[Page 4453]

HALIFAX, THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 2026

Sixty-fifth General Assembly

First Session

9:02 A.M.

SPEAKER

Hon. Danielle Barkhouse

DEPUTY SPEAKERS

Marco MacLeod, Tom Taggart, Julie Vanexan

THE SPEAKER » : Please rise, if able, for the singing and playing of "O Canada."

[The national anthem was played.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order, please. We'll begin the Daily Routine.

PRESENTING AND READING PETITIONS

PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS

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

LISA LACHANCE « » : I beg leave to table two articles for my two member statements today. "idialedyournumber Dials Up The Dalhousie Gazette" and "My Gut Told Me It Was Breast Cancer. My Doctors Said I Was Too Young." I'll table those.

THE SPEAKER « » : The papers are tabled.

The honourable member for Dartmouth South.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : I beg leave to table a number of letters that were written by the Grade 9 Citizenship class of Mr. Chaulk at Gorsebrook Junior High detailing the challenges that the budget cuts will present to the students in that class - written by the students.

[Page 4454]

THE SPEAKER « » : The papers are tabled.

STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS

GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NOTICES OF MOTION

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Labour, Skills and Immigration.

HON. NOLAN YOUNG « » : Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas Adult Learners Week, observed from March 29^th to April 4^th, is . . . (interruption)

Sorry. We have to revert back.

THE SPEAKER « » : Do we have consent to revert to Government Notices of Motion? Okay.

[GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION]

The honourable Minister of Labour, Skills and Immigration.

RESOLUTION NO. 475

NOLAN YOUNG « » : Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas Adult Learners Week, observed from March 29^th to April 4^th, is a time to celebrate the determination and the achievements of Nova Scotians who pursue education later in life; and

Whereas Amherst resident Ivy Stright exemplifies the power of lifelong learning, beginning her education journey through the Nova Scotia School for Adult Learning program, earning a high school diploma in 2020 and later graduating as valedictorian in the Practical Nursing program at the Nova Scotia Community College in 2025; and

Whereas inspired by her experiences of caring during the pandemic, Ivy pursued her passion for nursing, graduating with honours, and now proudly serving Nova Scotians as a licensed practical nurse, reflecting her extraordinary courage, perseverance, and belief that education has no limit and no fixed path;

[Page 4455]

Therefore be it resolved that all members in the Legislature join me in recognizing Ivy Stright for her inspiring journey and celebrating Adult Learners Week, honouring all Nova Scotians who prove that it's never too late to learn, to grow, and to transform their lives through education.

Speaker, I request waiver of notice and passage without debate.

THE SPEAKER « » : There has been a request for waiver.

Is it agreed?

It is agreed.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

[NOTICES OF MOTION]

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

RESOLUTION NO. 476

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas Opposition Day is intended to provide Opposition parties with the meaningful opportunity to bring forward resolutions and to lead debate on matters of public importance; and

Whereas the recognition of members to speak in such debates is largely governed by convention and informal practice rather than by clear and consistently applied written rules; and

Whereas the absence of a defined framework may limit the ability of members from the sponsoring party to participate fully in debate on their own resolutions and may undermine confidence in the fairness of proceedings;

Therefore be it resolved that the House of Assembly refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Assembly Matters to review the rules and forms of procedures of the House of Assembly and consider amendments to establish a fair, transparent, and consistent framework for the recognition of members during Opposition Day debates, including safeguards to ensure that members from the sponsoring caucus, smaller caucuses, and Independent members have a reasonable opportunity to participate.

Be it further resolved that the committee examine practices used in other Westminster legislatures respecting Speaker's lists, rotation systems, and protections for Independent members and members of smaller caucuses, including those used in Ontario and New South Wales, and report its findings and any recommended rule changes to the House.

[Page 4456]

Speaker, I request waiver of notice and passage without debate.

THE SPEAKER « » : There has been a request for waiver.

Is it agreed?

There are several Noes.

The notice of motion is tabled.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Preston.

GOOD FRIDAY: DAY OF SOLEMN REFLECTION - RECOG.

HON. TWILA GROSSE « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize that tomorrow is Good Friday, a day of solemn reflection on the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and deep spiritual significance for many members of our communities.

This day represents not only a reflection on faith and loss for Christians, but also on the universal values of empathy, humility, and service to others, as modelled by Jesus Christ, and the enduring strength found in hope, friends, and family during times of hardship.

I invite all members of this House to join me in acknowledging this important day for Christians and in reflecting on the values of kindness, resilience, and community that it represents.

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

PARKINSON'S AWARENESS MO.: APRIL - RECOG.

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Speaker, April is Parkinson's Awareness Month. The theme this year is Together, We Can Break Down Barriers to Parkinson's Care.

Across Canada, thousands of people with Parkinson's face long wait times, fragmented services, and unequal access to specialists, medications, and advanced treatments.

Where you live shouldn't determine how you live.

[Page 4457]

This April, Parkinson Canada is calling for equitable, coordinated, and continuous Parkinson's care - for everyone, no matter where they live.

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

CARTER, JOYCE: TOP WOMEN IN DEFENCE 2026 - CONGRATS.

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : Speaker, I'd like to congratulate Joyce Carter, president and CEO of the Halifax International Airport Authority, for being named one of the Top Women in Defence for 2026 by the Esprit de Corps military magazine.

Ms. Carter has been with the airport authority for over 25 years now. The Top Women in Defence Award recognizes Ms. Carter's exceptional executive leadership at the largest airport in Atlantic Canada and her ability to connect the Royal Canadian Air Force to the civilian aviation sector. Her accolades are numerous and include the King Charles III Coronation Medal for work in transportation and commerce.

In addition to her role at HIAA, Ms. Carter serves as honorary colonel of 12 Wing Shearwater and holds an honorary doctorate in commerce from Saint Mary's University. She is an active community member, serving on many boards and championing women in aviation through mentorship and leadership development.

I'd like to ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Joyce Carter on her many years of service to our province and on receiving this well-deserved recognition.

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

HOLY SATURDAY: HOPE AND PATIENCE - RECOG.

CHRIS PALMER « » : Speaker, I stand today to recognize that this upcoming Saturday is the Holy and Great Saturday, a day situated between the solemnity of Good Friday and the joy of the resurrection of Jesus on Easter Sunday. For Christians who mark it, Holy Saturday is a time of quiet reflection, anticipation, and contemplation.

Across the many Christian traditions, this day goes by many names, but it always represents the same things: hope after hardship, patience in uncertain times, and the importance of hope for the future. It is also a moment that speaks to the resilience of faith and culture across many generations and the role that our religious traditions play in sustaining identity and belonging.

In our diverse society, recognizing such observances affirms our commitment to inclusion and mutual respect. It reminds us that, while our beliefs may differ, the values of togetherness and care for these traditions are universal.

[Page 4458]

Speaker, I wish Christians across this province a happy and blessed Easter celebrated with family and friends.

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

SUZY HANSEN « » : Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction before my statement.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

SUZY HANSEN « » : Speaker, in your gallery - my two youngest children are there. Sijora Hansen and Sage Hansen. Please welcome them to the House. (Applause)

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome to the House. There's no one allowed up there but you guys. It's very special.

The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

HANSEN, SIJORA AYLENA: 12^TH BIRTHDAY - BEST WISHES

SUZY HANSEN « » : Speaker, thank you for the Very Important Person treatment over there.

I rise today to recognize my beautiful daughter Sijora Aylena Hansen. Sijora was born on April 6, 2014, which will also fall on Monday of this year - Easter Monday. Sijora was born a tiny little bundle. She was such a beautiful little girl with a full head of hair.

Sijora loves basketball and tennis. She's a true athlete. She embodies Black girl magic - a true leader. Sijora is a loving sister and she's a great friend to all of her buddies at school and in the community, especially to her bestie, Dorcas. She is a mighty force - a lot like her mother - and I love everything about her.

[9:15 a.m.]

I would like all members to join me in wishing my little Sijora, who is not so little now - she will be turning - how old, 12? (Laughter) Listen, time is going by. I wish her a happy birthday, and I hope everyone in this House does as well. (Standing ovation)

THE SPEAKER « » : Happy birthday.

The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.

BAKOLIAS, KATERINA: LOCAL ARTIST - RECOG.

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : I want to recognize Katerina Bakolias, a Greek-Canadian actor, writer, and producer whose work spans television, film, theatre, and publishing.

[Page 4459]

Her first play, 'Til Death Do Us Part, a farce about a wedding gone wrong, premiered on Neptune Theatre's Scotiabank Studio Stage in 2022, with support from Arts Nova Scotia and the Canadian Council for the Arts, and later ran at the Ship's Company Theatre in 2023.

This spring, Katerina returns to Neptune's stage with her upcoming play, The Ghost of Violet Shaw, running from April 28^th to May 24^th.

Katerina also appears on screen as Clara in MGM's acclaimed series, From, and co-stars in Good Grief opposite Mary-Colin Chisholm and Lyndie Greenwood.

Her debut YA novel, Luscious Love, established her as a queer literary voice, with new manuscripts The Bluebird and The Witch on Hollow Ground in development.

Katerina's success is a reminder of why public support for the arts matters. It helps create and develop new work, take risks, and share Nova Scotia's stories with wider audiences. I congratulate her and thank the many artists and theatre workers across our province who make Nova Scotia a more vibrant place to live.

I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating Katerina Bakolias and celebrating the vital role of arts and theatre in the province.

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

EASTER: HOLY WEEK - RECOG. 

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : I rise today in celebration of Easter to recognize this week of prayer and reflection, this holy week for Christians all over the world.

For many Nova Scotians, Easter is a time to reflect on the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Customs among us may vary, but the celebration of Easter is undoubtedly a holiday of faith, tremendous hope, and the redeeming power of love.

On Good Friday, Jesus took our misdeeds upon himself. On Easter Sunday, he rose from the grave, showing us that death is conquered.

I would ask all members of the House to join me in wishing Christians all over Nova Scotia a blessed Holy Week and a joyous and happy Easter Sunday.

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

HARPER, ALANNA/MCCONKEY, CHARLOTTE: CONSTITUENCY STAFF - THANKS

LINA HAMID « » : I rise today to recognize the best constituency staff I could possibly ask for. I know I'm biased, but they really are.

[Page 4460]

Alanna Harper, my constituency coordinator - a.k.a. my rock and my backbone in this role - brings knowledge, reasoning, and calmness to an often chaotic world. Fairview-Clayton Park and I are extremely lucky and grateful to have her in this role.

Charlotte McConkey, constituency staff for both Fairview-Clayton Park and Halifax Chebucto, brings wizardry, wordsmithery, and research. Her contributions to our offices are immense. Thank you for holding it down while we're here.

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

EASTER SUNDAY: GATHER AND REFLECT - RECOG.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : I want to rise on my feet and wish everyone here and across the province a happy Easter weekend.

It's significant for Christians across Nova Scotia and the world, as it represents the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's also a time for family and friends to get together and reflect and have time together not only to celebrate Easter but to celebrate each other.

I rise in my place today to wish everyone a happy Easter weekend. Also, to our staff who are here in the House, enjoy a much-needed break.

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

BEDFORD LIONS CLUB: STUDENT COMPETITION - CONGRATS.

TIM OUTHIT « » : Good morning. I rise today to congratulate the Bedford Lions Club and all participants on a successful Lions Speak Out Competition that included an amazing lineup of students from Charles P. Allen High School and West Bedford High School.

Sandra and I have had the pleasure of being involved with this event for more than 10 years, and we always look forward to hearing the diverse topics. I have been involved as a questioner and my wife, Sandra, as a judge.

The Bedford Lions Club has been conducting its public speaking contest for more than 35 years. The competition provides an opportunity for Bedford High School students to publicly present their thoughts and ideas on interesting and informative topics.

There were eight participants this year, with first prize going to Topsy Olatunji, whose topic was "Your Live, Laugh, Love is Killing You." She will represent the Bedford Lions Club at the next level, which is known as the Zone Contest. In second place was Arsheta Senthil Kumar who spoke on "The Empathy Crisis." In third place was Claudia Zhao whose spoke on "The Rise of Desensitization".

[Page 4461]

Other topics included "Ignorance of Privilege", "Taking a Leap of Faith", The Courage to Move Forward", "How to Decrease Violence from Childhood Trauma Cases", and "Can Military Expansion Cause Global Instability?". Some pretty heavy topics.

I ask members of the House to join me in congratulating all those who participated and wishing Topsy great success as she participates at the next level today.

THE SPEAKER « » : Before we recognize anyone else, I ask all members to turn off your phones - well not off, turn the volume down. Put it on silent. Thank you very much.

The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

TONEY, MORGAN: TRADITIONAL ROOTS ALBUM OF THE YEAR JUNO - CONGRATS.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : I rise today to recognize Morgan Toney, who just brought home the JUNO Award for Traditional Roots Recording of the Year. Morgan is a Mi'kmaw fiddler and singer from Wagmatcook, Unama'ki. He is an incredible performer whose energy is infectious, and talent is simply off the charts.

The recognition for Morgan Toney and his new album, Heal The Divide, does not come as a surprise, as he and his band continue to create new avenues for expression and reflection. The album bridges the cultures and generations of Mi'kmaw songs and stories with Celtic traditions, creating a genre that Morgan has deemed Mi'kmaltic.

When Morgan found out he won the JUNO, he was in an empty room with his band mate, Ryan Roberts, practising for their West Coast tour, demonstrating that like thousands of artists in this country, he is doing the work and it is paying off. I ask everyone in this House to join me in congratulating Morgan Toney on his incredible achievement and wish him many more years of beautiful and exciting music making.

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

CRUICKSHANK, BILL: DEATH OF - TRIBUTE

DAMIAN STOILOV « » : I rise today with a heavy heart, to recognize the life of Bill Cruickshank, who passed away suddenly on March 23^rd. Bill had a remarkable career in sport and recreation during the last 16 years, which he described as a dream role.

He was the vice president and general manager of the RBC Centre in Dartmouth and the Greenfoot Energy Centre in my constituency of Bedford South. Bill played an incredible role in strengthening our community in sport and recreation. Bill also coached his kids in sports, and always would say, "I'll keep coaching until their skill level surpasses mine, and then I'll coach from the stands," which he did.

His family extends their heartfelt gratitude to the emergency and cardiac teams at the Halifax Infirmary and Dartmouth General Hospital. I ask all members of this House to join me in extending the deepest condolences to his wife, Cindy, his children, Candace, Allyson and Mitchell and his entire family.

[Page 4462]

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

EVERILL, JESSIE: LOCAL MUSICIAN - RECOG. 

LISA LACHANCE « » : Jessie Everill is a Nova Scotia Community College student in Music Production, and one of the artists behind idialedyournumber, a local Halifax band. She began making music when she was just 13 and has shared her passion with the world ever since.

Last year, Jessie released her second album, Mourning Glow, and went on her first international tour. She also has a new album on the way, but this time things are different. In a recent conversation with the Dalhousie Gazette, Jessie stated that "It is a horrible time to be an artist," and she's concerned that she won't be able to afford to go on tour because of this government's cuts to arts and culture. Her last tour was funded in part by grants from government-funded organizations, giving her the opportunity to showcase some of the talent that can be found in Nova Scotia. Artists across the province deserve better than funding cuts.

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

MILLIGAN, CAROLANN: CONSTITUENCY COORDINATOR - THANKS 

HON. KENT SMITH « » : I rise today to bring recognition and thanks to the amazing person who runs the Eastern Shore Constituency Office, constituency coordinator, Carolann Milligan. Carolann has been helping folks on the Eastern Shore for years, and she's been supporting me on the Shore as my coordinator since the summer of 2024.

Carolann possesses all of the traits we dream of in our CCs. She's thoughtful, compassionate, caring, and incredibly empathetic. Without fail, every time I am out in community, someone approaches me and offers a compliment about Carolann. Whether she has helped them with a grant application, connected them with one of our departments, helped with housing or income assistance, she always goes above and beyond.

She's so good that in her first few months in the job, there were a number of gentlemen constituents who visited the office with thank-you gifts, such as chocolates, snacks, and in one case, a beautiful bouquet of flowers. Of course, Carolann was very grateful for their tokens of appreciation. I'm very grateful to have such a kind and attentive coworker.

I ask all members of the House to join me in thanking Carolann for her dedication to helping the good people of the Eastern Shore.

[Page 4463]

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

APRIL 1^ST: CRUEL CUTS IMPLEMENTED - REVERSE

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Speaker, April really is the cruelest month. In Nova Scotia, as of yesterday, the government's cruel cuts have come into effect. Nova Scotians are losing good-paying jobs with the Province while others are facing anxiety and worry that their jobs are next. Frontline workers are expressing how terrified they truly are.

Nova Scotians working in the arts and cultural sectors, along with individuals working in the not-for-profit sector, are very concerned about their livelihood thanks to the cuts made by this PC government.

Again, April is a cruel month and so is this government.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Inverness.

EASTER MONDAY: JOY AND JUBILATION - RECOG.

KYLE MACQUARRIE « » : I rise today to celebrate the upcoming Easter Monday, often called Bright Monday or Renewal Monday. It marks the second day of Bright Week, a weeklong celebration of life, love, and family. Bright Week is a time for jubilation and joy following the resurrection of Christ and ushering in the year's most fertile time with outdoor processions and great meals such as my absolute favourite - leftovers.

This time is marked by acts of hospitality and care, by visiting loved ones, sharing meals, and extending openness and fellowship to all. From kitchen parties to festivals, Nova Scotians love to celebrate and be together. This week is a wonderful time to do just that.

In recognition of these traditions, we affirm the many ways in which cultural and faith practices contribute to a more inclusive, united, and compassionate Nova Scotia. As Christians continue our Easter celebrations, I extend my sincere recognition and best wishes for a Bright Week filled with warmth, connection, and shared joy as Christ is risen.

Personally, today I am counting the hours, waiting to return home to my family, friends, and community.

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

HANSEN, SAGE AVA: UPCOMING BIRTHDAY - BEST WISHES

SUZY HANSEN « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize and amazing little girl, my daughter Sage Ava Hansen, whose birthday is coming up because she was born on May 2, 2017.

[Page 4464]

Sage was a big baby when she was born, and boy did she love to eat. She still loves her snacks. Sage enjoys playing basketball, reading, and playing with her friends. She is a brilliant and strong-minded little bug, a lot like her mother.

I am proud to stand in this House today to recognize her, and I would like all members of this House to help me wish Sage a happy early birthday.

THE SPEAKER « » : Happy early birthday.

The honourable member for Lunenburg.

JENNIFER COLLINS CLASSIC: HOCKEY TOURNAMENT - RECOG.

HON. SUSAN CORKUM-GREEK « » : Thank you, Speaker. I rise today to express my profound admiration and thanks to organizers of the Jennifer Collins Classic. This annual hockey tournament, originally known as the BURG Classic, started in 2013 when community members came together to raise money and spirits in support of Jennifer Collins, a local hockey mom left paralyzed following a devastating injury.

It has become the event of the year in Lunenburg. The arena is packed with crowds cheering their teams, tickets to the dance sell out in mere minutes, and people across the community bid up items on the silent auction.

Why? Because this organization continues to be there for local families and individuals facing life-altering circumstances. In fact, the group has raised and distributed more than half a million dollars, and they have added new events like a golf tournament and Battle of the BURGer.

It takes a lot of work to host these events, and that is really one of the most notable things about this group. Anchored by the extended Collins-Niford family and some other organizational rockstars - Lisa Tanner, I'm talking about you. They make it all so much fun that they are rarely at a loss for assistance.

I ask colleagues to please join me in cheering the good times and the great work of the Jennifer Collins Classic.

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

INT'L. CHILDREN'S BOOK DAY: APRIL 2^ND - RECOG.

LINA HAMID « » : Speaker, I rise to recognize International Children's Book Day, a global celebration held annually on the birthday of Hans Christian Andersen, to inspire a love of reading and to call attention to children's books.

[9:30 a.m.]

[Page 4465]

Literacy is the foundation of opportunity, sparking curiosity and empathy in our youngest citizens long before they ever step into the classroom. For Fairview-Clayton Park, we are incredibly fortunate to have Keshen Goodman Public Library just outside the constituency.

Keshan Goodman is more than just a building with books; it is a community heartbeat. It is a place where newcomers to Nova Scotia find their first stories in English, where parents gather for puppet shows and popcorn, and where the dedicated staff work tirelessly to ensure that every child, regardless of their background, can see themselves reflected on the page.

