition.

The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

C. ROBERTSON BUS. EQUIPMENT: CLOSING - RECOG.

SUZY HANSEN « » : I rise today to recognize a long-standing business family in the Halifax Needham community, C. Robertson Business Equipment. These third-generation business owners are looking to retire and are putting their North End store's long-time home on Cunard Street on the market. Darren and Mike Robertson are moving on from the business that their grandfather, Alec Robertson, started in 1928 when he bought the hardware store on Gottingen Street. Its current home at 5514 Cunard Street is where Alec and Mike relocated, and they were known as the Robertsons Variety Store.

Mike's father took over the business in 1956, shifted to selling, servicing, and renting business equipment, and today the store sells TVs, laptops, toners, ink cartridges, cash registers, and so on, and they were once the biggest sellers of electronic typewriters - probably in Canada - all at one time. We will miss this staple in our community and especially the friendly staff and family that has always been helpful when it comes to these products, and I wish them well in their early retirement.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.

SUMMERBY-MURRAY, DR. ROBERT: SMU LEADERSHIP - THANKS

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : I rise to recognize Dr. Robert Summerby-Murray, the 34^th president of Saint Mary's University. He will be leaving SMU this July after serving a full decade as president. Dr. Summerby-Murray has a long, distinguished career as a researcher, teacher, and university administrator across Canada. As Saint Mary's president, he has championed academic excellence and has been recognized as one of Atlantic Business magazine's Top 50 CEOs.

He has shown a deep commitment to the international mosaic of Saint Mary's student body. Anytime there is an event in Halifax celebrating our diverse communities, you'll probably find Dr. Summerby-Murray there. Speaker, I ask that all members of this House join me in thanking Dr. Summerby-Murray for his leadership and wish him the best in this next chapter.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Preston.

HON. TWILA GROSSE « » : I beg leave to make an introduction before I begin my statement.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

[Page 1375]

TWILA GROSSE « » : Joining us today in the gallery is Al MacPhee, a true legend in the automotive field. Al, it is an honour to introduce you in the Legislature. I would ask you to rise and receive a gracious welcome from this House of Assembly. (Applause)

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome, Al. We hope you enjoy your time here.

The honourable member for Preston.

MACPHEE, AL: AUTO INDUSTRY CONTRIBS. - THANKS

HON. TWILA GROSSE « » : I rise today to acknowledge the remarkable contributions of Al MacPhee, a true Nova Scotian business icon. With nearly six decades in the automotive industry, Al's journey from Cape Breton to national prominence is inspiring. As past chairman of the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association and former president of both the Nova Scotia and Halifax Dartmouth Automobile Dealers' Associations, Al has tirelessly shaped the auto industry.

His leadership at MacPhee Chevrolet Buick GMC Cadillac for 27 years turned the dealership into Nova Scotia's largest and Canada's third-largest General Motors dealership. Today, he continues his impressive career as president of MacPhee Ford in Dartmouth.

Al's legacy extends beyond business. He and his wife, Mary, passionately support the MacPhee Centre for Creative Learning, empowering marginalized youth through innovative education. Recognized as one of Atlantic Canada's Top 50 CEOs and honoured with prestigious awards such as the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association Laureate recognition and Ford's global Salute To Dealers, Al exemplifies dedication, leadership, and community spirit.

Speaker, I ask all members to please join me in celebrating Al MacPhee's exceptional contributions to Nova Scotia.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier.

CAUCUS STAFF: WORK - RECOG.

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Speaker, as time has been ticking down on our time here in the Legislature, I want to give a few thank yous. First, thank you to our caucus staff, who have been keeping us going. To my staff at my office: Dylan, who is doing a lot of heavy lifting these days; to Anne and Donna, who have been helping out in our office as well as looking after our constituents in our pop-up offices. I cannot thank them enough.

To my husband, who's been holding down the fort at home with our children, and my children for their patience as Mommy gets in the car and drives off to Halifax and drives home every week; and to our family, who have been helping out and making sure that our daughter Rory gets to her swim lessons.

[Page 1376]

I also want to thank my caucus staff when my daughter was sick in the hospital for picking up my slack and allowing me that time to be with her.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.

REYNOLDS, DAVE: BOOK LAUNCH - CONGRATS.

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : Speaker, today I want to recognize a good friend of mine, Dave Reynolds. He's been a friend for a long time, and he's launching a new book tomorrow called Radicle Growth. In this book, he presents a compelling narrative on becoming an unstoppable leader by mastering the art of asking powerful questions.

Central to Radicle Growth is the idea that effective leaders use questions to foster deeper understanding, encourage critical thinking, and empower their teams to realize their full potential. This approach transforms a traditional paradigm of leadership by placing emphasis on dialogue and inquiry rather than directive and control. Dave's insights are invaluable for any leader looking to guide their teams and solve complex problems. By employing the techniques outlined in Radicle Growth, leaders can cultivate an environment where innovation thrives and individuals feel genuinely valued and heard.

Through this groundbreaking work, Dave equips leaders with a powerful framework by using questions to unlock potential and achieve extraordinary results. I ask the members in the House to join me in recognizing Dave, and I encourage everyone in the House to take a look at his book.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Victoria-The Lakes.

RAPP, PAUL: RETIREMENT - CONGRATS.

DIANNE TIMMINS: Speaker, I stand before you today to congratulate my brother-in-law Paul Rapp on his retirement after more than 34 years of dedicated and exceptional service to the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation. Paul's last day is March 31^st, and I know there will be mixed emotions for him.

The NSLC was more than just a workplace for Paul. It became a significant part of his personal story. It's where he met his wonderful wife, Jennifer. Together, they built a life full of love, raising their three children and creating lasting memories. It's also where Paul formed some of his closest friendships, bonds that have endured through both challenges and triumphs. Whether it was supporting each other during difficult times, like when they lost their home in the Tantallon fire in 2023, or celebrating milestones, like hockey tournament victories and their children's graduations, Paul's time at the NSLC was intertwined with his family and friends. Over the years, Paul has worked his way up through the ranks, and we now see him retiring as a senior vice-president of customer services.

[Page 1377]

Paul, on behalf of the Timmins family, I want to wish you the very best in your next chapter.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

CONS. COM. DU GRAND-HAVRE : SUGAR SHACK - RECOG.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Madame la présidente, rien n'annonce plus clairement le printemps que la sève d'érable qui coule. Nous voulons célébrer avec du sirop d'érable, des dégustations de sirop et des visites à la cabane à sucre. Grace au Conseil communautaire du Grand-Havre, nous avons pu célébrer l'arrivée du printemps il y a quelques semaines. C'était encore une grande foule et une salle complète à la cabane à sucre, avec un copieux petit-déjeuner, de la musique, des jeux pour les enfants et, bien sûr, la tire de sirop d'érable sur la neige. Et bien sûr, partout en Nouvelle-Écosse, les communautés se rassemblent pour ce doux rappel de la promesse du printemps. Merci au Conseil communautaire du Grand-Havre d'avoir ramené la cabane à sucre urbaine.

[4:15 p.m.]

Speaker, there is no surer sign of Spring than the maple sap running. We want to celebrate with maple syrup, syrup pulls, and trips to the sugar shack. Thanks to the Conseil communautaire du Grand-Havre, we were able to celebrate the arrival of Spring a couple of weeks ago here in Halifax. It was another sold-out sugar shack event, with a bountiful breakfast, music, games for kids, and, of course, maple syrup on the snow. Across Nova Scotia communities are gathering for this sweet reminder of the promise of Spring. Thanks to the Conseil communautaire du Grand-Havre for bringing their urban sugar shack back.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

LAROCHE, JEAN: JOURNALISM CAREER - RECOG.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : I rise in my place to recognize someone we all know: Jean Laroche. Let's talk about Jean for a second. I was seven years old when he started his reporting career, in the days of the rotary phone and the fax machine.

Jean has had such a successful career in media. He started reporting on Nova Scotia politics in 1995. Jean has covered probably some of the most important stories that have been told in this place and across the province. I can tell you, as someone who has been here for almost 10 years, I probably got more of a history lesson about the province and what has happened in this province, by just the conversations I've had with Jean in the hall.

I wish him and his family the very best in whatever comes next. I hope he comes to Cape Breton some day so I can buy him a sandwich and a bowl of soup, and we can have a talk about politics. (Laughter) Well, maybe a little bit more. I do rise in my place to wish him the very best, and I'll say this: In the world that we live in today, where local media is always at risk, where there's so much division that we see all over the world, local media matters. Those stories are the stories that help families in our communities each and every day, and Jean Laroche dedicated his career to telling the local story.

[Page 1378]

From my family, from Cape Breton, from our Liberal caucus, I wish Jean Laroche the very best in his retirement, and thank him for his service to Nova Scotia. Congratulations. (Standing ovation)

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Clare.

BAIE BEES: BUS. SUCCESS - RECOG.

RYAN ROBICHEAU « » : I would like to acknowledge Réal and Darlene Melanson of Baie Bees Off Grid Homesteading. This local business provides chemical-free and all-natural products for our community. Since getting some honey bees only a couple of years ago, their business has expanded greatly.

The bees are situated at their home, where they can tend to them daily and extract the honey from their own backyard. Residents can find them at the Clare Market Fair every Saturday morning, always with a great smile on their faces. I ask all members to join me in acknowledging Réal and Darlene of Baie Bees Off Grid Homesteading on everything they have accomplished so far. I'm excited to see how the business will grow in the future.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

ABELL PEST CONTROL: 100^TH ANNIV. - CONGRATS.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : I would like to extend my sincerest congratulations to the team at Abell Pest Control, who recently celebrated their 100^th year of operation. From humble beginnings in a basement in Toronto, Abell has grown into the only coast-to-coast, Canadian-owned pest control company.

Their Nova Scotia office is located in Burnside, in Dartmouth North, and serves the people of Nova Scotia with the same dedication and innovation that Abell has demonstrated since 1924. Throughout the past century, Abell has successfully navigated through challenging historical and financial times, overcoming the adversities of war, industry competition, and several recessions. It goes to show that the only thing more resilient than a tough pest is an even tougher pest controller. I would ask the House to help me congratulate Abell Pest Control on this historic milestone.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cumberland North.

SMITH, CHERYL: NURSE PRACTITIONER WORK - RECOG.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Today I rise to recognize Cheryl Smith of West Amherst for her dedication and commitment to the delivery of health care in Cumberland North and, indeed, our province.

[Page 1379]

Cheryl began her career as a registered nurse. However, when the role of nurse practitioner came online, she was among the very first licensed nurse practitioners in Nova Scotia. Her love of learning has led her to mentor and teach others, studying to be a nurse practitioner while also continuing her own education at Duquesne University in Pennsylvania, where she received a Doctor of Nursing Practice, with a specialty in polypharmacy, focusing on seniors. Her work now is primarily as a primary care provider for nursing homes and residential care facilities in the Amherst area; however, she serves on a number of provincial and local committees.

Cheryl and her husband, Donnie, have two daughters, one son, and four grandchildren, and they keep them busy. Cheryl also volunteers with various groups including Cumberland County Hospice Palliative Care Society.

Please join me in thanking Cheryl Smith for her exemplary dedication to the nursing profession and for being an inspiring example of leadership in health care.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Yarmouth.

BOWERS, BRIAN: POWERLIFTING COMPETITION WIN - RECOG.

NICK HILTON « » : I rise today to recognize a remarkable feat of strength by a resident of Yarmouth. Brian Bowers competed at the Canadian Powerlifting Union Nationals 2025 in the Master 3 - 93 kg Class in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, at the end of February. I'm excited to report that Brian won gold. Brian won by squatting a personal competition best of 402 pounds, benching 286 pounds, and ending with another personal competition best - deadlifting an amazing 501 pounds.

Brian's strength isn't limited to just the weight room. Brian is a dedicated community supporter. He is the owner of Pleasant Timber Mart in Yarmouth and board chair for the national Timber Mart brand.

Brian draws his strength from his closest relationships: his family, his friends, and through his church. Brian shared this win with his training partner A.J. Plaizier and the support of his two biggest fans: his granddaughters, Autumn and Kaia. With this win, Brian will represent Canada at the World Classic Championships in Cape Town, South Africa, in October.

I invite all members of the house to join me in wishing Brian Bowers all the success as he represents Canada on the world stage.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

WORLD TUBERCULOSIS DAY: RAISING AWARENESS - RECOG.

[Page 1380]

SUZY HANSEN « » : I rise today to celebrate World Tuberculosis Day. World Tuberculosis Day focuses on a global challenge that affects millions every year. It's a day that brings people together, raising awareness about the impact of TB and the ongoing efforts to beat it.

Today is a reminder that despite advances in medicine, TB still poses a significant threat, especially in parts of the world with limited access to health care. I encourage all members to join me in global solidarity in the fight against TB, reminding us that this is a battle we are still fighting. It's a call to action for each and every one of us. Today is not just about raising awareness, but it's about inspiring change.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

VOLUNTEERS: FEDERAL ELECTION - THANKS

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : I want to rise on my feet quickly. As we all know, the federal election was called yesterday, and we know that a lot of volunteers are out in communities across the province, working for various parties and supporting their local candidates across the province.

I rise in my place to thank all those volunteers, regardless of who you support. We all have the privilege of serving here and being elected to serve and represent our communities. We have a lot of people who help us along the way. Especially now with what has been transpiring in the world, voting matters that much more. We want everybody to vote who can. We want people to be involved with the political process, and I rise in my place to thank the hundreds and thousands, really, of volunteers who are going to be involved across the province in the next election, and most importantly, in supporting our democracy.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Eastern Passage.

RAFTUS, MANDY: COM. SERV. - RECOG.

HON. BARBARA ADAMS « » : I rise today to recognize Mandy Raftus for her never-ending kindness and dedication to the Eastern Passage community. Each Friday, Mandy, along with a few friends, offers delicious home-cooked meals to seniors at our local legion. Seniors come from near and far for a delicious, hearty meal, great company, and lots of fun. They regularly see an average of 48 to 60 seniors each week.

Many years back, Mandy saw a need for a seniors' social in the area, and she's been serving up hot meals ever since. In addition, Mandy also started the hugely popular Seenagers group that meets every Monday for various activities including a prom, as well as things like painting afternoon. I ask all members of the Nova Scotia Legislature to join me in recognizing Mandy Raftus for all that she does in the Eastern Passage and area, for creating a safe and social place for seniors to meet and have great fun.

[Page 1381]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier.

CAMPAIGN TEAM: HARD WORK - THANKS

KENDRA COOMBES « » : A federal election has been called. That means campaign staff and volunteers are going to be working long, tiring hours for the next several weeks. Just a few short months ago, we ourselves were out on the doorsteps campaigning, and I want to take the time now to thank all my campaign team who supported me, from my campaign staff to every single volunteer, to my family, and to all those at Elections Nova Scotia who did really hard work in our elections.

Again, to my volunteers, I cannot thank them enough for helping me get back to this seat so that I can represent the residents of Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier. It is a true privilege and one I do not take lightly.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cumberland North.

GEM MBRS.: CHEER COMPETITION PARTIC. - CONGRATS.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : I rise to congratulate three young women from the Amherst area who are heading to an international cheer competition in Florida.

Emery Cameron, Calla McNally, and Shayla O'Blenis have been chosen to participate as part of Team Canada at the Cheerleading World Championships being held at the ESPN Wide World of Sports complex in Orlando, Florida in late April. Emery, Calla, and Shayla are members of the GEM Allstars cheerleading group based in Amherst. GEM has members of various ages and experience levels who are very dedicated to their sport, which is very obvious when you see them perform.

Cheer has become very popular in the Maritimes over the past few years, and right now it's competition season, with several events scheduled around the region. If you ever have the opportunity to attend one, don't miss it, as these young people are truly amazing athletes, and the group performances are fantastic.

Please join me in congratulating Emery, Calla, and Shayla on their selection to Team Canada and wish them the very best in their competition in Florida.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Pictou West.

NEW CALEDONIA CURLING CLUB: 175^TH ANNIV. - CONGRATS.

MARCO MACLEOD « » : I rise today to recognize a club in Pictou West that predates Confederation. The New Caledonian Curling Club began in 1850, when they played on the ponds around Shire Town. Since 1910, they've called the indoor facility on the Pictou waterfront home.

[Page 1382]

The sand floor was replaced by concrete in 1980, and a clubhouse was later added. I attended their 175^th anniversary celebrations, and I can confirm that their membership of 77 are a vibrant group with a love for curling, socializing, and they don't mind having a good time. The club currently has 25 junior members, ensuring a bright future for this great Wintertime game.

The New Caledonian Curling Club is a proud ambassador for the sport and has a positive impact on our community. Here's to another 175 years.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

BI + HEALTH MO.: AWARENESS - RECOG.

LISA LACHANCE « » : I rise to acknowledge Bisexual+ Health Awareness Month in Canada. What does bisexual+ mean? In the rainbow community, this term is an umbrella for folks who can feel attracted to more than one gender. That includes individuals who might use other terms to describe themselves, including pansexual, fluid, and queer.

Globally, studies suggest that about 4 per cent of adults identify as bisexual, equalling about 50 per cent of the LGBTQ+ community. The goal this month is to increase knowledge of the social, economic, and health disparities that affect the bi+ community, advocate for resources, and promote activities to enhance the well-being of these individuals.

In Nova Scotia, we are lucky to have the Bi+ Network of Nova Scotia, connecting people and organizations from North Sydney to Yarmouth. I look forward to future opportunities to support the bi+ community in Nova Scotia.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Lunenburg.

MOORE, CATHY: COM. SERV. - RECOG.

HON. SUSAN CORKUM-GREEK « » : Before going to the polls provincially last Fall, Nova Scotians cast their ballots at the municipal level. As MLA for Lunenburg, I represent the towns of Lunenburg and Mahone Bay, as well as a vibrant rural municipality. I sincerely congratulate my mayors and councillors, both new and returning.

I particularly want to acknowledge the municipal councillor for District 5, Cathy Moore, who has served the people of New Germany and area for more than 20 years. It's no surprise Cathy was re-elected; she works tirelessly with and for her constituents. She is the heart of Canada Day celebrations in New Germany, which are extensive. You should check it out, my colleagues. At Christmastime, she arrives with a giant stock pot full of hot chocolate when the village lights up. She is also a great collaborator. If something is going on or if there's an issue in one of her communities, which run from Cherryfield in the north to Lower Branch in the south, Cathy lets me know. She's a straight shooter, and I like that.

[Page 1383]

[4:30 p.m.]

I ask colleagues to join me in recognizing Cathy Moore for her ongoing service and dedication.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

ROSE, REBECCA: PREGNANCY - RECOG.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : I want to take a quick second to congratulate the constituency coordinator in my office, Rebecca Rose, and her wife, Jillian Stagg, because they are about to greet their first baby. Rebecca is 37-plus weeks pregnant, and Thursday is her last day before she takes a year off to enjoy meeting this new creature and getting to know her.

We're having a tea party for her on Friday afternoon in the office. We've invited the community, and anyone who wants to drop by for a cup of tea and a cookie, to greet Rebecca and wish her all the best. She is so dedicated to the people in Dartmouth North. The testament of that has been that people have been so excited that she's having a baby, that they have been dropping off gifts and cards for her and giving big hugs when they see her.

I want to take this moment to wish Rebecca and Jill all the best with the birth, and then the next 35-plus years.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Dartmouth East.

BLAKE-FRASER, PRISCILLA: COM. SERV. - RECOG.

HON. TIMOTHY HALMAN « » : Speaker, I rise today to speak about Priscilla Blake-Fraser, a remarkable individual who has made an incredible impact on our community. After her husband, Craig Blake, tragically lost his life while in service to Canada in Afghanistan, Priscilla dedicated herself to ensuring that his selflessness and bravery would never be forgotten.

Priscilla has led initiatives that honour Craig Blake's legacy, including the naming of a ferry, a community park in Dartmouth East where Remembrance Day ceremonies are held each year, and a military triathlon. Each of these is a testament to Craig Blake's sacrifice and Priscilla's commitment to keeping his memory alive. Priscilla has also been an active participant in numerous community activities. She has volunteered her time with numerous youth sports, and last Fall, she played an active role in my re-election campaign.

Priscilla is the embodiment of community, strength, and selflessness. It is with great pride that I stand here today to honour her remarkable contributions. She is a true leader, and her kindness will continue to inspire future generations.

[Page 1384]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.

MARSMAN, ANDREA: RETIREMENT - BEST WISHES

PAUL WOZNEY « » : Speaker, I rise to celebrate the remarkable career and impact of a true trailblazer in public education in Nova Scotia - my friend and mentor, Andrea Marsman. Andrea is a brick house, a powerhouse woman whose vivacious fashion sense is matched only by her devoted professionalism.

Andrea will retire this year from active duty with the Halifax Regional Centre for Education as a vice-principal at Hammonds Plains Consolidated Elementary after a career spent teaching high school English, serving as languages department head at Woodlawn High School and Charles P. Allen High, and as a school counsellor and now school administrator.

A proud member of the historic African Nova Scotian community of Upper Hammonds Plains, her impact includes a lifetime of involvement with the Black Educators Association, serving provincially on a Council on African Canadian Education with the Department of Education and dozens of leadership roles that enrich learning and academic engagement for African Nova Scotian youth and girls across the province.

Andrea is the best boss I ever had. She recognized in me a capacity for leadership at a time in my career when I was struggling with parts of my life outside the classroom. Her belief in me as a teacher and a person helped me find stability and health, and is a major reason I have been able to serve in public office.

Andrea's life in public schools has left an indelible mark on the lives of students, teachers, and colleagues like me. She is one of a kind who will truly be missed. We celebrate and thank her. We wish her good health, safe travels, and many years to make memories with those she values most.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Hants East.

CUP OF SOUL CAFE: 15^TH ANNIV. - RECOG.

JOHN A. MACDONALD: I rise today to congratulate Cup of Soul Cafe, which is celebrating 15 years of business in our community. Since opening its door in 2010, Cup of Soul Cafe has become much more than just a coffee shop. It's a cherished gathering place where friends, families, and neighbours come together over coffee, delicious food, warm hospitality, and sometimes music. Through this welcoming atmosphere and commitment to quality, Cup of Soul has fostered a sense of community that keeps customers coming back year after year.

[Page 1385]

Owner Pam McNeill and her team have worked tirelessly to create a space that feels like home, supporting local artists, musicians, and shared initiatives along the way. Their dedication to the community is truly inspiring. I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating Cup of Soul for 15 years in business, and in wishing them many more years of continued success.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Northside-Westmount.

GUTHRO, BRUCE: HALL OF FAME INDUCTION - RECOG.

HON. FRED TILLEY « » : Today I am honoured to recognize the late Bruce Guthro, who will be inducted posthumously into the Cape Breton Music Hall of Fame this Spring. In addition, Bruce was posthumously awarded the Order of Nova Scotia for his contributions to the music industry, Canadian culture, and philanthropy. Bruce was born and raised in the town of Sydney Mines, and the entire town and surrounding community were very proud of Bruce's many accomplishments. Throughout his career, Bruce received several ECMA awards and created his famous songwriter circle.

Bruce was very proud of his children, Dylan and Jodi, and his music will live on through them. Bruce brought worldwide recognition to our small town as the lead singer of the international sensation, Runrig, from 1998 to 2018. Speaker, I would ask members of the Legislature to join me in celebrating the life of Bruce Guthro and congratulating his wife, Kim, and children, Dylan and Jodi, on Bruce's well-deserved induction into the Cape Breton Music Hall of Fame.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Richmond.

BRELA HOMES: AFFORDABLE HOUSING - RECOG.

HON. TREVOR BOUDREAU: I would like to recognize Brela Homes for their dedication to Richmond County and surrounding communities. Brela Homes' owner, Jeremy Carroll, has a mission to provide cost-effective housing with efficient designs that hold long-term value.

Brela Homes has been tasked with the redevelopment of the former Walter Fougere School located in Evanston. The school closed in 2013, and the community is excited to see the building being turned into affordable housing for seniors. Brela Homes also has a development under way to provide up to 80 units near the Nova Scotia Community College Strait Area Campus. The company is working with local agencies to provide rental fees well below market rates for both sites to ease financial burden of new renters and students.

Speaker, I would like to commend Brela Homes for their innovative business model and mission to offer affordable housing in our community.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Inverness.

[Page 1386]

KYLE MACQUARRIE « » : I beg leave to make an introduction.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

KYLE MACQUARRIE « » : In your Gallery today is the person with whom I have shared one life for 30 years - my wife Cheryl. We have four children: Neil, and his girlfriend Jessie Helen; Colin, and his wife Baillie; Iain; and Ann. We also have two grandchildren, May and Maddyn. Today, I want to enter into the records of the Legislature going down into history for all time that I love her. Some days, she thinks I'm not too bad.

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome to the House. We hope you enjoy your time here. (Standing ovation)

The honourable - and in love - member for Inverness.

WIFE, CHERYL: SUPPORT - RECOG.

KYLE MACQUARRIE « » : Cheryl called me in late October 2024, and she said: "You're going to think I'm crazy." I remained silent. She said, "There is something that I really think we should do." I told her, "Whatever it is, let's do it." So here we are. At the end of November, in our living room watching TV with our family and friends, it was announced that I would be the MLA for Inverness. Thank you. Cheryl put her arm around me and whispered in my ear, "Honey, I was just kidding." (Laughter)

In all seriousness, everyone has people in their lives who support them and encourage them. I want to recognize in my life the importance of having Cheryl to share one life through all our challenges and also through the very best of times.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.