I ask all members of this House to join me in thanking the librarians and staff at Keshan Goodman library and all the public libraries around Nova Scotia for their commitment to our children's future. May we all take a moment today to remember the book that first captured our imagination and fueled our desire to build a better world.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Yarmouth.

SOPHIA: HOCKEY DREAMS - RECOG.

NICK HILTON « » : I rise today to share a story from Yarmouth that highlights the incredible generosity of community and the difference it can make in a young person's life. A young girl named Sophia has dreamed of playing hockey from the age of three. Like many parents, her mother Jessie worried about the cost, especially in a sport where the price of equipment can be a major barrier, but Sophia's determination never faded.

When she finally got on the ice, she fell in love with the game, and even more so when she stepped in the net as a goalie. Facing the high cost of gear, her mother shared her story online. What followed was extraordinary. The video reached people far and wide, and support began pouring in from individuals, corporations, and even the Utah Mammoth of the NHL.

Speaker, the story reminds us that the kindness and generosity of others can make a difference. As we see women's hockey continuing to grow across North America, Sophia now has her sights set on a future of her own in the game of hockey. A great deal of credit goes to the ambassadors like Allie Munroe of Yarmouth, who was a role model for all young women in our community.

I ask all the members of the House to join me in celebrating Sophia and her family, and the community that came together to support her.

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

WAGNER, JILLIAN: ONE IN EIGHT PODCAST - RECOG.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Jillian Wagner is a community builder. She might be best known for starting Atlantic Canada Swifties and arranging a number of community events that are also fundraisers, as well as Halifax Gals and Pals. I met her on the Halifax Cat Tour.

[Page 4466]

All of these are designed to connect people and create cohesion, enriching our collective culture and easing isolation, so its no surprise that she is sharing her experience with breast cancer. It took her 13 months to get a diagnosis, from September 2024 with concerning symptoms to the wait of eight weeks to get to her doctor. The referral to the breast clinic unfortunately was lost. She had to follow up. Along the way she was often dismissed as a young person experiencing cancer and people telling her not to worry.

She is currently recovering from her February 2026 mastectomy and she's got it all captured and her thoughts in One of Eight Podcast. It's a great podcast that gives voice to the experience of folks living with breast cancer, and particularly many younger folks. The Glamour article that I tabled also picked up that story.

I really want to thank Jillian Wagner for her community-building and her advocacy.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Queens.

CHANNEL WINE BAR: LOCAL RESTAURANT - RECOG.

HON. KIM MASLAND « » : I rise today to welcome a new business to Main Street in Liverpool: the Channel Wine Bar.

Opening in May by owners Stephanie and Peter Doggett, this new establishment brings a fresh approach to hospitality in Queens County. The Channel will empower staff, known as experienced hosts, to lead the guest experience independently and with professional pride. Stephanie and Peter have focused on creating a workplace culture rooted in mutual respect and a team-first mindset, providing a space where staff can grow their knowledge of wine and hospitality while offering residents and visitors a warm and attentive environment.

It is exciting to see new entrepreneurs investing in our downtown core and building a business from the ground up. I ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming Stephanie and Peter Doggett to the Liverpool business community and wishing them success with The Channel Wine Bar.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Glace Bay-Dominion.

THE PEN GUY, DUKE: LOCAL ICON - RECOG.

HON. JOHN WHITE « » : Speaker, if you work in an office in Glace Bay or Dominion, you've probably had a visit from Duke the Pen Guy. If you have, you know what a treat it really is. Duke is famous for popping into local workplaces with his friendly smile, quick wit, and a handful of pens that somehow always brighten your day. These aren't regular pens; they come with motivational messages and positive vibes, and he even personalizes them right on the spot. It's a simple gesture, but it means a lot. Duke brings more than pens; he brings joy, connection, and a little break in the day that leaves everyone feeling happy and smiling.

[Page 4467]

Around home, he's more than a pen guy; he's a reminder of the small-town kindness that makes Glace Bay-Dominion a special place. Thanks for everything you do, Duke.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Digby North. Sorry. You both stood up. (Laughter)

The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

WASHING THE FEET: CHRISTIAN TRADITION - RECOG.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : As we head in the Easter Triduum, I want to take a moment to recognize the practice of washing the feet that takes place in Christian churches around the world at the celebration of the Last Supper.

The Bible tells us that after celebrating Passover with his friends, Jesus washed his disciples' feet, making one of his last works a work of profound service and teaching. As he washed them, he said, "I have set you an example that you should do to others as I have done to you."

May we in this House take inspiration from this act and from the life of the rebel Jesus Christ, and practice radical compassion, peace, justice, and unconditional love for people and our planet.

I wish all Christians celebrating, a happy and transformational Easter season.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Digby-Annapolis.

RED CROSS DIGBY COUNTY: COMM. EFFORTS - THANKS

HON. JILL BALSER « » : I rise today to recognize the outstanding contributions of Jeannie-Ann and Bryan Underwood, along with Donna Bentham, in support of the Canadian Red Cross in Digby County.

For more than four years, this dedicated team has selflessly volunteered their time and resources to deliver medical and health equipment through the Red Cross Health Equipment Loan Program in Yarmouth to clients across Digby, including many requiring palliative care. Their efforts save families countless hours of travel, ensuring that patients have the equipment they need in the comfort of their own homes.

Jeannie-Ann, Bryan, and Donna have gone above and beyond, travelling as far as Bear River and Annapolis to deliver and pick up equipment, coordinating with local occupational therapists, and ensuring patients at the Digby General Hospital have the tools they need upon discharge. They also assist in collecting specialized equipment from facilities such as Tideview Terrace and transporting wheelchairs, mattresses, and other items to Dartmouth for recycling, all done on their own time and at their own expense. Their professionalism, generosity, and thoughtfulness have made a tangible difference in the lives of countless families and patients.

[Page 4468]

I ask that all members of this House join me in recognizing Jeannie-Ann, Bryan, and Donna for their exceptional volunteer service and dedication to the health and well-being of the community of Digby.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Hammonds Plains.

JACKS SKATE SHARPENING SHOP: LOCAL BUSINESS - RECOG.

RICK BURNS « » : I rise to acknowledge Hammonds Plains resident and young entrepreneur Jack Steeneveld, whose drive exemplifies Nova Scotia's spirit.

As the founder of JACKS Skate Sharpening Shop, Jack has built a growing business with affordable skate services and gear for local hockey and figure skaters. He has quickly learned essential skills like customer service, pricing, and marketing, creating savings options and earning trust with the sports community, all while balancing school and personal goals.

Jack's story highlights the importance of supporting youth-led businesses and fostering driven entrepreneurial spirit. His initiative shows that entrepreneurship thrives in our next generation and that when creative problem-solving is paired with passion, your life experience can bloom into future success.

I invite the members of the Legislature to congratulate Jack on his achievements and wish him continued success as he shapes his future and serves our community.

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

ABUNDANCE STORE: LOCAL BUSINESS - RECOG.

HON. TIMOTHY HALMAN « » : I rise today to recognize the Abundance Store.

The Abundance Store is a welcoming second-hand clothing boutique operated by the Elizabeth Fry Society of Mainland Nova Scotia. More than a place to shop, it is a space of opportunity and empowerment for women who have been involved in the criminal justice system.

Through this initiative, women are given the chance to build confidence, learn valuable life and employment skills, and take meaningful steps toward reintegration into their communities. The Abundance Store reinvests its proceeds directly into creating paid work opportunities for the women involved, ensuring its impact is both immediate and lasting.

[Page 4469]

That commitment speaks volumes, not only providing affordable clothing but creating real pathways forward. By supporting initiatives like the Abundance Store, we are helping to build a more inclusive, compassionate, and supportive community for everyone.

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

SUDDS, GAVIN/GINNISH, JAX: PROV. CHAMPS. - CONGRATS.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Speaker, I rise in my place to recognize two Cape Breton hockey players who actually play here. They claimed the provincial championship in the last week: Jax Ginnish and Gavin Sudds, both of Sydney, playing for the Halifax McDonalds. They were successful in winning the provincial championship this week. I know both families very well.

I rise in my place to recognize two fine young men and their families, and congratulate them on winning the provincial championship but also for the journey they're on. They're both excellent hockey players.

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

COBEQUID SPEED SKATING CLUB: LOCAL ORG. - RECOG.

HON. DAVE RITCEY « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize the incredible work of the Cobequid Speed Skating Club and to highlight an exciting event coming to our community this month.

The Cobequid Speed Skating Club is dedicated to promoting the dynamic sport of short-track speed skating while fostering a fun, inclusive environment for participants of all ages and abilities. From programs for beginners to advanced skills development, the club plays a vital role in encouraging physical activity, confidence, and community connection.

On April 19^th, our community will have the unique privilege of welcoming Canada's Olympic speed skating medalists as part of the Medals on Tour initiative. This special event will take place at the Legion Stadium in Truro and will include a public skate, as well as an opportunity for residents to hear first-hand from these inspiring athletes during a question-and-answer period.

Events like this not only celebrate athletic excellence but inspire the next generation of Nova Scotian athletes. They remind us of the power of sport to bring people together and strengthen our communities.

[Page 4470]

I would like to commend the Cobequid Speed Skating Club for their leadership and dedication. I encourage all members of the community to take part in what promises to be a memorable and inspiring day.

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

EAST PRESTON EASTER CLASSIC: BASKETBALL TOURN. - RECOG.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Speaker, with all the talk of Easter weekend, I rise to mark a lesser known, but very important, way in which the holiday is marked here in the HRM, and that's at the East Preston Easter Classic. This is a basketball tournament that has been going on for many years, which is hosted in East Preston but has fans spread out across Dartmouth.

Here in the NDP caucus, we have three families participating on different teams, so we'll all be there rooting our children on. It's an amazing way to come together over the holiday weekend. Sport does bring us together. Go Celtics!

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

BALAMORE FARMS: LOCAL FARM - RECOG.

TOM TAGGART « » : Speaker, I rise today to highlight and congratulate Balamore Farms, located in Great Village. Balamore Farms is owned and operated by Joe and Carolyn Cooper and their sons Robert, David, and William.

Balamore produces strawberries sold across Atlantic Canada and strawberry plants that are exported to the eastern United States. Additionally, Balamore operates the largest purebred beef herd east of Manitoba.

On March 21^st, Balamore held their 14^th annual Thickness Sells Bull and Commercial Heifers Sale, where they sold high-quality livestock to the tune of $1.1 million right there in Great Village, Nova Scotia.

I wish to thank the Cooper family and Balamore Farms for the role that they play in the economic prosperity of Colchester North.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Annapolis.

JACKSON, GORDON: LOCAL FARMER - RECOG.

DAVID BOWLBY « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize Gordie Jackson. Gordie is an important member of our community who constantly gives back.

A lifelong farmer, Gordie contributes to our community in a number of ways. His farm work is important for the local economy and for ensuring that our communities stay fed. This often means early mornings and long days of hard work.

[Page 4471]

In addition to this, he is instrumental in raising the next generation of farmers and community leaders through his involvement in 4-H. This program is fundamental in building future leaders by teaching responsibility and practical farming skills.

[9:45 a.m.]

Gordie's selfless work in Annapolis County is fundamental to helping maintain our community and building a better tomorrow. Please join me in thanking Gordie Jackson for his contributions to making our community a better place.

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

DAD: 63^RD BIRTHDAY - BEST WISHES

KRISTA GALLAGHER « » : I'm just going to rise very quickly and wish my dad a very happy 63^rd birthday today. He will be mortified that I have done this. But I have a really, really good dad, and my son has an even better grandfather. I want to wish him a happy birthday.

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

HIGGINS, PAUL: LOCAL ICON - RECOG.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, I rise today to thank Paul Higgins for his incredible generosity and kindness. Over the years Paul has donated - and this is no exaggeration - thousands of toys to so many organizations and individuals in our community.

His thoughtfulness has brought joy, comfort, and big smiles to so many children and families, especially during a time when a little extra kindness means everything. Because of him, children will experience moments of happiness, imagination, and hope that they will remember long after the wrapping paper is gone. His support truly reflects the spirit of community and reminds us how powerful giving can be.

I am personally deeply grateful for Paul's compassion and willingness to make a difference in the lives of so many.

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

GARDNER, RICHARD: ENTREPRENEUR OF THE YEAR AWARD RECIP. - CONGRATS

JULIE VANEXAN « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize Richard Gardner, recipient of the Annapolis Valley Chamber of Commerce's Entrepreneur of the Year Award.

[Page 4472]

As the owner of Caribbean Pot Jamaican Cuisine, Richard has brought vibrant flavours, culture, and community spirit to the Annapolis Valley. Through his hard work, passion, and entrepreneurial vision, he has built a business that not only serves exceptional food but also creates connection within our region.

This award is a well-deserved recognition of Richard's dedication and the positive impact his business has made locally. His success is an inspiration to aspiring entrepreneurs and a reminder of the important role small businesses play in strengthening our communities.

I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Richard Gardner on this outstanding achievement and in wishing him continued success.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Inverness.

SKYE GLEN & CENTREVILLE COMM. HALL: LOCAL INITS. - RECOG.

KYLE MACQUARRIE « » : I would like to take this moment to recognize the Skye Glen & Centreville Community Hall.

Nestled in the valley amongst the beautiful farms of Skye Glen and Centreville, this small but mighty community hall has been a gathering place for generations. It was originally a small schoolhouse until 1962, when a group of volunteers took it over and transformed it into the vibrant centre it is today.

The hall plays a quiet but vital role in strengthening social ties and preserving local traditions, keeping its volunteers busy with regular events such as card games and fitness classes. It's frequently used for private gatherings and is home to a monthly milling frolic, keeping alive the traditions of our Gaelic ancestors.

Speaker, Skye Glen & Centreville Community Hall reminds us that when volunteers work in community, they are making life better. I'm proud to recognize them here today.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cape Breton East.

CBU: KEHOE FORUM REOPENING - CONGRATS.

HON. BRIAN COMER « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize a tremendous milestone for Cape Breton University and our entire community, the grand opening of Kehoe Forum this past January. I was very pleased to attend the first game in this revitalized facility to see first-hand the excitement it generated. The first game was also the official puck drop of the IIHF U18 Women's World Championship, highlighting the calibre of events this facility can host.

[Page 4473]

This project represents what strong partnerships can accomplish: provincial government investment, incredible momentum created by the Kraft Hockeyville win, and the dedication of the Blizzard hockey community all helped make this transformation possible. Today, the Kehoe Forum stands not only as a modern accessible arena but an important home for women's hockey in Canada and a hub for community wellness, sport, and opportunity. Facilities like this strengthen our community, support our athletes, and inspire the next generation to pursue their goals both on and off the ice. Congratulations.

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

OAKE, BAILEY: PLAY GROUP CREATION - THANKS

DIANNE TIMMINS: Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate an amazing mom, Bailey Oake, for her initiative in creating a parent, baby, and tot play group at the Big Bras d'Or Community Hall.

Seeing a need in the community, Bailey brought people together by creating a welcoming space for families with young children to connect and support one another. This play group offers something for everyone, with activities for children, including play time and circle time, as well as an opportunity for parents and caregivers to gather over tea, coffee, and snacks.

Beyond the weekly activity, Bailey has helped foster friendship among families at a similar stage of life. These are connections that will grow as these children head to school together and result in lasting relationships. It is a grassroots effort like this that strengthens our rural communities and supports young families.

I ask all members of the House to join me in thanking Bailey Oake for her leadership and commitment in the community connection.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Antigonish.

MULLALLY, DAME SARAH: ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY APPOINTMENT - CONGRATS.

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : Today I rise to congratulate Dame Sarah Mullally, who was installed as the 106^th Archbishop of Canterbury on March 25^th.

While I am not Anglican, I think any woman who breaks a 1,400-year glass ceiling should be celebrated.

She is the first woman to lead the Church of England in its 1,400-year history, and of note, Dame Sarah Mullally is a nurse - even better. She is the former Chief Nursing Officer for England. She describes herself as a feminist, she is inclusive, and it's an incredibly important appointment. I think it will change the face of the Anglican Church.

[Page 4474]

Congratulations to Dame Sarah Mullally.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Clare.

COMEAU, JEAN-CLAUDE: LOCAL BUSINESSMAN - RECOG.

RYAN ROBICHAUD: I rise today to acknowledge Jean-Claude Comeau, owner of JC's Precision Machine Works, for all his hard work and dedication serving the commercial fishing fleet of southwest Nova Scotia.

Jean-Claude, who is a machinist by trade, has a supply, retail, and service store conveniently located directly on the wharf in Meteghan. He offers 24/7 mobile machine repairs, marine hydraulic services, and millwright machining services. Not only does his passion for marine hydraulics make him great at his job, but his desire to help others and his reliability make him one of the best.

Congratulations, Jean-Claude, on all your success, and here's to many more years in business.

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

CONNOLLY, AINSLEE/DOIRON, CARRIE: PROV. CH'SHIP. - CONGRATS.

HON. GREG MORROW « » : I rise today to recognize two hockey players from Guysborough-Tracadie for winning the Nova Scotia U18 AAA Female Hockey Championship as part of the Northern Selects hockey team based in Pictou.

Ainslee Connolly of Guysborough Intervale and Carrie Doiron of Boylston are both in their first full year with the Selects. Both control the blue line.

Even before this season, Carrie spent parts of the previous two seasons with the Selects as an under-ager, playing at the 2024 National Championship - the Esso Cup - and the 2025 Atlantic Championship.

Ainslee had the biggest goal and biggest moment of her Minor Hockey career during double overtime in the fifth and deciding game in the Select's first round series against the Greenfoot Capitals. Ainslee took a pass at the blue line, walked in, labelled a shot top corner to send the Selects to the provincial final against the Cape Breton Lynx, a series they won in three straight games in Membertou.

They advanced to Atlantics in Charlottetown this weekend. We are all so excited, not just for Ainslee but her parents Edward and Corry, who are incredibly proud.

I'm a little partial and a little extra thankful for Ainslee's huge goal because it extended the last season for my daughter, Kate, who was in her final year of minor hockey.

[Page 4475]

I ask the House to please join me in congratulating Ainslee, Carrie, Kate, and their Northern Select teammates on winning the Provincial Championship and wishing them the best of luck at the Atlantic Championship in Charlottetown, starting today, as they continue to work toward their goal of advancing to the 2026 Esso Cup.

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

COBS BREAD: LOCAL BUSINESS - RECOG.

HON. TIMOTHY HALMAN « » : I'd like to take a moment to recognize a wonderful local business in Dartmouth East, COBS Bread.

COBS Bread is known for baking fresh products every single day, offering everything from their famous cinnamon buns and hot cross buns to dinner rolls, cheesy pull-apart bread, and pizza croissants. It's the kind of place where you can truly taste the difference that fresh makes. It's a carb paradise.

What makes this business even more special is their commitment to the community. During their month-long "Doughnation" fundraiser, COBS Bread in Dartmouth East raised more than $5,000 in support of the Mental Health Foundation of Nova Scotia, an incredible contribution that will make a real difference.

This is what local businesses are all about: giving back and strengthening the communities they're a part of.

I'd like to extend my sincere thank you to COBS Bread for their good work and good food in our community.

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

PALMER, MOLLY: DAUGHTER - RECOG.

CHRIS PALMER « » : I rise again to speak about another one of my children. This is the last one. (Laughter) I can tell you, this is the last one. Like the member from Halifax Needham, we have great pride in our children, as we all do. I want to talk about our second daughter, Molly, today.

Molly: She's tall, she's beautiful, she's kind, she's caring, like her mother. She's very artistic. She has a kind heart. She has a passion for people. She's just finishing her second degree at Saint Mary's University in psychology, and she wants to go into social work. She works with young people on university campuses in ministry and youth ministry. I'm just so proud of the woman that she's become.

Our families and our children - they've been there long before we've been in this House, and they're going to be around long after we leave this House - just a reminder to us all what's really important. As we all have pride in our children and our families, I just want to extend to them that we love them all so much. I love my children, Speaker. (Applause)

[Page 4476]

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

DERMAENVY SKINCARE: 10 YRS. IN BUS. - CONGRATS.

TIM OUTHIT « » : I rise today to congratulate Bedford's DermaEnvy Skincare for 10 years of care in Atlantic Canada. Cohen MacInnis, who is originally from Antigonish, now has 10 clinics across Atlantic Canada and into Ontario.