SCHOOL SUPPORT STAFF: WORK - THANKS

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Hi, Rena. Sorry. (Laughter)

Speaker, I rise today to recognize and thank the dedicated educational support staff across Nova Scotia: Our teacher assistants, our early childhood educators, our bus drivers, our cafeteria workers, our custodians, and so much more. These individuals are the backbones of our school communities. They support our children every single day with patience, kindness, and commitment, helping to create a safe, welcoming, and inclusive learning environment. Their work ensures that our schools run smoothly and that every child, regardless of need, has the opportunity for success.

We thank them for their continued partnership and service. Nova Scotia's children benefit every day from their dedication, and today I say a heartfelt thank you to each and every one of them.

[Page 1387]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Annapolis.

THE RED ONION MARKET: 5^TH ANNIV. - RECOG.

DAVID BOWLBY « » : Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Melody Tolson and the Red Onion Market in Annapolis Royal, who are celebrating five years in business. Opening just before all the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, they bought what they thought was enough hand sanitizer - two jugs. It wasn't quite enough.

This natural food market and mercantile has not only survived but thrived, becoming a distinct part of the community. The Red Onion Market values sustainability and supporting local producers. With a robust bulk food section, eco-housewares, and a commitment to reducing plastic waste, Melody and her team have created a space that prioritizes both the health of our planet and the well-being of their customers. Their focus on local makers and growers ensures that the vibrant agricultural and artisanal community in Annapolis is celebrated.

I ask all members to join me in recognizing Melody Tolson and the Red Onion Market for their dedication to sustainability, local entrepreneurship, and community resilience. Here's to five years of success and many more to come.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Kings West.

RISWOLD, LANCE: LJR IMPRINTABLES - THANKS

CHRIS PALMER: Speaker, I rise today to recognize Lance Riswold, owner of LJR Imprintables, a valued small business in Kings West. For years, Lance has been a dedicated entrepreneur, providing high-quality custom printing and embroidery services to local organizations, businesses, and sports teams. His commitment to excellence and customer service has made LJR Imprintables a trusted name in our community. My office counts itself as a very happy, satisfied customer.

Beyond his business success, Lance has consistently demonstrated a deep commitment to supporting local initiatives. Whether through sponsorships, fundraising efforts, or lending a helping hand to community events, he embodies the spirit of giving back. Lance also likes good political conversation, and I always enjoy my conversations with him. I think most times we align pretty close.

Small businesses like LJR Imprintables are the backbone of our local economy, and I want to sincerely thank Lance Riswold for his contributions to Kings West. His hard work and generosity have made a lasting impact. We are grateful for his dedication to our community.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Bedford Basin.

CURRIE, PHIL: AUS LEADERSHIP - THANKS

[Page 1388]

TIM OUTHIT « » : I rise today to recognize Bedford Basin resident Phil Currie and his wonderful family. He is the president and CEO of Atlantic University Sport.

After 26 years, Phil is leaving the organization and moving on to his next adventure. Phil's last day with the AUS will be April 30^th. Phil took the AUS from a small operation with one and a half staff positions and a budget in the tens of thousands to a thriving organization with four full-time employees and an annual budget exceeding $1.2 million. Phil has served longer than any other conference lead in Canada. The AUS serves more than two thousand student athletes each year in regular season conference play and in annual championship events. It generates $8 million for local vendors and more than $19 million in economic impact.

A special recognition for Phil took place on Saturday, March 1^st at the Scotiabank Centre during the evening doubleheader. Speaker, I ask that all members of the Legislature help me thank Phil for his contributions to student athletes in the region and across the country and wish him all the best with his future endeavours.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Guysborough-Tracadie.

GUYSBOROUGH PLAYERS: MUSICAL PRODS. - CONGRATS.

HON. GREG MORROW: I rise today to recognize the Guysborough Players, a small amateur community theatre group in Guysborough. The Players started back in 2015 under the guidance and direction of Kate Tompkins. Their musical productions involve community members of all ages and levels of talent.

They've been fortunate to have many incredible voices in their cast and ensembles, some who have been professionally trained and went on to other careers but want to stay involved in the theatre community. When funding allows, they've even brought in some professional actors to join a few of the productions.

Some of their productions have included Sister Act, Mamma Mia!, Brigadoon, and Cinderella. One thing that is constant with their productions is that every show they perform is sold out. They've even had to take their show on the road to neighbouring communities by popular demand.

[4:45 p.m.]

Of course, these amateur theatre groups cannot work without volunteers who do everything from choreography, sounds, lighting, costumes, and set design to, of course, the stage crews. Kate Tompkins and her loyal cast of volunteers work months at a time to bring these much-enjoyed productions to community members in Guysborough and surrounding areas.

This year's upcoming production is All Shook Up, a music tribute to the era of Elvis. Congratulations to the Guysborough Players. May they continue to bring their talents to the stage.

[Page 1389]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Clayton Park West.

DODSWORTH, DONNA: DEATH OF - TRIBUTE

ADEGOKE FADARE « » : I rise today to honour Donna Dodsworth. Donna suddenly passed away on Sunday, March 2^nd, leaving the entire community devastated. I remember Donna fondly for her dedication and commitment that she was so willing to provide to me during my campaign.

Donna volunteered on many political campaigns over the years and holds a special place in so many people's hearts. She was also a beloved and active member of the Rockingham United Church. Donna had a career with the provincial government before she chose to be a stay-at-home mother. Then Donna went back to university, graduated in 2004, and started a new career as an EXCEL employee at elementary schools across the city.

Donna was one of those people who truly would enter a room and light up the room with her smile and her kind nature. She was a devoted wife, a caring and dedicated mother, a grandmother, and a great-grandmother. I don't know if I can ask the House to honour her today with one minute of silence in honour of the life she left and the sacrifices she has made to humanity. Can I ask you all to honour her with one minute of silence?

[A moment of silence was observed.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Please be seated.

The honourable member for Kings North.

ALCOE, BROOKE: RUGBY CH'SHIP WIN - CONGRATS.

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : I rise today to congratulate Brooke Alcoe, Captain of the Horton Griffins, who led her team to with the School Sport Nova Scotia Division 1 Girls Provincial Rugby Championship. Brooke Alcoe of Port Williams was in her senior year at Horton High School this Summer when the Horton Griffin rugby team capped off their undefeated season by winning the provincial banner.

Brooke and her team's success was attributed to a positive attitude, a high-energy fitness level, and the high-level coaching they received from the dedicated staff. Please join me today to congratulate Brooke Alcoe and the Horton Griffins on their School Sport Nova Scotia Provincial Rugby Championship.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Pictou Centre.

[Page 1390]

MACKINNON, MIKE & CINDY: COM. SERV. - RECOG.

DANNY MACGILLIVRAY: Mike and Cindy MacKinnon are shining examples of selfless dedication and community spirit. As a dynamic husband and wife team, they have poured their hearts into volunteer work, making a profound impact on countless lives.

In our community and within softball organizations, Mike and Cindy are known for their unwavering commitment, always stepping up to lead, organize, and support. Their passion for giving back has strengthened communities, uplifted those in need, and inspired others to follow in their footsteps.

Through years of hard work, they not only enhance the quality of life in our community but also created a lasting legacy of kindness, teamwork, and generosity. Their efforts truly exemplify the spirit of community volunteerism.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Antigonish.

TONY'S MEATS: PENGUINS PARTNERSHIP - CONGRATS.

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : I rise today to congratulate Antigonish business Tony's Meats and its original Mr. Donair brand that last September announced a three-year partnership with the Pittsburgh Penguins. Their signature donair product has become the Penguins' official jerky and two flavours of their donair meat snacks are available at the PPG Paints Arena.

Tony's Meats was originally established in Antigonish in 1963. In 2020, the senior management team of Dan MacGillivray, Lenita Hanson, and Aaron Tingley purchased the business. Dan, Lenita, and Aaron, with a combined 35 years of experience, have worked hard at expanding their product line and growing their markets while continuing to offer quality products. More than 50 of their products can be found in many independent and large retail outlets throughout Atlantic Canada.

They are a major employer in our community, with a workforce of more than 50 employees. Tony's Meats are also great community supporters. I ask all members of the House to congratulate Tony's Meats and their partnership with the Pittsburgh Penguins. I am sure this collaboration will be a tremendous success.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Queens.

MIELKE, EARL: COACH OF YR. AWD. RECIP. - CONGRATS.

HON. KIM MASLAND: I rise today to congratulate Earl Mielke of Liverpool on being named the Special Olympics Nova Scotia Male Coach of the Year. He received this award at the Inspired Gala in Halifax on February 19^th. Earl started volunteering with Special Olympics in Queens six years ago, coaching snowshoeing in the Winter and athletics in the Summer. He took over as head coach almost two years ago and was chosen as head coach of snowshoeing for the 2024 National Winter Games in Calgary.

[Page 1391]

Earl has spent the last six months working with local athletes who recently returned as winners from the World Games in Italy. Please join me in applauding Earl for receiving this well-deserved award and to thank him for the significant contributions he makes to enrich the lives of so many.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Truro-Bible Hill-Millbrook-Salmon River.

TEAM SANGSTER: CH'SHIP. PARTIC. - BEST WISHES

HON. DAVE RITCEY « » : I rise to congratulate Team Sangster, earning the opportunity to compete at the 2025 Canadian Masters Curling Championship. This is an outstanding accomplishment and the dedication, skill, and hard work of the team members Wayne Sangster, Earl Atkinson, Phil Redden, and Brent MacDougall have truly paid off. As they head to Sault Ste. Marie for March 30^th to April 6^th, they carry with them the pride and support of our community and province.

Competing at this prestigious event is a testament to Team Sangster's excellence and commitment to the sport. I ask all members to join me in wishing the best of luck as these talented curlers showcase their talents on the national stage. We look forward to cheering you on and celebrating your success in this exciting competition.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Hants West.

HERITAGE MEMORIALS: SERVICE - RECOG.

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD « » : I rise today to recognize Heritage Memorials, which was established in 1967 by the late Maurice Nelson, along with his sons, Darrell and George. From the very beginning, Heritage has been a full-service company with its own manufacturing plant and delivery fleet. Through innovation and technologies developed over several decades, they have remained at the forefront of their industry.

Heritage Memorials, now under the capable leadership of Maurice's grandson and current president, Steve Nelson, is the largest monument retail company in Canada. Their pride is not in the years of business, but in those who came before them and instilled the values of hard work and a duty to leave the company better than they found it.

I ask that all members join me in recognizing Heritage Memorials for their outstanding commitment to quality and for their exceptional customer service.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Victoria-The Lakes.

FRENCHVALE ACRES: FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLES - THANKS

[Page 1392]

DIANNE TIMMINS: I stand today to welcome and congratulate Frenchvale Acres, a hydroponic greenhouse owned by Christine Lowe and Russell Barth, who are dedicated to growing fresh, nutritious fruit and vegetables. They are starting with a variety of crops, including kale, lettuce, carrots, tomatoes, and cucumbers, with more to come based on customer requests. They will also offer mung bean sprouts and strawberries, plus quail eggs by October.

Hydroponics use less water than traditional soil farming and their systems ensure healthier, more nutritious plants. Christine and Russell also use organic fertilizers and fresh water from a nearby spring. The greenhouse is insulated with an inflated roof for energy efficiency and light diffusion. They plan to operate year-round, powered by a 10,000-watt solar array and a backup generator.

Speaker, I ask members to join me in congratulating Frenchvale Acres for providing fresh local foods to our community. We look forward to watching it grow into a sustainable business.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Colchester North.

GREAT VILL. & DIST. FIRE BRIG.: 100^TH ANNIV. - CONGRATS.

TOM TAGGART « » : We all recognize that rural volunteer fire brigades are truly the backbone of all our small rural communities. They are the people who residents turn to each and every time there's any kind of tragedy or dilemma in a community, and they are always there for them.

I rise today to recognize the 100^th anniversary of Great Village & District Volunteer Fire Brigade, a community-based volunteer organization. They are responsible for responding to motor vehicle collisions, as medical first responders or, of course, as highly trained and qualified firefighters.

These men and women work tirelessly for our community with events and fundraisers and are always happy to help out their neighbours in a time of need.

I would like to congratulate the Great Village and District Volunteer Fire Brigade on their upcoming 100^th anniversary and thank them for their commitment to our community.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Clare.

LEBLANC'S WELDING AND REPAIRS: SUCCESS - CONGRATS.

RYAN ROBICHEAU « » : I would like to acknowledge the work of Jean-Marc LeBlanc of LeBlanc Welding and Fabrication, which services southwest Nova Scotia with welding, repairs, maintenance, and mobile services.

[Page 1393]

In 2022, Jean-Marc decided to open his own welding business to be able to keep up with the needs of our community. He started working from the garage behind his house, and eventually, a year later, he purchased a commercial property to better accommodate the high work demand.

With 12 years of experience in the field and 8 years with his welding Red Seal certification, Jean-Marc quickly built up a long list of clients. His customers range from food processing industry, forestry, commercial fishing, construction to mechanical repairs.

It's great to see another young, successful business owner thrive in our small Acadian community. Congratulations on your success, Jean-Marc. I wish you many more years of business.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Pictou Centre.

MACDONALD, CLYDE: HISTORY BOOKS - RECOG.

DANNY MACGILLIVRAY: Retired Judge Clyde Macdonald from New Glasgow has made an indelible mark on our community through his dedication to preserving its history. His meticulous research commitment to uncovering the stories behind local landmarks has enriched the collective understanding of the area's heritage.

With the publication of 24 historical books, Judge Macdonald has documented the lives, events, and families that shaped the community, ensuring that future generations have access to these invaluable insights. His work stands as a testament to his passion for history and his unwavering commitment to educating others about the rich tapestry of our shared past.

Judge Macdonald's contributions have left an enduring legacy that will be cherished for generations to come.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Antigonish.

PENDLETON, BRIAN: CAUCUS OFFICE WORK - THANKS

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : I rise today to recognize the one and only Brian Pendleton, a key member of our communications team at the caucus office. As a communications officer, Brian supports our caucus in a variety of ways. Whether it's drafting speeches, developing local releases or filming scrums, he is an important and friendly face we can always count on. Most important, Brian works hard to clip all of our member statements so we can share them on social media. People so enjoy seeing their friends and neighbours recognized in the Legislature.

Brian moved to Nova Scotia when he was 18 years old to study poli-sci at StFX. He was proud to call Antigonish his home while attaining his degree. He even worked with me at R.K. MacDonald Nursing Home during his time in Antigonish.

[Page 1394]

Recently, Brian celebrated his one-year anniversary at the caucus office. I ask all the members to join me and congratulate him on this significant milestone. Thank you, Brian, for your dedication and contributions to our caucus office. You always bring a smile to our faces here at the Legislature.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Inverness.

WABO'S PIZZA: COM. SERV. - THANKS

KYLE MACQUARRIE « » : I would like to take this moment - half a moment - to recognize Wabo's Pizza, an amazing business in Chéticamp that has been supporting the community since 1993. The name "Wabo's" comes from a group of friends in the 1970s, who sought adventure and camaraderie. Their bond was built on good times, good spirits and a strong sense of community - values that continue to define Wabo's today.

Since taking over in 2017, owner Marc Heary has not only kept the tradition alive but expanded it, proving that in Chéticamp a good pizza place can really deliver for the economy.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. Great timing, member, great timing.

[5:00 p.m.]

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. Order. Great timing, member. Great timing.

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Pursuant to Rule 5C, I move the hours for March 25^th be not 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. but be 1:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

THE SPEAKER « » : Pursuant to Rule 5C, there has been a request for the hours for Tuesday, March 25^th not be from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. but 1:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Speaker, would you please call the order of business Public Bills for Third Reading?

[Page 1395]

PUBLIC BILLS FOR THIRD READING

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 1.

Bill No. 1 - Government Organization and Administration, An Act

Respecting.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : I move third reading of Bill No. 1.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : I think just before I reiterate some of the concerns that we continue to have with this bill, I think this bill was an exemplar of what not to do with a policy-making process and what not to do in terms of stakeholder consultation or connection with experts. I would actually offer that at a certain point, there was such a mix of, and there remains such a mix of, things in that bill that amongst the Executive Council it was even hard to understand who was going to stand up on this bill.

The bill is not organized. The presentation is not organized. I've asked several questions respectfully - respectfully - for information that I would like that have not been answered about this bill, and I do think it's been a shameful process from start to finish in terms of this bill.

I did spend quite a bit of time talking about my concerns around the changes being proposed to the Civil Service Act and talking about why we want a non-partisan public service, why we should all want a non-partisan public service, and how you create that. You create that by having a professional public service - especially at senior levels - who don't have to be worried about getting fired if they don't agree with the government direction. They don't have to be worried that if they're not problem solvers, then they'll be called problem stretchers, and I would argue that actually what you really want in the public service is folks who can take a problem, can take an issue, and can tell you all about it, and they can tell you what your proposed approach and what your proposed program or service would mean.

They can tell you what the pros and cons of it are, what the unintended consequences of policy are. They can tell you about the stakeholders, the history of the issue in the province. They hold all that because they're respected for that type of expertise, and they're respected for their role in the public service. This is a bedrock of the Westminster system: having civil servants who speak truth to power. As I emphasized when I spoke on this before, you, ministers, governments, don't want people sitting across from you and when you say: I've got a great idea, I thought about it on the way in, let's do this, and for them to automatically say yes.

[Page 1396]

That's actually not what people should want. What you want - what ministers and government should want - is, in fact, the evidence, the research, the understanding of what's happening, stakeholder engagement. Civil servants need to be encouraged to bring that forward. I would argue what I'm hearing in terms of letters and information being sent to the civil service is that, in fact, folks are being actively told to fall into line or you're not one of us, but that's actually not what the public service is about. That is 100 per cent not what the public service is about.

Once again, I've had a chance to speak on this. I think this is really critical. I think this is, in fact, a sad day for the government of Nova Scotia. In my experience and in my career and in my training, the value of having professional public servants who understand values and ethics - I'm just going to pause for a second.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : I would say also - especially during this particular period where there are so many dynamic factors at play that we're facing as a province; where there is the challenge to achieve sustainable economic development; there is a challenge to face climate change; we have a health care crisis; and we still have a housing crisis - we want to have the senior civil servants and folks who are not represented by unions in the civil service to be able to bring forward their expert knowledge, their sector-specific knowledge, and the relationships they have with stakeholders so that we know we are getting the best possible advice, so government knows it's getting the best possible advice.

If you simply ask people to say yes and follow what you've said, that is not going to be the best possible advice.

I also wanted to touch base on a couple of other parts of the bill: the suggested changes in the Private Ways Act. I have been very consistent in asking a minister - perhaps the Premier, who tabled this bill, or perhaps it was the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development; I can't remember - to talk about why these changes are being brought forward.

When I look at the proposal here, what it does is it takes disputes about access to land and asks private landowners to go to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court to assert their rights. Whether that landowner is concerned about the environmental impact or the future plans on their land, or whatever it is, they now have to go to the court to make application. This fundamentally puts the responsibility and the onus on average Nova Scotians - everyday Nova Scotians - to figure out how to do this and to seek legal representation.

I would argue that what we're going to see is that for landowners for whom this becomes an issue, this is going to be a really hard thing to do. We shouldn't make it harder for Nova Scotians in terms of government process. We should, in fact, of course, always be looking at how we make government more accessible, more transparent, and easier to use. This is going to make it more expensive for landowners to fight for their property rights and to protect their property.

[Page 1397]

I imagine that on the other side of these disputes it's not often going to be average, everyday Nova Scotians. It's probably going to be businesses and corporations that have a project they want to proceed with, and they are already going to have a legal team in place. They are already going to have an understanding that this is the process that has to be followed. They are going to be well aware that this is an intimidating process. Yes, this will probably reduce the number of people who question their land being accessed for mining or other purposes, because this is inaccessible, and this is hard.

No one has yet explained to me that this is a better thing for Nova Scotians. What I think it is is a better thing for corporations and businesses and people who have power and resources to have a legal team to understand how to apply to the Supreme Court. I don't know how to do that. I think this is not a good move.

I would also say that the Private Ways Act is silent on the implications in terms of First Nations and the unceded territory of the Mi'kmaw people and what this means there. I haven't heard - I've asked and would love to hear more - if there's been any consultation undertaken on this specific change. If, before we make this into a law, there's a minister who wants to stand up and talk about why we're doing this, that would certainly be appreciated.

Finally, I've raised my concerns about Clause 18. Folks are concerned - sorry, Clause 18 of Part V on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that talks about the ability for folks to have their requests around identity markers be disregarded in the FOIPOP process - I don't think that got taken care of in the government's amendments, and I'm sorry to see that this also is being made into law in this province.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Happy to get up and provide some comments on this bill. There are a couple of sections that I'll talk about, but this bill really changed its course from the onset of when it was tabled. I congratulate and thank Nova Scotians for speaking up and paying attention to the conversation around the Auditor General and the conversation around FOIPOP and the concerns that people had about transparency and accountability, and independence most importantly, of the institutions outside of the political government of the day.

I think it's important to recognize - when I think about the bill and where it is now, the government was right to pull back on what I just mentioned. I always go to the intent of what the government had in the first place. We went through that week or so in the Legislature where it was one after the other. It was taking the independence away from the Office of the Auditor General, then it was changing FOIPOP legislation to have more control from a government perspective. It actually started before this bill with the committee structure and changing the times around committee, and the change of policy around Public Accounts Committee. Bill No. 1 comes all of a sudden. The intent of the government is to take the independence from the Auditor General, take independence away from FOIPOP.

[Page 1398]

Then we heard of an email that went out to say, Block the media. Help us block the media. It was one after the other. These weren't mistakes; this was intent. There was an intent to consolidate, and Nova Scotians called it out quickly. That really was the sense that for me, people were really paying attention to what was happening here. People pay attention to what happens in here all the time, but I think with what was happening around the world and with what we were starting to see out of the United States with that administration talking about hand-picking the media that would be allowed to interview them, the issue around consolidation, and the issue around information being provided to the public, everybody was elevated.

When this government came forward with this bill, people were already paying attention, and they saw consistencies: Block the media. Help us block the media from telling stories. The Auditor General: We feel that we should have control over that office as well. The issues around FOIPOP. People were so elevated in the conversations at home and at coffee shops and watching consistent news story after news story of consolidation by governments not only south of the border, but around the world. They started seeing consistencies with what was coming forward here. People got concerned very quickly. They got angry very quickly. This became the conversation around the tables of Nova Scotians, that this isn't right. This isn't right for democracy. We didn't elect this government on decisions like this. There might be fewer seats in here if that were the case.

[5:15 p.m.]

The government saw it and they had to pull back, not because they ultimately wanted to. Their intent was to continue on this path. As I said, it wasn't just one decision. It was multiple decisions that were made to consolidate in a very right-of-centre kind of way around the fundamentals of democracy and providing the information to the public, which ultimately belongs to them, and the mechanisms that are in place - regardless of whether it's this government or a future government, or past governments, for that matter - to keep them in check with the Auditor General and the important work she does around various aspects of government.

It was a concern for everyone, and ultimately, Nova Scotians spoke loud and clear, and the government had to change course. I'll start off by saying a big thank you to everyone across the province who spoke up, who showed up here at the Legislature - there were people from all over the province - and made their voices heard loud and clear.

There are other aspects of this bill that I'll reference, but there's a big piece of it for me: repeals to a fixed election date. When the fixed election date came in those years ago, many people who were in this House at the time knew that would never be honoured. It was a big message from the government when they were elected in 2021. It was a message that they forced heavily in Opposition when we were in government - that Nova Scotians should have a fixed election date. It's important for democracy. It was important for law and the province that people should have a right to know when they're voting. Now it's being repealed. I expected that because, as we saw, the government called an election in November to try to time it because they knew the national polls were so low for the feds at the time, that they made a decision and did it.

[Page 1399]

If they did it now, this place would probably look a little different. That was a strategy that the government used, and that's why they repealed fixed election dates. The seating complement in here would be extremely different today because, as we know, a lot has changed in the last six months. If they had stayed to the fixed election date, you would be into an election this Summer under very different circumstances.

The fixed election date repeal - I expected that. I never expected the government to ever honour that. That will be a decision for governments that come next, whether or not they want to put in their own fixed election dates. I doubt it. As I said, nobody thought that would ever be honoured, and if they did, it would be a very different world in here.

There are a lot of other aspects of the bill. This bill instructs when surveyors want to access private land to study resource opportunities. Consultation is key in this. The government wants to do economic development as a caucus. We've been tabling bills on the economy this whole session, but we've always argued consultation is really key in this stuff, whether it's mining or any other kind of resource development in the province.

All these bills are going to pass - there's a supermajority. But we've seen so many groups come out that talk about consultation and government overreach on private land, so there are some big concerns around that. I would just argue that you're going to find out very quickly when you get into resource development if you don't consult, especially when you start hearing from First Nations communities who haven't been consulted. I can give you a list of examples of the consultation processes we went through for resource projects all over this province. Some were successful and some were still in conversation, but ultimately private investment plays a big part in it. There's that aspect of it. There are a bunch of cleanups as well.