For a decade these clinics have focused on medical aesthetics. As we enter Daffodil Month, I want to bring special focus to DermaEnvy's program of free laser removal of radiation tattoo markers for breast cancer survivors. To date, the program has provided treatment for nearly 120 breast cancer survivors at no cost.

They also support the 2SLGBTQIA+ community by offering discounted laser hair removal treatments for patients undergoing gender transition. This program has allowed patients to save more than $109,000 in gender-affirming care so far.

Later this year DermaEnvy will be opening their 11th clinic. The new Mill Cove, Bedford location will be part of a family of clinics that are involved in a number of local initiatives such as community fundraisers, silent auctions, and charitable organizations.

I ask all member of this Legislature to join me as we congratulate them for 10 years of service and support, and wish them the very best as they continue to grow across our region.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Member for Hammonds Plains-Lucasville.

C.B. CHARITABLE ASSOC. OF HFX.: 75^TH ANNIV. - CONGRATS.

RICK BURNS « » : Today I rise to recognize the Cape Breton Charitable Association of Halifax on its 75^th anniversary. A true testament to the power of community-minded volunteers, this grassroots organization has flourished through the sheer will of its members.

The association's dances are a highlight of our cultural calendar. My wife, Starla, and I organize the adult dances, while musician Brad Reid coordinates the all-age dances, ensuring everyone can enjoy a Cape Breton ceilidh. These events are legendary for making connections. Even the member from Inverness met his wife at one many years ago.

Led by President Tony Mombourquette of Lucasville, the club has hosted world class musicians including Howie MacDonald, Mac Morin, Troy McGillivray, Wendy MacIsaac, Andrea Beaton, Mairi Rankin, Kyle MacDonald, to name a few. I ask members to congratulate the association for 75 years of ensuring the spirit of the Island thrives in Halifax.

[Page 4477]

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

BADDECK NORDIC CLUB: LOCAL ORG. - RECOG.

DIANNE TIMMINS: I rise today to recognize the incredible work of the Baddeck Nordic Club, a community-driven organization formed in 2022 that is helping people at all ages embrace winter on our beautiful island.

The Nordic Club is located in the Baddeck area, where our landscape is beautiful all year round. Through cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, they are encouraging both residents and visitors to get outside, stay active, and experience the natural beauty of the surroundings.

The club provides access to groomed and well-marked trails in the Big Baddeck area, offering skill-building opportunities, and hosting social events that bring people together. Their work also supports trail development and maintenance, ensuring safe and enjoyable experiences for everyone, regardless of ability.

[10:00 a.m.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. The time for Statements by Members has expired.

We will now move on to Orders of the Day, Oral Questions Put by Members to Ministers. The time is 10 o'clock and we will finish at 10:50 a.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS PUT BY MEMBERS TO MINISTERS

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader. (Laughter) I apologize. Unfortunately, I am not perfect.

The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.

DOE: ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES FOR NSP MISSED - EXPLAIN

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : This week Nova Scotia Power failed to meet their reliability standards for the ninth year in a row. This isn't surprising to Nova Scotians who are very familiar with paying high bills for bad service. What's surprising to people is just how little the Energy Minister is doing to hold this company accountable.

The Nova Scotia Energy Board has been very clear about what they can and can't do. When the Premier made himself the Energy Minister people expected he would take these issues seriously.

[Page 4478]

Will the Premier launch a full review of the operation and ownership of Nova Scotia Power - yes or no?

HON. TIM HOUSTON » : All Nova Scotians understand the difficulties with Nova Scotia Power, their unreliable service, the costs of the power, the bills. It's a bad situation for all Nova Scotians.

The Nova Scotia Energy Board is independent, the member knows that. The Nova Scotia Energy Board has the tools they need. They can fine Nova Scotia Power, I urge them to do that. I just ask that we respect the independence of that board. I'm hopeful that they will do their job and hold Nova Scotia Power to account, they have the tools they need.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Speaker, the Energy Minister wants Nova Scotians to believe that he has no role in holding Nova Scotia Power to account but the Nova Scotia Energy Board was clear: they have a role but government also has a role.

The minister would like us to believe that competition is the answer to all of the problems with Nova Scotia Power and that's interesting because his government doesn't seem to believe in competition when it comes to health care spending. In fact, the Auditor General found that 99 percent of procurement spending contracts in a single year were not done on a competitive basis.

Why does the Premier think that competition is good to lower energy prices but not for bidding on billion-dollar health care projects?

TIM HOUSTON « » : I could speak at length on the importance of competition in the energy market, giving consumers the choice. Having some competition for Nova Scotia Power is incredibly important.

We've spoken at length as well on the procurements in health care. We've made incredible progress in health care, we've moved very fast. Many times there's only one vendor in health care - it's very specialized. But we've got the job done in health care. There's more work to be done but we're moving the needle on that, and we will continue to do that. We put patients first. We're looking for progress. We put progress over process, Speaker. We will continue to do that. We'll always put the patient first in moving health care forward.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : In fact, this government misused alternative procurement where there were other vendors. At any rate, Nova Scotia Power failed to meet their target on the percentage of bills they estimate and competition isn't going to fix it. Where's the progress in that?

In 2025, almost 40 percent - 37.8 percent - of customer bills were estimated. That's supposed to be 2 percent. The minister is standing back and letting the Nova Scotia Energy Board put in place weak penalties for missed targets. People expect more. They want the problem fixed so their bills aren't overestimated in the first place.

[Page 4479]

Why won't the Energy Minister take this seriously, get us some progress, put regulations in place, and protect consumers?

TIM HOUSTON « » : The solution here is competition for Nova Scotia Power, we know that. We've announced the first steps for competition with renewal on that project, it's a great project. Natural gas, explore your own natural gas, develop your own natural gas, we'll create more competition. That's a good thing as well. We'll continue to push on that.

I know the member's boss, Mr. Avi Lewis, is against oil and gas, Speaker. I know the member has to toe the line for her boss, but I will toe the line for Nova Scotians, I will put Nova Scotians first. We will push for competition with Nova Scotia Power.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Leader of the Liberal Party.

PREM.: CONCERNS RE CASINO OPERATIONS - ADDRESS

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : The government recently announced plans to move the casino from Halifax to Dartmouth Crossing while extending its contract to Great Canadian Entertainment, a company that, despite its name, is American-owned. This government often speaks about supporting Canadian businesses when possible. In this case, they had options. In P.E.I., casino operations are run by the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, and I'll table a FOIPOP showing that Glooscap First Nation formally expressed interest in taking over operations in 2024.

Why did the Premier choose an American company over local and Indigenous partners with proven experience?

HON. TIM HOUSTON (The Premier) « » : This is actually a case where we didn't choose. The contract was there. The provider - I'm not sure who signed that contract, but it was probably one of these two parties over here. The contract existed. That operator had first right of refusal, and we have to honour these contracts that are in place. That's all we've done. We look forward to moving forward.

IAIN RANKIN « » : There are always options to extend. The contract came to an end, but this government is allergic to competition. The government is also proposing to exempt casinos from paying the deed transfer tax, a tax that everyday Nova Scotians have to pay when they buy a home. Once again, we're seeing a lack of transparency with no clear explanation from government as to why this change is being made.

I ask the Premier « » : Why is he seemingly choosing to give a tax break to an American casino that benefits a New York hedge fund while Nova Scotians are still expected to pay their fair share?

[Page 4480]

THE PREMIER « » : It's a contract in place. They had a first right of refusal. I think it's a really positive thing for the city and for the province to move the casino. It's incredibly important waterfront land there that can be very valuable. Lots of purposes on that. We're just trying to move things forward. The contract was in place. We're honouring the contract. That's a good thing for governments to do.

IAIN RANKIN « » : The relocation of the Halifax casino will leave behind a prime piece of land on the waterfront here. As part of the deal, the Province will purchase the current site from Great Canadian Entertainment for just $1 and then turn around and sell that land. We've already seen valuable waterfront properties handed over to a developer after cancelling a competitive process. I'll table that.

Will the Premier commit today that this site will go through a fair, open, and transparent process so Nova Scotians can have confidence that it's being developed with the public interest?

THE PREMIER « » : See how that member just went whistling by this deal. We bought it for $1. It's incredibly valuable. Of course, there will be a process. It's good for the city, it's good for Nova Scotia. I'm glad to see the member bringing some attention to it, but he can put it in another vein. It's a very positive situation that's happening. It's a good thing for Nova Scotians.

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

DOE: SKYROCKETING POWER BILLS AND LACK OF SECURITY - REVIEW

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : I'm going to try again. Nova Scotians will be paying $600 more for power than when this government was first elected once the rate increase goes through. People are being double- and triple-billed. Thousands have had their personal information stolen. Forty-six thousand people were kicked off of HARP by this government, and there's no affordable energy rate program for the hundreds of thousands who need it. This government won't even commit to reviewing how Nova Scotia Power operates.

What does the Energy Minister intend to do to help people afford their energy today?

HON. TIM HOUSTON « » : There's an independent board. They review Nova Scotia Power very carefully. We made a detailed submission on this particular rate increase. I wish they would have followed the evidence we put forward. They made their own decision. They are independent. It's important to recognize the independence of that board. That member is on the record of saying that as well. The member knows it's true.

We are concerned about affordability issues. That's why we just passed a budget that has tax decreases. At a time when everyone else is increasing property taxes and increasing taxes, we are holding the line. There are 19 billion reasons that member could have found it within themself to support the budget and support Nova Scotians. They chose not to for partisan purposes.

[Page 4481]

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : You can recognize the independence of the board, and you can help people. Nova Scotians expect the government to do what they can to help people navigate difficult times.

This Premier made himself the Energy Minister and is now responsible for making sure Nova Scotia Power serves the people of this province. We have been urging this government to start with a full review of how the company is allowed to operate and the ownership structure. Nova Scotians don't trust this company, and after massive, secretive spending and cruel cuts in this budget - that includes tax increases, by the way - they're also losing trust in this government.

What real action will this government take in this Legislature to hold this company accountable?

TIM HOUSTON « » : It's not practical to have a discussion about buying this utility back and it's not necessary, to be honest. I know the member is an advocate for that. I know the member is an advocate for taking taxpayer money and subsidizing rates. I don't know where that money would come from, Speaker. It doesn't exist.

We are focusing on a number of affordability measures. The School Lunch Program is helping a lot of families. Almost $30 million in the Seniors Care Grant is helping seniors. The tax relief is broad. It helps Nova Scotians. We do what we can. When faced with opportunity, we do what we can. There are challenges, for sure. I think increasing competition for Nova Scotia Power is incredible. We need to develop natural gas.

I know the member's going to be beholden to her new boss, but I hope she can find a way to support Nova Scotians.

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

PREM.: COST OF HOUSING - ADDRESS

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Speaker, let's talk about help. Let's talk about housing. I want to ask the Premier about the cost of housing in this province. Building more luxury condos that no one can afford is not going to help. A new report looked at how much money someone needs to make to buy a home, and in Halifax, that number is $120,850 a year. That's $51,000 more than the median income in our province. No wonder so many young people worry they'll never own a home, and now more people are leaving - not because they want to, but because they feel they have no choice.

How can the Premier say he's focused on Nova Scotia's future when young people in this province can't even dream of buying a home?

[Page 4482]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Housing.

HON. JOHN WHITE « » : I'm happy to get up and speak about housing. I was waiting for some questions. I hope I get a bunch today, to be honest with you.

Listen, when it comes to housing, the reports that the member is reading from are also talking about the ground-level spread. We need more houses that people can buy. That's what we need. The SPAs are exactly that opportunity for people to buy homes. When you think about this province, we just invested into a second - not the first, the second - homebuyer program, and in less than two months there have been 22 approved applications, with 12 gone through already. Let's talk about those 12 families in my next round.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : The facts are the facts. After five years of giving this government the benefit of the doubt around lowering housing costs, there is still almost no housing that people can easily afford in this province.

The same report shows that the average asking price for a home in Halifax jumped more than $13,000 in a single month, from January to February of this year. That's the second-highest increase in the country, behind Montréal. This is happening on this government's watch. Young Nova Scotians trying to buy their first home cannot keep up.

Will the Premier take real action so there are homes in this province that people can actually afford?

JOHN WHITE « » : I'm going to read some figures, because the facts are the facts, but actually, pictures speak more than words. Just drive across one of the bridges and look at the number of cranes in the city. The construction has never been like this before.

Speaker, want to hear some facts? While we were cutting red tape and increasing supply, we provided support and reactivated the construction sector that was shut down solidly. That's high-paying construction jobs that were gone because construction was shut down in this province under the watch of the two Opposition parties.

[10:15 a.m.]

Speaker, we have 68,000 housing units committed right now. We have two home buyer programs [inaudible], 36 percent housing start. Vacancy rates have more than doubled. Affordable vacancy rates, which the member likes to speak about, have doubled.

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

AMH: INVERNESS COMM. CONCERNS - ADDRESS

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : My question is for the Minister of Addictions and Mental Health. In January, more than 300 people gathered in a fire hall in Inverness because they are deeply worried about the drug crisis in their community. They spoke openly about the gaps in care, and they were clear in their ask. Overnight detox services are needed in Cape Breton. Right now, when someone finally reaches that moment where they are ready to seek help, they are too often told they have to travel to Halifax to get it.

[Page 4483]

At a time when every barrier matters, why is this government still asking Cape Bretoners to leave their families to access addiction treatment?

HON. BRIAN COMER « » : We invest over $60 million a year in addiction services across the province. Certainly there's some fantastic work being done in Cape Breton at places like Talbot House, the new recovery support centre in North Sydney, where folks can just walk in and get really high-quality services from a collaborative health care team. We know there's more that can be done, and we're certainly continuing to work on that file.

DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : I would argue that it's so important that they have it in Inverness and surrounding community. You can't even access it at the regional hospital right now. Last July, in-patient withdrawal management beds at the Cape Breton Regional Hospital were forced to close due to staffing shortages, leaving people in crisis to rely on an emergency department instead of receiving specialized care that they needed. We were told in January that a new physician would be recruited with the hope that they would be in place by the end of the month. Families need to know that help will be there when they need it the most.

Can the minister provide a clear update today? Is that physician now in place? When will in-patient detox beds be fully restored so that Cape Bretoners can access care close to home?

BRIAN COMER « » : This is a really important issue for folks in Cape Breton, Speaker. That clinician has been hired. The onboarding process is under way. That being said, anyone who needs emergency detox services can go to the emergency department and be safely treated in a hospital bed at any point in time. I encourage folks to do so. In the event of a crisis, certainly call 911. There will be supports available. We're certainly continuing to do much work on this file.

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

FTB: LACK OF FIN. GUARDRAILS - EXPLAIN

LISA LACHANCE « » : Speaker, amidst the chaos of this budget, we're seeing what this government's priorities are: making decisions behind closed doors and ignoring financial guardrails that are there for a reason. Nova Scotians need a government they can trust to take care of their money.

[Page 4484]

To set the stage for the minister to use his talking points: Can the minister explain why he thinks it's a good idea to ignore financial guardrails as well as the thousands of Nova Scotians raising concerns about this budget?

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : Speaker, we're very aware of the financial guardrails, and we face a dilemma of meeting the basic needs of Nova Scotians at the same time that we inherited a deficit in care, a deficit in beds in hospitals, a deficit in staff in hospitals, a deficit in staff in seniors and long-term care homes. We inherited a lack of new construction in schools, in seniors and long-term care homes, in hospitals, in many different areas. We are working hard to meet those deficits, to meet those needs. One of the sets of guardrails that weighs heavy on us is the responsibility we have to Nova Scotians to meet the basic needs of affordability of health care. We will continue to work hard to meet those needs.

LISA LACHANCE « » : This government's erratic spending has gotten us into a historic deficit and doubled our net debt. Now the minister has no money for a variety of things: student bus passes, graduate student scholarships, the brain repair centre at Dalhousie University, or arts programs that communities rely on. There were no such limits for Think Research when they got a contract for $50 million, I think for just a year, after Conservative insider Jenni Byrne lobbied this government.

Can the minister explain why he'll rush money out the door for Conservative friends but won't find money to finance these programs?

JOHN LOHR « » : When we came into government, the funding through CCTH for arts was $51 million a year. It went up to $74 million a year last year, now down to $66 million this year.

We have supported the arts to historic levels in this province and we are continuing to support the arts; $66 million is a lot of money in my books. That is a considerable investment. We are very proud of our arts, and we remain supportive of the arts in Nova Scotia.

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

CCTH: CANNING KITCHEN PARTY CONCERTS SLASHED - ADDRESS

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : My question is for the Minister of Communities, Culture, Tourism and Heritage. The non-profit Music in Communities runs Canning Kitchen Party concerts in the park in Canning all summer long. This is a great boost to the village. The cafés and shops up and down Main Street see more traffic as visitors extend their Valley day trip with some great live music.

This year, the businesses will take a hit because this government's budget cuts to arts and culture means they can do only half as many concerts. Speaker, rural communities count on the summer season to get them through the year.

[Page 4485]

What does the minister say to the businesses that will have to get by on less, thanks to these cuts?

HON. DAVE RITCEY « » : We value those businesses, as we do with the arts. That's why we're continuing to invest $66 million in the arts and culture sector.

We'll continue to work with those community members, organizations and individuals as we move forward. We'll continue to listen, continue to speak, and continue to invest in our arts and culture sector.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : The Canning Kitchen Party meant jobs for young people in rural communities. They hire a student to help run the concerts, they give up-and-coming artists a chance to perform, a valuable stepping-stone to artists launching careers as musicians.

It would be great to have more events like this in communities all over the province, but instead, the government is cutting back. No matter what the minister says, a cut is a cut, and it is damaging and damaging.

Where does the minister expect young people to find job opportunities to build their careers if they keep cutting funding?

DAVE RITCEY « » : We are investing over $100 million in my department this year. Strategic investments that over the last five years included $188 million in infrastructure - rinks, trails, rec centres, community centres and arts centres; Mulgrave Road Theatre $2.3 million; Chester Playhouse over $600,000, the deCoste Centre $6.6 million.

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

DOJ: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN SPENDING DECISIONS - ADDRESS

HON. BECKY DRUHAN « » : My question is for the Minister of Justice. The Auditor General has raised repeated concerns about government's use of alternative procurement and additional appropriations, pointing to reduced transparency and weak oversight around how public money is committed and spent.

If government spending decisions involve private, equity-backed firms with layered or offshore financial structures, transparency is even harder to achieve because ownership and financial interests can be difficult to trace. When personal financial interests can also be held in offshore accounts and other complex structures, the perception of undisclosed benefits to MLAs can undermine public confidence.

My question to the minister is: Is he satisfied that Nova Scotia's current conflict of interest framework adequately captures indirect and complex financial interests or does he acknowledge that it may not fully reflect how assets are held in today's economy?

[Page 4486]

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

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : Certainly we feel there is a very robust process in place in Nova Scotia for alternative procurement. It's for specialized, exceptional practices. One of those things in particular is around health and social services for vital public services - and certainly we've seen that. In the audit from the Auditor General, there were no issues with the vendors selected or the projects pursued, and there were no real or perceived conflicts of interest noted in that audit.

BECKY DRUHAN « » : Thank you, Speaker, but my question wasn't about procurement, it was about conflict of interest. Nova Scotians expect that when decisions are made about how public money is spent, those decisions are free from both real and perceived conflicts of interest.

Even where rules are technically followed, financial interests held through offshore or layered structures can make it difficult to determine whether a decision could result in personal benefit. Blind trusts may limit control, but they do not eliminate underlying economic interests, or the perception of it. Nova Scotians should not need a forensic accountant to understand whether their elected officials may benefit from government decisions.

My question to the minister is: Will the minister commit to reviewing a conflict of interest regime to ensure it requires sufficient disclosure, scrutiny and safeguards, where an MLA's financial interests are held through offshore accounts or other complex structures, so Nova Scotians can . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. Order. Order. Thank you. I try to give everybody a little half a second, but.

The honourable Minister of Health and Wellness.

MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : I know that in terms of all the departments, there's a regular review of the procurement processes. We have a Conflict of Interest Commissioner in this province. We trust the work of that individual. We trust the work of the office. We trust that people through government are looking at best interests.

There are times that we need to use alternative procurement, and we do that mindfully and carefully. It only accounts for 10 percent of the procurement that happens, in health in particular. We want to be above board. Nova Scotians have seen an excellent return in terms of the alternative procurement investments that we've made. We will continue to use it as a valuable tool in our procurement process.