Here's what I'm going to get into. I've gotten into this multiple times. I had conversations over the weekend with people who work in the civil service. It would be an interesting exercise, if this passes as is, to do a survey - a confidential survey - with the employees of this province about morale. I guarantee you, based on this legislation, it's in the basement right now. It is.

It hasn't been explained clearly by anybody on the government side. It's confusing to people. It's scaring people. These are the people - and I can go through the list. We all know what they do. They're asked to work 24/7. They don't have an agreement. Whenever there is a good day or a bad day, or anything in between, the people who build programs in the departments, who support our families each and every day, whom we ask to go to the wall, time and time again, to support families - do a survey with them. See how they feel.

[Page 1400]

I can tell you how they feel. They feel unappreciated. They feel disrespected. Nobody has explained how this works or what this legislation means. We've got limited information. Our caucus has been talking about this from Day 1 - that this was going to be a problem and there are thousands of people who are impacted by this. I can tell you that they're upset. For what?

At least give them an explanation - a real solid explanation - of what this legislation means. We have yet to receive it in here or in committee. Why does the government need this if there's no organizational review coming and if there's no big change in government coming? We've seen the government eliminate Communications Nova Scotia. That is wrong. It is another independent arm of government. At least tell your employees what you're doing.

All they've received is correspondence about being problem solvers or problem stretchers. They've received correspondence from the deputy. They've received messaging in here that says, We value you. At the same time, people will be compensated better than normal. The messaging has been all over the place, and it's not fair. It is not fair to those employees. I guarantee you that the morale is in the basement because nobody will explain what this actually means.

High-level, political - if you support them, get rid of it. Change the language. Explain why you need it. Nobody's received that explanation to date. Most importantly, those employees, many of whom are wondering - when they go to work next week, when we're out of here - if they can be fired without cause. What does that mean? What does that mean for my job security for the rest of my career?

There's a clause. What does that clause completely mean? Does it mean that anybody in this province can be fired without cause? Is there another reason why you need that legislation in place? Nobody wants to explain it. Nobody's been able to explain it. That's really sad. For me, there are lots of aspects of this bill - that piece of this bill, if it was taken out of here or reworded or explained to the people in a way that we could all get an idea of why this has to be here, when we've been told there's no organization, no this, no that. There's no need for it.

One clause - one line - has everybody scared in the civil service. You know what's going to end up happening, and it's their right to do it. Why would they work 24/7? Why would they do that when their employer says, Okay, well if you don't work 24/7 or on a weekend, we can fire you without cause? Nobody has explained it to them. Why would people want to pour their heart and soul into an organization that they have for their entire career, now all of sudden can be fired without cause? It's the worst. It's the absolute worst message you could send to the civil servants - and not only do it but not explain any of it.

Remember, all they've heard in here about this is: We value our employees, but compensation will be better than normal. Like, wow. This has been an ongoing issue from this legislation that this government hasn't been able to explain. Why don't you take the time to explain it to the people who work so hard for you each and every day? Explain why you need it. I don't know if they've had that conversation with their departments or their employees. Remember, as I said, with this bill, they've received correspondence about problem solvers and problem stretchers. The civil service have been problem solvers long before any of us were here. They've adjusted and adapted in the best of times and the worst of times, and they'll do it again.

[Page 1401]

As I said, we're going to leave the Legislature and this legislation's going to be in place. I challenge the government to do a public servant survey - a confidential one, so that people can tell the government how they really feel. I bet you it isn't going to be that good. For what? A clause. One clause.

They've made so many changes in this bill already. The Auditor General was celebrated by the public and they made the change. They made the change around the FOIPOP legislation. People celebrated that as well. They made change after change after change.

In Public Bills Committee the other night we had a bunch of regulators come in over another bill that we'll talk about later. The Premier got up in his place and he said, Yes, we're going to make some of those changes and we're listening. That's what the Public Bills Committee is all about - that's why we're here listening, and we don't want to play politics and all those things.

Well, you're playing politics right now with thousands of civil servants. You're playing politics with them and won't explain what's happening. People went to committee. They expressed their concern around this piece of legislation, and for whatever reason, the government doesn't want to budge on this one. They budged on everything else, and for whatever reason, they don't want to budge on this one. Not only that, they don't even want to explain to their employees why they want it. They don't even want to explain why they want it.

Those are the conversations I'm having with people. They don't know what this is. They have not received a solid explanation from anybody in government on what this is. They're scared and they're angry. They're going to come to work next week with this over their heads. Why would they go? Some of them may decide, you know what? What's it for? They're completely disrespected. They're completely disrespected for no reason at all.

That would be my one wish. This bill will pass. It will pass - of course it will pass - but you still have a chance to do it right, and a chance to at least explain to the people who are really scared right now. They are scared, and nobody can deny it. I'm sure people have had conversations with civil servants in their communities.

As I said, these are the people who have been involved with - the list goes on and on and on: Supporting our first responders, supporting our health care system, supporting some of the most sensitive information that comes out of government, programs that are built each and every day to support communities across the province - arts, culture, tourism, the environment, resource development. All these people, thousands of them, are just getting completely disrespected by the government when they don't have to do it. I don't get it. It's really tough to understand.

[Page 1402]

As I said, nobody has been given an explanation. The explanations we received to date don't add up. I'm sure lots of good people in here, elected to represent their communities - I'm sure there are members in this room, on all sides, who don't support this piece of legislation. Why would they?

[5:30 p.m.]

This is an internal government decision that somebody is making. I don't know, maybe it came from staff more than it came from the government. Who knows? I'm sure there are lots of members on the government side who don't support this, either.

I hope that it's talked about. I hope that it's debated in their caucus. I just really hope that they can take this out because as I said, why would anybody go work for - okay: Come work for the provincial government, we're going to hire you, uproot your families in some cases if you're moving to Nova Scotia or you're moving across the province, from Cape Breton to Halifax - work for the government, a new program, all this stuff, you're hired. Thanks, here's your contract. Thanks for uprooting your family. Here's a clause in your contract that we can fire you whenever we want without cause.

It's just that broad. For me, it's that broad. Again, nobody has explained this. Nobody has given me a definitive answer why the government needs this - nobody. As I said, I'm sure members of the government caucus are probably asking the same questions: Why are we doing this? They are probably getting calls from people they know and work with.

Everybody who works with someone - I look at the Cabinet ministers particularly because I know how important those staff are around those Cabinet ministers when it comes to support. They can now be fired without cause. It doesn't make any sense.

I've put the best fight up I can for the civil service. I want to thank them for the work they do each and every day. It's really unfortunate and I appreciate the conversations I've had with folks and their families, for that matter, who work in the civil service, who are also scared about what this all means.

I do want to rise on my feet because I had the privilege of working with many of them over the years whom I've seen work through pandemics, some of the worst natural disasters in our province, through devastating fires across the province, through hurricanes, through snow, through it all. I would be talking to them on weekends getting briefings. They're working around the clock because the expectation of government is that they step up, and they did every time, so I do want to thank them.

[Page 1403]

Ultimately this is why - there are many other reasons, Speaker, that I can get into tonight. I've talked about some of them. I do want to thank the public for their advocacy around some of the changes that the government has made.

This is a really heartbreaking bill for a lot of people who work very hard for Nova Scotia. One piece of this bill, if you removed it, would make the bill so much more palatable to all of us. But because this is here, it's just ill intent. It's really sad, to be honest.

As I said, the government has changed so much in the bill already. The government could really do the right thing for the people whom the government calls on each and every day when they're looking for a grant, or support for a program, or looking for information on health care or they're looking for communications, they're dealing with sensitive information, they're looking for direction on any kind of policy that the government brings forward - environment - I can go on and on. It went on last week.

I wanted to plead my case one more time for those wonderful employees with the Province and value them. It's sad that the government made so many changes in the bill, but they wouldn't make this one.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier.

KENDRA COOMBES « » : I also want to start off by thanking Nova Scotians. It was their outcry and protests surrounding Bill No. 1 that caused the PCs to reverse course. The PC government had no intention of walking back the AG portions of the bill or the FOIPOP sections. It was Nova Scotians' emails, their phone calls, and their protests outside this Legislature that forced the government's hand to make these changes. They are the ones who deserve the thank you. They are the heroes in this story.

There are still parts of this bill that are concerning. The civil service is under attack by this government. The government putting forward the ability to fire civil servants from their job, dismiss them without cause, has caused significant concern within the public service, especially those who are non-unionized, because they are not afforded the protections that a union provides them. These civil servants are the ones who work with the ministers every day. These civil servants are the ones who help with the programs that the government provides. Some of them are high up in government, and some of them are on the ground. They are working every day on behalf of Nova Scotians, and the fact that they have this axe over their heads is a terrible thing for this government to do.

I'm not going to belabour it, because I think my colleague for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island, as well as for Sydney-Membertou, did great work in that, but I'll say again to this government that they have no right - should not have a right - to fire anyone without cause. If that's what they want, then they'll have a lot of yes-people and not a lot of people willing to tell the ministers what the better choices are.

[Page 1404]

There's another part of this bill I have discussed before and I want to continue to discuss, because it's also an important aspect of the bill. I want to walk Nova Scotians through the anatomy of a relationship. On October 13, 2021, the PC government introduced us to fixed election dates for the first time in Nova Scotia. During that time, it was reported that Nova Scotia would finally join the rest of Canada in having fixed election dates. The Chief Electoral Officer for Elections Nova Scotia blessed this new relationship, stating:

I am pleased with the introduction of fixed-date election legislation, I support the choice of date and I appreciate the flexibility to choose an alternate date if necessary. This change will bring certainty to Elections Nova Scotia's planning and budgetary cycles and improve the efficiency of our election readiness efforts.

A number of us stood in this Chamber to support the concept of the fixed-date election. Where we differed on the relationship - although we enjoyed the concept of it, - was the time of year. We believed a Summer election, almost like a Summer wedding, instead of bringing forth growth and well wishes, would actually stifle the vote and create even lower voter turnout.

We have just come from an election where only 55 per cent of registered voters cast a ballot in August of 2021; a historic low at the time for Nova Scotia. However, the bill passed on October 29, 2021, and marital bliss seemed assured. We were expecting to go to the polls on July 15^th. On June 12, 2024, CBC reported in an article entitled, "Houston no longer wedded to fixed election date his government set in 2021." This headline was the first sign of trouble in this very new relationship. Keep in mind it was not even three years old and so many Nova Scotians had hoped for it. The Premier had said, "It'll be determined on the circumstances," regarding a fixed election date:

"I think it's really important that people have their say."

Later he went a step further, suggesting the fixed election date might be an impediment to the wishes of Nova Scotians.

Keep in mind, Nova Scotians loved the idea of a fixed election date:

That's a far cry from what the premier told the House on Oct. 14, 2021 - the day he led off debate on Bill 1, the Elections Act.

"When it becomes time for the people to have their say, I think it would be pretty selfish for me to say, 'No, you have to wait because it doesn't suit the political legislation that was passed.'"

That's a far cry from the Premier's comments in the House on October 14, 2021 - the day he led off the debate on Bill No. 1 - the Elections Act.

"We're listening to Nova Scotians and we are keeping a campaign commitment that we made . . . The amendments to the Elections Act will establish fixed provincial general election dates every four years in this province.

[Page 1405]

That's a good thing. It will bring predictability to our elections. And our elections, of course, are the cornerstone of our democracy."

As I said, Nova Scotians were actually supportive of this marriage with fixed election dates. In fact, many Nova Scotians were dismayed upon hearing the Premier's remarks and the concern that the relationship was in trouble and the Premier may pull the plug. On October 27, 2024, the Premier called a snap election. This started the separation of his government with fixed election dates before it even got tested.

In a CBC article entitled, "Nova Scotians heading to the polls Nov. 26 after early election call", Professor Tom Urbaniak stated this issue could linger:

if the opposition parties are able to make the case Nova Scotians cannot rely on Houston to keep his word.

"It feeds into a credibility issue. If that starts to dominate the discussion then . . . the broken promise around Bill 1 . . . will become part of the larger conversation."

Many Nova Scotians reached out to me during this time to talk about the troubled state of the PC relationship with the fixed election dates. They supported the relationship and wanted that predictability and that fairness that they were promised in 2021. They did not want that election, and I've heard many times at the door their concern for Nova Scotia's relationship with fixed election dates.

Then, on February 18, 2025, the Premier began the divorce proceedings from the fixed election dates when the PC government introduced legislation to repeal the Province's fixed date - again, another Bill No. 1. This repeal comes less than four years after we adopted the legislation, which we have never tested out. If the government felt they'd erred on doing a Summer election date, they could have got an amendment that could have moved the election date to a Spring or Fall election instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water and destroying this beautiful relationship.

Now here we are. It is third reading. This is the final hearing of the divorce proceedings on fixed election dates, and once it gains Royal Assent, that's the ink on the divorce papers. It's a sad day. It's a very sad day because Nova Scotians were actually looking forward to fixed election dates. It put us in line with the rest of Canada. This government talked so much about wanting to be in line with the rest of Canada, and yet they are putting forward in this omnibus bill an end to fixed election dates, making us, once again, the outlier in Canada.

[Page 1406]

When I was on the doorsteps this election, I never heard a single Nova Scotian say that we should do away with the fixed election date. What I heard was: Why aren't we following the fixed election date? Why did this Premier call a snap election? The first bill he passed - why would he do this? We were looking forward to a fixed election date.

[5:45 p.m.]

Elections Nova Scotia wasn't even ready for this date in the last election. They tried. Don't get me wrong. They really tried. They did great work, but they were also hoping for a fixed election date. Sadly, today, we are at the end of the proceedings. We wait for the ink to dry on those papers where we say goodbye to fixed election dates.

This bill, Bill No. 1, is a bad bill. I believe the Leader of the Nova Scotia NDP said this government has some trouble with Bill No.1s. She was not wrong. We have poisonous pills in this bill. The civil service is under attack in this bill, particularly the non-unionized civil servants who don't have a union to protect them from wrongful dismissal because in this bill, they get to bypass the Labour Standards Code.

We're repealing fixed election dates. There's nothing to celebrate here. This is a sad day for Nova Scotians. It is a sad day for the civil service. It is a sad day for the chief electoral officer for Nova Scotia.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : I'd like to stand and speak on third and final reading of Bill No. 1, An Act Respecting Government Organization and Administration.

As we all know, this is a wide-reaching piece of legislation. In fact, there are 11 pieces of legislation in this omnibus bill. When I went to the technical briefing for this bill, I laughed to myself because I'm like, it's Bill No. 1 and there are 11 bills inside this one bill. I knew full well, as an Opposition member, that the only real reason the government does this is to try to get less transparency, and to have less debate on it.

I think what happens, though, is that it actually causes the opposite effect of what the government desires because it automatically created suspicion with probably the media and Opposition members. Then people actually dig even a little more than maybe they would be inclined to.

So there are 11 pieces of legislation, amended or new, in this Bill No. 1. Like my colleagues have already said, we saw the outcry of the public, and it was really refreshing. It was so refreshing to see the engagement and to see democratic action and engagement from the public. To see so many people come to the Public Bills Committee was great. I know the Premier has stood and commented about that. While it was good, we do need to acknowledge that no amendments were able to be brought forward during that time, by MLAs or by members of the public. I think that's important to acknowledge that.

[Page 1407]

This bill looks like it's going to pass in its current form. While some provisions may be administrative or technical in nature in this bill, the core of this bill does have real consequences for our democracy, for our civil service, and for the public's trust in government. Even though the Premier and the government did pull back and make some amendments, I think the damage was already done. Not enough amendments have been made, as my colleagues have already said.

This bill consolidates power into the hands of Cabinet. We're seeing more centralization of power. It's been a general theme. It gives more control to ministers, weakens protections for public servants, opens the door for political manipulation of election timing, and risks reducing access to information for journalists, researchers, and the public.

Yes, like I mentioned, the Premier has backed down on some of the more extreme elements, like the attack on the Auditor General's independence. That change is welcome, but it doesn't erase the broader direction that this bill does represent.

The fact that such significant amendments were made by the government reminds us of the lack of collaboration prior to the bill even being tabled. The logistics of even how the amendments were brought forward in Committee of the Whole House - how those were shared, very autocratic in nature, very anti-democratic - honestly, it was insulting and disrespectful. In what other workplace would this be accepted?

Over the weekend, I thought about it. Is there even a process by which we could issue a complaint, as an MLA? We weren't given adequate opportunity to properly read the legislation or the amendments that we were being asked to vote upon at that very moment that the amendments were tabled. We weren't able to do our jobs. I don't know if there's a formal process, but there should be, if there isn't.

There's no corporate setting in which this would be acceptable. There's no business environment in which this would be acceptable. Why is it acceptable in government, where we should be held to a higher account?

Six pages of amendments were read to us by the House Leader with no explanation of any of the amendments and no time to do our due diligence.

Of course, this bill also - as my colleagues have already mentioned - allows the government to dismiss civil servants without cause, which threatens the government staff. This bill gives ministers the ability to fire civil servants. That should concern every Nova Scotian who believes in a professional, independent - yes, independent - public service.

Civil servants are not political staff. There is a difference. Civil servants are the backbone of our government. They are the people who implement our laws. They are the people who deliver the services and maintain continuity across all governments, regardless of which party is in power. Allowing dismissals without cause opens the door to political interference, cronyism, and a chilling effect on dissent within the public service.

[Page 1408]

What happens when a civil servant challenges a flawed policy? We've seen incidents of this happen already here in Nova Scotia. I'll bring up a very tragic incident that happened in our community with the tragic death of Allison Holthoff. There was a fury of media after her husband, Gunter, went public with the story of his wife's death. He came to me for help to get an investigation. I tried, was unsuccessful, and posted something on Facebook to that effect so that people knew, because I was starting to get people very angry with me.

I am sharing this for the new members who weren't aware of this. I received an email on Friday night at midnight from the Department of Justice telling me to take down my Facebook post or possibly have legal action. It's quite something - just because I tried to help a man whose wife died in our emergency department. That was the threat that I got. Terrible.

As a result of her death and in support of trying to improve emergency services here in Nova Scotia, I put out a seven-point action plan that included making emergency wait times public.

Jesse Yang worked for the Department of Health and Wellness in the IT Department. I'll share a CBC article. To make a long story short, it's the IT department, we're told, to get the ER wait times public and to do it quickly, soon after Allison's tragic death. I'll just read a quote. I don't want to misspeak. I want to make sure that I quote it exactly. This is the CBC article, and I'll table it. Yang had some ethical concerns:

Yang headed the project when development began for the online tool in March 2022.

Only nine months later, a young mother died after waiting for more than seven hours to see a doctor at the Cumberland Regional Health Care Centre. Less than a month later, the provincial government announced a slate of changes to improve emergency departments.

Yang said he began the project with the knowledge that similar models are used in other provinces, but Nova Scotia Health's specific request concerned him early on in the project.

He believed the data provided for the model was insufficient, and to predict wait-times hours in advance would be "feeding a prediction model with a prediction" - a single error would be amplified.

Yang considered this was an ethical issue, and believed inaccurate wait-times could be life-threatening. He said when he raised this with his superiors, they told him the model just needed to "look good."

[Page 1409]

I'll table this document for anyone who wants to read it. There are a couple of CBC articles. Basically, this employee who raised concerns was fired. He just tried to do the right thing.

When I spoke on this bill earlier last week, I did ask - we didn't get an answer, but my question was: Why is this in this bill? Why is this needed? I asked the question, and I don't know if this is accessible through FOIPOP or not, especially after this bill passes: How many lawsuits are there before the courts right now from people who have been fired without just cause, and is this amendment an attempt to try to reduce the number of lawsuits for people who are fired by this government?

If that is the case, I don't think it will work. Any civil servant who may get fired in the future, listen to this, because if you're fired without just cause, even if this bill passes, it doesn't mean it will hold up in court. Every other Nova Scotia business owner has to follow labour standards. Why should the government not follow the Labour Standards Code of its own province? That's what this bill is suggesting. We'll see where that goes in the future.

Bill No. 1 also, of course, repeals the fixed election dates. We've talked about that throughout. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed. Like I mentioned in the last reading of this bill - I believe it was in Committee of the Whole House - every other province and territory in Canada has a fixed election date. Again, we'll be an outlier without having any fixed election date, which will allow the government that is in - this current government - to have some ability to control when the next election date is and to be able to plan when Opposition members will not be able to. Again, it's all for their own political gain, not for democracy.

This bill, Bill No. 1, also provides expanded ministerial oversight. It provides more power and less oversight, giving Cabinet Ministers greater authority to enter into agreements on behalf of the Province. You know, honestly, I don't know that that's a bad thing, but I wanted to bring it up. There needs to be clear oversight. Whether or not this will allow that, I'm not sure, but we've all seen how many contracts this government is awarding without going to tender. My fear is that more of that will happen, and Nova Scotians would not necessarily have good value for their money if contracts are being done untendered to - maybe, possibly - friends of friends within government.

That's a concern. That's why it's important to have good oversight. As humans, sometimes we are drawn to doing things that we shouldn't be, and there need to be checks and balances in place to prevent those things. There should be good legislative oversight and ministerial oversight as well. As I mentioned, there are 11 pieces of legislation in Bill No. 1. It's a shame that we have to rush through legislation and lawmaking in this province.

[6:00 p.m.]

[Page 1410]

I'm just going to quickly go through them here. We had the Auditor General Act, the Civil Service Act, the Elections Act, the Executive Council Act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the House of Assembly Act. There were changes in salaries and lawmaking, and I just want to make a comment about that. If we're going to get a 29 per cent increase in salary or more for ministerial assistants, then we should be working in the Legislature more. Right now, we sit the fewest number of days in all of Canada, and if we're going to get a 29 per cent raise, then we should be in the legislature 29 per cent more.

That's just my feeling, and I think if it was just expected and we had a parliamentary calendar and we were here and it was planned, then we wouldn't be rushing through and putting through legislation that possibly will not even hold up in court. We have the Members' Retiring Allowances Act, changing pensionable income for MLAs. We have the Municipal Government Act which, again, is focusing on restriction of access to records. That was a general theme in Bill No. 1. We had the Privacy Review Officer Act, again looking at the Privacy Officer being able to dismiss trivial, frivolous, and vexatious requests - again, restriction of access to information. We have the Private Ways Act, and we had the Public Service Act, which was more housekeeping.

I'm sure there are some good things in this bill, but our job in Opposition is to point out the weaknesses, and having the 11 bills in one overall is a major weakness. I feel that as Opposition members, we've done a good job. I'm really proud of my colleagues in Opposition. I think that we've done a good job in helping to inform the public, and I appreciate the public speaking up as well.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Dartmouth South.

CLAUDIA CHENDER: I am pleased to rise and just say a few words to Bill No. 1 before it passes this final reading. The first is that this is, as my colleague has just extensively covered, an omnibus bill, and omnibus bills are bad. Omnibus bills are very bad, no-good bills because they mean that you can't, without great difficulty, figure out what's in them. Eleven pieces of legislation in one: I think we have yet to hear a single government member stand up and explain any of it, and I think it's important for the public to understand that the way legislation is meant to work is that legislation has a sponsoring minister, and that minister will explain the bill for the benefit of their colleagues and for the benefit of the public.

That has not happened with this bill, and that hasn't happened because it's full of a lot of pretty bad provisions. Some of them have been removed, so the provisions which would have allowed the government to fire the Auditor General without cause, which would have intruded pretty severely in the freedom of information regime, those have been changed. I think partly that's because we have a bill that intrudes on the rights and the ability of the public to understand and engage with the work of government, that limits oversight, and that just so happened, by dint of timing, to come to the floor of the Legislature right about the same time that Elon Musk was on a stage with a chainsaw south of the border talking about government efficiency. I think that was a wake-up call for a lot of people that enabled them to think differently about government efficiency and what that actually means, and that that could, in fact, be a pretty pernicious cover for legislation that could actually work at cross purposes to the public trust, which I think is what a lot of this purported to do.

[Page 1411]

As I said, a couple of those provisions were removed. Sorry, I will look at you, Speaker.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. We've gone through this since the middle of February. You don't have to look at me the whole time, but you're not to look into the TV screen, you're not to stare directly at the person you're talking to. You can look at me, you can look around the room, but not directly at someone else or the TV screen.

The honourable member for Dartmouth South.

CLAUDIA CHENDER: I apologize, Speaker. I have never seen a ruling that says I have to look at the Speaker, so it's difficult for me to assimilate that information.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. I'm not making the rule up here. It's in the book. You are to speak through the Speaker to the members opposite. Are you telling me that's not a rule? That's what you just said.

The honourable member for Dartmouth South. We were doing so well.

CLAUDIA CHENDER: I have never heard another Speaker of the House ever direct a member to look directly at them. That's all I'm saying.

THE SPEAKER « » : Interesting, because I've been here less time than you and I've heard it.

The honourable member for Dartmouth South to finish their statement in regard to Bill No. 1.

CLAUDIA CHENDER: Some of my colleagues have spoken about the provisions around the public service, but I think it's really important to understand what I think is the most damaging part of those provisions, which is that they are not subject to the Nova Scotia Labour Code. The truth is we don't know what will happen. We have had no explanation, other than the word "flexibility" used. I'll remind the members and Nova Scotians that we recently came through a pandemic, when we demanded more flexibility of our public servants than ever before, and they delivered. They were seconded, they were moved around, they did a lot of incredible work. We had the structure that allowed them to do that.

We also, by the way, have the ability to fire public servants without cause now. We just have to pay them. Why are we now saying that they can be fired without cause not subject to the Nova Scotia Labour Code? This should raise alarm bells, because it means that in regulations - regulations which, because of changes to other parts of this bill, may never become public, may never become Orders in Council, may never be known by Nova Scotians - those regulations could, in fact, stipulate less protection, which is what we've been saying, for these public servants than any other employee in the province. We've been talking about this for years, actually, that we want the Government of Nova Scotia to be the employer of choice.

[Page 1412]

We've talked about this in the health care context since this government was elected on a platform to fix health care. We want Nova Scotia to be the employer of choice. Again, we've seen what's happening south of the border. We've seen the loss of scientific expertise; we've seen the loss of all kinds of deeply valuable resources in the government because of a reckless approach to dealing with the public service. I'm not drawing an analogy; I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but I am saying that we ought to be careful. Absent an explanation, which maybe we'll hear at the wrap-up of this bill, the idea that the excluded employees of the public service are not subject to the provincial Labour Code should raise alarm bells. I think it does.

There are many other provisions to this bill which my colleagues have spoken to very articulately. I'll close by saying that I hope there is a member of the Executive Council who can stand and speak to the necessity for any of this legislation - again, none of which was mentioned in the recent election, none of which has been explained other than emails I've seen from MLAs to their constituents saying that these provisions must have been misunderstood by the public and therefore are being rescinded, the more controversial ones. If government thinks this is necessary, they ought to do all of us and the public the courtesy of explaining why - not with buzzwords, not with half-apologies for misguided provisions, but with actual explanations.

In summary, this is an omnibus bill that nobody seems to want to speak to that we think was misguided in many of its provisions. And that will set another unfortunate precedent for the way we make law in this Chamber.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.

PAUL WOZNEY « » : I rise in my capacity as His Majesty's Loyal Opposition member critic for both Labour and Skills and the Public Service Commission. I'm grateful for the comments of my colleagues on the Opposition side addressing a number of problematic aspects of this legislation.

I want to constrain my remarks to the changes to the Public Service Act that give this government the unilateral ability to terminate the employment of senior civil servants without cause and bypass the protections of civil servants provided under the Labour Standards Code of Nova Scotia.

During the process of Estimates, I sat and listened to the Minister of the Public Service Commission enthusiastically talk to the committee and Nova Scotians about the department that she is proud to lead, that she represents a department that reports that senior civil servants in this province, on average, have 12 years of service and are permanent employees.

[Page 1413]

I draw attention to that fact because those employees, despite the fact that they are permanent, occupy roles in government that already enjoy less protections than other civil servants who work in unionized roles. These senior civil servants do not enjoy the protection of representation by a union. They do not have the right to grieve decisions regarding their employment by the employer. And in some respects, they agree to employment under these terms and conditions because of the opportunity to lead in the civil services, recognizing that they, by virtue of their roles, have a managerial function in the delivery of government, and consequently, exist outside of the protection of a union.

So, they're already making informed choices as workers to take on work under certain conditions that are less protected than if they took on roles in other aspects of government.

We've heard members of this government stand and talk about the civil service of Nova Scotia with glowing pride. The civil service has been integral to the response of government under other crises. I've listened to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board stand, time and time again, about how the civil service has been central to the Province's response in times of crisis, pointing directly to how the civil service was instrumental to the nimble, responsive approach of government to meet the needs of Nova Scotians during an unprecedented global crisis.

And I agree. The civil service did amazing work on behalf of Nova Scotians. I would concur with the minister that that's an entirely fair portrayal of the remarkable work of our civil service and our senior civil servants.

In the same breath, I've heard the Minister of the Public Service Commission and the Premier stand in this House and say that we need unprecedented flexibility to address the needs of Nova Scotians. We have a failed reality TV show host threatening us with tariffs. He threatens to destabilize the fabric of life in Nova Scotia. Consequently, this government requires unprecedented flexibility in the Civil Service to respond to the threat of these tariffs.

[6:15 p.m.]

I think there's some merit to thinking about the impact these tariffs could have in the short, medium, and long term for Nova Scotians. We've also heard the government stand and crow about the size of its supermajority and how the people of Nova Scotia spoke and how powerful it is. In its budget, there's a $200 million contingency fund that we haven't heard any parameters around but this is the magic elixir. This is the thing that is going to solve all the issues connected to tariff delivery.

The Minister of the Public Service Commission has indicated that there are no plans to reorganize the Civil Service in response to tariffs, or for any other reason in our province. Yet this government needs the ability to fire senior civil servants without cause and give itself a hall pass when it comes to the Labour Standards Code in Nova Scotia.

[Page 1414]

On one hand, it points to the current statute and the Civil Service as being entirely capable of innovative and nimble response to crises, as evidenced through the COVID-19 pandemic, but this government with the largest majority in our history is so helpless and so handcuffed by current statute that it needs to be able to fire senior civil servants without cause to be able to carry out some kind of meaningful response to tariffs that it refuses to outline here in this House for the people of Nova Scotia. It's baffling.

In Public Bills Committee we heard former senior civil servants talk about the chill that this one aspect of Bill No. 1 will have on the recruitment and retention of highly skilled, appropriately experienced individuals who would be willing to take on key civil service roles at a time that we've never needed the civil service more.

We heard members of the public currently employed in other sectors but who have the kind of experience and expertise necessary to step in to senior civil service roles say to us point blank: I can't think of a good reason why I would leave my position in the private sector, or some other sector, and take on a government job that offers me less job security. Why would I do that? Why would I leave behind a position of similar of equivalent compensation to take on a government role where I enjoy less job security than somebody employed in a casual retail position in Nova Scotia? We heard speakers say things like that to us in Public Bills Committee.

We heard speakers at Public Bills Committee tell us that this aspect of Bill No. 1 will have chilling impacts on recruitment and retention in the Civil Service of Nova Scotia. What's not necessarily an equivalent analogy: Not so long ago, the government of the day in this House passed Bill No. 72 in February 2018. It deprofessionalized school principals and it legislated a change to their definition - no longer were they principal teachers but they would now be managers. Along with that, it also established that school principals in Nova Scotia, as managers, would be removed from the union, but they would also never be allowed to unionize under any umbrella on a go-forward basis and they would be subject to termination without just cause.

Many people rose to speak against that legislation and the chilling effect it would have on recruitment and retention of people within public education to take on school administrator roles. It hasn't taken very long for those predictions to bear out in practice. The Halifax Regional Centre for Education used to operate two annual cohorts to train school principals in a leadership development program. There was an instant shrinkage of people in public education in the Halifax area willing to enter that program to gain the training necessary to take on administrative roles in public schools here in Halifax. A more than 50 per cent reduction in willing applicants, in people willing to take on that training.

There's been an uptick across the province in regional centres for education turning to applicants from outside of Nova Scotia to fill roles that they struggle to fill internally as a result of, in part, an employment dynamic where principals are not protected by a just-cause standard for termination. We see that a previous government enacting mean-spirited and harmful legislation has eroded the calibre and quality of the candidates willing to step forward for senior leadership roles in public education across our province.

[Page 1415]

Now we have before us in Bill No. 1 a more broadly sweeping change in legislation that hands this government the unilateral authority to fire civil servants without cause. This will have lasting ramifications for the number of people and the quality of the individuals willing to let their names stand for consideration for civil service roles in Nova Scotia.

Recent examples of this government's public-facing comments about individuals who may or may not be public employees or provincial employees show that this government has been willing to resort to public management of human resources in this province. A recent and disturbing event in Cape Breton that took place at a fire hall where people exhibited racially insensitive behaviour was met with furor and controversy. We heard the Premier publicly comment that if the individuals who exhibited this behaviour were found to be provincial employees, they would be terminated. This is before we had legislation that empowers the government to fire people without cause.

It was unclear at the time whether the Premier was aware of whether or not any of the individuals whose behaviour was in question were provincial employees, but it was an unprecedented step for a Premier to comment on a case where the facts weren't clear and whether or not there were any provincial employees whose conduct should be subject to appropriate scrutiny under their collective agreement or under the terms of their employment for appropriate discipline. We had a Premier using a microphone as a tool of discipline for Nova Scotian workers, justified or unjustified.

We've seen this Premier publicly criticize the performance of a school principal who made a decision, who made a request of veterans to please be considerate of the needs of several children in the school recently immigrated to Canada, suffering from trauma and distress, having emigrated from active war zones, saying uniforms could exacerbate the difficulties that they were experiencing. And the Premier used that moment as a grandstanding opportunity to accuse the school system of disrespecting veterans, calling into question the performance of that principal. That principal was not a provincial employee. He used his platform to call into question an employee who works in a public sector position.

These two examples show that this government is prepared to manage HR through the media. Those two cases put a chill over the civil service because we've got a province full of hard-working senior civil servants, people whom the Minister of Public Service Commission suggests are deeply valued employees. But they're so valued that the government wants the power to fire them without cause, to treat them in a lesser way than every other work in Nova Scotia.

This is not new news to this House, and I've raised this objection at every turn. But as a matter of record, I want to say once again, loud and clear, that this is the wrong thing for the Province of Nova Scotia. It is deplorable for a government to give itself a hall pass. When this becomes law, the Government of Nova Scotia will be the only employer in Nova Scotia with free rein to fire people without cause, to bypass the protections of the Labour Standards Code of Nova Scotia and terminate them without any good reasons whatsoever - just because somebody in government feels like cutting somebody adrift.

[Page 1416]

They have the power to do that. They will be the only employer in this province that can operate in this fashion. And given the recent conduct of this government and the Premier, there's fulsome reason to worry about them using the power in such a fashion.

So, yes, we've had the Minister of Advanced Education allude to my past as a union leader numerous times, and that's not something I've ever tried to hide, and it's something I'm proud of. I'm proud to have spoken on behalf of 10,000 public school teachers, school counsellors, and school principals before they were legislated out of the union. I'm proud to have stood up for those folks as their elected representative.

But during COVID-19, I didn't just speak for teachers and school counsellors and principals; I also spoke for rank-and-file Nova Scotians and families and students, when the government made sweeping decisions that had an impact on people outside of the union. At a time school boards had been eliminated, somebody had to speak up for them, and I was proud, as the president of the Nova Scotia Teachers Union, to speak up and raise a voice, a needed voice, for people who were at risk, whose voices and perspectives government didn't have ready access to at a time it was making critical decisions about them, without them.

These senior civil servants are seeing their work lives decided in this House. Decisions about them are being made without them, and someone has to speak up for them. I've got big shoulders and thick skin, and if somebody wants to call me a union thug for standing up for workers based on my past history, fair game. I'm good with that. I'm not so thin-skinned that somebody's sharp words qualify as being accosted.

Senior civil servants in Nova Scotia deserve the same protections as any other worker in this province. Full stop. And this legislation is wrong to erode their job security. It will threaten the long-term viability of the civil service and the quality of programming that Nova Scotians have access to through the Government of Nova Scotia. The vote still hasn't been taken, and I am perfectly aware that the supermajority has the ability to make this change about this legislation before the final vote is taken.

[6:30 p.m.]

In the strongest terms possible, I urge it to demonstrate restraint and to make this change in the interests of civil servants in the interests of the quality of the programs and the services that the government is able to offer the people of Nova Scotia at a time that the civil service has never been more needed by its people. It's the right thing to do, and I implore the government - as it has rightly made changes in other respects to this legislation - here before we conclude third reading to turn back from this one piece and to make this right so that we can stand behind this legislation when the vote is called.

[Page 1417]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister for Education and Early Childhood Development.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: I want to thank the members for their passionate speeches and their words. Obviously, it's very important to be debating this bill and all other bills. I just I want to stand up for a moment and just speak about Bill No. 1 - in particular, some of the changes that were made. There was some reference to FOIPOP and the potential issues with FOIPOP. We listened to the FOIPOP - this government listened to the FOIPOP commissioner - and made the changes and are making the changes that were recommended by the FOIPOP commissioner.

It's one thing to be part of a government that will just bulldoze and move forward. It's another thing to stop and listen. We've stood here and listened to how Public Bills - formerly Law Amendments - was destroyed and nobody was going to be able to present a case at Public Bills. We heard that - that it was gone. In fact, it was shared over and over on social media by members of the opposition. That wasn't true - simply not true. Unless I'm hallucinating, I sat in Public Bills and listened to people come in.

We value the voices of Nova Scotia. We value our public sector. The people who work for our public sector are invaluable, and we'll continue to support them. I think the member for Sackville-Cobequid made a reference about how this government has treated people in the past. What I can tell him is that teachers were pretty happy; 81 per cent, I think, agreed to the contract. What I can also tell him is that health care workers were treated very, very well. They are pretty happy. I'm not going to break any news, but I heard that support staff are pretty darn happy with the contract that just came out. To imply that we're treating our public sector workers unfairly is simply not true.

The member said something about PSAANS and removing the principals from the schools. I challenge him to tell me which school doesn't have a principal, and is he implying that the ones that are there are not of good quality? Because he said, "We're not getting the pool that we needed." I can tell you that I have children in school, and every one of those principals are fantastic. They work hard. In fact, in some of those schools, we have very young teachers who have moved into those positions.

I don't know if it's a mutual friend, but someone we both grew up with and is a bit younger than us is a vice principal at my children's school - a teacher there and a vice principal, on a career path to be a principal. Chris would be in his 40s, so we're getting people interested in the job. Then this whole thing about principals and comparing what happened with principals to what's happening here - I implore the member to table how many principals were fired. How many principals were let go? Except for the member for Enfield - but he chose to leave - we've got a few principals, former principals, here . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: Fall River.

[Page 1418]

BRENDAN MAGUIRE: . . . and I . . . oh, Fall River, sorry. I do want to say to the member opposite, I don't think anyone has ever implied that he's a union thug. I've spent my entire working career in a union. I've been on the other side on the collective bargaining, whether it was CUPE or whether it was with - when we were with the phone company. I've been on strike. I was on strike for nine months - eight or nine months. Nobody's implying that. You can create a story around it. It's just simply not true. The public servants have done an incredible job - an incredible job - and they will continue to be valued. I know that, as I have the privilege to be a minister of many departments.

I challenge anyone in this room to go - whether it was Municipal Affairs, Community Services, Education and Early Childhood Development, or Advanced Education - go in and speak to the individuals in those departments and ask them how I treated them and how I treat them. This is a partnership. We don't go without the public sector. We have a deep appreciation for them, and we will continue to appreciate them and treat them fairly. That's what counts.

This government's track record - I've been in on a few governments; I don't know if you knew that - this government's track record is pretty darn good when it comes to treating workers. There have been no mass layoffs.

I've sat here for a lot of years. I remember in the last session where there was a bill on health care and information around health care. We sat here for that entire session and listened to the Opposition say, They're stealing your health care information and they're going to give it out to the private sector and it's so dangerous - it's so this, that, and the other thing, without actually really knowing what it was about, Speaker - without actually really knowing what it was about.

What it was about is improving an app that is actually saving lives. The members can say whatever they want. They can laugh all they want, but I bet you they've never used it, Speaker. I have constituents who are being told when their breast screening is coming up, when their next appointment is. It's coming up on their phones. It's allowing them to access records and read it in real language. These things are important to Nova Scotians.

They may not think it's important to be able to read your own personal information, but we do, and Nova Scotians do. I think it's very good to be able to pull up my records on my phone, that if I had the ability to change a family doctor and I go somewhere else - another province somewhere - that I have that information. In fact, that information has been in circulation in B.C. forever.

I have a friend who's an EMT who worked in B.C. He said, "You know, as an EMT in B.C., we could literally pull up our patients' health care records." I said, "Neil, well, why is that important?" He said, "Well, it's important because we don't know if they're diabetic, we don't know what they're - we don't know. We need to know."

This misinformation or this storytelling about mass layoffs - when we come back in the Fall, and if the doom and gloom that they are predicting does not happen - which it won't - I hope those members stand on their feet and apologize.

[Page 1419]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Point of order. I do request that the member withdraw the statement of "misinformation."

THE SPEAKER « » : He didn't accuse any member of misinformation.

If you're standing up on another point of order, I will recognize you. If you're not, then I will not recognize you. I've had legal counsel. I have - I'm listening intently to what the member is saying, and he was not accusing any specific member of misleading or mistruth. Sorry. Do you have a new point of order?

The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Speaker, I do feel that the member made a specific comment.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. That's not a new point of order. (Interruption) I know, but we went through this a few weeks ago. I did it for them. We had some members from your party who kind of were upset about it. I did it for you. I had some other - nobody gets a second chance here anymore. I've got legal counsel. It is not a point of order. Disagreement among members.

The honourable Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

BRENDAN MAGUIRE: As I was saying, when we come back in the Fall and the doom and gloom that is being predicted doesn't happen, I hope that those members stand in their places and apologize. They are saying that there are going to be massive layoffs and cuts, and people aren't going to be applying for jobs, and people are going to leave en masse exodus for the jobs, and they are not going to be appealing . . . (interruption).

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. If the member for Sackville-Cobequid has a point of order, they can stand, but I can hear you perfectly well from here, and I don't want to be hearing you perfectly well from here.

The honourable Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

BRENDAN MAGUIRE: I'm not going to stand up here long, but what I will say is that on the Auditor General stuff, we heard loud and clear from Nova Scotians and we've heard loud and clear from the Auditor General. As somebody who might possibly be the longest-serving member on that committee, it's an important committee. It is integral to the public. It's integral for transparency and openness, and we will continue to support the Auditor General. In fact, we've raised the budget for them.

[Page 1420]

I just want to say that no piece of legislation is perfect. I've been here long enough to hear that when you push through legislation and you don't make the changes, you're one way, but if you push through legislation and you listen and make the changes, it is also a negative connotation. I don't think that I've heard sloppy legislation. I'm proud to be part of a government that when you hear feedback, you make those changes. I think that's fair for Nova Scotians. I think it is really fair for Nova Scotians.

I wish that would have happened with the Yarmouth ferry back in the day. I wish that would have happened for other pieces of legislation back in the day. We heard about the fixed election and how it shouldn't have been in the Summer. The NDP ran for re-election in the Summer. I looked it up. The beginning of September was when they called their election. What I'm saying is let's just have a factual conversation. The points are well taken. I can tell say to every single person who works for the provincial government, whether you're unionized or not, you're appreciated.

I think we have shown in our track record that when it comes to compensation and being treated fairly, we will continue to do that, and we will continue to support you. The Auditor General is going nowhere. She does an incredible job. In fact, we will be debating Bill No. 12 at some point, and those bills were built on the recommendation of the Auditor General. Also, the FOIPOP commissioner has made some requests and some changes. We are going to continue to listen to the experts like the FOIPOP commissioner, and we are going to move forward with those changes.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

SUZY HANSEN « » : Speaker, I stand up here because we're talking about Bill No. 1. Bill No. 1, as my colleague mentioned, has 11 Acts. Ministers are responsible for each and every one of those Acts. I was so happy to see a minister stand up to give us clarity on any part of the bill, but we didn't see that or hear that. We heard about misinformation. We heard about untruths. To me, I think: Here's an opportunity. Here's an opportunity for government to stand up and clarify what it is that Nova Scotians were asking. Clarify why we did not talk to the Auditor General before we put forward a bill that's going to affect their jobs.

Yes, they are back-pedalling, and yes, they've taken it out, but why didn't you do your due diligence before? Same exact thing. This is the problem here. It's not that Bill No. 1 isn't something we shouldn't be debating and having conversations about. What we're trying to say is that the bill itself needs work. We've talked about it. Each and every one of us over here in Opposition have talked about many different parts of the bill that could use some work.

We say this because the minister alluded to or spoke about the Public Bills Committee being the same as the Law Amendments Committee. Well, it's actually not. In the Law Amendments Committee, you could actually bring forward amendments to influence what the bill would look like. I want to be clear. See, this is what you people are supposed to do - stand up and clarify what that position is. Clarity on a part of a bill . . .

[Page 1421]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. I asked you to rephrase "you people." (Interruption) That's all right. I make mistakes all the time. We all do.

The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

SUZY HANSEN « » : I'm not going to talk long. I just wanted to stand up because this is an opportunity for Nova Scotians to get the respect they deserve. They came to the Public Bills Committee and told us exactly what they were feeling and how it was going to affect them. Yet the only things we've seen were the things that the Auditor General felt were not appropriate, and the things that the Information and Privacy Commissioner felt were not appropriate.

All this stuff could have been done before the bill was actually produced, before the legislation came forward on the floor. I think that's the problem we see here with a number of pieces of legislation. They're coming forward without the due diligence of consulting the proper people to get the right information.

[6:45 p.m.]

I just want to say that I was surprised to see a minister stand up and not defend anything or clarify anything that was in the bill, other than to defend things that were said by a member giving their experience. I wish a minister who has the portfolio of any one of these Acts would step up and do what Nova Scotians are asking and clarify exactly what it is that this bill is about to do.

There have been a number of questions asked here. We're just hoping the government actually has answers to the things that Nova Scotians are asking. Defend it with the same vigour. Defend it with the same power and claps and excitement that you defend a word or two that's being said by an Opposition member.

We're here to do our job. If you don't like us doing our job, we are not here for you. Or sorry, we are not here for the side that doesn't like that. I'm just saying that my role is to do this work. I'm giving it to you now. I thought I'd stand and let you know that this is exactly what Nova Scotians deserve - clarity and the respect that's given.

THE SPEAKER « » : If I recognize the minister, it will be to close the debate.

The honourable Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : Speaker, I'd like to thank all members of the House for their comments. I move to close debate on third reading.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is for third reading of Bill No. 1.

[Page 1422]

All those in favour of the motion? Contrary? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

Ordered that this bill do pass. Ordered that the title be as read by the Clerk. Ordered that the bill be engrossed.

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 11.

Bill No. 11 - Administrative Efficiency and Accountability in Healthcare Act.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Health and Wellness.

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : I move that Bill No. 11 be now read a third time.

I'll offer some brief remarks to open debate. The members across the floor noted during second reading that there are aspects of the bill, like repealing and amendments to the Anatomy Act, Human Organ and Tissue Donation Act, and Health Services Act that they support. I thank them for that.

I do want to offer a bit of clarity from the debate in second reading. I want to talk about the Emergency Department Accountability Act. Modernizing your health care system includes how we communicate and provide information and data to Nova Scotians. Certainly, in the last number of years in our first mandate and continuing into this one, we are constantly adding real-time data in order to support not only clinicians and decision makers but also Nova Scotians in understanding how the health care system is working.

The annual report that we are repealing is really outdated data. It is tabled at a minimum of nine months after the data has been closed on March 31^st, so it does not provide a clear picture of what's currently happening and actually misses nine months of work. I certainly believe that the folks in the health care system have shown that there can be tremendous effort and change in a nine-month period.

We have established public reporting dashboards and websites with information that's available now, and people are able to access those in a variety of different ways: Nova Scotia Health Authority website updates, service interruptions, and emergency department closures in real time. Action for Health reporting with data available can sometimes happen monthly, sometimes quarterly, sometimes annually, depending on the metric. Certainly, Nova Scotians, the media, and members across the way can all access this data and metrics.

I also want to explain that the Health Authorities Act continues to include the requirement of the Nova Scotia Health Authority and the IWK Health Centre to complete public engagement activities that support community and business planning processes. I know that one of the members opposite spoke about their concern that the public consultation would stop if this portion of the bill was repealed, but I want to assure members there's still a requirement in the Health Authorities Act for community consultation. We recently saw that in force in Windsor.

[Page 1423]

I think one of the things that the Opposition had asked us to clarify during second reading was the amendment around the Health Services and Insurance Act. This really is a housekeeping amendment to provide clarity in existing language within the legislation for health care professionals. It will now be clearer for health care professionals that they can charge private insurers and federal government programs more than the provincial tariff rate, if there is an opportunity to do that when higher payments are available.

I'll just give dental care as an example. Some of the most commonly billed dental services include recall examinations, fluoride treatments, x-rays, et cetera. Under the federal Canadian Dental Care Plan, those services can be billed at a higher rate than the provincial tariff. This language really just provides clarity for those health care providers to be able to charge that higher rate, but there will be no change for patients at all.

With that, I'll take my seat and wait to hear from my colleagues across the floor.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : I really want to express my thanks to the Minister of Health and Wellness for providing some comments and responses to the questions that we had asked on behalf of Nova Scotians who had contacted us. I think we recognize the changes in the Anatomy Act that were required. We appreciate the explanation of the changes to the Health Services and Insurance Act. I am curious about where this will go and what we'll see come out of that.

I think we are still concerned, and we are not pleased, to see the Emergency Department Accountability Act repealed. I certainly understand the idea of providing data that's up to date and that the Act was, in fact, a reflection backwards, but I think that's a really important way we can learn about what's happening. This is why we have accountability reports for every government department. We want to look back on the year and see what the trends were, see what investments were made, and see where we've gotten to in terms of improving access.

I know the minister has acknowledged that maintaining ER access, particularly rural, is a continued challenge. It's a workforce challenge, and it's definitely not one that's stabilized. I had the opportunity to ask the minister earlier in this session about the closures at Queens General Hospital. That one really stuck out to me because I know that when my mom lived in Milton, Queens County, that ER saved her life on a number of occasions. If she'd had to travel further to Bridgewater, I don't think that would have been the case. I had a very visceral feeling of what that ER closure meant. I know that this government is working on this, but I really feel that the type of information which was provided in this report was really important for us to learn from and to plan for the future. I have a feeling - unfortunately, I'm not sure, but it seems to me that staffing rural ERs is going to continue to be a challenge because, as we know, we're in a global fight for health human resources.