THE SPEAKER « » : the honourable member for Halifax Armdale.

DHW: MISSED ER TARGETS - ADDRESS

[Page 4487]

ROD WILSON « » : Good morning, Speaker. Five years in, this government is still not meeting its own emergency room targets. In some cases, they're getting worse. According to the government's own report, Action for Health, released last month, there are three major areas of concern: More people are waiting too long when they visit an emergency department; more people are waiting too long for EHS when they call 911; and more paramedic crews are waiting too long to offload patients at ERs.

Can the minister explain to Nova Scotians why this government is not meeting its own targets for ER services after five years.

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : I think there are a lot of positive stories. We're moving in the right direction. Perhaps targets are not always met, but we are trending in the right direction. We have seen improvement in wait times in our emergency rooms. Those folks who wait, we know it's frustrating. There are other ways for them to seek care. Looking at urgent treatment centres, looking at virtual emergency rooms. Folks who wait the longest generally have low triage scores.

We understand it's frustrating, which is why we've created 70,000 appointments per month for people to be triaged to, in order to access care. We've reduced response times. There are actually six vacancies at EHS, which is an incredible feat, considering the workforce deficit that we were left with from the former government.

ROD WILSON « » : I would suggest virtual care is not emergency care. This is agreed on by the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. You can't reduce a fractured leg with an iPad. This lack of progress is having a real impact on Nova Scotians. They can't get the care when they need it.

Last year, 13 rural emergency departments were closed more often than when this government was first elected. This means, as I've said before, people have to do an ER scavenger hunt to find care when they need it, leading to delays in care. What is the government doing to address this serious gap in ER care, particularly in rural Nova Scotia communities held by many Progressive Conservative members?

MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : I think it's really important to understand that the past is not the future. We have an integrated health care system, and all the time improving the ways in which patients are able to move throughout the system. Nobody is asking somebody with a fracture to move on an iPad. It's ridiculous to even consider that. But what it does, is the people who need other episodic care, they can now go to a pharmacy primary care clinic. They can go to an urgent treatment centre. They can be seen through virtual care. They can be seen through primary care - 94 percent of Nova Scotians are attached to a primary care provider.

Emergency rooms are for emergencies. We start emergency care the minute you phone 911. The dispatchers are very, very skilled and able to support individuals. No one should be afraid to present to emergency departments if required.

[Page 4488]

[10:30 p.m.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable member for Fairview-Clayton Park.

LINA HAMID « » : The Auditor General just highlighted this government's reckless approach to public money. This government created a historic deficit and spent billions of dollars outside the budget.

They managed to turn a $300,000 contract into a $63 million contract, yet they're making cruel cuts to countless programs that our youth depend on, like A Place to Belong, Hope Blooms, and LOVE Nova Scotia, all without a youth advocate to stand up for them.

My question is for the Minister responsible for Youth: Why is this government leaving young people behind?

HON. LEAH MARTIN » : We have our Office of Youth en route, and I appreciate the focused energy there. All across government, every single department has had the benefit of travelling this province and engaging and listening to our youth. What I'm hearing from our youth - of course, along with the things that we know and are working on around affordability - is around how youth want to be engaged in the future and how youth want to take their place in some of these new and innovative sectors, like energy and natural resources, and the future of our province.

As we continue to listen to our youth, engage with our youth, and help support our youth, we are breaking down doors, making it easier for them to see themselves taking spaces in the future of our province.

LINA HAMID « » : Youth in this province can't get a break. We're talking about cuts to programs like A Place to Belong, Hope Blooms, and LOVE Nova Scotia. This government has cut a total of $9 million from youth programs and outreach. They cut the Artists in Schools program, which gets kids interested in and inspired by arts - and this is not referring to art teachers.

They have eliminated the hugely popular transit program, which addresses affordability - as the minister just mentioned is important to them - that helped kids get to school, work, and social activities.

This government has spent beyond their means, and now our kids are paying the price. Why is this government taking away opportunities for kids in their classrooms and in their communities?

LEAH MARTIN « » : Focusing in on a few of the reductions or a few of the changes is one way to look at it, but the way we see it, we are maximizing our opportunities for our youth by ensuring that the money is going as far and as fast as it possibly can right now.

[Page 4489]

We've got tight times across our nation. There are international pressures, and we have to make sure that we are setting up and planning for the future, not just looking at today but looking at tomorrow and the future of our province.

It's not necessarily an overnight fix to fix affordability or to fix health care, but we are absolutely working on it so that our future - our youth who are going to be leading us into the next generation are prepared and set up for the best chance of success.

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

EECD: CHILD CARE PROVIDERS STRUGGLING - ADDRESS

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Daycare in Kingston was facing such serious financial pressure that they believed they had no choice but to raise fees on families. The Province stepped in at the last minute with additional funding.

No operator who is doing their best to provide quality of care in the community should be put into that position. Child care providers are partners in delivering public service, yet this government continues to point fingers at Ottawa instead of stepping up themselves.

Why is the government forcing child care operators to the brink before offering support instead of making the necessary provincial investments up front so centres across Nova Scotia can deliver the affordable care families were promised?

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : I want to thank the department and this government for stepping up and supporting that local daycare centre. That's what we do. That's what a compassionate government does.

In fairness to the member, we're not just pointing fingers at the federal government; we are pointing fingers at the previous Liberal government that signed this original deal and didn't take into account the future costs.

I am proud of the work that we've done on child care. We've met our 9,500 seats - on average 1,200 - and we have brought pension and benefits to all those workers right across the province.

DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : He was a Cabinet minister at the table when we signed the agreement, and the government has celebrated that deal dozens of times, opening centres all over the province. I was there with him at CBU when he celebrated that deal and announced the new child care centre.

This week the province missed its own timeline to deliver $10-a-day child care and now we're seeing reactive one-off funding to prevent fee increases after operators sounded the alarm.

[Page 4490]

Child care providers across the province are facing rising costs, staffing pressures, and uncertainty every single day.

Why are so many centres under the same strain when this government stops managing crises case by case and finally puts stable provincial funding on the table so operators aren't left wondering if they can keep the doors open and keep fees affordable for families?

BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Some people would say that I saw the light, Speaker. I will say that every single MP in this province is Liberal and that member has access to every single one of them.

That member signed the contract. At the time he may have thought it was a good contract for the current moment, which a lot of us did, but nobody took into account the inflation that was going to happen - 50 percent inflationary costs since that contract was signed.

Speaker, what I would encourage the member to do is not just stand here in this House and ask questions, but ask his fellow MPs, ask the Prime Minister, ask the minister, when he goes up to Ottawa three or four times a year, to advocate for Nova Scotians.

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

PCS: BACK-TO-OFFICE MANDATE CREATING TRAFFIC PROBLEMS - ADDRESS

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Traffic is about to get a whole lot worse. April 20^th, civil servants are heading back to the office because this government is ending the remote and flexible work arrangements.

Halifax is already the third-worst in Canada for traffic congestion. This change will put hundreds, maybe thousands, more cars on the road. Commuting in Halifax is already brutal.

My question is for the Minister of the Public Service Commission: Why punish workers with flexible work arrangements and make traffic even worse than it already is?

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Public Works.

HON. FRED TILLEY » : Everyone knows that congestion is frustrating for commuters, frustrating for everyone. That's why this government, the first government in the history of Atlantic Canada - the history of Canada - was the government to set up a Regional Transportation Plan. The work that is being undertaken right now by Link Nova Scotia, looking at short-, medium- and long-term goals to improve congestion in this area is second to none.

[Page 4491]

I am so proud of the team and we're working strongly with HRM partners and others to improve congestion. I'll have more to say.

KENDRA COOMBES « » : With respect, Speaker, I'm asking about workers, some who were hired with some flexible work arrangements. This government is already making cruel cuts to thousands of Public Service jobs, taking away their livelihoods and hurting their families. Now it's forcing workers back to the office with no clear benefit to services. You have to wonder if this is really about improving our public service or about pushing people to quit instead of laying them off.

Is the minister using this policy to shrink the workforce? Where is the evidence that this will make life better for Nova Scotians?

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of the Public Service Commission.

HON. TWILA GROSSE « » : With regard to flexibility, flexibility will continue to exist where operationally appropriate. Working together in person strengthens collaboration, teamwork, mentorship, and connection.

The Public Service Commission appreciates and values the work of the civil servants. This directive impacts 25 percent of the civil service.

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

DFA: SCOTIAN SHORES FUNDING CUT - ADDRESS

KRISTA GALLAGHER « » : Our province is recognized internationally for its pristine beaches but keeping them pristine is about to get a whole lot harder because this government has cut the funding for the Scotian Shores Marine Debris Clean-up Program. This program has helped thousands of beach cleanups across Nova Scotia, removing garbage from our coastline and keeping our beaches safe for people and wildlife.

Why is this government cutting funding for the people doing the work to protect our beautiful coastlines?

HON. KENT SMITH « » : It's been well documented through the course of this sitting that some reductions had to be made. Some hard decisions had to be made. When we have more, we do more. We'd love to do all things for all people.

In this case, my department had a small grant Scotian Shores accessed, amongst other environmental groups, that participated in cleaning up the shoreline. Unfortunately, it was one that was not able to continue.

[Page 4492]

In contrast to that, we've upped the regulations on our buying and processing of seafood. We've also strengthened aquaculture regulations to make sure our operators are not polluting our pristine coastline.

KRISTA GALLAGHER « » : Thank you to the minister, because we are talking about 1.7 million pounds of debris. Now the program is warning these cuts could mean fewer cleanups, fewer people doing the work, and more garbage cluttering our beaches. The founder said these cuts make it feel like cleaning up our shorelines isn't a priority.

Can the minister tell us why he won't prioritize keeping our beaches clean?

KENT SMITH « » : Of course, protecting our environment is incredibly important to our government. Those of us who were here in fall 2021 remember Bill No. 57, the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act, which set ambitious climate change and GHG-reduction goals across the country.

What I will say is, the core function of my department is to look after the buying and processing of seafood, to look after aquaculture licensing and leasing regulations, and inland fishing. We'd love to do all things for all people. Unfortunately, this year we were not able to.

On top of that, we think the DFO has a role here to help protect our marine coastline.

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

FTB: INAPPROPRIATE USE OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS - ADDRESS 

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. The Auditor General found not only that alternative procurement was used inappropriately, but in some cases the work had actually begun before contracts were signed or approvals were put in place.

At a time that the government is running a $1.2-billion deficit, why is the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board not alarmed his colleague, the Minister of Health and Wellness, failed to follow basic financial controls?

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

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : Speaker, I'm not sure if you can hear the little teeny tiny chirps, but the Easter eggs have hatched, and Chicken Littles are everywhere. (Laughter)

The sky is not falling. Through those alternative procurements, we have secured things like fixed-wing aircrafts, which have put 28,000 ground hours back into our emergency services. There have been 470,000 visits on virtual care since 2021. Halifax Vision has helped us become first in the country with cataract surgery wait times. We've used precision medicine to reduce radiology wait times from twenty treatments to five - unbelievable value for money.

[Page 4493]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : The fact the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board didn't stand tells Nova Scotians he's not willing to answer questions about financial controls.

If I'm incorrect, hopefully the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board will stand now. Does the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board stand behind the Minister of Health and Wellness? He either accepts the findings of the Auditor General, or he supports the Minister of Health and Wellness not following financial controls in the province. Which is it?

[10:45 a.m.]

MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : Because of the deep respect I know my colleagues have for me, all the men in my caucus actually let me speak for myself.

Alternative procurement is a very valuable part of our procurement process. Only 10 percent to 12 percent of our procurement is done through an alternative procurement process. This is done so we can speed up care.

I have heard the member opposite stand up and ring the alarm about every single aspect of health care. We have used ALTP in order to improve outcomes for Nova Scotians. I appreciate that we have things that we can improve. We deeply appreciate the work of the Auditor General, and we will continue to provide care to Nova Scotians.

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

OSD: SOCIAL WORKERS SHUT OUT - ADDRESS

LINA HAMID « » : Speaker, social workers have been raising the alarm for years. The most recently updated Child and Family Wellbeing Policy Manual removed the guidelines on caseloads and is adding responsibilities to support Mi'kmaw and African Nova Scotian children with no funding or staffing adjustments in place and with absolutely no meaningful consultation.

Social workers do such important work in our communities. Why is this government shutting out frontline experts and workers?

HON. BARBARA ADAMS » : There are hundreds of social workers working all across the province doing incredible work both in the Department of Opportunities and Social Development and the Department of Seniors and Long-term Care and, of course, in acute care and home care as well. There is certainly every effort under way in all departments to include all of our allied health professionals to ensure that they are working to their full scope of practice, and we continue to support them to do that.

[Page 4494]

LINA HAMID « » : The Nova Scotia College of Social Workers review of the Children and Family Services Act last year highlighted many shortfalls that this government has yet to address. Now the cuts to administrative staff will make it even harder for them to carry out their vital roles in our communities.

Why is this government shutting out the Nova Scotia College of Social Workers and the people who do this work every day?

BARBARA ADAMS « » : Certainly the work that our social workers do is incredibly important to all Nova Scotians because they provide child protective services. They provide adult protective services. I think the member who just spoke was referencing the head of the Nova Scotia College of Social Workers, who is in fact a former NDP candidate in the last election. When you consider the source of the data that you're hearing, you want to be sure that you're listening to all social workers across the province. I certainly hear from hundreds of them every single year. I know what they're saying, Speaker, and I hope all the members will support the Justice and Social Services Act that is on the floor of the House.

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

HOU: RENT SUPPLEMENT PROG. NOT WORKING - ADDRESS

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : Speaker, the government's rent subsidy program is not working for many people in Dartmouth North. That's because eligibility is calculated based on average market rent, but in my area, that's just under $1,200 for a one-bedroom apartment. The cost of housing has risen so quickly that this metric has not kept up. No one can find somewhere to live for $1,200 a month, and that's exactly why they need the rent supplement, but they don't qualify.

Will the Minister of Housing stop using average market rent as a way to deny housing support for people who need it?

HON. JOHN WHITE « » : Speaker, the rent supplement program that we have has been quadrupled since we have been in government - able to help three times as many people. The program has been worked on to expedite applications, and this budget in front of us has $10.9 million extra invested into the rent subsidy program. I believe our total is around $90 million in that. That program is incredible. It is a hold-off. It is because of the lack of building that has happened, and it's a part of the piece of the puzzle that is working in complication with the entire $1.7-billion housing plan.

[Page 4495]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order, please. The time allotted for Oral Questions Put by Members to Ministers has expired.

Before we move on to government business, I wish to announce that effective immediately Province House and the legislative precinct are being reopened to the public. (Applause) Don't get too excited. This includes access to the public galleries of the Legislative Chamber. Access to the second floor will remain limited to persons with a provincial House pass, such as MLAs, accredited media, and House, caucus, and government staff.

The decision to close the precinct to visitors has been one of my most difficult decisions as Speaker. Province House is the "People's House." Open parliaments are an important part of our way of life. We want the public to feel welcome here and to be able to watch the work of their elected representatives. People are welcome to their views and, outside these gates of Province House, may voice their views as loudly as they want.

Some have vocally disagreed with my decision. However, the House's 55 members and staff possess certain privileges, collectively known as parliamentary privileges. These privileges are constitutional in nature and exist to ensure that this House and its members can discharge their essential legislative duties. The members have freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation, and molestation.

While nobody chose to raise a question of privilege about the events of March 24^th, there can be no question that the privilege of all members to be free from obstruction and intimidation was interfered with. The members were unable to vote on third reading of a bill. The grave disorder in the galleries brought proceedings to a halt and constituted contempt - an affront against the dignity and authority of the Legislature - which occurred in the face of the House. When the House was suspended while the Sergeant-at-Arms attempted to clear the galleries, a number of demonstrators began to hurl vulgarities and verbal abuse at the members in the Chamber. At least one member reported to me about being surrounded by demonstrators and intimidated after getting in their car to leave.

The House also has the right to regulate its own internal affairs. This includes the right to regulate across its precinct. The public is not entitled to be here as of right. The Speaker controls this, subject to the ultimate authority of the House.

As Speaker, I am the guardian of the rights and privileges of the House and its members. On the night of March 24^th, the demonstrators in the galleries, irrespective of whether you supported or opposed their cause, prevented the House from conducting its business and took away the voice of the elected members, the voice of this province. When we call this building "the People's House," it's because this is where the elected representatives of the people meet to conduct the people's business. The demonstrators have the right to their own opinions and to express those opinions, but not to prevent the members from speaking and voting.

After weeks of incidents, when the individuals responsible were finally removed from the building and the most disruptive of them escalated their behaviour by blocking the gate and surrounding the vehicle of one member, that moment became the final tipping point in what has been, without question, the most difficult decision I have ever had to make: to restrict access to this building. It was the interference with the work of the House and its members that prompted me to close the precinct.

[Page 4496]

While not ideal, the public has not lost its access to our proceedings. Our proceedings have continued to be available on television, in print, and online, thanks to Legislative Television and Hansard. The public was able to hear the arguments and positions articulated by the representatives in this House as the business of government was transacted. The public still had the ability to call, email, meet, and direct message elected officials and the precinct, which are the appropriate avenues - not from the gallery.

During this closure, the House has marshalled many of the resources required to ensure that the business of the House can go forward with the responsible expectation - manage any future attempt to interfere with proceedings. It is impossible to guarantee that our work will not be interrupted again. If our proceedings are disrupted again, I shall, may, have to clear the galleries.

If we have another incident where I order the galleries cleared and visitors refuse to leave, I may have to close the galleries again and the precinct. I sincerely hope that our galleries can remain open, that the public can enjoy uninterrupted in-person access to seeing our proceedings occur.

For the remainder of the sitting, the following additional rules will apply to visitors in galleries. This is necessary due to the conduct of some visitors earlier in the sitting in refusing to adhere to the rules for gallery pass holders. Those restrictions apply to holders of the gallery pass, not to accredited media and House, caucus, or government staff with provincial House passes.

·           Persons who were in the galleries on Tuesday, March 24^th, will be restricted from entering the gallery until the end of the sitting or the conclusion of the Sergeant-at-Arms' investigation into the identity of those who obstructed the House on that day. Persons who have disrupted the House or refused to remove themselves from the galleries when asked to do so will be subject to short-term prohibition from entering the legislative precinct. There will be no consequences for visitors who obeyed the rules.

·           The use of cellphones, tablets, and similar electronic devices in the gallery will be strictly prohibited. Visitors may bring cellphones in the gallery provided they remain unseen and unheard, for example, left in one's pocket while turned off or set to airplane mode. This has been prompted by multiple incidents of visitors using their cellphones and other devices to record and take photos of proceedings in the House.

·           Visitors may not sit in the front row of the East and West Galleries. This is due to multiple incidents of visitors leaning over the railing posing a danger to visitors and the members and staff below them in the Chamber. For example, on March 24^th when someone was standing and leaning. Unfortunately, if my trajectory is correct, they would have and could have landed on the members for Halifax Needham or Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier - that area they would have landed if they had fallen.

·            

[Page 4497]

·            

·           Visitors may not read, sketch, write, or speak during debate. These rules are observed in the galleries in the House of Commons in Ottawa and will now be enforced here to better ensure that there is no activity in the galleries that may serve as distraction to members.

·           The prohibition on wearing clothing displaying lettering or pictures that could be perceived as conveying a message to the Assembly will be strictly enforced. If words or pictures on an article of clothing can be seen and recognized from the floor of the gallery, the visitors will have to remove the clothing in question or cover up the words or pictures. Failure to do so will result in being prohibited from entering or being removed from the gallery. This is due to instances of visitors displaying messages on their clothing and refusing to comply with requests to remove the clothing or cover up the messages in conformity with the rules. The rules exist to ensure that visitors do not attempt to send messages to or to intimidate members because we do not want staff making value judgments on messages. We prohibit any lettering or pictures recognizable from the Chamber. Smaller lettering and pictures are permitted to reflect the reality that small logos and messages are ubiquitous on modern clothing. If it cannot be seen from the floor of the legislative chamber, it is of no consequence.

[11:00 a.m.]

Following the sitting, I will assemble a group to review security in the precinct, as well as assess the gallery rules. We will also look at best practices in other chambers in Canada. The House Leaders have raised other concerns about the galleries, and I hope to meet with them to work out solutions and to improve the experience of all visitors.