[Page 1424]

I did take some time to look at the Action for Health public reporting dashboard. The minister said just now that different indicators be updated at different times. I think in earlier debate, we understood that the ER information would be updated on a quarterly basis, so perhaps that can be clarified. When I look at the indicators on the Action for Health website, a lot of these are important. They're part of what we need to change in the health system, like the new inflow of family physicians and other health care human resource numbers. I think if you ask Nova Scotians, they really want to understand what's happening in terms of emergency care at their fingertips.

If you go to the home page for the data, there's actually not one that stands out as emergency room reporting. What I would put forward, when it's bundled into the six areas, is that actually we think the report is still relevant and provides important information. I understand that it's going to stop. I do think there can be work done on the website as it is to make sure that Nova Scotians know where they're going to look for that information.

That's our feedback on that. Like I said, we're still not convinced that that report is irrelevant; we still think it's an important piece of information. I think looking back is just as important, especially when we're planning to look forward, to see what we've learned and what we need to do next. With that, I'll take my seat.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : I'm going to speak more about the issue around losing the accountability for annual emergency department reports. I'll try not to be too harsh, but I will say that we are in a health care crisis here in Nova Scotia. I am always surprised every sitting when there is either no legislation that has to do with health care or one bill like this.

Considering the major problems that we are having - I don't know about your experience this past weekend, Speaker, but I was home, and everywhere I went, everyone wanted to talk to me about a health care experience that they had. In every case, it was extremely negative. In one case, a woman almost died and was told that she should hire a lawyer. She's asking me what to do, so I'm trying to guide her about how to get access to her own medical records.

I'm not sure if every other MLA is having the same experience, but it's disappointing that this is the only health care bill. It's repealing the Anatomy Act. And even the name of the bill: Administrative Efficiency and Accountability in Healthcare Act. Yeah, it's efficiency all right - removing accountability, removing a report of emergency room departments for the Province. I'm a little more sensitive about it today, and I'll tell you why. This government - and the minister may not be aware of this - but this government, the department has made a decision to pay emergency room doctors less as of April 1^st.

[Page 1425]

The colleague who just spoke before me said that it's hard for rural emergency departments to staff their emergency departments. It certainly is. As of April 1^st, it's going to be even harder, because at some of the CECs that are emergency departments in the province, the department has decided to start paying the doctors there as though they're urgent treatment centres instead of CECs. They're taking a $20-an-hour pay drop at a time when we need them more than ever.

In Cumberland County, we have lost Springhill Medical Centre's Emergency Department. My colleague for Cumberland South - Parrsboro no longer has an emergency department. Pugwash, North Cumberland, is the only rural emergency department left in Cumberland County, and there have been threats of changing that to an urgent care centre. The community spoke out very loudly against this, and we were assured at a public meeting by the Nova Scotia Health Authority that it would not happen. They made a commitment that they will keep the Pugwash hospital as a CEC, but now someone in the department has decided that they're going to pay our only emergency room doctor in Pugwash less money as of April 1^st.

[7:00 p.m.]

Who came up with that idea? Who would come up with that idea at a time that we are in a health care crisis? "Oh, let's pay our doctors less money. That'll really encourage them. That'll really keep them here in Nova Scotia." I'm a little sensitive about this bill today because if our emergency room department doesn't have a physician in Pugwash, guess what's going to happen? It will close. It's already closed some days.

I hope the minister is listening and asks somebody in the department what is going on and who came up with this. I sure as heck hope that it gets changed quickly. There are nine doctors in Northern Zone affected by this. I don't know how many are affected province-wide, but this will affect our rural emergency room departments even more negatively in this province.

There's a lot more that can be said about health care and that should be discussed in this Legislature. Three or four years ago, almost every bill and every debate in Opposition, members were talking about health care. Things have not gotten better. People are continuing to lie on stretchers in emergency departments. The off-load wait times are still long. We don't have any more hospital beds. Capacity is higher than ever. Nursing staffing is lower.

We have international nurses who want to work in Nova Scotia Health who are not getting interviews because the bridging program has been paused. Why did we invite international nurses to come to the province to work in health care and now that they're here and they have a Nova Scotia nursing licence, they're being told "We're pausing the bridging program and we're not hiring you"? They're not even being given an interview.

[Page 1426]

If it's because there aren't enough staff educators in the Nova Scotia Health Authority to help mentor them, then that's fixable. Fix it. Having a new international nurse with a nursing licence here in Nova Scotia is similar to a new graduate who has a nursing licence. They need to be mentored. There needs to be a period of time where they're mentored in the unit where they're working, but they're not even being given an interview.

Now we have a federal election, and I heard one of the Leaders talk about how we need to welcome international health care workers - and I agree, but why are we welcoming them here to Nova Scotia and then telling them they're not good enough for us to even give them an interview? It's a really good question that no one has answered.

My main comments are around losing this report - the emergency room department report. Yes, I understand the minister has said over and over again that the information is available every day, and you can go online. That is great if you're going on that day, but there should still be a report available at the end of the year so you can look back and make comparable comparisons year over year.

I don't believe this is increasing accountability. I believe it's decreasing accountability. What is the reason for that? I don't believe it would take that much work to create an annual emergency room department report. I don't think we should be losing reports; we should be increasing them and increasing accountability and transparency, if anything. For that reason, I will not be supporting Bill No. 11.

THE SPEAKER « » : If I am to recognize the honourable Minister of Health and Wellness, it will be to close debate on third reading.

The honourable Minister of Health and Wellness.

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : Just very briefly, I want to thank the Opposition for their comments. I do want to acknowledge that that accountability report was started under the NDP government a number of years ago. I do think it served a very important time and place, but comments are noted and as we move forward with this new reporting structure, I certainly appreciate their feedback.

Also, just to note again around the community consultation that happened in Windsor recently: While the emergency room was discussed, the community also had an opportunity to talk about things like physiotherapy services. They had an opportunity to talk about recruitment and retention, not just in the emergency department, but overall health services in the community. I think it was really helpful.

The Nova Scotia Health Authority was there doing some consultation, which is a bit broader now. People want to understand what's happening in primary care. They want to understand what's happening in terms of hospital services, allied health care professionals. Again, I want to reassure Opposition that that will continue. We'll continue to have those community consultations. I do appreciate the comments.

[Page 1427]

I move to close debate on Bill No. 11.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is for third reading on Bill No. 11.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

Ordered that this bill do pass. Ordered that the title be as read by the Clerk. Ordered that the bill be engrossed.

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 12.

Bill No. 12 - Advanced Education and Research, An Act Respecting.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Advanced Education.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Speaker, I move that Bill No. 12, An Act Respecting Advanced Education, be read for a third time.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : I'm not going to speak too long, but I do want to get up and say that as a caucus, we do not support the bill. The primary reason for that, essentially, is that we've heard enough from faculty and from administration, and from students within the system, that there are concerns around a government overreach when it comes to board composition. It was made loud and clear during Public Bills Committee.

Obviously, you go into Public Bills Committee and you look for some consistency in themes. You look for both folks who have concerns with the bill and folks who are in support of the bill, but there was enough feedback that we received from across the province from those stakeholders who are involved within the institutions. That is the reason we are not supporting that bill. As I said, big issues with government overreach from many of the folks that we've talked to across the province. So I want to be on the record.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.

PAUL WOZNEY « » : I appreciate that for the House, this is probably going to tread ground already covered in previous debate, but for the folks at home, that's really who we're talking to here. What have we learned since this bill was first introduced?

Despite the government's claims that this bill flows from the mind of the Auditor General; despite the government's claims that this bill flows from ongoing, meaningful, long-standing conversation and collaboration with university presidents and a wide-reaching stakeholder consultation; through the fulsome conversation caucus members and I have had with university presidents, through the conversation we've had with faculty unions, through the conversations we've had with student unions and students, through the conversations we've had with board chairs, this piece of legislation is out of the blue. It dropped with only the narrowest kind of consultation. It appears the government's consultation with stakeholders was entirely selective. It picked its spots about whom it talked to about this bill before it landed and picked its spots about whom it wasn't going to let know about this bill until sort of the five-minute courtesy warning as it was read into the record here in the House.

[Page 1428]

We've had a number of reports in Nova Scotia that have highlighted the foundational importance of our post-secondary sector to the present, short-term, and long-term prosperity of this province.

Other speakers have called to remembrance the Ivany report, which showed emphatically that our universities are beyond places of higher learning. They are key economic drivers, many in communities that would struggle to survive or thrive without the presence of the post-secondary institutions that call those communities home. They are important drivers of social change. They are important drivers of growth and progress and social justice in our province.

That report called for the government to be more proactive, recognizing that when we talk about the government that it was a different government from the current one. But the call to whomever formed government to collaboratively address long-term, sustainable, core funding to ensure accountability and transparency for the funding that governments provide - there are plenty of calls in the Ivany report that ultimately went disregarded or unheeded by a series of governments.

That responsibility, in all fairness, Speaker, cannot rest on this government alone. I recognize that. I previously alluded to that in my comments. The Auditor General, in her report that came out after this legislation arrived in the House, drew attention to a number of needs - the need for transparency and accountability, the need for there to be guardrails around how government funding is and isn't spent by universities, recognizing the substantial investment of the public's money in the operations of our post-secondary institutions. Those are all things that we here in the Opposition wholeheartedly support.

Based on the conversations we've had with a wide variety of stakeholders in the post-secondary sector, there is no question on the part of the post-secondary sector that that's an essential ingredient of sustainable operations of universities in the present, in the short term, in the long term. We don't have a problem of disagreement in Nova Scotia about the need for enhanced transparency and accountability.

The questions we continue to raise are how the government has interpreted the findings of the Auditor General and the suggestion that this almost comes straight from the pen of the Auditor General somehow is deeply questionable. The Auditor General did not call for new and sweeping legislation which gives the government powers that it has never had in Nova Scotia but that also exists nowhere else in Canada. The Auditor General did not call into question the capacity of current statutes to empower the minister, to empower the department to install the kind of guardrails that she called for in her report. The minister has that capacity without changing the law.

[Page 1429]

[7:15 p.m.]

The Auditor General did point to bilateral agreements as an approach and a process with untapped potential to remedy the shortcomings when it comes to government oversight of how public funds are spent by universities, but those bilateral agreements don't require a legislative change to be negotiated.

The Auditor General talked about, in some mild terms, university governance, but this bill doesn't take into account that universities, under the last MOU signed between Nova Scotia universities and the previous government, undertook extensive internal reviews of their governance structures. In those documents, it is unclear whether or not the current minister or his predecessor ever bothered to crack the cover of those tomes to see what, if any, changes had been identified by these institutions - changes they recognized needed to be made and a process to make them - and could have worked to support changes that there was already willingness in an agency to pursue.

Instead, the bill puts forward sweeping changes to university governance that nobody asked for - not the Auditor General, not the universities, not presidents, and not board chairs. Nobody asked for the proposed changes that are present in Bill No. 12 as it comes to university governance. Nobody asked the government for 30 per cent of operating funds to control 50 per cent of decision making at board level. To characterize that move as something that the Auditor General requested, mandated, or recommended in her report, or to suggest that university presidents or anybody in the university sphere said it was necessary - the comments about misinformation a little bit earlier - wanders into that territory.

The Auditor General did not call into focus or question the way Research Nova Scotia provided oversight and accountability for public funds invested in research through Research Nova Scotia. By all accounts, the research sector in Nova Scotia points to the current operation of that body as a real made-in-Nova-Scotia success story. Government designates funds and an expert board of governors with relevant expertise and deep experience oversees the disbursement of millions of dollars of public funds with appropriate checks and balances and with ongoing reporting and transparency. It even noted that researchers have commented on - in the course of carrying out multi-year research priorities funded by Research Nova Scotia - recognizing the need to be responsive to transparency and accountability but also recognizing the need for research to result in impact for the people of Nova Scotia.

[Page 1430]

Researchers come to Research Nova Scotia and amend the work so that not only are they transparent and accountable, but they adjust research mid-course to strive to deliver the kind of impact that public investment warrants. It's working. The Auditor General did not call, in any way, shape, or form, for government to insert hand-picked civil servants who will be employed without protection against termination without cause on its board of governors to determine research priorities that align with the government's.

The Auditor General did not call for publicly funded research that aligns with politically determined partisan politics, but that's what this bill delivers. It stands to put a major chill on whether the best and the brightest minds around the world and across Nova Scotia choose to make Nova Scotia the home where they pursue research with public funding. Do I want to research in a place where a government can tell me what I can and can't study, where I have to come up with an answer that fits a certain frame? That's what this bill delivers. Nobody asked for it, but this is what you're getting.

I've commented previously that elements of this bill - there is potential for the aspect of this bill that amends the Nova Scotia Community Colleges Act to grant that institution degree-granting powers. We note that there are other Canadian jurisdictions where institutions that are peers to the Nova Scotia Community College offer a class of degree that is separate and distinct from the degree that you get from a university. That additional capacity of those post-secondary sectors - they're able to graduate and meet unique labour force needs through the granting of those college-level degrees. That is a potential benefit of this legislation. We hope to see that that is the impact of this legislation.

That said, we've had a number of universities - because the undrafted regulations - we've heard this "undrafted regulations," which will be presented later, which will allay concerns - we have not seen those draft regulations that outline what kind of degrees the Nova Scotia Community College will be authorized to grant. There are concerns. We've heard this government say we need more, faster. Front of mind are nurses and teachers. I don't have to read any tea leaves. I've watched the Minister of Advanced Education tell me I should be thankful that his government's doing everything possible to train more teachers, as if I were still employed by the union, having been elected by the people of Sackville-Cobequid.

The fact is, if the Nova Scotia Community College is granted the power to graduate teacher candidates and nurse candidates, the ecosystem of post-secondary education in Nova Scotia threatens to be imbalanced all of a sudden. There has been a long and careful and collegial and constructive dance between the Nova Scotia Community College and the 11 Nova Scotia universities, where great care has been taken to say, "If we launch this program, what might the impact be on our sibling institutions in Nova Scotia? If we launch this program at University A, will it destabilize a program offered at University B?"

Great care has been taken for a very long time so that every university in Nova Scotia has the capacity to deliver programs and to benefit from those programs, to attract and retain students and faculty, and enable each institution to operate sustainably for the long term. This threatens that balance in the absence of clarity about what programs the Nova Scotia Community College may grant when it starts granting degrees.

[Page 1431]

That is not a small consideration, especially when we've heard this minister, since this legislation has been introduced in the House, in media engagements comment on the number of universities in Nova Scotia he's concerned about fiscally, that a number of universities are at risk of being insolvent. We've heard those comments in a public-facing way in the media.

If those same universities are destabilized by this degree-granting power of the Nova Scotia Community College, we may well find the minister declaring institutions that have found ways to remain stable and viable backed into a corner to where they can no longer make that claim. Why would anybody go and get a degree for $8,000 per year at a university when you can go get it for a fraction of the cost at the Nova Scotia Community College on a tighter timeline, especially at a time when Nova Scotia tuition at universities is the highest in the country by a long shot? It has been that way for a good long time.

We look at this legislation in the way things overlap and the potential for this to destabilize universities not only in terms of programs they offer but also their long-term fiscal viability. It brings us to the last component of this legislation that we've spoken about with grave concern, and that is the change in the locus of control over who has the ability to trigger the revitalization process.

Recognizing that not everybody in the Chamber may have been present for previous remarks on this concept, revitalization is a process that might be understood in a layperson way by unfamiliar members of this House; we understand that when businesses operate and when they get into trouble, there exists in law the process of bankruptcy. When a company becomes insolvent - unable to meet its financial obligations to operate and to serve its obligations to creditors - it can enter a protected state that gives it access to the ability to restructure its operations, meet its obligations to creditors, enhance its health, and get back on a track where the enterprise can remain in operation in the short and long term.

Revitalization under the current statute and under the proposed law is effectively that: a process by which a university arriving at a point where it appears they lacked the resources to continue to operate in a short term or a long term could enter willingly and voluntarily by their own election - that's under current statute - to have a set of tools under the revitalization process to be able to reorganize its operations to address immediate financial pressures and reorganize itself so it continues to operate in the long term.

I made comments to this previously, but I will revisit them again. When the current statute was brought into effect by the former government under Stephen McNeil in 2015 - under then-minister Labi Kousoulis - that legislation arrived with a fair degree of concern about revitalization being written into legislation. It sent powerful waves to the post-secondary sector, even under the current language, that universities would have tools under the law that potentially might give them power to initiate layoffs, the sale of assets - a whole bunch of things.

[Page 1432]

Those powers were ones that gave the sector great concern. This proposed law aims to hand that power - to take it out of the hands of universities and to give it to the Minister of Advanced Education. It's worth noting that the Auditor General already pointed - as much as the minister wants to protest, as much as the minister wants to claim there's enough blame to go around, and there's equal blame - the Auditor General pointed time and again in her report to the Minister of Advanced Education and those who came before him, to a failure to exercise their already considerable powers of oversight under existing statute.

[7:30 p.m.]

When it came to requiring ongoing reporting on university finances, when it came to putting guardrails around what unrestricted operating grants could be used to pay for and what they couldn't be used to pay for - those were shortcomings of the minister in a department. A minister who already doesn't have the best grasp on how universities are doing in terms of their fiscal health is now going to be handed the unilateral power to tell universities they are or are not doing well, in their opinion, and to hand sweeping power to himself to determine who gets to have a say over how a university is or isn't restructured. It's an alarming shift, and it's an answer to a question that ultimately wasn't asked.

We've heard a number of voices from within the sector - people with national perspective, people with regional perspective, people with Nova Scotia perspective - tell us that this legislation is political interference in higher learning in the most problematic way ever in Canadian history. We watched the minister stare into the camera and say it nice and slow for the people in the back that he wants everything to be around for his children and his children's children.

Except, Speaker, the people in the sector tell us this is doing more than that - this goes beyond transparency and accountability. It goes beyond guardrails on operating funds. It reaches into the very heart of decision-making in universities and threatens the autonomy of higher education institutions.

This government can protest all it wants and say, We're not that - they're not like us, if you will - when we look at what's happening to the south. But this government cannot escape that these changes are occurring in a context where we are watching in real time the deconstruction and the demolition of democracy in higher learning in a jurisdiction that has long been considered a bastion of free speech, freedom to learn, and academic principle.

We are watching academics in Florida - which has instituted changes that are all too reminiscent of what we see in Bill No. 12 - leave the jurisdiction for places where they are not going to be told what to teach, how to teach, what to research, who to hire, what they're allowed to have students read. Whether or not this bill reaches that far, it occurs concurrently with changes happening in another jurisdiction that raise major flags about any imposition on higher learning and its ability to exercise autonomy apart from partisan politics.

[Page 1433]

If ever there was a time to bolster the autonomy of universities in Nova Scotia and in Canada - I know this government doesn't have that power - it's right here, right now. When democracy is under assault, when misinformation abounds, when it's hard to tell what's true from what's not true, where it's hard to explore tough questions and explore answers that have been pursued, free from bias, free from political interference, and to ask expert people who don't have a dog in a political race, "What do we need to think about in making decisions in the public good?" - now is the time to protect the autonomy of post-secondary institutions in our province.

Sadly, when we hear from voices within the sector, there are grave concerns that this bill does the opposite. It erodes that.

The last thing that I want to comment on in this legislation isn't necessarily in its content, but rather in its present, its short-term, and its long-term impact on relationships. By reaching into the boards of universities and giving the government controlling interest, by reaching into the board of Research Nova Scotia, and all of those positions being filled by staff who will have an obligation to carry out exactly and only what their minister tells them they must do when they go discharge their duty as members of boards or they could lose their jobs. The minister's not even going to have to be blatant about it, because it's just going to be hanging there in the air. They're going to know that's the reality that they work under.

This will erode the relationship between the Province, between universities, and the ability to collaborate to make sure the sector remains sustainable in the long run. The first time that government-appointed board members veto a decision that the university community stands strongly behind, it will be too late to fix it. The damage will have been done. There's already a lack of consultation, there's already a lack of collaboration, and this does not set the table to draw people in.

In the strongest term possible, I can't say any more clearly that this legislation answers questions that weren't asked, it legislates solutions to problems that weren't flagged, and it's not going to be good for the sector. I've heard multiple individuals on the government side talk about major employers in Nova Scotia. Michelin counts for 1.5 per cent of the GDP of this province. Yet we haven't heard anybody from the government side talk about the fact that StFX accounts for 1.5 per cent of the GDP of the economic product of our province. That's one of 11 universities.

The combined economic impact, the significance of our universities, far exceeds that of the largest private sector employer in this province. It makes absolutely no sense. There is no business case to be made to enact legislation which threatens to destabilize the sector that is a critical and foundational economic anchor for our province at a time when business looks to be thrown hither and yon by the irrational idiocy of a maniac in the White House to the south.

With all respect, I ask my colleagues in government to step away from the most egregious parts of this bill. We've proposed amendments to take the hard edges off this bill. We've proposed amendments to protect this minister and this government from public perception of overreach and partisanship in the appointment of its representation on university boards, on the board of Research Nova Scotia, on the board of the Nova Scotia Community College. We proposed amendments to insulate this government from perceptions of overreach in terms of dominating decision-making in the university sector.

[Page 1434]

This government has simply shrugged at constructive suggestions to enhance this legislation such that the people of Nova Scotia, such that the Opposition - and the post-secondary sector in Nova Scotia - can look on this legislation as anything other than an absolute overreach into how universities and post-secondary institutions work in this province. I implore the government, before it votes to put this legislation through, as it has with other legislation, to adopt amendments that address these concerns and put forward legislation that shows that it has the restraint and the principle to listen to good feedback and create legislation that's better for the province than it currently is.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : I rise today to speak to Bill No. 12 in third reading. Bill No. 12 introduces wide-reaching amendments across multiple Acts. This also is an omnibus bill. It takes into account five pieces of legislation that govern post-secondary education and research in our province. The five pieces of legislation that are being amended are the Community Colleges Act, the Private Career Colleges Act, the Research Nova Scotia Corporation Act, the Universities Accountability and Sustainability Act, and the University Board Governance Act.

As I mentioned in my comments about Bill No. 1, I do believe that we would have stronger legislation here in the province if we did fewer omnibus bills and more individual amendments to legislation.

At its core, Bill No. 12 reflects the government's desire to tighten oversight, align educational institutions more closely with provincial priorities, and improve transparency and accountability. While these are reasonable goals - we all want strong institutions that deliver value to students and serve the needs of Nova Scotians - I believe that the way the bill goes about achieving these goals does raise serious questions, particularly around institutional autonomy, governance, and academic freedom.

When the Minister of Advanced Education has spoken to Bill No. 12, he often refers to the Auditor General's report and that this bill is in response to the Auditor General's report. I will table the Auditor General's report and just clearly outline that the bill does not reflect the Auditor General's report.

The key recommendations from the Auditor General's report on funding to universities recommends:

the Department of Advanced Education identify and evaluate new operating grant funding allocation options. A new allocation model should specify what factors are considered in determining the funding level and should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis.

[Page 1435]

Secondly:

We recommend the Department of Advanced Education work with universities receiving public funds to develop financial indicators and benchmarks to assess the financial health and sustainability of universities and report the results publicly.

Being a former businesswoman, I think that those are great goals. Making sure that there are indicators put in place and benchmarks that universities have to meet in order to receive taxpayers' money is a positive thing, but that's not exactly what this bill is doing. I'll table the Auditor General's report.

Starting with the Community Colleges Act: This grants the Nova Scotia Community College the authority to offer undergraduate degrees - it's a big change here in Nova Scotia - contingent on approval by the Governor in Council. On the surface, this could be a positive step, one that expands access to higher education and helps address pressing labour shortages, especially in trades and technical sectors.

With this expansion comes great responsibility. Degree-granting institutions must meet rigorous standards - and we don't want to lower our standards, that's for sure. We must ensure that the Nova Scotia Community College has the resources it needs - faculty support, academic freedom - needed to uphold them. We simply can't hand out degree-making authority without a clear plan to protect the quality and integrity of post-secondary education here in Nova Scotia.

The bill also shifts control over tuition and fees from the Executive Council to the Minister of Advanced Education. That might streamline the process, but it also concentrates power without necessarily improving transparency or affordability for students. Let's not forget our students. In a province where the cost of education continues to be a barrier for many, this change demands close scrutiny.

[7:45 p.m.]

One item that I've brought up continuously, and I'm going to continue bringing it up until there are changes made, is the financial barrier in our Northern Zone of the province when it comes to universities. There are no universities in Cumberland, Colchester, or Pictou - in all of the Northern Zone.

Because of that, many students choose to be able to live at home to control living expenses and travel into southern New Brunswick, and those students are not treated fairly, in my opinion. They're Nova Scotia residents, they're Nova Scotia taxpayers, they want to work in their home province, but they do not have access to the same programs. I'm talking specifically about our nurses.

[Page 1436]

We have an opportunity to treat the nurses in the Northern Zone fairly, and this government keeps choosing not to do that - nurses in the Northern Zone get their education in Sackville, New Brunswick, which is literally 10 minutes across the border. We talk about all this removing interprovincial barriers. This is a perfect example of what could be removed.

It's a barrier to affordability for education, and our nursing students and nurses in the Northern Zone are not being treated fairly by not having the same access to the Nova Scotia Student Loan Forgiveness Program. There's a degree nursing program in Sackville now, through Beal University, and there's also a degree nursing program in Moncton.

That's where many people in the Northern Zone travel, because they can live at home, pay Nova Scotia taxes, and should they want to choose to work in their home province - but they are discriminated against because they don't have that same access to the Nova Scotia Student Loan Forgiveness Program. That is a barrier. It needs to be changed.

I know a little bit about universities because my husband and I have four kids and they've all gone to universities here. We have great universities here in this province. Our daughter studied nursing at CBU. One son went to Mount Saint Vincent University, another went to Dalhousie University, and another went to Saint Mary's University. We've certainly done our part in supporting the universities here in Nova Scotia.

Moving on to the Universities Accountability and Sustainability Act and the introduction of the new University Board Governance Act, we do see further centralization of authority - a common theme. The government proposes to standardize university board structures and grants the minister new powers to require action plans and even withhold funding for non-compliance.

I tabled the Auditor General's report. There's no question she wants to see accountability, but nowhere in the report, if you read through it, does she talk about governance and changing any of the governance structures and taking away independence from universities.

We do have to be concerned: Is this the first step towards something else? What is the next step?

We've seen big changes in health care when it comes to board governance. We used to have nine regional health boards in the province under former Premier John Hamm, and then it went down to two, and now we have none - zero. While there are community health boards, the community health boards are run by a Nova Scotia Health Authority chair, and they're not allowed to say anything publicly.

[Page 1437]

They're not allowed to bring forth, necessarily, the issues in the communities that they want. Their mandate is not the same as an independent board, like what the regional boards did for health care, and certainly what the central board did as well. In health care we've seen literally complete centralization of power. No local input. No local decision-making. No local boards. Not even a central board anymore, now going into our fourth year.

Seeing that pattern - what's happened in health care - I think it does cause us to raise a red flag: What is going to happen? What is the plan for the future here with board governance for our universities?

There is an argument to be made for stronger governance and accountability, no question, but let's not ignore the risks - when ministers can effectively dictate university policy and threaten financial penalties, we do risk turning our institutions of higher learning into extensions of government, rather than an independent centre for critical thinking and innovation.

Then we go to the bill that's being amended, the Research Nova Scotia Corporation Act. Under this bill, the corporation's mandate is expanded to fund research that aligns with "provincial priorities," as defined by the minister. While coordination is important, especially in addressing challenges like climate change or health care innovation, tying research funding too closely to government priorities does risk stifling curiosity-driven, independent research, and that is important. Innovation doesn't always follow government timelines or election cycles. We must ask who gets to decide what counts as a priority and what becomes of ideas that fall outside of that narrow frame.

Finally, I want to stress that this bill is not without merit. Strengthening accountability, ensuring post-secondary institutions respond to real-world needs, and improving access to education are goals that we can support; but the concentration of ministerial control proposed here in Bill No. 12 over tuition, institutional planning, board appointments, and research direction marks a significant shift in how our educational institutions are governed.

We do need to be vigilant. Oversight must not become overreach. I heard my colleague who spoke before me talk about that word, "overreach." Autonomy must not be mistaken for inefficiency, and education must remain a space where diverse voices and bold ideas can flourish. We can't risk losing freedom of speech in our universities. Education must remain a space where diverse voices and bold ideas can flourish even when they challenge government priorities.

We urge the government to engage in a meaningful consultation with students. Even if this bill is going to pass - which I am sure it will - I encourage the government to consult with students, faculty researchers, and institutions. If we want to build a stronger and more responsive post-secondary system here in Nova Scotia, let's do it together, not with centralization of power and unilateral control.

[Page 1438]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : I think that in terms of speaking to this bill, I want to recap, especially for the newer members of this Legislature, what happened from 2021 to 2024 in the sector through this government.

When we were elected in 2021, of course, universities were still grappling with the impact of COVID. All sectors were affected, of course, and universities were part of that. In-person classes were shut down. Students really had to struggle to be able to connect to the campuses. This was during a time when, in fact, there already had been a little stagnation in terms of funding allocated to universities.

In a context where there was already growing amounts of deferred maintenance that the universities needed to address, this was like throwing an entire cultural shock into the system. One of the things that we knew coming into 2021 was the need to address the provincial MOU with universities. That MOU was expiring and then expired, and universities were waiting for what was next.

The first thing that universities were asked to do was a detailed review of their governance structure. This wasn't clear to what end. This wasn't part of a big process that had been introduced, but I would say through that first part into the Summer of 2022, universities really worked hard at completing detailed governance reviews that they then submitted to government.

There was a lot of information compiled to look at whether, in fact, Nova Scotia universities were being governed - particularly with a board of governors and other structures - in a way that reflected modern standards: how to look across jurisdictions, that sort of thing. My understanding with that was actually that there were a few opportunities identified for changes forwarded by the board, but the results were quite positive.

That was ongoing. Universities were still waiting to hear about the bilateral . . . So they understood that a bilateral process was going to be announced, and universities were still waiting to hear about that.

That level of uncertainty - so what it would look like, how universities would be funded in this province - persisted actually until January 2024, and in January 2024, government released a kind of a short-term process. A bilateral process was announced with short time frames for response and, again, at that point, it seemed to bear little resemblance to the various types of analysis they had been previously asked to produce and did very little actually to stabilize the sector. So in January 2024, people were given, I think it was, three months to produce a suggested approach for the following year, and during that following year - so I guess, January 2024 to January 2025 - the expectation would be that the government would come out with a longer-term plan and longer-term agreements with universities.

This is all happening at the same time that university and college students were facing - along with all of us - a generational inflationary period in their housing costs, food costs and other costs, and folks attending universities in Nova Scotia facing the highest tuition rates in Canada. And then we also had changes introduced to the international student allocation by the federal government.

[Page 1439]

The students were active and engaged in this whole process. Students Nova Scotia was active, engaged, and thinking about board government structures in 2022. They were active and engaged and thinking about what students needed. I know that we all have had a chance to meet with Students Nova Scotia who present very well-researched and organized policy platforms, and as well as CFS Nova Scotia. In particular, students were engaged in broad and in-depth consultations about a student housing plan. This was a cornerstone of our advanced education policy. I can table all the documents that were produced - I have tabled them before.

Basically, that process was dropped. It's one of these legacy pieces where government engaged with people and asked them to give a lot of time and energy and effort to that process and then - I don't know if it's been officially announced that it's no longer coming forward - it's clearly been abandoned. I don't think there's anybody, including myself, who's waiting to see that. I really wanted to give a sense of three and a half years where, particularly on the university side, there had been a real lack of stability and a great deal of chaos, I would say.

This is also in the context of, as I've said before, universities are not funded like they used to be. It would be hard pressed to describe them as "publicly funded." They are publicly assisted, but for the most part, the amount of funding that comes from a provincial government to our universities is 25 per cent, 28 per cent, 30 per cent of the budget.

Do we have a right and an interest in saying how that money is spent to make sure we're getting impacts and outcomes for students? Absolutely, 100 per cent. Do we have the right to have the minister take over the board appointments and decision-making about how the university should plan for its future? I don't think so. I don't think any of us, you know - if we're running our own company and someone holds 30 per cent of the stock share, I don't think we're actually going to say, Yes, you're right, you are in charge now. That's just not the way that this works.

There have been concerns. It is true that one of the things that this government did from 2021 to 2024 was use universities and students as a bit of a faucet, a bit of a tap, to run money out, particularly at year-end, and to over-budget spending. I've spoken about this before. The two funding allocations that were dumped onto students were not at helpful times. One was in January, which I can tell you - because I was still a student at the time - you had to make your decision about paying tuition for that semester in December.

[8:00 p.m.]

In terms of really supporting students to be able to say, Yes, I can make it through this coming semester, that type of funding wasn't helpful. We also saw it come in March at one point. Again, if you've made it to March, you're probably starting to breathe a little bit easier because you can get to the point in Summer where you can work full-time. That wasn't helpful for students.

[Page 1440]

Then we look at the type of budget spending, which I will spend some time thinking about. I do hope that new members take the time to understand the concerns that have been raised by the Auditor General about the spending that has been done year over year to the tune of billions of dollars by this government that it has not seen fit should be part of legislative debate, public consultation. I'm referring back to the Auditor General report from March 2024, where they took a random sample of, I think it was, 13 per cent of the out-of-budget spending for the previous fiscal year. In that, they actually ended up scooping up a number of these year-end amounts of money that had been given to universities.

Were they given to universities for important things? Absolutely. Were they given to universities in March, when in no way, shape, or form could anybody spend the money before the end of the fiscal year? Absolutely. Were they given without contracts? Yes. Were they given without outcomes? They sure were. Were they given without provisions for any interest accrued? I think there's going to be interest, because we're talking big bucks here, folks: $58.9 million to CBU; $25 million to SMU; $37.4 million to St. F.X. There's a lot of interest to be earned on that kind of money, and there was actually nothing agreed upon. There was no information. Who gets to keep the interest?

The other thing that happened is that they were given to universities without those universities having a clear plan of the programs they were going to launch. I obviously spent a lot of time in universities in managing grants. I believe strongly in the ability of universities to manage well and manage themselves, but there is a process. For instance, of the $25 million - I'm going to use the SMU example, but everybody knows I do love SMU. My kid might go there, but it's a good example. They were given money in March to start a health data analytics program in September. Very clearly, it had to be explained that, in fact, that's not the way post-secondary education works. You can't stand up a university program between March and September.

They're given the money, the fiscal year ends, they have a whole bunch more money, but there's literally no agreement in place that says what happens if they get to a point and maybe the Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission says, Actually, this isn't what we need, this hasn't met the standards. There was no agreement on how to return the money. The Auditor General had very good reason to talk about some concerns about management, but I would argue that it was in the face of really irresponsible allocations by this government, allocations that bore no sense to the way that any of us would manage our household, that any of us would manage a business, an organization. This is not how we would do it. We would not just take money and throw it out the door at the end of the fiscal year without talking to our business partner or our life partner, without any clear sense of what you're actually going to get back for it.

I would say, yes - do we need to think about those types of spending allocations? Just to say that, as far as I can tell - I'm happy to be corrected - the funding was given - let me find the exact date. The funding was from the fiscal year of 2022-23. In March of 2023, for instance, SMU was provided this funding to start a health data analytics program. As far as I can tell, that program still doesn't exist. There was a symposium on health data analytics in December 2024 at SMU, but there is no program.

[Page 1441]

It is a very good question. What's happening with the money? Are they able to establish that program? What's happening with the interest? Those are the types of decisions and information we need to have. I would argue that they reflect just as much on this government as on any institution.

I think that history is really important. In the face of an incredibly challenging period of COVID, inflation, supply chain management, which, of course, would affect a lot of folks in terms of research, supplies, and that sort of thing, we are just letting one of our most valuable resources kind of linger.

I'm going to read something else I want to refer to. One of the things I think is interesting is that, when you look at productivity in Nova Scotia - we have a productivity problem, and I'll talk about that later - one of the sectors where it's growing, the sector that shows the promise, is actually the knowledge economy, of which, I would suggest, NSCC and all of our universities have an important piece. We have it, for sure. I'll table it; yes, here I found - it says, the title of the slide from the Conference Board of Canada is "Nova Scotia's Knowledge Economy Takes Flight." This was presented at the Chamber of Commerce productivity session last week.

I would argue that at this point this is not the sector we should be leaving in really uncertain straights. I think we heard lots from students; we heard lots from faculty, and there are many administrators who are very concerned. Of course, this is a really important. They're trying to manage a relationship.

I also did want to reiterate my concerns about the impact on research funding. At the end of the day, honestly, Research Nova Scotia is a relatively small funder in the larger funding ecosystem for research in Canada. I would say "thank goodness" because in no way, shape or form should decisions about research be based on the decisions of the minister. That is not appropriate. They currently have a board of governors that includes folks in the private sector who are monetizing research; it includes presidents of universities; it includes researchers, and then they have a Research Advisory Committee.

This is all in the context of what I've tried to share with folks previously around how research is created and funded and why that is so important. Because we want research that has impact. We want research that's safe. We want research that doesn't harm people. To suggest that the minister should determine the conditions for granting is completely offset, frankly, with the rest of the world and completely irresponsible.

I guess we're fearmongering when we're repeating what we've heard from dozens of folks involved in universities about not being able to attract the right scholars and that sort of a thing, because they won't want to come to an environment like this. This is very real. Already we in Nova Scotia - when you are looking for a post-doc, to try and get a Canada Research Chair and then fill it, when you are trying to fill chairs of programs - are at a disadvantage in Nova Scotia for a number of reasons. One is cost of living. For researchers at that level who are looking around the world, thinking, Where can I go and make a real impact? Where do I want to settle down, build a lab, make a difference, figure out battery storage, think about other issues in health care, that sort of thing?

[Page 1442]

This is not going to be the environment that attracts people. As I said before, I worry about that because I know that from tip to tip, between our universities and NSCC campuses, our post-secondary sector really holds down this province, in terms of stabilizing rural economies, regional economies, and providing us with that ability to think about who we can attract to this province and maybe charm them into staying after they've completed their studies.

I know there seems to be this continuous persistent myth that our population is growing in Nova Scotia, when, in fact, our population growth has tanked - just to let everybody know. March 19, 2025, from the Nova Scotia Department of Finance - the daily stats review: If you look at the last quarter of 2024 - first of all, lots of growth has decreased across the country. Where Canada has a .15 per cent growth rate, and Alberta has a .58 per cent growth rate, we have a negative 0.005 per cent growth rate. We've actually dropped below the line. We are no longer growing. In fact, it shows a net decrease of 49 people in that quarter. I think this is a step that is not going to do anything to attract new students and new scholars to Nova Scotia. That is a pity, and it will be to our detriment here in this province.

THE SPEAKER « » : If I am to recognize the minister, it will be to close the debate.

The honourable Minister of Advanced Education.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: I'm going to close debate, but I just wanted to say, listening intently to everything everyone's saying here, including the individuals who may not necessarily agree, I want to assure the universities and our post-secondary institutions that they're valued. We'll continue to work with them on the regulations. We'll continue to work on their unique abilities and what they bring to Nova Scotia. We will continue to see them as a partner in the economy, producing and educating our children to be some of the best in the entire world.

With that, I will close third debate on Bill No. 12.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is for third reading of Bill No. 12.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

Ordered that this bill do pass. Ordered that the title be as read by the Clerk. Ordered that the bill be engrossed.

[Page 1443]

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 21.

Bill No. 21 - Justice Administration Amendment (2025) Act.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Seniors and Long-Term Care, who is acting on behalf of the Minister of Justice.

HON. BARBARA ADAMS « » : I move that Bill No. 21 be given third reading.

I rise today to speak in support of Bill No. 21, the Justice Administration Amendment (2025) Act. This legislation is a reflection of government's commitment to making sure that our laws are serving and keeping pace with the needs of Nova Scotians.

The Justice Administration Amendment (2025) Act amends and modernizes four pieces of legislation: No. 1, the Power of Attorney Act, which will be modernized to better clarify roles and responsibilities; No. 2, the Adult Capacity and Decision-Making Act, to improve the application process and reduce financial hardship for those making application while increasing safeguards; No. 3, the Provincial Court Act, which will be amended to repeal the Family Court Act to reflect that family law matters are now heard in the unified family court and to clarify the composition of judicial counsel and the authority of the Provincial Court Chief Judge; and No. 4, the Interpretation Act, which will allow for outdated legislation to be repealed if it hasn't been proclaimed within 10 or more years, while adding a process for that legislation to be retained if it is still needed.

We certainly greatly appreciate the feedback that Nova Scotians have provided on these proposed amendments. We value their time and their perspectives, which always serve to make our democratic process and the laws we make better and stronger. I want to speak specifically to feedback we received from the Sawyer and Giffin families on the Interpretation Act and their concerns about how these amendments would impact the Security and Investigative Services Act, which has remained unproclaimed for the past 15 years.

[8:15 p.m.]

We appreciate and are deeply inspired by these families' courage. Our government has taken action to improve the training and criminal record checks in cabarets and responsible service training in all licensed establishments in 2024. We are looking forward to conversations with these families to identify more opportunities to improve safety in licensed establishments. The amendments to the Interpretation Act do not change that.

I would also like to remind members that the process for repealing bills allows for an entire year of consideration before any bill is repealed. Under the amendments, the first list of outdated legislation will be delivered to the Minister of Justice in early 2026, and gets tabled at the first sitting of the Legislature. This information will be available to the public. Automatic repeal would not happen until the end of 2026.

[Page 1444]

It is also important to know that the repeal timeline can be extended, allowing for further consideration of any bill. The amendments provide two straightforward options for extending the repeal timeline for another three years: 1) a motion in the House, or 2) through an Order in Council.

The amendments within Bill No. 21 are impactful amendments that improve clarity and access to Justice services while ensuring that these laws keep pace with the needs of Nova Scotians. I look forward to hearing comments from other members.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.

CLAUDIA CHENDER: Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments. They are quite helpful in understanding this bill. I understand that it is mostly a housekeeping bill, but as the minister referenced, there were some quite powerful presentations that we have, in fact, heard before in this House, at the introduction of some bills in the past sessions, particularly around the Security and Investigative Services Act.

Before I get to that, my understanding is that the provisions in the other three bills seem to make a fair amount of sense. In fact, I think some of the changes to the Adult Capacity and Decision-making Act remind me of how long I've been a member. I think there were some that I suggested as amendments last time that bill came around - so thank you.

When it comes to the Interpretation Act, I appreciate the minister's comments. I'm not sure we can really say that when things are tabled, that gives the public a full view of what's coming forward. I think it's clear that there are some challenges with information in our ecosystem right now. One of the things that presenters and the Opposition have been trying to press is the idea that while there is a legitimate need for housekeeping and to clean up the books, as it were - some of the statutes we're talking about are quite old - we also need to be quite careful about that because these were bills that were debated and passed on the floor of this House.

Tonight, we're sitting here, third reading, getting through the debates on many pieces of legislation that people care about, and that many people came out to talk about. I think there's something uncomfortable for us about the idea that we would spend all of this time making law, and then it could essentially disappear. So what we've been arguing for is a more robust process. There are hundreds and hundreds of bills that would fall into this category - some old and probably not very contentious. I'm looking through a list. I don't know what the Canso Causeway Act is, 1989. But maybe the members want to look into it. (Laughs) This would be a fun exploration for somebody. I can table all these bills if people want to look through them.

[Page 1445]

This is why I ask the question. There's lots of legislation in here, and I don't really know what it is. We don't really know what it is. But when it comes to the Security and Investigative Services Act, I think the testimony of the families who came forward is instructive in two ways: One, on that piece of legislation in particular, but two, because it's a perfect example of how something that might seem innocuous in its title, or that might have sat there for 15 years is, in fact, a problem that hasn't been addressed.

I do want to take issue with the idea that the issues that these families came forward to speak about have been addressed. Because I think they said very clearly that they have not been addressed. I think they said very clearly that they have not been addressed. While I understand that the requirements that would have been set out in that bill are addressed in cabarets, they are not addressed in bars. There are very few cabarets and there are very, very many bars where very, very many people drink lots of alcohol in our province, and where there are fights. We're a port city. This is part of the unfortunate reality of what happens in downtown Halifax sometimes, and the reality is that there are two young men who lost their lives.

This bill, the Security and Investigative Services Act, is the thing that these families and many other advocates have told us could have stopped that loss of life. I would just urge the government, going forward - and the Minister of Justice - to actually take a look at instituting those same criminal record checks and trainings in bars that have been instituted in cabarets. It's a very straightforward request. I suspect it would be costly, and maybe even, you might say, burdensome for some bar owners. Maybe there's a way that government could act to defray and simplify that, but this is a very straightforward ask from families who have lost a loved one and are coming forward to this body and asking them to make sure that another life is not lost. Aside from this Act, I think it's very important that we make that point here.

Again, if these families hadn't come forward - if they hadn't found out only through the second tragedy that the bill had never been proclaimed - we wouldn't be talking about it here. When we looked at this big, long list of bills - which I'll table - we might not have known what the Security and Investigative Services Act is. In fact, when the Globe and Mail started reporting on this some years ago, we didn't - I didn't.

I want to again ask that we listen to those presenters, that we find a more robust way of bringing forward that legislation. If that legislation will be tabled in a timely manner and if there will be a delay between the tabling of that and the time that the legislation is actually repealed, and if there will be some process in that period for discussion or debate or a petitioning of government, I would ask that the regulations make that clear. I would ask that government share that information so that we don't have another situation like the one that these families were kind enough to come and share with us.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Speaker, I'm only going to take a moment to talk about the bill. What I do want to say is that in all the years I've had the privilege of being here, some of the testimony that we heard on this bill was some of the most passionate and emotional, and really raised an important point about bills that haven't been proclaimed.

[Page 1446]

We've had a lengthy discussion. I do want to thank the families who have come forward and presented such a passionate response to what the government was trying to do here. I do hope that we can get a bill to the floor as soon as possible to honour the advocacy of these families and what they've been through. I wanted to start off by saying that, and again thank the families for coming in. As I said, those were some of the most emotional testimonials that I've ever seen in any form of feedback from the public.

I did check, and I believe that was the construction of the Canso Causeway. (Laughter) I think CN was involved. Anyway, I've got to do more homework on it. I Googled it. It wasn't to remove it. It was to build it, which is a whole other history.

I joke about it, but there are some important bills that have been passed that a lot of work had gone into - when you look at Coastal Protection and you look at some of the more recent bills. The Traffic Safety Act is another one. The government has repealed bills within the legislation around petroleum and around the Petroleum Act. Then there was - I'm sorry, I don't have it in front of me - the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation (Nova Scotia) Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act.

We don't think this is necessary in a lot of cases. I think the government will make the argument that there are bills that are there for decades, but for us, we never felt the legislation was necessary. Bills that are passed reflect the will of the Legislature and should be respected. We think this is anti-democratic.

I won't say too much more than that. We don't support the bill, but I think it was important, and we all have said it in here: Whether you support this bill or not, that family coming forward and telling their story is pretty powerful. We debate a lot of issues in here. We don't get along on everything. We get along on some things, but there are moments when we're here when conversations get emotional and they matter, and people from around the province will come in and tell their own stories. Sometimes those are stories of tragedy, which this was. I rise in my place to recognize that family, and I hope we can all help out to ensure that we can get that bill done.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Fairview-Clayton Park.

LINA HAMID « » : I don't have much more to say. I think my colleagues have done a great job with that. What I will say is having been at the Public Bills Committee when the two family members had come to speak, it was truly tragic. Those were raw emotions they were feeling as they were explaining how this impacted them and their families, and how not having this bill proclaimed is going to continue to negatively impact folks. Then to see members of the government sit there and vote for it to go back unamended, right in front of them, was heartbreaking.

[Page 1447]

When I stepped outside to see if I could have a moment to speak with the families, I saw members of the government outside with the families, shaking hands. It hurts me to say that it was very performative empathy. They had just voted for it to go back and this was not addressed. To do that in front of the families, and then to go out to the families, shake their hands, and pretend to feel bad was heartbreaking to watch, particularly as they were showing some real, raw emotions as they were talking about this.

I wanted to relate that experience, and again, taking into account, too, that there was a process by which all these bills were brought forward. They went through all the processes - all the things we're doing now. They went through all of that.

For now, for it to be automatically repealed after 10 years without any additional discussions by the members who are present in the House - because very likely it could be different members. Why not open the floor to discuss that? Talking about the values of democracy, that's what it's all about - to be able to be here to talk and represent the people.

[8:30 p.m.]

One final note I wanted to make is that I went and did some digging to find out how many unproclaimed laws there are, just from 2008. I was thinking, should I go 10 years? Should I go 15 years? What number of years should I do? When I said 15 years - just because it was a nice, even number, in my head - I thought, this government seems to be really interested, for some reason, in what the previous NDP government did, so let me add one more year to make sure I get everything at the end of what the NDP government did, because apparently, we need to keep talking about it in this House now, 16 years later.

I got to the letter P, and there were 96 unproclaimed laws, and I only got to P. I think that's halfway through the alphabet. I'm not sure. I only got to P, and there were 96 of them that are unproclaimed and, by passing this bill, will automatically be repealed. I don't think I have much more to say.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : I rise to speak on third reading of Bill No. 21. Again, we have another omnibus bill that's amending seven pieces of legislation.

It takes a while to get through each one of those seven bills to understand what changes are being proposed. I'll do a quick review of our thoughts for representing the people of Cumberland North on Bill No. 21.

It's a bill that touches on several important areas of our legal and judicial framework. While in many ways this is a housekeeping bill, it is not without consequence and deserves thoughtful attention. I am not a lawyer, but I'll give it my best shot here in third reading.

[Page 1448]

First, the bill makes amendments to the Adult Capacity and Decision-making Act. It now requires the public trustee to be named as a respondent in all applications involving adult capacity. This is a sensible change that reinforces the public trustee's critical role while protecting vulnerable adults. We all know how important that is in our work as MLAs.

When decisions are being made about whether an individual is capable of managing their affairs, the involvement of a public trustee will help ensure those decisions are made properly and properly scrutinized, and that the rights and interests of those adults are protected. That is a positive change.

The bill also clarifies the rules around notices of application, ensuring that notices are sent by ordinary mail and must be mailed out on or before the date of service. Again, it's a small but important clarification that contributes to fairness and reliability in the processes - a positive.