This is about safety and security. It was a hard decision, but one that had to be made.

With that, I thank you for listening. We will move on to government business.

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Before I go to government business, I want to thank you. I know it has been a difficult time for everyone in the Chamber, and you in particular. There's been a lot of pressure on you. I want to thank you for . . . (Applause) But also for understanding that, after the House rises, to strike up a committee to do a fair review of the Rules and Regulations for everybody here in the House.

Speaker, would you please call the order of business Public Bills and Orders.

[Page 4498]

THE SPEAKER « » : Thank you, member. I know all parties and Independents have asked to have people in here.

PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, would you please call Public Bills for Third Reading.

PUBLIC BILLS FOR THIRD READING

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 198.

Bill No. 198 - Financial Measures (2026) Act.

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

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : I do want to express my appreciation for your work on our behalf as well.

Speaker, I move that Bill No. 198 be now read a third time.

Today, I stand in the House to recognize the changes to the Financial Measures (2026) Act prompted by the voices of Nova Scotians. The Financial Measures (2026) Act makes changes that support this year's budget and the government's overall objectives.

As you are aware, Nova Scotia is in a challenging financial position. We have a deficit of over $1 billion, slower population growth, and expenses that continue to rise, yet we still have needs that must be met.

Since taking office, we have invested substantially in health care, in housing, in new hospitals, and in new long-term care facilities. We've negotiated hundreds of new collective bargaining agreements, and we've made great progress on the issues that are most important to Nova Scotians.

We need to do more, and that is what this budget does. It invests $6.7 billion in health care - $738 million more than last year. It invests $116 million more in education, $108 million more in the Department of Opportunities and Social Development, and $108 million more in the Department of Seniors and Long-term Care. There is more money for rent supplements, new public housing, supportive housing, and community affordable housing projects. There's more money to expand the School Lunch Program to every school across the province. There are continued tax cuts worth $1,400 on average per family this year that will also help Nova Scotians with affordability.

[Page 4499]

Having a deficit of over $1 billion concerns us but so does the prospect of slowing down our progress on health care, on housing, and on affordability. We have made progress, true, but there is still more work to be done. We believe Nova Scotia has great potential with wind energy, natural resources, and $2 billion in increased defence spending from Ottawa announced last week. We have reasons to be optimistic, but in the short term, decreasing revenues and increasing expenses creates challenges.

In this budget, we made cuts. We will reduce the size of the civil service by 5 percent per year over the next four years and the public service by 3 percent, and we reduced grants, but Nova Scotians told us quickly that those cuts had gone too far.

We are a government that listens, and that's exactly what we did here. On March 10^th, we reinstated $53.6 million in grants and funding to support people with disabilities, seniors, and education initiatives. That change increased the deficit to $1.24 billion before contingency, but we felt we needed to make that change to ensure people could meet their basic daily needs. We want to do more. These are tough decisions to make. No government enjoys making cuts, but we are working to ensure we can still invest in the services Nova Scotians need most - health care, housing, affordability - while we work to grow our economy and our provincial revenues.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Point of order.

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

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Speaker, I just want to clarify that this is the FMA, and that if the minister is going to be able to speak to the budget, will other members be able to also speak to the budget when we debate third reading of FMA?

THE SPEAKER « » : This is the Financial Measures (2026) Act and everybody will have an opportunity to speak on it. We're three or four minutes into it. The minister is speaking on it.

The honourable Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

JOHN LOHR « » : We want to do more. These were tough decisions to make. No government enjoys making cuts, but we are working to ensure we can still invest in the services Nova Scotians need most - health care, housing, affordability - while we work to grow our economy and our provincial revenues. We are listening to the concerns of Nova Scotians, and when we can do more, we will.

Nova Scotians also had a great deal of concern about the changes to the conservation and community easements included in the Financial Measures (2026) Act. Our intent was to create a clear process for easements to be taken over by the minister, or removed by the courts, once an organization that had held them no longer existed.

[Page 4500]

But those who presented at the Public Bills Committee raised very real concerns about how these changes would impact the way these easements are treated and donated today. So Speaker, I am pleased to say that we are not proceeding with the easement changes in the Financial Measures (2026) Act, based on feedback. We are listening.

I would like to take a moment to address two other areas that seemed to prompt some confusion. The first involves our changes to the Forests Act, around what land will get the forestry tax rate. We are adding reporting requirements for lands that are only used as carbon sinks. This will not change how landowners manage their properties.

The tax rates for forested land that is not being used for carbon capture will not change. Land that is being managed for both forestry and carbon capture will get the forestry rates. However, if a property is only being used for commercial carbon capture, not forestry, it should not get the lower forestry rate.

The second item is the provision on the deed transfer tax for the casino. I want to be clear: This provision only exempts the Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation from paying tax on the downtown waterfront property, which the province is buying from Great Canadian Entertainment for one dollar.

Great Canadian Entertainment paid about $200,000 in deed transfer tax for the new casino location in Dartmouth. Whoever buys the existing waterfront location from the province will also pay the deed transfer tax. We are not foregoing revenue with this change.

I want to thank Nova Scotians who came forward and expressed their views respectfully and thoughtfully during the House session. Being in government isn't always easy. The decisions we will make will not always be popular, but those Nova Scotians who came forward, who shared their concerns, who protested respectfully and presented to Public Bills Committee, I want you to know, we have heard you.

We will work to strengthen our economy, to build our revenues so there is more money for the important services that we all want and deserve.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Thank you, Speaker. I move that the question be now put.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: Debate that. Let's debate it.

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

LISA LACHANCE « » : Speaker, I wanted to start by reflecting on a couple of the values that have come forward and were put forward through this budget process. One of them is a little ironic, standing here at this very moment.

[Page 4501]

The first one I wanted to think about was resilience. No one has gone back to the Budget Speech very often, and certainly there was not a lot of explanation given about this theme around resilience. I spent a lot of time working in the International Resilience Research Centre. I am not going to be able to do a discussion of justice at this point. I really don't want to make my former Ph.D. supervisor and boss mad at me, so I'm going to try really hard.

Resilience is about building - often we think about it as individualized resilience - your ability to bounce back. You've had something happen in your life and you can bounce back. But there's also a socioecological model, which is not too much about your internal ability but looks at what's supporting you.

This has been a framework that, for instance, the Department of Opportunities and Social Development has studied and looked at. Dr. Michael Ungar from Dalhousie University has done a number of huge research projects to think about that. Just to concretize that, we often look at the statistics around young people who had experiences in care - young people who were in the child welfare system. One thing we're better able to count, unfortunately, are the negative outcomes. We can know from service providers how many of their folks, say, seeking shelter are former youth in care.

The research Michael Ungar has done for the Department of Opportunities and Social Development sought to look at it a different way. If we know that 30 percent of folks who are - about 30 percent of folks who are homeless in Halifax are former youth in care and have that in their background, whatever age they are now - what are the resiliency factors? What worked for those folks who aren't captured in that?

I really have been trying to think about this theme as I've been thinking about this budget. One of the things that is often talked about in the resilience socioecological model is that it's not the number of services but it's about the trust and the relationship young people have with, kind of, the right service. There aren't better outcomes for young people who access dozens of services - some youth might need that, and it might lead to positive outcomes, but what seems to be more is that ongoing connection, that relationship.

That brings me to the second value I have been thinking about throughout this whole process. That's the value of trust and the value of respect. I think that myself, my colleagues, and Nova Scotians have seen a lot of ongoing disrespect from this government. That has seriously eroded trust. I go back to last year's budget, which maligned a whole bunch of Nova Scotians as special interests; which made decisions, for instance, around uranium.

[11:15 a.m.]

I know that governments have these rules and make these decisions. I will just point out that the process in Nova Scotia around uranium discussion and the process around fracking were actually incredibly collaborative efforts that were community-led, community-engaged, and involved a lot of research. It wasn't simply a minister in an office.

[Page 4502]

I know this government likes the idea of ministers in offices just making decisions. We have taken away lots of different structures to make that possible, but that's not actually our history and our background.

Since March 2025, what I have seen - if we want to talk about resilience and trust and relationships - is communities come together. Coming out of the last sitting, communities that were particularly targeted - around uranium for instance - people started coming together. People were not all coming together - honestly, even automatically no - but communities were not hearing from their elected officials.

The first meeting that I attended in Vaughan was hundreds of people. It spilled out into the parking lot of the meeting. Community members, many of whom had supported the re-election of the current MLA for Hants East, really felt left in the dark. People started to really organize and share information.

When I think about this FMA coming forward, there were all sorts of changes proposed that seemingly had had no consultation with the affected sectors and businesses. The easements, of which I guess the minister is proud, they took back. I think they only did that - I don't know why that was coming forward. I remain suspicious, frankly, because I'm worried about trust, about the rationale, and about whose interest was being served by those changes.

I think we heard from enough Nova Scotians that those Acts are serving very real conservation and economic goals. They have been left alone. The minister said something about how the changes weren't urgent. I hope that government moves forward from this whole process and takes some lessons learned about building trust, about the value of connection, about the value of true engagement, about trusting Nova Scotians to know their communities best, to know their challenges best. Again and again, this government is bringing forward legislation, including this Act, where really people have just not had a chance.

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board just referred to the changes proposed by the Forests Act. Again, perhaps not in the most giving way or kind way, the Minister of Natural Resources did respond to questions on the floor of the House about that. Lots of people came to Public Bills Committee because they were so concerned. However much people might seek to dismiss other MLAs in the House, we are looking at what was brought to Public Bills Committee and bringing forward changes based on that, bringing forward people's concerns.

We didn't expect to see an entire natural resources policy buried in the Financial Measures (2026) Act. Between the two easement acts, the Forests Act, the mental resources policy, and the Provincial Parks Act, we see a clear and ongoing approach by this government: take control away from Nova Scotians, but don't tell them that you're taking it away - and probably taking away control and rights to vest in the minister and likely to serve other interests. It's never clear or obvious whose interests are being served.

[Page 4503]

I think people felt excluded - people who are important parts of the sector and worked hard to talk about their concerns - yet we're going forward with a number of unanswered questions that stakeholders have. Again, because this is a natural resources policy that touches on a number of issues, if it had been presented separate from the FMA, it would have allowed folks to have a sense of the overall impact. We have asked - particularly with regard to cuts, but the same holds true for the policy work in this bill. We've asked for the analysis - the impact.

The changes to the Forests Act: I understand that there will be a need for folks to have a forest plan for their woodlots and that the requirements around that will be developed in regulations. Forest Nova Scotia came out and said that same thing, that's what - "Don't worry, but you'll need to have a plan." I don't think that matches the reality for lots of Nova Scotians about how they manage their woodlots and how they manage their land. How that will be sussed out is now they'll go to the regulatory process that, in Nova Scotia, is secret.

There was a reference by the Minister of Growth and Development about our not caring about economic development policy. I have previously tabled all the questions that I've asked the former Minister of Economic Development in the House - some simple questions like: "What is our economic development plan? What are the sectoral plans?" It's never been provided. I was happy to re-table those questions.

That's the other part. If the FMA is going to be used not only to advance the measures necessary to activate the budget but is going to contain other policies, surely economic development, in consideration of the revenue side, would be an important piece that could have been addressed in here.

I remain concerned about the environmental policy bill that is also buried in the FMA. We had someone recall us to the fall of 2021 and the discussions around the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act. Those were heady days. Those were exciting days because we were asserting, collectively, that we were looking for a future that was based on sustainability.

Even in that process, my colleague for Halifax Needham was able to suggest a change - that was around looking at environmental racism - that was accepted by the House, and the whole thing was celebrated.

Anyway, I'm just recalling - that's in the rearview mirror at this point, I would say, if I compare that to what I see as the environmental policy bill, woven into the FMA, the tax on EV and hybrids. Folks have talked at length about that, so I won't go down there.

Taxing folks who are trying to do carbon sequestration, folks who are looking at that triad and that three-legged stool of forestry in this province, folks are trying to live out part of that. The government still says they accept the Lahey Report, and yet they're going to be penalized.

[Page 4504]

I would also say the Provincial Parks Act changes that are being proposed, which put all the control into the hands of one person. Our provincial parks are a collective resource. I think we've seen when they're threatened or concerned, that Nova Scotians respond. I don't think that it is a particularly resilient way to build communities, which the Budget Speech said we are doing with this, to take away power from Nova Scotians. To take away the responsibility of ministers to consult with Nova Scotians.

I think going forward, every sitting I don't know what else ministers could take over in this government, but I'm sure people will find other things. On one hand, I've talked about ministerial accountability, particularly with regard to this budget. Ministers needed to better understand what was happening in the budget, for both their departments, but also their policy areas. Sorry, I just lost my train of thought. At the same time, we also want a system of checks and balances, and I actually think it's in a minister's best interest to have checks and balances. Especially if folks don't actually have a fulsome understanding of ministerial accountability.

What I would say is, we have this Financial Measures (2026) Act which has, as we've talked about, 20 Acts contained in it. I guess 18, at this point, because we pulled two, in ways that don't really allow any of us to get a global view of what's going on in those sectors. They haven't been presented as a chance to understand the vision.

I would say that's the same thing with the cuts side of things. We had the knowledge that there had been, loosely, some direction provided for both HR reductions, so personnel reductions, and for budget cuts to ministers. They were asked to consider this. As I have spent some time explaining, there are ways to do this that actually could accomplish whatever objectives this government has, and actually build trust with Nova Scotians, and actually do it in ways that could move sectors forward.

Obviously this government chose to do something completely different, and really damage the trust that Nova Scotians have in their government. I think that's a shame. I haven't understood this approach by this government, to divide, conquer, polarize, ignore, exclude, at all, as an overall approach. Governments really should value social cohesion. Because it's a whole lot cheaper, and it's a whole lot more positive, and you're going to get way better outcomes when people feel that trust and that inclusion in their government. That's just a fact. And step after step, this government seems really determined to sow social division. To diminish connection. I think the last few weeks we've seen what that looks like.

[11:30 a.m.]

We've talked about various ideas for doing things better. I implore this government to reconsider their treatment of Nova Scotians, their treatment of stakeholders and to consider how to welcome people's perspectives, voices, expertise, everything into all aspects of government, but particularly this process.

[Page 4505]

I assume that almost immediately this government is going to need to start looking at the budget cuts for next year, without really, I would say, understanding the impacts of the budget cuts from this year. A lot could be done to give Nova Scotians more hope, to give Nova Scotians more of a sense of being respected by government.

There is lots of work to be done. I implore ministers to consider that. It doesn't make things easier - disrespecting, excluding, ignoring - it really doesn't. I've had a chance to talk through financially how I think we got here. This government had a windfall of unpredicted, but unstable, funding in their first mandate. It was because of federal transfers and a population boom - but that must have been understood that that wasn't the sustainable trajectory. That probably wasn't going to happen, and there are ways to make investments with that windfall, absolutely, but not to create the types of structural obligations that we face now and that put us in a very shaky circumstance - and I share it.

I have both shown, and told, how this is not the fiscal outlook in other provinces. Yes, every other province, provinces that have a stronger economy, a bigger population, provinces more like our size, in both economy and population, are all facing challenging times, but they've all got a better path forward. I think the difference there is being willing to take on accountability for the public purse in the way this government, this Premier, seems to want to ignore.

I am truly shocked our accountant Premier has led us to this place. That's really what I think accountants are good at - looking at budgeting and forecasting and being extremely cautious. That is not what has happened here. We had a chance in 2021 to 2023 that, I would say, has been squandered in a way that is not serving Nova Scotians well.

I did mean to talk more about hope and trust and connection. I guess what I would go back to is just saying that we - I'll use the royal 'we' in this setting, but we can do better. Nova Scotians need this government to do better. Nova Scotians need a government that trusts them, respects them, seeks out their counsel, their experience, and engages them - that doesn't cancel programs a month before the next fiscal year.

There's so much more and I do hope the government, the Premier, this Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, is taking lessons learned from this process going forward. I don't agree we should call the question. It's just another little tactic to, I think, shut down discussion or maybe it's a bit of a power play. Just to be clear, every morning and in weeks before the sitting starts, I reach out to the Government House Leader and I say, "hey, what's up today?" and we're not really given any information about what's up today. That's not how this is supposed to work. It's not how it worked before in this House, and I would say it doesn't do any of us any good and I don't think it's fulfilling what we need to do for Nova Scotians.

So, this is another example, speaking of trust if we might. When we do have a chance to actually engage with the Government House Leader, there's often a discussion about a plan forward even within the hour, my friends, that then is suddenly changed radically. I guess it's to keep us on our toes. I don't think it has contributed to a healthy working environment. I would repeat my invitation to the Government House Leader to have regular meetings where we talk about the business of the House as happens in every other parliament in this country and so that we can get work done for Nova Scotians and get results for Nova Scotians.

[Page 4506]

Again, I keep wanting to talk about trust and hope and I keep getting there and I go away from there. So I'm going to just wrap this up one more time. This budget has been complete chaos. Our principle is that, in fact, it should not go forward, that there is no understanding of the implications financially or economically of what's happening, done, or presented for a lot of spending cuts, for the pieces of policy that we see before us in the FMA. We need to do a lot better. This government needs to get Nova Scotians' trust back because I would say right now this government, this Premier, does not have the trust of Nova Scotians.

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

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Thank you, Speaker. I rise, of course, on the debate on the FMA. As my colleague said, I was surprised the government took this stance to limit the debate on this. It's problematic, and it's a rule that probably the governments can use more now that they've actually done it.

I'm only going to take a few minutes to talk on this because it's been devastating. As we sit here in this House, people have lost their jobs. People have lost their jobs. People are having very difficult conversations with their families. You've seen the job losses directly in the civil service that works directly for the government. We heard the stories about organizations like NSCC that have lost millions in funding, and people are losing their jobs there as well. As I've said really from the beginning, none of this needed to happen. The government came into office with historic transfers from Ottawa, with historic tax revenue and, five years later, they are running the largest deficit in the history of our province completely manufactured by themselves, period.

This argument that we've been hearing is that, "Oh, other jurisdictions are going through the same thing. Oh, this a problem across the country." You know, you can use any example that you want. The fact of the matter is that this government came in and had more money that any government before it. They did. And here we are in 2026 with a budget that laid off hundreds of people, that slashed programs, that cut amazing community organizations, their funding. In turn they're laying people off. We are at the final stages now of what has been arguably one of the worst budgets in the history of this province but, also, I would argue one of the worst budget processes that this province has ever seen.

Information was hard to come by. Cuts were made to programs. Lists were distributed to media. New lists were distributed. Numbers didn't add up. Changes were being made because the government thought they would be out of here in two weeks. The whole process has been a disaster.

[Page 4507]

Now we'll finish off today at some point on what has been so troubling for so many people and devastating for families who lost their jobs. I said this before: When you hear the government clap for this budget, I always say to clap for those people who lost their jobs; clap for the organizations that lost their money; clap for - it's sad because none of it had to happen. None of this had to happen. The cuts that were made represented a fraction of the overall budget, and it took Nova Scotians rallying for the government to make necessary revisions.

What was heartbreaking for me in this is that - and I've said this before - this was the first time government had to start making decisions because they were running projected deficits but were receiving record surpluses. Money was coming in that they weren't projecting, and they were able to not only balance the budget but spend - overspend. When they had to make decisions, what broke my heart the most was that their first thought was to go after the most vulnerable we had in our province. It wasn't looking at overall departments that could be looked at to make savings in certain aspects. They went after the most vulnerable. That was the initial plan by the government. That was the initial plan.

Because of Nova Scotians and because of people rallying, the government - they didn't come to their senses, they were told. People had to come here to tell them, "Do not cut from adult day centres, and do not cut from programs that people depend on each and every day to look after their families, to be able to access programs, and to give people a life." That's where the government went first. It was heartbreaking.

I do want to thank Nova Scotians from one end to the other, whether they showed up here outside or presented at Public Bills Committee - hundreds of people presented at Public Bills. The emails they sent through and the messages they sent through were the real difference for some of those changes to come. They really were, and I do want to thank them.

We've had weeks of this, and we've had many conversations, clause by clause, through the FMA and through various debates regarding the budget, but in all of my time here, this has been one of the hardest. It's been one of the hardest in the sense that we'll leave this Legislature, probably in the next week, and get a chance to get home.