Second, the bill addresses bonding requirements for trustees and guardians. It mandates the Supreme Court must consider specific factors when deciding whether to waive or reduce a bond and gives the Governor in Council the authority to define those factors through regulation. Bonds are a safeguard against potential mismanagement of someone's financial affairs and give the court a clear framework for when and how they can be waived, introducing more consistency into what are often deeply personal and complex cases.

However, I do hope the government will consult widely when developing the regulations. There is a balance to be struck between protecting individuals and avoiding unnecessary burdens on families who are acting in good faith.

Third, and perhaps most significantly, this bill formally dissolves the Family Court and transfers its jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia Family Division. This is a structural change that reflects what has already happened in practice, particularly in areas like Halifax and Cape Breton, where the Family Division of the Supreme Court has been operating for years.

That said, this marks the end of an institution that has served families across Nova Scotia for decades. I want to acknowledge the many judges, clerks, and staff who have dedicated themselves to making Family Court a place where families could be heard, supported, and guided here in Nova Scotia, often through some of the most difficult periods in their lives.

The bill rightly ensures that all existing orders made by Family Court judges remain valid. It's an important assurance for families relying on those decisions. That is something I support.

Fourth, I would say the most controversial part of the bill - and other members have spoken at length about this - is that the bill introduces a new mechanism for an automatic repeal of unproclaimed legislation after 10 years.

[Page 1449]

There were a few amendments proposed in Committee of the Whole House that were not accepted, unfortunately. I do believe that before a bill is repealed, all legislators here in this House - all 55 of us - should be made aware of what those bills are and the contents of those bills, considering all of the work that would have been done to pass those bills here in the Legislature.

I agree with the Leader of the Official Opposition. It feels very uncomfortable to be passing a bill that just eliminates hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of work from previous legislators here in this House of Assembly. It doesn't feel right. It doesn't feel very respectful of all those who came before us.

Finally, the bill updates the Powers of Attorney Act, and those changes are long overdue.

With those few words, Speaker, I will take my seat and support Bill No. 21.

THE SPEAKER « » : If I am to recognize the acting minister, it will be to close the debate.

The honourable Minister of Seniors and Long-term Care.

HON. BARBARA ADAMS « » : I want to thank all the members who spoke to this bill.

I rise to close debate on Bill No. 21.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is for third reading of Bill No. 21.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

Ordered that the bill do pass. Ordered that the title be as read by the Clerk. Ordered that the bill be engrossed.

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 36.

Bill No. 36 - Free Trade and Mobility within Canada Act.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : Speaker, I move that Bill No. 36 be now read for a third time. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues and I'll have a few comments after I've heard them.

[Page 1450]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.

CLAUDIA CHENDER: I rise to say a few words. The Premier certainly had a lot to say about this bill at second reading. I think we had a pretty fulsome debate at that point.

I think it's fair to say that we're all supportive of a Canada-first approach at this moment in time in particular, and of a Nova Scotia-first approach. We understand that our economy depends on the economy of Canada as a whole, and that we need to find a way to lower the barriers and increase the economic activity from east to west and west to east and north in our country.

To the extent that this bill aims to tackle that, we look forward to seeing how it plays out. We understand that it requires mirror legislation in other constituencies, so we'll see what happens. I know there have been some positive signals federally and in other jurisdictions.

I would be remiss if I didn't bring up the gap that was in this bill when it was introduced, which was around labour mobility, professional bodies, and regulated bodies. In this case in particular, I would say we were disappointed that our amendment, which would have allowed regulated professions with their own interprovincial mobility regimes to be exempted from the Act in the way that the professions covered by the Patient Access to Care Act were exempted from the Act. It would have made it a much better bill. I'm thinking, in particular, of the legal profession, but also others.

Nonetheless, again, we heard from the professional regulators who have made it a practice during this government's tenure to come in full force to committee when this government doesn't get it quite right. They did that and the amendments went a long way to solving the challenges they brought up around labour mobility.

Again, I think it's a good stake in the ground. It's a good opportunity to call on our friends and neighbours from coast to coast to coast to help us join together against the challenges that we're facing, certainly south of the border, but as we enter a more protectionist trade environment globally, acknowledging that we have great friends with whom it is very difficult to do business at the moment.

Hopefully this bill will go some way to achieving that, and we will support this bill.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : I, too, will be supporting the bill. I think it's good to see further reductions to barriers in our interprovincial trade and the way we move goods and services across our country. This is the moment that we can certainly push other provinces to do the same. Earlier in this sitting, we did table a bill, as well, for a free-trade zone in Atlantic Canada. I want to acknowledge the New Brunswick Premier for bringing forward the idea for a full free-trade zone in Atlantic Canada. I think her argument is certainly a good one: that we can actually move a lot quicker to have true collaboration. We've shown that in the pandemic with the Atlantic bubble operating here, and the way the Atlantic Lottery Corporation works. I certainly think there are many other ways that the Atlantic region can operate as one unit. I spoke of that before - since I've been elected in the House - of those opportunities.

[Page 1451]

We have been down this path for a number of years - looking at mobilizations for the apprenticeships. That started, as well, as an Atlantic project which we were able to bring to other provinces like Alberta. It shows that you can move very quickly as an Atlantic unit. But even having said that, there are already challenges being brought up by Newfoundland and Labrador protecting their fishery system there. As you can imagine, to try to get the whole country in agreement with what we're trying to achieve here collectively would be very challenging, when we're already seeing challenges out of a nearby province like Newfoundland and Labrador that has a similar type of economy to ours.

There were actually over 10 reconciliation agreements signed back in 2018-19 for our alcohol, for business registration, for occupational health and safety, for transportation, agriculture, aquaculture - and those were some areas that were ready to go. I certainly want to credit former Premier Stephen McNeil for having a passion on taking down these barriers. There was a lot of good work that started in terms of our regulatory reductions that we did in the province and made it Atlantic-wide. Even HRM was looking at that with their regulatory affairs department, as it was named at the time. I will say that when we dismantle these barriers, if you look at the data, it benefits provinces that are generally a little bit smaller - if you look at it - disproportionately. We will be actually gaining our GDP more because we are a smaller province.

I will say, though, there are areas where the Province has not moved as of late to harmonize things. Like just today, we saw the National Fire Code of Canada adopted from 2020. That took some years for this province; there were three other provinces that came to the table much sooner. Similarly with the National Building Code of Canada: That was a discussion last year where we asked the Province to adopt the National Building Code. We were one of the last provinces to come on board to have that uniform, harmonized building code across the country.

Definitely, we'll be supporting it. I do want to commend the Premier for taking this action. I think it's really important right now for seizing the moment. I certainly appreciate that.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : I stand in support of this bill, but I want to speak about it for a few minutes, because I do believe that we need more than what this bill is proposing. We've seen a lot of communication and promotion of this bill, but we see on one hand saying Nova Scotia is open for business, but then our actions actually speak differently. Even in this sitting, the government is proposing an increase in the Non-resident Deed Transfer Tax, which is in complete contradiction of what this bill is saying. This bill is saying: Let's remove barriers here in Nova Scotia and across the country. Let's make sure we take advantage of all of our resources in Canada. Let's open up, remove interprovincial barriers; but then we are actually putting up a wall, saying Nova Scotia is not open for business by increasing the Nova Scotia Non-resident Deed Transfer Tax. We'll be the only province in Canada with this.

[Page 1452]

[8:45 p.m.]

So it's contradictory. You can't say one thing but actually do another. I don't think a lot of Nova Scotians realize what is in the Financial Measures Act, and it will hurt business. It will hurt real estate sales, which will trickle down into another effect. It is contradictory to this bill, Bill No. 36. I do think that we need to be looking at, yes, promoting this bill. Pass this bill. Promote it but also do more here in Nova Scotia to actually remove those barriers.

Another example is the procurement bill that was passed last year; Bill - I think it's No. 471, which gives preferential treatment to Nova Scotia businesses. So, you could have a business in Cumberland County - or work that needs to be done. You could have a business that's just 10 minutes away in Sackville, New Brunswick, that could do the work, but a company from Yarmouth or Cape Breton would be awarded it. So that bill actually contradicts Bill No. 36.

Are we willing, as a government, as a province, to make changes that are needed to fall in line with the spirit of Bill No. 36 so that it's not just words? I, too, like the other lady who spoke before me, was so encouraged to see Premier Susan Holt's announcement this weekend, where she is promoting free trade within Atlantic Canada. I think that's a great place to start. It's very, very doable.

I have tabled bills here in this Legislature in previous sittings requesting the government to do just that. I had tabled a bill around a strategy for health care, for health services, removing all the regulatory barriers for health care here in Atlantic Canada, trying to request the government to create a clinical health services plan for all of Atlantic Canada, even start between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

I recently had a family - just think about this, and this is in the spirit of this bill and barriers that we see - had a family have a baby very, very early; like, four months early. The baby was in the NICU for several months in Moncton, because it's a Cumberland County family.

When they were discharged, they were told - you can imagine, those of us in the room who are mothers and fathers can imagine the relationship and trust that you would build with the NICU doctors and nurses and that team, going through that. They were told upon discharge that they could no longer go to Moncton, that Nova Scotia - I don't know who in the department, but someone told them that they were only allowed to receive care in Nova Scotia, that they could not continue with the care in Moncton, in New Brunswick, which actually violates the Canada Health Act.

[Page 1453]

Here's a family told that they could not go across the border to receive their health care. It has to happen - fully acknowledging the care and the professionals at the IWK Health Centre are incredible. Not to diminish those, but this family was in a very vulnerable position and had developed those strong bonds and relationships and trust with health care professionals only 40 minutes away, but in another province; and our government is putting up barriers for them to be able to continue accessing care there.

There's so much work that can be done by our government. While I support this bill, I'd love to see more willingness of this government to actually work on a day-to-day basis with our neighbouring provinces. I'm going to bring up, again, the Nova Scotia Student Loan Forgiveness Program. We have nurses living in Nova Scotia, working in Nova Scotia, but who went to a school to get their nursing degree either online outside of Nova Scotia, or physically next door in New Brunswick, and are told they don't qualify for the Nova Scotia Student Loan Forgiveness Program. It's a barrier. It's a barrier, so I do believe that we need to be taking more direct action.

Public Works is another one; there are so many barriers. We see it again right in our border community where not that long ago I had a businessman. He bought a tow that was legal in another province in Canada, and when he came here, brought it - he purchased it at an auction or something - and when he brought it here, he was told, "Oh, that actually isn't legal in Nova Scotia," despite it being legal in another Canadian province, and he lost a ton of money. He had to completely revamp and remodel this tow truck to meet the Nova Scotia guidelines. That's just one example of many through our Public Works.

Once this bill passes, what is the process that's going to be in place to actually get our provinces working together to remove some of these barriers? I haven't heard that being discussed but, really, what I would love to see is an interprovincial barrier person assigned in each government department to take a look at - in each department - what the barriers are that can be removed and worked on. That person in each department would be requested to meet and have conversations with other Canadian provinces.

Let's start with New Brunswick, which we're connected with. That would help a lot of Nova Scotians - not just the ones whom I represent in Cumberland North but the ones in Cumberland South, and other businesses and residents throughout all of Nova Scotia would feel that. Let's start, and let's start with a meeting with Susan Holt, with Premier Holt next door in New Brunswick, who also wants to see the same thing. We need action.

Another example that I believe is low-hanging fruit is around meat inspection. Each province has provincial meat inspection, and meat that's inspected in New Brunswick is not allowed to be sold and come across the border here in Nova Scotia and vice versa. If meat is provincially inspected in Nova Scotia, it's not allowed to be sold and cross the border into New Brunswick or any other province.

[Page 1454]

I had a business in our area that wasn't aware of that and, for years, had been purchasing a certain product that had some meat in it, and along came an inspector, and that person lost thousands of dollars. They were told they had to immediately get rid of - in the garbage, thousands of dollars. I can tell you, I mean, I know that the laws are put in place to protect us, but if it's good enough for New Brunswickers, why is it not good enough for us here in Nova Scotia?

There's one example where . . . who is actually going to work on that? Is there someone in the department . . . I believe it's under the Department of Environment and Climate Change that the inspectors are in. Is there someone in that department who's going to work on that and work with our New Brunswick colleagues and other provinces to look at that specific item? That would be my suggestion, Speaker: that every department have someone identified who is responsible - an interprovincial barrier officer, we could call them - somebody who's responsible for looking at what the barriers are and then working with our other provinces.

Let's start with New Brunswick, and certainly I will just say I know unfortunately too well the effects of interprovincial barriers in my community. It was obviously devastating during the pandemic, and I know everyone in this province felt it, but no one felt it like the people who live in our border community. I often compared it to - could you imagine if there was a barrier between Halifax and Dartmouth, how long people would have put up with that, not being able to cross over for health care or jobs or anything like that?

I had a woman not too long ago tell me that - she said that her husband was approved to go to work in New Brunswick during the pandemic, but she wasn't, so she crossed the border every day in the trunk of her husband's car so that she could go to work. She did that for about 17 months. Can you imagine? Yes, the stories are just unbelievable, but I'm sharing that as an example of the degree of interprovincial barrier that was in place during the pandemic. It was pretty crazy.

Anyway, I do support this bill, but I would love to see more consistency from the Premier and from the government because, on one hand, you're saying Nova Scotia's open for business, and on the other hand, the government is putting up a wall and putting up new barriers with the Non-resident Deed Transfer Tax. It's already higher than any other Canadian province at 5 per cent. Why are we increasing it? If anything, and following in line with Bill No. 36, we should be decreasing it and putting it back to what it is. Also removing the Cobequid Pass tolls for other Canadian residents: Why are we going to leave that in place? Or is the Premier going to remove that too?

Those are just a few comments on Bill No. 36. I will be supporting the bill.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : I am literally going to take about three minutes, but I just want to make this point. As my colleague from Timberlea-Prospect said, we support the bill. We do also feel that starting in Atlantic Canada and building out is good; I think that is not a bad thing. There has been some disagreement on that aspect, but we've seen it work in the past and we all know that the plan is to break down barriers right across the country.

[Page 1455]

I just reiterate: One of the things that we need to be talking about in this discussion as we go forward is infrastructure in this province. How are we going to get product from Nova Scotia across to other jurisdictions? Rail is going to play a big part in that, and our airports are going to play a big part in that. As everyone is saying, we are going to be doing business differently, and so I just wanted to get on my feet again because we've been talking about this a little bit in this caucus - interprovincial trade is key.

I support the government in their initiatives to do that, but as we do that - the federal election has been mentioned a few times about the need to build infrastructure - we need to build infrastructure. "We need to build infrastructure" is coming from multiple candidates, whether it's pipelines or whatever. What I look at as the opportunity for this province is if a mine opens or if something happens and if you find out you have deposits, you've got to get it to port, and right now there are certain parts of the province that don't have that capacity - if we are into mining, if we're into something else.

I just want to reiterate that we support the bill, but a big conversation - the big thing the government is going to need to look at is if there are going to be major federal infrastructure dollars to help support interprovincial trade, we have rail that needs help, we have ports that need help, we have airports that need help, and we've got to make sure we think about that.

THE SPEAKER « » : If I recognize the minister, it will be close debate on Bill No. 36.

The honourable Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : Speaker, I do want to say just a very few words. One is that I do want to acknowledge the leadership of the Premier on this. This is leadership that has been seen at a national level and kudos to the Premier on seeing the necessity of this and pushing it.

We know that we are in unprecedented times with the challenge of tariffs from our No. 1 trading partner, the United States. This is causing us to look at everything we are doing in a new light and react to that. We realize that interprovincial trade barrier reduction could be an incredible boost to our economy. We need to do a better job of doing business with each other. These barriers are various. They've arisen over the last 125-150 years, really, individually.

This bill is meant to be enacted with provinces that reciprocate and do that. It is my personal belief that all our provinces will get on board at some point. I believe our federal government would get on board and we will be working towards this direction to do a better job of doing business with each other in all the many ways that we can and it will benefit our economy to the tune of billions of dollars.

[Page 1456]

With that, I move to close third reading on Bill No. 36.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is for third reading of Bill No. 36.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

[9:00 p.m.]

Ordered that this bill do pass. Ordered that the title be as read by the Clerk. Ordered that the bill be engrossed.

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Before I call Bill No. 68, my son Oliver is watching on TV and I just want to say, I love you. How many 12-year-olds are actually watching on TV and saying, "Oh, there's Claudia. There's Iain."? Sorry for saying the names, Speaker. Go to bed soon, Oliver. I love you.

Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 68.

Bill No. 68 - Financial Measures (2025) Act.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : Speaker, I move third reading on Bill No. 68. I do have some prepared remarks. I will give those after I have heard from my colleagues in the House.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Throughout this discussion, even through the Estimates debate, the consideration of the Appropriations Act, 2025, the consideration of this bill, I think one of the questions that I have been asking is: Is this the right budget for now?

I will acknowledge that everyone is actually asking that, as province after province tables their budget. We are at a time of incredible amounts of uncertainty. Perhaps members will recall earlier in the sitting when I tabled some information - some quotes around the fact that this is not going to be a shock.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. Someone's phone is on. I keep hearing a dinging. I ask that they turn it off. (Interruption) See? I told you. I wasn't hearing things.

[Page 1457]

The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : As I was saying, what we're not facing is a shock like COVID. What we're actually facing is potentially a fundamental reset and restructuring of the economy. I think we've spent a lot of time during this sitting talking about what we would recommend in terms of some of the changes in terms of expenditures. I guess the FMA gives us a chance to look at also revenue and how realistic those calculations are.

To speak to the specific tax measures: the small business tax cut, I think, is one we can all recognize as helpful. But what we're really thinking about is: What are the direct supports available for different industries? If we harken back to 2020 and 2021, we did have very specific supports around getting businesses online, information provided to folks, whether it was through the Halifax Chamber of Commerce or others, bringing together people on a weekly basis to consider what was happening.

We have called for that type of information exchange. I also understand there was a round table with the leaders of the parties at the time. We called for a round table like that in Nova Scotia to face this tariff crisis and trade war. We've called on the government to have regular round tables and communications like we see in other provinces. If you look at Newfoundland and Labrador, they have a variety of sector-specific round tables that are considering the questions around tariffs.

In other provinces, we see labour engaged, as well as political leaders and business leaders. I think we would continue to argue that this is the type of support we need to establish and that we should be doing to make sure that we're really ready to respond quickly to the impact of tariffs, especially on small businesses.

One of the things I tabled from the Governor of the Bank of Canada also talked about the fact that, given that this is not just a shock, that this is a fundamental restructuring - but we've actually just recently had a shock - what's available to help businesses with becomes much more specific and targeted. We did provide an enormous amount of support to businesses during COVID to help people get online, for instance. Essentially, a lot of that has happened. You are looking at much more specific actions to support small businesses.

I have spoken about the HST cut. I have noted, as determined during Estimates debate with the minister, that the actual annual impact for lower-income families is pretty limited, what the effect of that is going to be. I think the estimate was $339 a year. That could make a difference if we had other protections in place for Nova Scotians.

Again, having come through COVID, we lived through a time where we were shown time and time again that in times of crisis the market would indeed do what it can to maximize profit. I think above and beyond anything around supply chain issues or that sort of thing, issues around greedflation and shrinkflation are very real now, and we've proven that. In fact, there's developing case law around this.

[Page 1458]

One of my questions for the minister has been: How can Nova Scotians be protected? How can Nova Scotians be protected so that this 1 per cent actually makes a difference for Nova Scotians? My concern is that businesses are going to acknowledge that there's a tax cut and their prices are actually going to rise to fill that small amount of savings. I think we could do things to better protect Nova Scotians.

Again, on the Non-resident Deed Transfer Tax as I mentioned, I believe, late last week - it's a nominal amount of estimated revenue, and we also think it's completely inconsistent with Bill No. 36 that we just passed. We're talking about a Team Canada approach, except that if you wanted to buy property with an intent to be here part-time, full-time - whatever the case may be - it's out of sync with all other provinces. I will be interested to see if other provinces pick that up as an issue. When they're engaging in discussions with us about interprovincial trade and barriers, I hope that people raise it and ask, "Nova Scotia, for the sake of a really small amount of money, why have you put this very symbolic barrier in place?"

I think, in terms of considering some of the other issues, I am greatly concerned about the budget projections and the fiscal planning profile in this budget. I will say I feel like this government has done us over here a great favour in dispelling between 2021 and 2024 any myths that people held about Progressive Conservatives being fiscally prudent, and so I really am quite grateful for that. We had unprecedented growth. It was jobless growth, so it was based on actually building off the inflation crisis. The inflation crisis increased taxes, and we did nothing to actually add to the economy.

I know there have been some comments by members about how we never talked about economic development, and maybe this is the best time to table this. I did take some time to look through and gather dozens of Hansard debates where it's been noted that I did, in fact, ask for an economic development plan from this government. I know that the member for Clayton Park West in particular was concerned that we never talked about it - and the member for Richmond - that we had never mentioned economic development in this province. Just perhaps a couple of quotes I might share with folks.

This is from March 24, 2023. I'm quoting myself. It's so brilliant. We're going to revisit it.

I want to turn now to the topic of economic development. In the face of massive economic upheaval during the pandemic, many provinces mapped out economic recovery plans. We still haven't got an economic rural development plan. When Nova Scotians ask for something similar, they are told that this government's direction can be found in the election platform, rather than providing a blueprint with clear actions.

That was that one. Let's find some more of what I might consider quotable quotes. I think I have a couple marked, and then I'm happy to table this all so if any of the members would like to reference this. "I'll pick up on the theme of economic development." This is from March 21, 2024. "We need to make sure that our economic development efforts, our skills and labour training, respond to equity issues." "I've invited ministers to think about current efforts around economic development, labour, skills, and training, and how they are responding to the needs of diverse communities."

[Page 1459]

Anyway, I'm not going to belabour the point. The point is we have been asking about economic development - Nova Scotians have been asking about it - and so we are happy to take up that conversation, but I am worried that the premise of this budget is not the budget we need to be looking at right now.

As I said, we had unprecedented population growth and unprecedented revenue growth that this government just chose to spend. So billions of dollars - I think it was $1.3 billion in the first year - over what this Legislature ever had a chance to discuss. The Auditor General has been clear that this is a concern. The Auditor General has been clear that we're out of step with all other provinces. We've been clear that, while the 2010 Finance Act was developed under the past NDP government, honestly, if you learn better, do better.

If we are out of step with every other province, and the Auditor General consistently raises issues about concerns, I think we should address them. I'm not standing on pride that we wrote the best Finance Act in 2010. I think that we know better.

When I look at some of the other provinces - for instance, the British Columbia government issues a budget paper for public consultation each year by September 15^th. The results of those public consultations are then taken to a legislative standing committee that meets before the Estimates are tabled. Then as well, when they look at things like if the expenditure - in their Finance Act - is insufficiently provided for and urgently required for the public good, they have provisions so government can act. It may be a threshold that can't wait for the Legislature to consider. Of course, their Legislature has a calendar. They meet for many more months of the year than we do, so it's pretty easy, aside from massive emergencies, to get back to the Legislature to talk about what's needed. As well, the information is then not just tabled in OICs but is brought back in an additional Supply bill to the Legislature at the earliest convenience.

All of that is important because this is Nova Scotia's money. This is the public purse. I care about getting the most amount of value for money we can for Nova Scotians out of each dollar that's spent. Each dollar that we spend on one thing, we're not spending it on the other. This is not a criticism. This is the way budgeting works.

We all know we still have huge challenges. I'm sure every one of us could think of projects even within our own constituencies that, yes, they're a priority. We also acknowledge there are other province-wide priorities. Of course, budgeting is always a balancing act, but we are the Legislature, and we do have a role in representing the views of all Nova Scotians.

As well - and I know members who've been here have heard me talk about this, but for the new folks - how additional appropriations are done is that they're issued in Orders in Council. They can be found online. If you look back at the NDP government, I think we had $50 million one year, $60 million the other. It's quite detailed what they were for. The Liberals - their OICs are quite detailed, in fact. It's true. Nice job. If you look back at their things, you can see exact dollar figures and what the appropriation was for. There's no question about what it's for.

[Page 1460]

Under this government, if you look back at the additional appropriations tabled, for instance, (inaudible) December, it is truly basically a list from which nobody - and I would hazard none of us in here - would be able to understand what was spent. It's numbers like education, $12.7 million. You get the idea. I'm not going to belabour the point. The point is that we can say we're following the Finance Act, but we're pushing it awfully far.

The other thing that's interesting is that I could only find three instances of this use of special warrants. We also have a provision in the Finance Act that allows us to respond to urgencies or emergent issues. They're called special warrants, but they are a bit more of a detailed process.

What I would suggest is that perhaps all three parties have sought to stay on the side of asking for an additional appropriation. Don't worry, it's kind of still the same mandate. We could always argue anything's the same mandate. I think accountability is a huge issue. I've also talked about what that means in terms of alternative procurement that's often used for the other budget spending and whether or not we're really getting public value for money.

Again, like I said, thank you so much for dispelling any myths about the fiscal prudence of a Progressive Conservative government. We're now heading into an incredible period of uncertainty. I really want to say it again to just make sure people have heard this. I've heard many ministers say during the session that we're in a period of unprecedented growth - and we're not, folks. We literally are not anymore. Our population is falling, so our reliance on just getting some more people and getting some tax income and going forward and spending, actually, unless things change radically - and we're falling out of step with the rest of the country and all provinces.

Again, this information is really easy to find. It's the Nova Scotia Department of Finance. You can get their daily stats emailed. I know that they love to have increased audiences. This was from March 19, 2025, last week, and very clearly outlines how we are, in fact, one of two provinces that had negative population growth in the last quarter of 2024. We can't be relying on population growth to help us grow our revenues or help us address our debt. I think we've talked about this before. I really encourage folks to have a look at the fiscal profile in the budget and some of the information about our growing net debt-to-GDP ratio. This is based on estimates, obviously.

[9:15 p.m.]

From here, what we can see is our current debt. I would say that part of the challenge with that is we are in this period of great economic uncertainty. Not only could there be other costs that we can't anticipate, but we also need to look at the denominator and really recognize that we actually can't rely on a lot of estimates for GDP growth right now. Life is so uncertain. Certainly, the credit rating agencies have been bringing forward thus far positive reviews, but I also tabled the reviews of major banks in Canada, which all expressed concern about the budget.

[Page 1461]

I'm just going to take a pause for a minute and see if everything's okay. There was a member with their head on the desk, and I just wanted to make sure they were fine. I was truly concerned. (Laughs)

Basically, the fiscal plan that we're approving in this budget takes us past, in four years, what we have as our goalposts of 40 per cent. It takes us over the 40 per cent mark, and that's a very serious concern. As well, our projected net debt is essentially growing at a rapid rate. Again, I would implore all members to familiarize yourselves with the budget document, in particular Pages 7 and 11, to give you a sense of the concerns around debt that I have. I know that the member for Timberlea-Prospect enjoyed a little joke about NDP concern for fiscal prudence, but I'm going to tell you why we care. We care because we've seen this story before where governments of other stripes have spent a bunch of money, it hasn't gotten the results that we needed, and then we've hit, surprise, another economic crisis.

What that leads to is periods of austerity. What I'm concerned about is looking at the fact that we have this incredibly uncertain economic future, that the things that have been bearing fruit in the last few years like population growth are not guaranteed, and we still have a housing crisis. We still have thousands of people waiting for public housing. We still have to fight for people to gain access to rent supplements. We are not out of the homelessness crisis.

In terms of housing prices, this is another interesting bit of information from our fantastic Department of Finance and Treasury Board - and this one's a surpriser, folks. This one's worth paying attention to in terms of when we're thinking about population growth, when we're thinking about attracting investment and new residents: The new housing price index. Basically, year over year - from last February to this February - Nova Scotia's new house price index increased by 3.78 per cent. That probably makes sense if you know what's happening in the communities. However, that greatly outpaced the Canadian average of 0.08 per cent in growth in house prices. Alberta actually had negative growth in house prices, and the only other province to have any significant growth was Newfoundland and Labrador at 1.87 per cent.

I know it's a lot of numbers. I'm just going to go back over them quickly. If we could have PowerPoint, wouldn't that be better for my financial discussions? The graphs I could show you, but you're just going to have to take my word for it. Go look at the daily stats report for March 21^st, last Friday. Our housing price increases are growing at 3.78 per cent compared to 0.08 per cent Canada-wide. When folks are looking at where they want to establish their families, buy homes, settle, I'm going to say that we're not looking very competitive from that measure. I think that's really concerning.

[Page 1462]

Like I said, we've seen this story before - what happens when governments get into debt and then are trying to get out of it, and what that means for social programs. They're the first on the hit lines. We will fight that, of course. I think we all need to be concerned that the population's not growing anymore. Please don't write any more legislation such as changing the Civil Service Act because there's a belief that we're in some sort of growth period. We're not. I'm sorry, but we're not. We're also in an incredible period of economic uncertainty. We don't know whether that's going to right itself very well.

I would also suggest that folks have a look at some of the other things that are highlighted by the Auditor General in the 2024 Financial Report that looks at the growing cost of contaminated sites in this province, which are growing exponentially - the growing costs of the Boat Harbour remediations. Let's just pile it on top of our unmatured debt. We all want the best for Nova Scotia, and we need to pay attention to what all this is telling us. This is why we are concerned that this is a budget that puts us on a growing debt projection that is unsustainable in a period that is incredibly uncertain.

I think that's about all I have to say about this bill. Everybody's relieved, I know. It's fine, but if anybody wants to come see some graphs and slides over here - actually, you have access to all of them on the Auditor General's website in the budget documents.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : I'm going to just take a few minutes. We've had a lot to say about the financial measures throughout the course of the House. I just want to make a couple of points. Particularly, we don't support the deed transfer tax. It's one we don't support as a caucus. We heard from many people across the province - people who are actually developers and builders in the province - saying that it's a detriment to them. We just don't feel it's the right time for this tax, which we've said before almost acts as a trade barrier. We've argued that at length. We've had the stakeholders come in, and they pleaded their case. I want to be on the record. I know lots of folks in the Real Estate Association and others who are paying attention to this. They don't support this. Developers in this province don't support this legislation, and our caucus does not.

Not to sound repetitive from my colleague - a great presentation the member gave - but I will say this: It is true. This government has experienced record revenue and record transfer payments from the federal government in things like child care, which - it was nice to see that the Premier announced 200-plus seats in the child care deal that was so bad for the Province today on his Facebook, but the point being is that record transfers have come in from Ottawa. The government has enjoyed them.

They've enjoyed record growth, population growth - jobless population growth - because immigration was a big part of it. We had lots of people move here and invest. The province's population boomed as a result of that. He had record revenues coming in. All at the same time, the economic performance was the worst in North America. As I said, jobless growth.

[Page 1463]

So now we're in a situation, as my colleague said, which was really - a light went off for me last week because we've seen deficit budgets over the years. We're seeing a deficit budget coming forward. They've been able to balance those budgets on unexpected revenue growth and transfers from Ottawa, and now they're going to help balance the budget in this one by using money from a lawsuit regarding smoking. It was said that it's going into general revenue. That is not job growth. That is not the economic performance of a government. That is "We have a deficit, and we're going to use a longstanding court case against tobacco companies to balance the books."

It was said that it was going into general revenue, and I hope that some of that money goes into programming and supports for families, but that light went off for me that maybe they knew that was coming and maybe that's why they're projecting the deficits that they are. The government can't deny that, because it was said multiple times that they're taking that money, and they're putting it into general revenue. That will offset the deficit. It wasn't jobs, and as my colleague said, the growth is going to change. You're going to see a big change in the growth, population growth. Some of those (inaudible) are not going to be there.

Hopefully, the government continues to receive strong support from Ottawa as they move forward on other agreements, but I wanted to get this point out there that there are aspects of this bill that we do not support. We do not support the size of the deficit that is being projected. In that, because there is a contingency fund the government has talked about, but it's actually not in the budget - unless somebody wants to correct me - they will spend up to that. So it's not that we don't support that, but it's not in this budget. But they're going to balance the books off a tobacco lawsuit. That's ultimately - that's going into general revenue. It was said multiple times in the House by the government, that long-standing over the years - people who fought against the tobacco companies, that money's going to general revenue, and that's what's going to offset the deficit.

We hope that the growth is the same. We hope that the economy grows. I said we've been tabling budgets this whole sitting trying to provide suggestions as a caucus, positive suggestions to move forward to help grow the economy. We've talked about things that are important around breaking down trade barriers and trying to do whatever we can. There are certain things within government that we're not supportive of, that we've talked about in other bills, which I won't get into. This is about the Financial Measures Act. And that comment from me last week just sparked my interest because it wasn't about going - the government didn't say it was going into programs to combat smoking in schools or tobacco use with minors or anything else.

[9:30 p.m.]

The money was going to general revenue. And when it goes to general revenue, it's used against the debt and the deficit. I wanted to get that on the record, and I hope that - I hope my projections are wrong. I hope the province grows. I hope that Nova Scotians succeed. That is a massive deficit with a lot of unpredictability. We all know it's going to be very different than it was for the last number of years and the government has had a record of magically finding the way to balance the budget in a time of population growth and heavy federal transfers; but the population growth is going to slow and the government is using a tobacco lawsuit to help balance the books.

[Page 1464]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : I rise to speak to Bill No. 68, the Financial Measures (2025) Act. The bill arrives on the heels of a budget projecting a deficit of more than $700 million; close to $1 billion that we're projecting as a deficit here for this province.

It's not just a number, Speaker; I believe it's a warning sign. A province with rising costs and increased federal transfers should not be adding hundreds of millions of dollars of new debt with no plan that's shared to restore the balance.

Let's be clear: Nova Scotians are not feeling the benefits of the spending; they are feeling the squeeze. Health care is still the number one thing that I hear from my constituents on a daily basis, but I'm also hearing from constituents about the lack of affordability. Life is not affordable for too many Nova Scotians.

Families in my area, my constituency, are paying more at the grocery store, at the gas pump, and for electricity. Housing is also increasingly out of reach. Now they are being told by this government that it's making investments but they're not seeing the investments that make a difference in their day-to-day lives.

One glaring omission in the budget is the Chignecto Isthmus, the spending. Now it was announced last week, over $160 million. I applaud the government for making that decision finally. We need to get that work started to protect all Nova Scotians and our infrastructure, but it's not in the budget. That's a lot of money to not actually have in the budget - no mention of it.

I was assuming that we would see an amendment to the budget based on the announcement last week, but it's not there. How can a government announce one of the most consequential infrastructure investments in Atlantic Canada and not include it in the financial blueprint for the year ahead? Is this real money or is it just a press release?

Speaker, Bill No. 68 does make some positive changes. I know I, myself, have been calling for this as well as my colleagues in opposition. I'm really pleased to see the increase in basic personal tax exemption - basic personal amount, rather. I will add that the Halifax Chamber of Commerce had made a request: They had recommended it to be $15,000. We were the lowest in Canada, which means Nova Scotians are taxed before anyone else in the country, so this increase in the BPA is welcome and good to see that it's also being indexed.

Lowering the small business tax rate and increasing the deduction threshold will help some, but businesses are struggling in so many ways - struggling to find staff. I mentioned this in Question Period last week that I have restaurant owners coming to me now every day, saying they are struggling because they don't have enough workers because the workers are waiting for the government to approve their work visas. These are staff who have been living here. They are not people who have just moved here and are looking for work. They are people who have been working here in Nova Scotia. They have a place to live. They have families to feed. They cannot work and they have bills to pay. They are not being given any answers as to what the holdup is, why there are these delays.

[Page 1465]

I am not sure if other people, other MLAs are having similar problems, but it's a real problem in our area. Restaurant owners are telling me that they will be forced to close their business because they don't have enough staff if whatever is causing this problem is not fixed quickly. The lowering of the small business tax rate is welcomed, Speaker, but we need to address the other issues with our small business owners as well.

Eliminating the bridge tolls: I haven't said anything about that, because for years I fought for the tolls to be removed on the Cobequid Pass which unfairly disadvantaged the people of Cumberland County for almost three decades. I haven't said much, but I will say that I find it really interesting that this bill is about to be passed, hasn't passed yet, and the tolls are gone. I thought that was interesting. It's like, wait now, the bill hasn't even passed to remove them, but they're gone. I thought that was interesting.

What are we even doing in here? No, I'm just saying, we haven't even passed the bill, and action has been taken as if the bill has passed. That's my point. It kind of makes a bit of a mockery of what we're doing in here, I guess. That's all.

I've already spoken about the Non-resident Deed Transfer Tax jumping to 10 per cent - a huge mistake, putting up walls. It is absolutely contradictory to the bill we just passed about free trade and mobility - free mobility within Canada - and some people would even argue that it violates the Constitution of free mobility within Canada and between provinces. I'm surprised this is going forward. You can't tear down trade barriers while putting up walls around our housing market.

I wanted to share an email that I got from someone. I did ask her permission and have her signed consent. The reason I want to share it is because I get emails like this - and letters - all the time. I'm sure other colleagues here in the House do as well. I want to read it because she represents - this person who sent it to me - so many Nova Scotians, and certainly a lot of people in Cumberland North whom I represent.

It's from Megan Perry. She is from Meadow Park Drive in Amherst. She says:

Elizabeth,

I am writing to you as a deeply concerned resident of Amherst Nova Scotia regarding the rising cost of living in Nova Scotia, particularly the escalating power bills and the ever-increasing cost of groceries.

[Page 1466]

Many families, including my own, are struggling to make ends meet in the face of these financial pressures. Power bills have reached unsustainable levels, putting immense strain on households already grappling with higher prices for essential goods. These expenses are becoming unmanageable for many Nova Scotians, leaving little room for other necessities, let alone savings. Myself and many of my fellow co-workers and friends have had to take on second and third jobs, and have to choose on a monthly basis if we can afford to heat ourselves or put food on our plates.

Groceries, which are vital to the health and well-being of our families, are also becoming alarmingly unaffordable. The rising prices disproportionately affect those who are already vulnerable, including seniors, single parents, and low-income families. It is disheartening to see so many in our community having to make difficult decisions between heating their homes and putting food on the table.

While I understand that factors such as inflation and global markets play a role in these increases, I firmly believe that more can and must be done at the provincial level to address these issues.

Then she goes on to urge for changes such as:

1.      Review and Regulation of Power Rates: Work with Nova Scotia Power to ensure rates are fair and transparent, and explore sustainable energy solutions that can help reduce costs for consumers in the long term.

2.      Support for Affordable Groceries: Implement or expand programs that support access to affordable and nutritious food for all Nova Scotians, such as subsidies, food banks, and local agriculture initiatives.

3.      Direct Assistance for Families: Enhance financial relief programs for households facing extreme cost-of-living pressures.

The well-being of our communities depends on prompt and decisive action. As my elected representative, I am counting on you to bring these concerns to the forefront of your work and to advocate for meaningful change.

Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.

[Page 1467]

Sincerely,

Megan Perry

Megan - I'm so grateful for her sending me this letter. I hear from so many people, but when I read her letter, I thought it was so well written, I wanted to share this here in the Legislature. What she shared is how many Nova Scotians and many in Cumberland County are feeling right now.

I don't believe Bill No. 68 does enough to help the Megans in our communities. What Bill No. 68 does reveal more than anything is a government that wants - sorry, I want to go on here.

What's the plan to pay down the debt? We haven't heard anything about that. I find it a little - I don't feel like this government is acting how many would think a Progressive Conservative government would - how they would govern, I would say. If you look at the principles and values of the party, it talks about financial responsibility - or at least it used to when I was a member. We continue to see budgets that are running deficits, and we continue to see this province going further and further and further in debt, with an increasing GDP-to-debt ratio. That is not good, not positive. It's just not what I think Nova Scotians expect when they elect a Progressive Conservative government. I say that just because when I first joined the party, that's what drew me to the party. I was a businesswoman, and I equated Progressive Conservatives with strong fiscal management.

I remember when I was first elected - I think it was in 2017 - there was a reception, and I came and I brought my father. He had never been to the Legislature and he's more of an armchair politician. He's never been actively involved at any level of politics, but he loves to debate and he's very interested. I brought him to the reception and he met Premier Stephen McNeil, and when he met Premier McNeil, they shook hands - they both have very large hands - and Premier McNeil looked at him and he said, "I'm the most conservative Liberal Premier Nova Scotia has ever had," and I would say that was a true statement. My Liberal colleagues could speak to this more than I could, but they had numerous balanced budgets here in the Legislature.

I just share that because it's not what you would suspect. Typically, when people align with certain political parties, there are certain attributes that you consider. I just share that because I do think that, especially given the concerns right now with President Trump, I think that we are in a place right now where we need to be fiscally responsible. There's growing uncertainty on the horizon with Donald Trump's return to the White House; even when he was in the White House before in his former term, we saw shifts in trade, we saw global markets' unrest, and interest rates increased. The last time he put tariffs on Canadian goods, he attacked multilateral trade agreements, but this time we're seeing a much more hostile approach and directed at us here in Canada. We are facing real threats because our economy depends on stable exports and U.S. tourism and global confidence in Canada's fiscal health.

[Page 1468]

In Cumberland North, and throughout all of Cumberland County, we export a ton of products to the United States, and we are facing extreme economic disparities and problems if, in fact, those tariffs come in place next month. We export a ton of products like blueberries, lobster and other seafood, lumber, manufactured goods through Emmerson Packaging, SeaVision, Waldale, and more. Back when the threats first became apparent, I sent a letter to the Premier and I believe I copied the Minister of Growth and Development and asked them if they would consider doing an economic impact analysis on the exports that leave Cumberland County to the U.S. so that we would have a better idea of what we're dealing with. Unfortunately, I did not get a response to that letter.

My suggestion was that we use our RENS. In Cumberland we have the Cumberland Business Connector, which is partially funded by the Province and partially funded by our municipalities, and it would make sense that our RENs would be involved in that economic impact analysis. It's not too late to do that, because it's a good idea, I believe, in business to know what you're dealing with. This government, despite the threat of the Trump tariffs, is going ahead with massive deficits and that is a concern.

I think I've addressed most of the things. I am surprised that more people aren't speaking on this. This is the FMA. This is the budget bill. It would be great to see members even in government speak to this. This is our major bill that we're passing here based on the budget. This is an important bill.

[9:45 p.m.]

With those few words, I'll take my seat.

THE SPEAKER « » : If I recognize the minister, it will be to close debate on Bill No. 68.

The honourable Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : Speaker, I'm very pleased to say a few words on the FMA and, in effect, the budget, which is all part and parcel.

This budget has the largest tax cuts in Nova Scotia's history. Why do those tax cuts? Our people face a heavy tax burden, and we have to do stuff to make life more affordable for Nova Scotians. This tax budget provides $500 million in tax cuts, a little over $1,000 on average per family in Nova Scotia. It is very real money. It will be very noticed. It is a tremendous stimulus to our economy at a time when we face economic uncertainty - something we realized when we were implementing this tax cut.

We are also doing the largest capital build program in the history of Nova Scotia. The Opposition says they do not appreciate the fact that we are spending this much money in Nova Scotia. I ask them: Which project do they not approve of? Tell us that. Which school do they think should not be built? Which hospital should not be built? Is it the one in Amherst? Is the building we're doing in Cape Breton? Which area in Halifax? Which area do they not approve of? Which spending do they not approve of?

[Page 1469]

The Opposition says that we do additional appropriations. Which program and spending do they not approve of? I ask that. We have spent money putting money back in the pockets of Nova Scotians. We are working for the benefit of Nova Scotians. We are working hard for them. We're giving seniors more money. We're doing an unprecedented funding of schools in many different ways. A capital program into schools - we've quadrupled that. It went from $6 million a year in capital budget to $30 million - whatever that is - five times. We're doing an over-four-times increase in the school food lunch program. All things that Nova Scotians need.

We're doing unprecedented tax cuts. I could elaborate on them. I think members know what they are: a basic personal amount increase and a 1 per cent decrease in our HST. We're working hard.

More than that, we're doing things like taking the tolls off the bridges. I've had two different people on different occasions tell me that what we accomplished in doing that was something we didn't expect, and that is making this feel like one city - taking the barrier between Halifax and Dartmouth away. Two individuals have said, You've united this city. You've made it feel like one city. We didn't realize we were doing that, Speaker. Honestly, we didn't realize that.

We're increasing the basic amount for businesses from $500,000 to $700,000 and reducing business taxes to some of the lowest in the country.

Some members have mentioned the Non-resident Deed Transfer Tax. I don't think it's an insignificant or minimal amount of money. It's a significant amount of money, but the reality is neighbouring provinces like P.E.I. have had these types of rules for over a hundred years. New Brunswick has a different method of doing the same thing, which they've had for a long time, which is actually more money: the longer you own your home as a non-resident, the more you pay. It's an annual expense every year. We're preserving homes for Nova Scotians. For people who want to come and live here, we want to have those homes available to them. We are doing this because of the housing crisis in our province. I think it's important.

I know there was a mention of the settlement from the tobacco companies. The reality is that that money will come in over 15 years. We trust that the tobacco companies will honour that commitment. That's the reality. We trust that they will. It'll come in over 15 years. It represents a payback of money that we've already spent on individuals' care costs. That's the reality, but the money will never bring back family members, friends, and neighbours we know who have died from tobacco-related diseases. That's the reality. We'll never get them back.

This Financial Measures (2025) Act also includes measures to allow parental support to be tracked across the globe. We're joining the Hague Convention - that's a good thing. We're also dropping the vehicle rebate for Teslas, as other jurisdictions such as Manitoba and B.C. are.

[Page 1470]

The reality is that we are in an existential crisis in our country, but we will persevere. Nova Scotians are strong. Our nation is strong. We will do a better job of working together. We will do a better job of doing business with each other. We will do a better job of developing our own natural resources, lifting up our own people, and providing for the economy of Nova Scotians.

Yes, I'm getting asked another question.

I'm proud of this budget. We put in a contingency fee for the tariffs. We were the first province to do so. We are working hard to stimulate our economy. There are many good things in this budget. I would point to the school food lunch program one more time and say - I will ask the Opposition: Can you really vote against the school food lunch program? Shame on you for voting against it if you vote against it.

With that, I move to close debate on Bill No. 68.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is for third reading of Bill No. 68.

All those in favour?

There has been a request for a recorded vote.

Ring the bells. Call in the members.

[9:52 p.m.]

[The Division bells were rung.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. The Clerk will now conduct a recorded vote. Please remain completely silent while the Clerks record your vote.

[The Clerk called the roll.]

[9:59 p.m.]

YEAS	NAYS
Hon. Brian Comer	Claudia Chender
Hon. Nolan Young	Lisa Lachance
Hon. Kim Masland	Hon. Derek Mombourquette
Hon. John Lohr	Paul Wozney
Hon. Brendan Maguire	Suzie Hansen
Hon. Barbara Adams	Kendra Coombes
Hon. Michelle Thompson	Krista Gallagher
Hon. Fred Tilley	Lina Hamid
Hon. Dave Ritcey
Tom Taggart
Marco MacLeod
Adegoke Fadare
Hon. Susan Corkum-Greek
Hon. Leah Martin
Chris Palmer
Melissa Sheehy-Richard
John White
Kyle MacQuarrie
Tim Outhit
Rick Burns
Julie Vanexan
Diane Timmins
David Bowlby
Nick Hilton
Hon. Timothy Halman
Hon. Scott Armstrong
Hon. Jill Balser
Hon. Colton LeBlanc
Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin
Hon. Kent Smith
Hon. Tory Rushton
Hon. Trevor Boudreau
Hon. Greg Morrow
Ryan Robicheau
Damian Stoilov
Danny MacGillivray

[Page 1471]

THE CLERK » : For, 36. Against, 8.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is carried.

Ordered that the bill do pass and that the title be as read by the Clerk. Ordered that the bill be engrossed.

Order. We have reached the time of adjournment. We stand adjourned until Tuesday, March 25^th from 1:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

Also, to LGTV, Annapolis's mic is stuck on.

[The House rose at 9:02 p.m.]

NOTICES OF MOTION UNDER RULE 32(3)

[Page 1472]

RESOLUTION NO. 144

By: Melissa Sheehy-Richard (Hants West)

I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas the Hantsport and Area Historical Society has been preserving the history of Hantsport, Hants Border, and Bishopville since 1977; and

Whereas the McDade Heritage Centre not only actively collects artifacts and documents in relation to the area's history, but also employs student guides and researchers seasonally; and

Whereas the board consists of 10 members: President Judson Porter; Vice President Jane Davis; Secretary Marg Johnston; Treasurer Lee Chipman; and directors Raye Miles, Brian Bishop, David F. B. Folker, Gary Johnson, Roy Bishop, and Trina Norman;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House of Assembly join me in thanking these dedicated volunteers for their commitment to ensuring the heritage of their communities is accessible for current and future generations alike.

RESOLUTION NO. 145

By: Julie Vanexan (Kings South)

I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas I congratulate the Bluenose Rugby U18 W team on their rugby tour of Ireland; and

Whereas the team is made up of select members who have been recognized for making valuable contributions to their school, club, and provincial rugby teams through the school and Summer seasons. On the team will be players from the Annapolis Valley, Halifax, two teammates from Toronto, as well as four coaches and a large support team of parents, chaperones, and a cheer squad, totaling 45 people. I want to personally recognize those players from Kings South Horton High School: Presley Penny, Ava Demmings, Gwyn Galloway, and Claire Bennett; and

Whereas the coaches are made up of combined medal-winning leaders in Rugby Canada, such as women's seven Olympic Silver Medalists and the World Rugby Level 3 and 2 coaching with years of provincial-level coaching within university and local teams;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House of Assembly join me in cheering them on as they represent Nova Scotia in women's rugby.

RESOLUTION NO. 146

By: Julie Vanexan (Kings South)

I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas I rise to congratulate the entire crew of Les Misérables: High School Edition; and

Whereas the production was a collective of Horton High School, Avon View High School, Acadia University, and Quick as a Wink Theatre Society. The students have been rehearsing the musical since October, and they were magnificent on stage. The singing, the costumes, and the music were all very impressive. I was able to attend one show and I know many who went two and three times. It really was a spectacular display of talent; and

Whereas this collaboration provides opportunities for these students to join a local theatre group. It also gives them a platform to share talents and ideas that perhaps would not have been made available without the cooperation of all four groups. We are so proud of this group of students and how hard they have worked to bring this play to fruition;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House of Assembly join me in congratulating this talented group of students and to commend them for their hard work to bring this play to fruition.

[Page 1473]