When I go home, wonderful museums will be impacted severely. Cossit House Museum will be closed. The Cape Breton Fossil Centre is sending out a letter now; they've lost money. The theatres have all lost money. The Cape Breton Centre for Craft & Design will be looking at staffing. All of these people will be looking at staffing. Our public library, from all indications, got financially obliterated in this, which will impact the libraries in North Sydney and New Waterford-Glace Bay.

Decisions will have to be made to determine what will happen there because their operating funding got cut. It may be to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is what MLAs are going to go home to. This is what they're going to go home to.

[Page 4508]

THE SPEAKER « » : (Inaudible)

[11:45 a.m.]

DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Chair, I appreciate your direction. These are the things that we're going home to, and they're tough. A lot of Cape Bretoners lost their jobs - a lot. They're paying attention. As I said, NSCCs across Nova Scotia, $9 million - cut. That's people. Regardless of the infrastructure that the minister talked about in Question Period, they were cut $9 million. They were.

Theatres at home - the HAT, the Savoy Theatre, you name it - all saw reductions. Museums all saw reductions. We're heading into tourism season, and all of these organizations are now scrambling because they don't have the money to hire summer students. They're in full panic mode trying to see if they can even be sustainable overall in the long run.

That's what MLAs, when we leave this House - we're going to get a real sense of it. I said last night that we're into April, we're into the new fiscal, so this is really going to ramp up. It's really going to ramp up now. I think the government probably wanted to be out of here before April because this is when the letters are going. This is when the funding impacts really kick in, and this is where you're going to see a lot of the job loss.

I'll finish off with saying this: It didn't need to be this way. It did not. As we go through this and as the government votes, and they cheer and pat themselves on the back, think about the people who lost their jobs. Think about the people who lost their jobs. Young families, very difficult conversations. I don't think the government should be celebrating this budget at all.

All governments will make investments in budgets. You're investing in programs that people use, and you're investing in what Nova Scotians need. This budget has really taken away from people. It has. This is year one of four. I said this before. This is the projection that government put forward. I said it in an emergency debate. It's a four-year plan of decline. We are into a very interesting couple of years when it comes to this.

I will say, when the government claps for a budget, when the vote comes, remember, there are people watching this who that lost their jobs. They lost their jobs. They are no longer employed with the government or with an external organization. Think about that before everybody starts clapping and cheering, because I'm getting those calls, and I'm sure every other MLA is getting those calls as well. Think about those families.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Natural Resources.

HON. KIM MASLAND « » : I want to rise and speak to the items in the Financial Measures (2026) Act that are related to the Department of Natural Resources. Some claims about the bill have certainly been misleading, but the reality is simple; the changes are straightforward, they reduce administrative burden. They are practical changes so that existing legislation works more clearly and effectively. They also support responsible economic development while maintaining strong environmental regulations.

[Page 4509]

Overall, the amendments make sure our natural resource framework reflects today's realities and supports long-term sustainable development. Under the Crown Lands Act, we are making it possible to support longer-term licenses on Crown lands. Currently, long-term licenses can only be negotiated for companies or groups linked to wood processing facilities. For everyone else, licenses are limited to a maximum of two years with one-year renewals.

With this amendment, as Minister of Natural Resources, licenses will be able to be approved up to five years, and Cabinet can approve up to 10. As an example, the Medway Community Forest Cooperative has been operating under a pilot agreement for 10 years. There is currently no mechanism available in the Act to enable a longer-term forestry licence for them. This will allow that.

Longer licence terms provide certainty that supports investments and jobs while maintaining appropriate oversight. I can tell you that the Medway Community Forest Cooperative is very excited about the ability to have this agreement. This change supports responsible growth and stable operations.

I also want to talk about carbon sequestration. Under the Forests Act, we're adding reporting requirements for lands that are only used as carbon sinks. I've responded to this in Question Period, but I wanted to make sure that I say it again today. Speaker, let me be clear: This is not a new tax. We are not requiring landowners to change how they manage their properties. If you own forested land and you're not doing carbon capture, there's no change for you. If a property is being managed for both, it will continue to get the forestry rate. However, if a property is used for commercial carbon capture and is not being managed for forestry, it should not get the forestry rate.

With this change, we are ensuring that forestry land remains available for forestry, which is an important part of our economy and an important economic driver in rural Nova Scotia. This is something that the industry has asked us for. It is that simple.

The mining industry - we're updating the Mineral Resources Act to make sure that the rules are clear and that they are fair. Some parts of the law haven't changed in many years. The amendments clarify that gypsum on Crown land belongs to the Province. Crown lands, to be clear, means land that is under the administration and control of the Minister of Natural Resources. These changes do not apply to private lands or homes. This simply removes any confusion about the ownership of gypsum on Crown lands. We own the land. We own the gypsum.

This brings Nova Scotia in line with other jurisdictions. It reduces delays for the industry and provides clarity for companies exploring new opportunities. Ultimately, this change makes sure we can manage gypsum resources responsibly and make them available to companies ready to develop them.

[Page 4510]

We're also moving criteria for mineral lease renewals into regulation. We're doing this because these rules need updating. Currently, the requirements to renew a lease are minimal. As long as paperwork is completed and fees are paid, a lease can automatically be renewed even if very little work has occurred. Some leases have been renewed without meaningful development. This ties up mineral rights and prevents other companies that may be ready to invest from accessing those resources.

These amendments will allow us to strengthen renewal criteria through regulation. That encourages responsible development and ensures that Crown resources are being used productively and in the public interest.

We're also clarifying authority to treat tailings and waste rock as a resource. These are materials that are left over from past mining activities and can still contain valuable minerals. Modern technology allows those materials to be recovered responsibly. The amendments provide clarity so that companies can apply to develop those resources. This can create new opportunities, reduce waste, improve efficiency, and support a more sustainable mining sector while creating good-paying jobs for Nova Scotians in rural communities.

I want to speak a little bit about towing now, Speaker. There have been some interpretations about this change that I feel went much further than reality. This is a change about safety and stewardship on public land. It is a very simple amendment - possibly the simplest of all of our changes. We've experienced ongoing issues with vehicles parked where they shouldn't be. We have signs posted for parking. They are not always followed. Many of you who have public beaches in your constituencies would know that because I have heard from you. Many people don't see the signs, or they ignore the posted rules. It can have a real impact. We have had vehicles blocking access in and out of parking lots and vehicles parking across a trail entrance, blocking a road, or parked in a way that damages sensitive land.

The department currently lacks clear authority to address these situations when they happen on our land. This amendment creates that authority. Put simply, it is the authority to remove vehicles when it is necessary. By giving the department clear authority to have these vehicles removed, we can make sure that visitors enjoy these areas without disruptions while supporting safety, access, and stewardship. Because this change is being made in the Provincial Parks Act, we're also making it in the Crown Lands Act for consistency.

I'll talk about park fees. This housekeeping amendment moves park fees out of regulation and allows them to be set by the Minister of Natural Resources. With more than a million visitors annually, our park system needs flexibility to respond to changing visitor trends. This small change simply delivers a significant efficiency benefit.

[Page 4511]

Now we'll talk about easements. We had two pieces of legislation that would have allowed for easement agreements between private landowners and certain groups. Conservation and community easements are long-term tools. They are a way for landowners to enter agreements with pre-screened eligible bodies to protect private land and ecological, cultural, and community values. These Acts identify which organizations are eligible to have easement agreements with landowners. Our intention in amending the Acts was to create a clear process for when an organization that holds an easement is winding up or no longer exists.

Speaker, we heard the concerns from those who presented on the amendments at Public Bills Committee on how the changes would impact the way easements are treated today. Because of those concerns, we removed those from the Act. That is why we have Public Bills Committee: for Nova Scotians to give their input. We listened, and we made the changes.

Before I close, I want to address one other piece of misinformation. Hundreds of public servants work hard every day at the Department of Natural Resources to serve Nova Scotians. They are managing our forests. They are protecting our wildlife. They are supporting economic growth. They are delivering programs and many other things.

One group in particular has been discussed frequently in relation to this legislation. Conservation officers are part of a specialized enforcement service responsible for protecting public safety and wildlife and ensuring the responsible use of Crown lands across Nova Scotia. They are professionals. They are sworn peace officers. They enforce legislation, support stewardship, and respond to public safety and environmental risk.

They do this work every day in the woods, in remote areas, in snow, in mud. You know what? Last week, a member of the NDP referred to our conservation officers as ICE agents. I took offence when I heard the statement, but you know what? I have to tell you, they do work on ice. Just before March Break, our conservation officers led a multiple-agency response to a unique challenge involving a lot of ice. A car was abandoned in the Northumberland Strait, seven kilometres out. Recognizing the potential for environmental damage when the ice melts, our team of officers built a plan and safely returned the car to shore, where it could be disposed of properly.

The men and women who work as conservation officers deserve to have their role understood in this Legislature. They deserve our respect. Their work ensures that public land remains safe and accessible, and they responsibly manage for present and future generations.

[12:00 p.m.]

Overall, this legislation strengthens how we manage land, forests, minerals, and parks. It provides certainty for industry and communities and unlocks economic opportunities. These amendments directly support government's priority to grow the economy while protecting the natural resources that Nova Scotians depend on.

[Page 4512]

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

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

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : I'm pleased to rise and say a few words about Bill No. 198. As is the tradition in this House, I'll take some opportunity to more broadly address the budget, which is enacted by this bill, although little of what we just heard has anything to do with the budget because, like many other bills that move through his House, the FMA is an omnibus bill that contains whatever it is the government feels like they want to tackle in a given sitting and sandwiches it all together.

This bill is titled "Defending Nova Scotia" - that's what the budget that's enacted by this bill is titled - so it's worth taking a minute to think about how we do that. How do we defend Nova Scotia? There's a whole other conversation we could have about what we're defending against.

I know that our strength - what it is that we are defending - is our people, our communities, and our resources. Our superpower is who we are; it is our people, and it lies, in fact, in the connections between our people. We've heard lots of talk about that. Even as our population has grown - and many of these provisions are looking at how to accommodate that, those challenges of growth - our communities have embraced newcomers.

We are an unusual place, and I say this to anyone who wants to talk Nova Scotia politics. Politics happens on the ground, it happens in church, it happens in the community hall, and it happens in the school parking lot. It doesn't happen in the air. It's not abstract. It lands in communities. We are all two degrees of separation from one another. What that means is that, for the people in this Chamber, we are just one or two degrees from people who will be impacted by this budget and by this bill.

We heard the minister speak about the ways in which some of these provisions respond to industry; certainly, they will feel that, but there are many who will be less happy with the way they feel this budget and this bill once it is passed.

This has been a strange sitting, as has been remarked upon. It continues to be a strange sitting. That strangeness is symbolized here. It's symbolized in this bill.

I'm going to get into the bill in a bit of detail, which I haven't had the opportunity to do, but I want to go back to this notion that it is who we are and what connects us that we ought to be defending. My colleague, the member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island, said something that resonated with me, which is that the best thing a government can do is to promote social cohesion, which is just a fancy way of saying bring us together.

Since the last election, the first thing we saw was an ad on the front page of the paper declaring the government's new strategy - that had not been debated in the election in any way - which was to open up natural resources and become an energy superpower. We see a lot of that reflected in the bill.

[Page 4513]

It didn't stop there. A great deal of the government's proclamation of this new approach and the way in which it has been discussed subsequently, right up until today in this Chamber, is a battle against special interests and taking the "no" out of Nova Scotia. I would suggest that that does the opposite of promoting social cohesion.

If we raise a question, the sky is falling. If we speak on behalf of our communities, we are putting the "no" in Nova Scotia. These are, frankly, gimmicks. I think they are taken as that in communities - in my community, in places across the province. That happens in politics all the time, but before I move into this budget, I just want to highlight that this is a dangerous game.

I heard the Premier, in the scrum after Question Period, talk about working with Premier Danielle Smith to get meetings when he is in Calgary next week - when he won't be here because he'll be exploring onshore natural gas opportunities in meetings that Danielle Smith has set up for him. Alberta is a great case study in what happens if you abandon the goal of social cohesion. You have government members openly advocating for separation from our country.

I just want to issue a note of warning that this is a dangerous path - this path of divisiveness, this path of separation, which is very successful politically. We only have to look south of the border. When we weaponize the things that we don't understand and the people who we don't agree with, we can make great political gains, but at what cost?

I submit that if we are defending Nova Scotia, then we are defending the love we have for each other. We are defending our communities. We are defending all the fights we are going to have this weekend around the Easter table with our relatives we might disagree with because we still love them.

This budget is concerning. This bill is concerning, because I don't think it defends that. I don't think it defends the core value of our province, which is that we take care of each other, that we respect each other.

Speaker, I am going to move through a few provisions here, but I hope that the members will keep this in mind. The minister spoke to the decision to retract the easement provision, and certainly there were a few of the budget cuts that were rolled back. That's good, but in the doing it, it caused a lot of harm. It caused people a lot of upset. It cost people jobs, which maybe they're getting it back now, but what a headache.

If we went forward with a different approach - with an approach of how we bring our communities together and respect that, I think we would have gotten to a very different result.

I want to talk for a minute about taxation. This government makes a lot of the tax breaks they've given to Nova Scotians, but they are a feature of this budget, which is ultimately the FMA enacts the budget, so it ought to deal with money. It ought to deal with revenue and expenses, and it does a little bit, and the way it deals with revenue is through tax provisions. We are going to tax EV owners, and I appreciated the minister's clarification, but the point stands that it is likely that woodlot owners who use those woodlots for carbon sequestration will be taxed. We are taxing, in this bill, environmental responsibility.

[Page 4514]

We will consolidate the Halifax Harbour Bridge Commission, and at this point I have lost count of how many Crown corporations have been disappeared by this government. So many - more than I can count. Boards that were filled with experts overseeing major financial expenditures - fired. Experts pushed aside to make way for friends, existing norms of oversight slowly eroded, and that continues here.

To the taxation provisions: Do they bring us together? If this is our metric for defending Nova Scotia - the things that bring us together - does taxation on electric vehicles bring us together? Well, no. It divides us. This is a surprise tax that is being levied on people who are trying to do their part to meet the government's bill, EGCCRA. This was invoked today - the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act - goals we all supported.

The predecessor bill to that, EGSPA - the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act - some version of this bill has been in place for a long time. It has, I think - my colleagues can correct me - always had the full support of the House. Every update to that bill has. There was a time when this government introduced big pieces of legislation that they sought co-operation on and that were then passed by all members of this House, and EGCCRA was one of them.

Now, they are introducing a tax that punishes people who are trying to help the government meet their own legislated goals. It's a stunning reversal of policy. We've removed our incentives, we've added a tax, and we are depressing demand for electric vehicles, all at a time when gas prices are through the roof.

This is a flat tax, so it doesn't reflect the amount that people drive. That's what taxation on gasoline does. You drive a lot, and you get taxed a lot. You drive a little, and you get taxed a little. This doesn't reflect that, so frankly, the arguments that it has to do with road use are somewhat specious because who knows how much these drivers are using the road.

Amendments were brought in this House, in Committee of the Whole House on Bills, distinguishing between hybrids and plug-ins and understanding if its retroactive or not, but none of that was addressed. None of this is addressed. It will be pushed to legislation. The reality is that this is a divisive tax that this government is bringing in, and with gas over $1.75 per litre, it's also ridiculous.

There's also a tax on woodlot owners. This bill - and I'll read the clause, 59(b), so we're all clear - ensures that preferential tax rates are only provided to active forest properties. Land used as carbon sinks will need to be reported and would be taxed at a different rate, if not actively contributing to the forestry sectors.

[Page 4515]

The Minister was clear - I think it was not on this provision; it was on the extension of leases, but I'm sure that they were consulted on this provision, too - industry wants this. The reality is that there are a lot of people who want to help the government meet their legislative goals of environmental protection, and they are now being penalized for doing that. This creates a tax incentive, in fact, for people to revert their land to active forestry use, which - at the moment, we're still looking for markets.

The minister has done a lot for the forest sector. There's lots of opportunity in that sector, and there's lots of modernization that can happen, but there is also a role for people who have owned woodlots, in many cases, for generations across Nova Scotia. There are lots of family woodlots out there that maybe people can't afford to or don't have the time to use for active forestry, but they do want to use them to do their part for the climate. Why should they be taxed for that? Are people going to lose their family woodlots to a tax sale when this changes?

This does not bring us together. This causes confusion, particularly in rural communities, and we heard many opposition members bring voices into the House that spoke about that. This potentially penalizes people who are trying to maintain and conserve generational family land.

[12:15 p.m.]

Speaking of penalties, no one is speaking ill of conservation officers. The reality is that it is the minister and the Executive Council who determine what the role of those officers is. What we are speaking about - and what I, myself, am very clear about - is the difference between the policy and the discretionary power of the minister and the great everyday women and men across our province who get paid to go to work every day and do their jobs.

This is about the policy. We question the policy of allowing conservation officers to impound vehicles. This builds on provisions that were introduced in that Protecting Nova Scotians bill last fall, which spoke to clearing obstructions. Now a vehicle is also an obstruction that can be cleared. There is a perception that has been very clearly articulated that this is targeted at protesters on Hunters Mountain. I can't say if that's true or not. I don't know, but certainly those protesters feel that it is. In fact, the Mi'kmaw Chiefs have reached out repeatedly on various elements of this budget and pieces of this bill that they are uncomfortable with and upset with, and other legislation moving through the House - the cannabis bill.

Again, this is divisive, but let's imagine an alternate reality. Let's imagine a reality where the measures here sought to bring us together, where we actually consulted with the people who were concerned about these measures - in this case, many Mi'kmaq across the province who have voiced those concerns - and we moved forward together.

[Page 4516]

As many have spoken about - I think of my colleague for Sydney-Membertou - if this government is going to continue full-scale down the path of resource development and extraction, which many of these clauses speak to, they're not going to be able to do it constitutionally without engaging the Mi'kmaq of this province; something that has not, according to the Chiefs, been done. This is just one tiny provision that points at that, but there are many other provisions and budget measures and pieces of legislation in this House that do speak to it more explicitly.

This is going to lead to more division, Speaker. This is going to lead to more difficulties. This is setting the stage for a continued debate wherein Nova Scotians have to decide if they're with us or against us. I submit that that is a terrible way to govern.

The divisiveness continues when it comes to the bridge commission. This one really hits me in the feels because it's in my constituency. There has been a lot of discussion. I heard the minister stand and thank the Halifax Harbour bridge commission. Honestly, I just think that's a bit rich. They're not a bridge commission anymore. They've been folded in. Are people happy about not paying two bucks? Sure. I'm happy, I save a lot of money, but many of the claims that have been made of the outcome of that decision are simply not true.

The reality is that the equipment had been purchased and the plans had been made to move to licence plate tolling before the tolls were removed. All of the traffic, all of that - the ease of getting in and out of the bridges, the safety of the commissionaires - that had been dealt with. That was done. That has nothing to do with any decision of this government to remove the tolls. It doesn't.

Further, it is clear that the decision to remove the tolls was not a decision made on the advice of the bridge commission, in consultation with the bridge commission or even, I don't think, with the bridge commission's knowledge. They just took them off.

Again, was it the right decision? Maybe some people benefit from that. Was it the right way to make a decision? Absolutely not. Because the Halifax Harbour bridge commission was a self-funding commission. They were not a budget pressure; they just paid for their own operations. This is important for a lot of reasons. One of the big reasons that it's important is because we need a new bridge and it's going to be very, very, very, very expensive. That price tag is going to have to be decided on when we are in a very, very, very precarious financial situation as a province.

I can hear it already: Why should people in Cape Breton pay for a bridge in Halifax? Divisive. It didn't need to be that way, Speaker.

Again, this is about how this government makes decisions. Listen, I want to toss a little flower to the Premier here. The highlight of the debate on the Halifax Harbour bridges has been the Premier's clear statement that this bridge will not end in Africville. Contrary to some of the discussion, that was not a foregone conclusion before this session.

[Page 4517]

Given the challenges in this budget for many African Nova Scotian communities across the province and the upset of many community members here in the HRM, this is very important. The community suffered that indignity once before. They should not be made to suffer it again.

The pension review period being extended - again, you have pensioners whose pension is not keeping up with the cost of living. They are upset. They are facing financial challenges. Instead of engaging on that, we extend the period of review. Now I know that that review period - before someone jumps up and corrects me - is not the specific review of the amount of the pension but we have presenters at Public Bills Committee who spoke to why they are upset about that. I, personally, have received a great deal of correspondence about the challenges that this faces for people.

What we are engendering here in this provision is less transparency, not more, less accountability, not more, less engagement, not more. I won't stray too far, but I must say that all of this - this bill and once this bill passes - the function of this bill is to enact a budget that does real harm to our arts and culture sector, to education, to youth, to many programs that African Nova Scotian and L'nu people in this province rely on, and it doesn't really affect the budget. It needs to be said again that all of these cuts address like 1 percent of the deficit.

It's a smokescreen, the government is using the cultural sector writ large and communities as a smokescreen for fiscal responsibility. They are doubling down in the face of the AG's report on untendered spending of billions and billions of dollars, but they can't find $65,000 to keep a program going that keeps artists in schools.

This is divisive. This is reopening a wound that I think the Premier tried very hard to bandage when he was elected and restored the film tax cuts spending. That goodwill is spent now and for what? For what? It doesn't fix the deficit but it hurts our communities. It costs jobs. It impacts our culture. Our culture is who we are and that cutting arts and culture is the opposite of defending Nova Scotia. We are attacking Nova Scotia with those cuts. Lest people think that I'm being idealistic, we can make budgets differently even in a time of restraint.

The Manitoba budget tabled this week extends free bus passes to youth; extends hormone replacement therapy to women and gender-diverse people in the province; waves the tax on groceries, a bill we've had on the order paper for years; and has a path back to fiscal balance. It can be done differently. We can have budgets in this House that make hard decisions that are fair, that are transparent, and that can bring us together. But this government has chosen not to do that and, if we are guided in this Chamber by Joe Howe's maxim "what is for the public good," then I think we have to understand what the public is. The public is not industry.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order, order, it's getting rather loud in here. I ask that everybody respect the person speaking.

[Page 4518]

The honourable member for Dartmouth South.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Thank you, Speaker, I'll close with this. We are asked to reflect on what is for the public good. When our library was the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Joseph Howe gave us that great gift of reflecting upon that question and I think everyone does. I think everyone in this Chamber thinks about that, but what that really means is how do we help people. How do we help people? I think the easiest way we can measure that in real time is to ask of this budget, of legislation, of the work we do in this House: Does it bring us together? Does it strengthen our bond? Are we defending what matters? It is my strong opinion that this bill does not.

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

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : Thank you, Speaker. Obviously, we're not supporting the FMA, as we've said over the last number of weeks, for a whole bunch of reasons, but this sets up the next two years - as my colleague, the member for Sydney-Membertou, has referenced - of decline.

Regardless of the aspirations of the government to finally pay some attention to economic growth, the budget documents in front of us show very little GDP movement and further cuts. I think that's the main thing that probably isn't as well known as it should be in the public - that this is year one of multiple years of the same scale of drastic cuts, presumably being analyzed by the same people, the same members of the Treasury Board with the same lens to look at how to make cost reductions, another $300 million next year.

So as bad as this budget is, it's going to be even worse next year with no future economic growth forecasted that is going to be any different from the last five years, which their own minister of economic growth claims - and is right - that we are at the bottom of the pack, not only in Canada but in North America.

[12:30 p.m.]

This is not a budget that sets up the province for growth. The only plan to grow revenues - and the FMA is specific to revenues - the only plan is to hold out your hand and accept tens of millions, hundreds of millions, actually billions of dollars from Ottawa. That is the only thing that the government can point to. There is no vision, and with all that spending over the last five years, we are still at the bottom of the pack.

The only thing we lead in Canada is the size of our government - grown from a $13 billion government to a $19 billion government - imbedded structural costs. That limits our opportunities: to engage in the very projects and priorities of the federal government; to maximize, to leverage, to invest in capital projects that can spur that return on investment in jobs and communities; to participate in the massive amount of work we are going to need to build up the defence sector; to have a plan to develop skilled trades to build the buildings that are going need to be built.

[Page 4519]

We already know our government has slowed down infrastructure projects, the redevelopment of health care, because of a lack of access to skilled trades. What is the plan, while we are cutting NSCC, to expand the programs for workforce training? That's why it is important to focus comprehensively on an economic strategy - to grow that revenue.

I don't know if we've heard anything about Life Sciences Nova Scotia in this sitting, about the opportunities around quantum, about our start-up ecosystem, about scaling up. In the other strategic sectors, the only thing we hear about them is that they are being cut - tourism, arts and culture, all these things successive governments believed were the very nature of our province's economy and, in many cases, comparative advantages - the ocean sector - but instead we look at a government managing future budgets to decline.

We are giving up revenue in this FMA - tens of millions of dollars on operating on the backs of those organizations that are being cut. It shows where the priority is. The FMA, together with the budget, is a clear example of where the government stands on issues.

The first few years it was a yes to pretty well every group asking for something, and we knew that had to come to an end at some point. When they were faced with the tough decisions to make and reductions had to be made, and they knew that was ultimately going to have to happen, the folks who sat around Treasury Board who approved the budget that was brought forward decided some things were more important than the work of non-profit organizations, the work of organizations doing upstream work in recreation and mental health - the very things that save the government money in the long term and that disproportionately impact vulnerable communities.

We still have, despite some of the changes, around 10 different programs being cut or eliminated at L'nu Affairs. We still have organizations working in African Nova Scotian communities that are impacted, that are not going to be able to maximize the work they do. The kind of return on investment that is, frankly, difficult to quantify.

There has been no demonstration of awareness of just how important those programs are to communities, and the connection between health care and education. The government likes to say they are protecting those core services. I don't see evidence of that in this budget.

We have $6.7 billion spent without even going through this process - with no indication. What's worse, with no indication that that whole process - that belief - will even stop, as we leave this House, regardless of the fiscal position we are in. We have a government that is proudly saying, no matter what criticism they get, is how much money they spend. That's their answer, that somehow, the inputs and the amount of money they spend equal outcome. Clearly, that's not the case when you see the problems and the issues when you go across the province. They'll say it next year when they bring in another budget. The main talking point will be that they're spending over $20 billion. Every single budget - the first budget they brought in, in 2021, the answer with almost every minister is $16 billion or $15 billion, as if that's the outcome. This belief that more spending is aligned with the public interest is erroneous at best.

[Page 4520]

The other priority that's clearly being eroded away after successive budgets and sittings in this House is priority for the environment. If you don't pay attention to climate change, that is forgoing your long-term economic interest.

In this FMA we have an inappropriate tax, levy, or whatever you want to call it on electric vehicles. There's a connection with that and affordability. Giving up $10 million of revenue from the Canada-Nova Scotia Nature Agreement, not only to protect land, but a lot of the good work that the wildlife division was doing in the Department of Natural Resources is eliminated - work around species at risk, work around populations of birds, all those things. If you speak to those - there are still biologists in the department, but those whom I know who were in management positions and are on boards across the whole country are no longer there. Those projects cease to exist. The funding will not be there from the federal government to do that.

They're giving up money that would go to protect our environment while spending outside of the budget process and while continuing their belief in not only untendered contracts but untendered contracts that are used inappropriately - not my words but the words of the Auditor General.

When you start to add all of these things up, you can see why we are where we are today. We have a spendthrift government that has only mentioned the words "fiscal responsibility" in budgeting for the first time in this sitting - never mentioned before. I just remembered, I went to a Chamber event less than a year ago with the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, and that wasn't even mentioned in his speech - the person who is supposed to be tasked with controlling spending and having some level of discipline on his departments. Anyone in business knows you're supposed to try to grow your top line and control the spend, but this government has not focused there.

It feels like it's a mad scramble, to say the least, if you look at how this sitting went down in terms of process, in terms of rushed omnibus bills, and then massive decisions, budgets changed - never happened before - and amendments on this very bill before us on conservation, which I spoke to in one of the readings somewhere. I think I spent 20 minutes or a half hour on that issue alone - waste of time, if it was going to be pulled back. It wasted a whole bunch of people's time, people who were not only watching the House until midnight but wondering when the minister was going to stand up and clarify it. They still had to go to Public Bills Committee the next day, take time out of their day to talk about why it's important to take those amendments out.

It's not like there is a time pressure to get those things in. There were many months from the last House sitting. This House sitting, the whole schedule is completely at the whim of the government.

[Page 4521]

Those are my main points. This simply is yet another budget that we have voted against since 2021 because it set us on an unsustainable path, did not set us up for pro-growth, and did not work together with communities and fully understand the implications of the decisions that had been made in the long-term that will impact the environment and impact the work that folks are doing across so many important sectors - the knowledge-based economy. Even in natural resources the strategy around ensuring that there is some kind of value-add strategy - strategy to maximize jobs in communities, long-term careers, and not prioritizing one or another project, one company or another company, but a competitive process to make sure that we are leveraging our opportunities in our province.

As long as budgets and FMAs continue to be brought forward like this, with a lack of thought going into the decisions that are being made, we'll continue to oppose them. I'd say that it's just the tip of the iceberg when we look to next year and we look at, first of all, the impacts that are still dribbling out and folks who are still posting that they're being let go from their jobs and organizations. That will dribble out over the next little while.

We'll see the impacts of the 3-percent cut to the Nova Scotia Health Authority and 3-percent cut to centres of education as we prepare for the next year, where we see further cuts of the same scale - another 3-percent cut in those so-called core services that the government says they're protecting, and another potential 20-percent cut to those that have already been cut 20 percent. Without having an answer from the members opposite on what's happening next year, I wonder if any of those organizations that were cut once will cease to exist. If not, where else is the funding going to come from? It's not from the major projects, because if it were, it would be in the budget. There's nothing in there and a lot of those projects are five or ten years out at best.

You can continue to talk about the opportunities that the Carney government is providing, but I'd recommend taking a page from that government's book. Value your relationships with Indigenous folks. Control your day-to-day spend so that you have the capacity to invest in capital projects to grow the economy. That's how we might be able to crawl out of the bottom of the pack.

This is not a one-term government. This is a second-term government. They own where we are today with being in the worst fiscal position after inheriting an enviable fiscal position, being in one of the worst economic positions of our history after coming in with strong population growth and just riding that revenue wave without realizing that the economy started to contract in real per-capita terms, and spending all that revenue.

I look forward to seeing what happens in the next weeks and months ahead, but this bill is equally as bad as the budget, and we won't be supporting it.

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

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Certainly sobering. Thank you so much to my colleagues, both the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party, for their remarks here on the motion that is before us, as well as their overall general remarks to the Financial Measures (2026) Act. It's certainly very sobering - and very genuine remarks, and really reflective of both of their experiences, I believe.

[Page 4522]

I do just want to, out of respect, acknowledge the member who just spoke and how challenging it must be to see the current financial state of our Province. When he was in government - I could stand to be corrected, but I believe they had five balanced budgets and certainly more of a focus on fiscal management.

I realize that there were other challenges that came with that, especially in health care. That's often referenced. However, we do have a responsibility to manage the finances responsibly here in the Province of Nova Scotia for the people. One of the things that stood out for me when the budget was first tabled was not only the deficits that we're seeing right now before us but the projected deficits - the forecast. We're looking at a forecasted debt-to-GDP expected to rise to 45.4 percent by 2029-30.

That's extraordinary. It's not going in the right direction and I'm not sure what's going to pull us back. When I've spoken with other members who are no longer here in the Chamber but who used to be with this government, they made it clear to me that this government was told a couple of years ago what was going to happen if they didn't rein in spending and do proper fiscal management.

[12:45 p.m.]

This isn't a surprise. This was forecast at least two years ago, that things needed to change, and changes weren't made, so here we are, Speaker, today.

As my colleagues have mentioned, we are here with limited debate now on the FMA, the government has put forth a motion to ensure that there will be no further debate on the Financial Measures (2026) Act that is before us.

I know there have been a lot of comments about people are tired of the debate but again, I will say the Financial Measures (2026) Act is an extraordinarily large bill: 20 pieces of legislation, 137 clauses, each one of those clauses affects the laws - the legislation here in Nova Scotia. They take time. In other jurisdictions legislation is handled in a much more, I would say, effective manner than the way that we see legislation.

I would say that legislation is done here in a very partisan manner. It's done with an intent to rush things through, very much centralized power, very little respect for amendments brought forth by Opposition members and the fact that the hours have been scheduled until midnight every night, with the exception of one, and that's only because it was Opposition Day and the government didn't have an opportunity to set the hours the night before.

In my opinion, and I've shared this in the House, it is very disrespectful to the health and wellness of staff who are expected to work in these conditions. It also makes it more difficult to properly analyze and debate legislation in an effective manner and contributes to the discord here in the Legislature.

[Page 4523]

I appreciate people's comments about Easter coming but when I think of what Easter represents and what I think about the experience certainly I have in this Chamber, does not reflect the principles of Easter. I do believe that the hours that the government sets really do contribute to the tension and the lack of respect that is often given.

We have a responsibility here in Opposition to ask questions. That's our job, that is parliamentary democracy, that's responsible government. It's not meant to be a dictatorship or authoritarian-style leadership. We have responsible government and we should try to hold true to those democratic principles, which include having opportunity to ask questions in a respectful manner, to ensure there's oversight, to ensure there is scrutiny.

When you are in a leadership position, a strong leader actually welcomes that and asks how we can do things better. Do I have blinders on? Is there something I'm missing?

I do think that even this motion that is before us on the FMA again just speaks to the level of pressure this government puts here in this House to have as little scrutiny as possible.

I want to give an example of what I have spoken to, it's in relation to this, and that is the need for a parliamentary calendar. I know everyone is tired, it feels like Friday but it's only Thursday. In fact, I pulled out my Friday sheet in Question Period today, thinking that it's the last day. I know everyone is tired, but I just want to share that while this may be one of the longest sittings we've had under this government, this is still a short legislative sitting, I know we still have a way to go. Keep in mind that British Columbia last year sat 43 days in the Spring. This is our 24^th day. British Columbia sat 43 days in the spring last year, Alberta sat 34, Saskatchewan sat 30, Manitoba sat 41, Ontario sat 23, Quebec sat 47 , New Brunswick sat 24, Nova Scotia sat 22, P.E.I. sat 30, Newfoundland and Labrador sat 19 - 29 the year before - and the territories sat 32, 25, and 23.

It's not like we've sat exponentially greater than what other legislators are sitting; we're still in the lower end. Unless we're sitting double, I don't think the public is going to feel too sorry for us being here doing our job and bringing forth their voices. I don't support the motion that is before us. I don't believe government should be putting forth motions that restrict debate here in this House, and that's exactly what this motion that is before us does. There's really no justification for it.

There were a few comments that I didn't have the opportunity to speak to the FMA last night as it was finishing off in Committee of the Whole on Bills, so I would like to start my comments on the FMA. I was going to share at Clause 137 and on the title. Some of the comments that I wanted to make in finishing off our debate in Committee of the Whole on Bills on the FMA included Clause 137. Clause 137 is the clause that - make sure that I use the right legal word here - it brings things into power, puts things into law. When they come into force, that's the term I'm looking for.

[Page 4524]

I'm curious if anyone in government can answer the question why, again, there are 137 clauses here? In the first 58 clauses, there's no reference to them at all of when they come into force. The Assessment Act amendments, the Community Easements Act, and the Conservation Easements Acts were removed, but even before they were removed, they're not referenced in Clause 137, so it's not indicated when they were going to be coming into force. As well, the Crown Lands Act - that's not clear either. The Forests Act, there are some things that are coming into force on such a day that Governor in Council orders and declares by proclamation. There are some things in the Financial Measures (2026) Act that will come into force when Cabinet decides, but we don't know when that will be. My question that I would have for the government is: Will they actually come into force, or are they going to be bills?

I didn't realize this until just a few years ago: that some of the bills that we debate and pass, even if it's with all-party support and all-members support, never actually come into law. Not being a lawyer, I just assumed that everything that passed here in the Legislature actually was made into law. Some bills sit and never actually come into force. When looking at Clause 137, I do have questions about that. The Forests Act, the Insurance Act, the Meat Inspection Act, and the Non-resident Deed Transfer Tax Act: those clauses only come into force when Cabinet decides and declares proclamation.

Then there are several other clauses as well that are identified in Clause 137 when they come into proclamation. There are dates given. Some are here: the Revenue Act, Clause 110 and Clauses 111 to 126. Those, it says, have effect on or after April 1^st, but then there was an amendment put forth by the Minister of Finance. Because in fact we're still here in the House, he brought forth an amendment to change that, to amend that, because we're still here on April 2^nd.

There was some debate here in the House on that after the minister made reference to - he was surprised that we were still here. It led to me tabling a quote by the minister when he was in Opposition. I'm going to reference that again. It is in Hansard, so I don't think I have to table it, if it's in Hansard. That's my understanding.

This was said by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, back in 2014:

One of the things that we need to consider in this House is having set times for when we will sit and when we will rise as a House so that - and I believe there should be a calendar published that tells us the times the House will sit and rise for the next four years. We should know that. We should know that on the October 2, 2015 the House will sit, and on November 20th the House will rise, if that's what we want.

We should know the times for the Fall sitting and Spring sitting, and there are a number of reasons why we should know that. It is simply a matter of planning ….

[Page 4525]

I reference that because if there was a calendar, in addition to all the benefits that we've already shared here in the House, it would have helped the government with their planning and they wouldn't have had to table an amendment to their own bill because the House was sitting longer than they had anticipated.

Also, I have a quote here from the Premier, and his is also from 2014:

This government continues to put bad legislation before this House, tries to use their majority to ram it through with late hours, sit until 12:00 midnight, sitting all night trying to push bills through this House so they can fix them later.

So I just reference that. There are quite a few members here who, of course, weren't here at that time, but it is important for members in government to know that what we are asking here in Opposition, the current Premier and current Minister of Finance and Treasury Board both also asked for, when they were in Opposition.

It is something we will continue to ask for because it is the right thing to do. I think all of us want to put forth the best legislation for the people of Nova Scotia. We want to also be able to manage and plan our own individual lives. I was talking with someone yesterday, and we talked about - my goodness, we have bills we have to pay. We have spouses, we have family we'd like to see. I am sure that has taken its toll on people over the last five weeks.

In fact, when I first became an MLA - I've shared this story in the House before - I had staff tell me that I would be getting a divorce because that's what happens to MLAs. I was actually quite upset by that comment, because I love my husband and my marriage is very important to me, and my family. My husband had already actually talked about the challenges of being apart and the challenges of being a rural MLA and having to physically be away from home for weeks on end and days on end. We had actually come up with a plan that when I was sitting from Monday to Friday, he would travel to the city in the middle of the week and go home the next morning.

He has consistently done that since 2017, and I appreciate that so much, and it has helped us to stay connected. The House being closed has been hard on him and hard on me because his routine of coming every Wednesday, of course, had to change the last two weeks because he also wasn't allowed here in this Legislature.

Our families are important, and a legislative calendar is something that would help not only legislation, but it would help the lives of the members who serve here in this Chamber, and that matters. When people are healthier, they are going to be able to do work that, I believe, will have better outcomes.

Again, before I move on to my next work here on this bill, I want to emphasize that I strongly oppose this government's decision to have hours set until midnight every night, out of respect for every single person who works here for us on behalf of Nova Scotians, including our Clerks, including our librarians, our security, our Commissionaires.

[Page 4526]

Honestly, as a nurse, I've been watching people over the last five weeks. I've been watching some people's health decline and I'm worried about people. People's health has been affected by this sitting in a very negative way. People's physical health, people's mental health, and it's wrong. It's not a healthy workplace. It is in part because of this government's - led by the Premier's decision to set the hours that he has. There's no need of it. There's absolutely no need of it.

[1:00 p.m.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Honourable member, I ask that you stay on the bill and the question to the bill.

The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Thank you, Speaker. I apologize. I had listened to all the other speakers, and I thought because we were speaking to this motion that there was some more levity, so I apologize. I will speak more to the FMA.

THE SPEAKER « » : There is some levity because the budget was spoken about, as well, but we weren't speaking about House hours, health, or any of that stuff.

The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Last night, I didn't have an opportunity before debate closed on Bill No. 198 in Committee of the Whole House on Bills. I was planning on speaking to title, and when I spoke to title, some of the things that I wanted to bring up on behalf of the people I represent were things that were not included in the Financial Measures (2026) Act or have not been brought before the House this session that I believe should have been, on behalf of the people I represent and on behalf of all Nova Scotians.

Some of those things include increasing the basic personal tax exemption. This is something that has been advocated for from the Halifax Chamber of Commerce, as well as other stakeholders. We do have one of the lowest basic personal tax exemptions in the country, and of course, that's a bad thing because the basic personal tax exemption is the level of income that people have when the government starts taxing people. Right now, Nova Scotia starts taxing people before most other provinces and territories in Canada.

When the Premier talks about trying to bring young people back to Nova Scotia, this is, in fact, something that they look at. I have had family members and other friends' younger children say that they were not moving back to Nova Scotia. They were in their 20s, and when they looked at their income and taxation, they were going to be paying between $3,000 and $5,000 more in taxes even if they made the exact same income. One of the reasons - one of the contributing factors to that - is our basic personal tax exemption. It is too low. One of the things that I have recommended, based on feedback from financial experts, is to increase that to at least $15,000 so people living in poverty are not being taxed.

[Page 4527]

The other thing that I've advocated for on behalf of people in our area and across Nova Scotia is to stop penalizing seniors with a late fee if they apply for Pharmacare after the age of 65. It is very much a disincentive. A lot of seniors simply do not have the money. They do not have the money that is required with this late fee, and unfortunately, many seniors are going without medication that they need for their health because of this late fee that this government is imposing.

Any time we make a decision, it's important that we make decisions that are not made in silos. I can pretty confidently state that the government would save money if they removed the late fee, because more seniors would be able to afford their medication, and that would be a preventative approach. We would see less illness. We would see improved management of illness, such as diabetes. Many Nova Scotians have diabetes, and without proper medical management, that leads to illnesses as a result. That's probably the biggest disease that is impacted by seniors not being able to afford their medications, but there are many others. Absolutely, the government should remove this late fee and stop punishing seniors.

The reality is that a lot of seniors are working past the age of 65 because they have to. They have to in order to have enough money.

The other thing that would have been nice to see in the Financial Measures (2026) Act was some sort of measure to help food banks right now deal with the massive amounts of red tape and bureaucracy that they are required to do in order to meet the government's requirements for accounting, and for meeting the paperwork requirements.

At one of the town halls that I had just a couple of weeks before the session started, I was told by one of our most incredible volunteers - he's a retired teacher who serves our community on a volunteer basis in many capacities, and one of them is with our food bank. He said that up to 35 percent of their budget is now paid in administrative costs, and all of their funding for their food bank comes from donations from the community. He's really upset by that.

It also places an unnecessary burden on volunteers. Many volunteers don't have the capacity to complete the paperwork that is now required for food banks. This is something that our government could do. It is an important thing as we see more and more people relying on food banks for food for themselves and for their families.

The other item that was not in the Financial Measures (2026) Act that I believe should have been - and I know many of my colleagues have brought this forward - is changes to the Appropriations Act. This is something, of course, that our Auditor General has asked for time and time again. My colleague, the Leader of the Liberal Party, also referenced some of the mismanagement of finances that we're seeing.

[Page 4528]

It's important that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board start looking at this. I did bring this up in Question Period today as well. We do need to have someone take some accountability for this Auditor General's report and not continue to dismiss it. It's very clear when you read the report that she felt, and her team felt, that the alternative procurement usage was unjustified in many cases.

We do have to ask: Are the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and his Department of Finance and Treasury Board okay with this continued - not using the financial tools that are in place that are supposed to ensure that Nova Scotia taxpayers' public funds are being used responsibly? We're not saying that they're not. What we're saying is that we don't know, because the proper tools that are in place to ensure that there is no conflict of interest are simply not being used. It's our job to ask those questions. It's our job to ensure that there is nothing nefarious happening with taxpayers' money.

I'm just going to refer to the Auditor General's report. One of the things that I've really been interested in is virtual care and the expanded use of virtual care by this government. Virtual care can be very positive. Especially if someone is busy, it's very convenient. They don't have to wait to get into their doctor's office. There is definitely a place for virtual care, now and into the future, but we need to make sure that Nova Scotians are getting value for their money.

If you go to Page 30 of the Auditor General's report, there is a section in there that's referring to virtual care. I'm just going to give an example here: "In March 2021, Vendor 4" - we don't know who that is - "was hired by NSH through an alternative procurement following an assessment of several virtual healthcare providers to deliver the initial version of the Full Care service. Specifically, Vendor 4 was hired to deliver a pilot project to provide virtual doctor access to help diagnose issues, prescribe medications and provide referrals for Nova Scotians without a family doctor in the Northern and Western regions of the province. The pilot project was valued at approximately $300,000 for a period of 18 months."

I want people to pay attention to the numbers here.

Despite its preliminary start as a pilot project, the contract was amended five times, starting in May 2021 and March 2023, to offer the service to individuals without a family doctor throughout the province and expand the services provided by Vendor 4. What started as a $300,000 two-region service in March 2021 resulted in approximately $9.5 million in payments to Vendor 4 between March 2021 and August 2024 for the full care service - $300,000 to $9.5 million with alternative procurement practice.

In September 2024, Nova Scotia Health Authority then awarded Vendor 4 a new full care contract through alternative procurement valued at $18.5 million. We went from $300,000 to $9.5 million to $18.5 million. Then in October 2023, Nova Scotia Health Authority awarded another alternative procurement to Vendor 4 valued at $23 million to provide basic care service, which is separate from full care. The initial term of this contract was 12 months, but in December 2024, it was extended for up to approximately another two and a half years at an expected cost of approximately $21 million.

[Page 4529]

This is important, and this is something that the Auditor General has included in the report here. We're going from $311 million for 18 months, and this is all done through alternative procurement. When something is done through alternative procurement, it means it has not gone through the procurement process that we have in place here in the Province of Nova Scotia to ensure taxpayers' money is being spent with no conflict of interest and such. It went from $300 million to up to $23.4 million in 12 months, and then up to $21 million.

It's a lot of money with no oversight.

Back a couple years ago, I had a conversation with someone - confidentially - about their concerns with procurement processes here in Nova Scotia. As a result of that input that I got from those meetings, I did table a bill recommending Nova Scotia do what many other provinces do, and that is to have a clinical procurement officer or a clinical procurement office. In other provinces, there is more efficiency for procurement processes.

One of the things that this government could do is that. That would follow the lead of other provinces and possibly reduce the Department of Health and Wellness's or Nova Scotia Health Authority's reliance on alternative procurement, which is exactly what the Auditor General has recommended to do. That does need to be examined.

This isn't meant to be an attack on anyone. This is meant to shine a light on what the Auditor General has shone a light on. It's important. We do need to ensure that Nova Scotians' money is being spent with proper oversight and ensure no conflict of interest. No one should be scared of that. If anyone is against that, then that raises more red alerts and more questions. Why are people averse to that?

We need to make sure that Nova Scotians' money is being spent, and decisions are being made, with contracts, especially when we're dealing with large amounts of money, and that the proper financial tools that are in place through the Department of Finance and Treasury Board are being used by the government.

[1:15 p.m.]

As I, in starting this conversation, referred to the Appropriations Act - the Auditor General, as well as many colleagues here have stated that the spending outside of the budgetary process does need to change. I've heard the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board reference that other governments did the same thing, they used it as well. But when you compare the amount of money that was actually spent outside of appropriations by both the NDP government as well as the Liberal government, it's negligible - a very small amount.

Again, I've heard the government try to justify their use spending outside of the Appropriations Act by saying, "Are you suggesting that we have to come back to the Legislatures when there's a forest fire to get approvals for our emergency spending?" Of course that's not what anyone is suggesting.

[Page 4530]

There has been $6.7 billion spent outside of approved budgetary processes. $6.7 billion is a lot of money for a government to spend without proper debate here in this House. Those are democratic principles, that budgets are supposed to go through the public lens and that it's brought before the House, we are able to ask questions on behalf of the public.

I think it's very reasonable to change the Appropriations Act, to change that piece of legislation on behalf of Nova Scotians to make sure their tax dollars are being spent in a way that is legal, that there's no partisan spending. There have been a lot of conversations around conflict of interest in this legislative session and I really like that because as an Independent, we don't have blinders on that can happen. That can happen when you are part of any team, part of any organization. The reality is that the laws here in Nova Scotia are that spending is actually not legally allowed to be partisan. It's very clear in the Conflict of Interest Act that when financial decisions are being made by departments, that there's not allowed to be a partisan interference.

Of course we know that years ago that's how things worked but things evolved and changed, as they should have. I believe we're seeing things going backward. They can do that, this government, because they have the power to do so but it is actually illegal, based on the Conflict of Interest Act.

I really have enjoyed hearing more questions and having that brought up more in the Legislature this session. When it comes to the changes that should be made to the Appropriations Act, we're suggesting that - and the Auditor General is suggesting that - to ensure that there are no violations with regards to the Conflict of Interest Act and to ensure that it's not only government-held constituencies that are getting their roads paved or government-held constituencies that are getting funding for other departments, because it's illegal.

Now we're certainly seen a lot of incredible spending up in our area by this government and people who I represent are very grateful for that. A lot of good things happening. People are very appreciative of that. There aren't always the big press conferences that could go along with it. I am quite okay with that as long as the spending is happening and people are getting the services they need. Some of those include - to Autumn House, there's been a lot of additional money spent there, especially after the Mass Casualty Commission, a lot of supports. I just want to give a little shoutout to Dawn Ferris, who is our Executive Director. She does incredible leadership.

We recently had a healing session for survivors of sexual assault. We did that after an emergency room physician was charged with five counts of sexual assault; he had worked in one of our hospitals. Of course, this comes after someone else who was putting themselves forth in our community as some sort of a holistic medical practitioner and also was up on charges of sexual assault. Thankfully, a judge ruled that he had to remove advertising on his building suggesting that he was a qualified practitioner when he actually had no licences to be doing any of the services that he was saying he was and had been charged by women who had alleged that they had been violated. Then of course, for 20 years, we had a family physician who's been charged five times for sexual assault and harassment and practised in our communities for a long time.

[Page 4531]

Dawn Ferris with Autumn House helped, as well as many other stakeholders in our community, including our Sexual Health Centre and Corey Hunter, as well as Trina Clarke with our Cumberland YMCA, and other community partners. Liz LeClair helped facilitate, as well as Kristina Fifield. They came up and helped. It was just an incredible healing session for community. There was one for survivors, and there was one for the community. We had two separate ones. We're going to hold more. We've got more coming. I wish we didn't have to do those, but until there are no more survivors, we will continue to provide supports to them in our community.

On that note, I did want to bring up on this motion - I wouldn't suggest that it be part of the Financial Measures (2026) Act, but I am disappointed that we continue to still see no legislation changing the use of non-disclosures, or the misuse, rather, of the non-disclosure act here in Nova Scotia. I'll continue to advocate that. I know the first time I heard of this was when the Leader of the Official Opposition brought forth legislation on that bill. I'm very proud to support them on that as well. This sitting, we've seen the Liberals as well bring forth legislation, and of course, I've tabled one in the past too. Prayerfully those changes will come to protect survivors and stop protecting the perpetrators.

Another item that I would have liked to have seen in the Financial Measures (2026) Act is removing the tax on the sale of used vehicles. This is something that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board himself had advocated for when he was in the leadership race back in 2018. I have been surprised that we haven't seen it brought forth in this government, because I know it's something he strongly believed in. It's something that many people would benefit from. I believe that it's just philosophically wrong to continue to charge tax on the sale of used vehicles here. It would benefit a lot of people, especially the people in lower income levels if this tax was removed.

Another thing I would have liked to have seen in the Financial Measures (2026) Act is a measure to remove tax on tax. We continue to see this government charge tax, HST on taxes. If someone goes and gets something through Motor Vehicles or Access Nova Scotia and charges a fee, there's tax on that. That's essentially a form of a tax. As well, of course, fuel - I've talked about that here in the House. We pay HST on top of motive fuel tax; we pay HST of top of federal excise tax. Tax on tax. There are all kinds of government fees that people are paying a tax on as well. Tax on tax. That is something that philosophically, I believe is wrong, and I would have liked to have seen that in the Financial Measures (2026) Act.

Those are just a few of the things that I think that my constituents have asked me to bring forth here in the Legislature. I'm certainly not an expert when it comes to arts and culture. I enjoy arts and culture but personally - I do sew but I can't paint. But I have been contacted by hundreds if not thousands of people who are involved in arts and culture and are very negatively impacted by this budget and by the legislation that's been brought forth this sitting.

[Page 4532]

I had several letters. I would like to table some of them. I do have an article here I wanted to reference but I don't know if I can find it. Yes, here it is. One of the pieces of research that I went through was the economic benefits of arts and culture and I do want to just mention that because I do believe it is short sighted for the government to make cuts the way they have in arts and culture because there are - through economic analysis it's very clearly documented across Canada that arts and culture actually help to grow the economy.

I do believe when the government's looking at their fiscal projections that these cuts are actually going to worsen the fiscal future of Nova Scotia and that, when the decisions were made and whoever did make those decisions, I don't believe they were advised adequately through that financial lens. Whether it's tourism, whether it's some of the other funding cuts that have been discussed here in the Chamber - I know a lot of times after the sitting ends the government does sometimes do some of the things that Opposition has recommended. I'm hoping that this will be one of them. We know that they do because of the Appropriations Act, the way it stands. We know that they have used that to make decisions outside of the budgetary process.

We know that they have the ability to make those changes if they do choose so once Legislature rises. I hope that someone in the departments making the decisions will take a deeper dive, take a deeper look into the cuts that were made, and do a more thorough financial analysis of those. Not just look at the next 12 months but look at the next 5 to 10 years and the impact of those cuts.

This document that I'm going to table is a Canadian document but it shares the financial impacts of arts and culture on our community. That's part of the document there. I do think that they will find, if they take a deeper look at the finances of their decisions, that they would be better off to reverse them if they're looking at trying to find ways to grow the economy here in Nova Scotia.

I want to table this document as well. This is a document put out by the Fraser Institute. It talks about tax competitiveness challenges here in Atlantic Canada, and it also reinforces one of the points that I made earlier about the importance to increase basic personal tax exemption and ensure that we are competitive when it comes to our tax measures here in Nova Scotia.

In relation to the Financial Measures (2026) Act and the budget, I hear this will be our last opportunity to speak to finances here because of the motion that the Government House Leader put forth which will restrict debate on this Financial Measures (2026) Act. I want to take an opportunity to talk a little bit about tolls. I was telling my colleague - my new legislative staff - that one of the things I thought hard and long for here in this House was for the Cobequid tolls to be removed for the people of Nova Scotia, in particular the people of Cumberland County. For around 25 years they had to pay to travel through the Cobequid Pass to come to medical appointments here in Halifax. It was $8 to go back and forth. It caused a lot of hardship, but it also caused a lot of economic hardship on our businesses .

[Page 4533]

If we had someone who was shipping lumber, say, from Cumberland to another part of the province, or if we had someone shipping lobster, manufactured goods, those all had to pay an extra tariff or cost.

[1:30 p.m.]

Thankfully, the Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition, did support my legislation. I had tabled two bills in Opposition to have those tolls removed, and he did support those pieces of legislation when we were in Opposition. I was very pleased when he did become Premier that that was one of the first things he did, along with my colleague from Cumberland South and the Minister of Public Works at the time - it was TIR then. Those were removed for Nova Scotians, but I do think it's time for them to be removed in their entirety.

When you look at the financials associated with the Cobequid tolls and you look at the legislation that accompanies the Cobequid Pass tolls - it's called the Highway 104 Western Alignment Act, although there were some changes in the Financial Measures Act related to that last year. The legislation that came with that - there are several pieces of legislation over the last 31 years, 32 years - clearly states that the tolls are to be removed on the Cobequid Pass once the debts have been paid.

When that pass was built - many local people still to this day believe that pass was built in the wrong area. Anybody who travels that road knows the road was built on top of a mountain, and it has a whole different weather system of its own. It can be beautiful on the other side of it but when you go through that pass, it can be a nightmare. Regardless, the decision was made by the government of the day - it was in the mid 1990s - to build that pass there.

Some people are still bitter about the federal money that was supposed to go to build that so there wouldn't be any tolls, and that money went somewhere else through a federal minister, but that's in the past. Regardless, the highway was built, and the funding model was put in place, and the legislation clearly stated that the tolls were to be removed once the debt was paid, and the debt has been paid. It has been 30 years as well, and it is time for them to be removed.

When we look at the piece of legislation that our Premier tabled regarding interprovincial barriers, removing all interprovincial barriers - and I believe that was tabled in response to President Trump and the threat of tariffs that he put in place. When the Premier put in place the bill to remove interprovincial barriers, this is one of the things that should be removed. It is an interprovincial barrier.

[Page 4534]

Now we see the Province of New Brunswick and their Minister of Finance and Treasury Board actually referencing the Cobequid Pass tolls as justification for placing a new toll in Aulac, New Brunswick, which will harm all Nova Scotians who want to travel through to other parts of Canada, including P.E.I. in the summer, but disproportionately will cause harm to the people of Cumberland County, affecting the constituents of the member for Cumberland South, as well as my constituents.

I implore the Premier to work with Premier Holt and the New Brunswick government to look at the reasons behind their justification for putting these tolls in at the Aulac area. The New Brunswick Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has clearly stated to media that one of his justifications is the fact that there are tolls on the Cobequid Pass that the residents of New Brunswick, and commercial drivers transporting goods from New Brunswick to Nova Scotia, are required to pay. That is one of the reasons that he is justifying that.

I think it's time, based on the legislation that's before us as well as the threat of a new toll going up next door in New Brunswick, that it's time to remove the tolls completely on the Cobequid Pass. I implore them to do that.

Another thing that has come up from New Brunswick, again, possibly justifying their reasoning behind placing new tolls in New Brunswick at the Aulac area - and it's a little cloudy, but from what I've read in the media - is that there's been some tension between our two provinces regarding the Chignecto Isthmus and who pays. I was surprised to read that, because last March - a year ago - an agreement that I would assume would be legally binding was signed between the federal government, New Brunswick, and our Province of Nova Scotia, our government. The agreement was that the federal government would pay 50 percent of the cost, Nova Scotia would pay 25 percent of the cost, and New Brunswick would pay 25 percent of the cost.

However, we have learned recently, with the conversations around the proposed new New Brunswick tolls, that there is some tension between the two provinces - that our government has been pressuring New Brunswick to pay more than the 25 percent and that Nova Scotia shouldn't have to pay the full 25 percent. Again, if that is the background story, and if that is what's leading to the pressures for New Brunswick to put the tolls on - kind of a tit-for-tat situation - then I implore the government to work collaboratively with our neighbours.

We see the Premier travelling to Ontario, we see him travelling to Texas, and I heard that next week he's going to Alberta . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. Order, order, order.

I ask the member to stay on the bill. You're not stating someone is in the House, but you're implying that they might not be. We're sitting here next week, I think, unless we're going to miraculously get through everything tonight, so I ask the member to stay on the bill. Thank you.

[Page 4535]

The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Thank you, Speaker. You're right, I realize.

I guess the reference is more in relation to I'm asking that our Premier really focus on positive relations with our neighbours in New Brunswick. Particularly right now, I would say we need to do everything we can to work with our neighbours and to ensure that a new tax, a new tariff, a new toll does not go up.

Again, yesterday I tabled an article where the Premier did make a comment about the tolls, saying that he was frustrated by that. I would ask, has the Premier met with Premier Holt on this issue? Have our Ministers of Finance and Treasury Board met? I would like to know what progress has been done and what work has been done by the government. I think it would be helpful for the public for that information to be made public. Have meetings taken place, whether on the phone or whether in person, to remove the possibility of new tolls going into place? We need to do everything we can to ensure that people are not faced with the economic hardship of having to pay a new toll.

I will say that it's very, very frustrating for the people in our area. They're faced with many economic hardships because often decisions are made that don't take them into account.

Regarding finances, I believe one of my constituents is actually having an interview with the CBC today about a situation that I have brought here to the House. They reached out to see if I could be involved, but I could not, because we're here. It's regarding what some may say is a minor thing, but it's not to this businessperson, and it's not to many of the people in our community.

It is the fact that his business is suffering because of the change regarding refundables. He runs an enviro depot that collects refundables. Here in Nova Scotia, you pay ten cents, but your refund is five cents, and next door in New Brunswick, they collect ten cents and refund ten cents. What's happening to the businesses in Cumberland County in particular is that people are travelling 10 minutes across the border and getting the full ten cents. It's double the money.

If you have sports teams who are - a lot of times people collect refundables as fundraisers. If in Nova Scotia they would get $200 for the refundables, or if they take them into New Brunswick, they get $400, that's what they're going to do. Unfortunately, the businesspeople who run the enviro depots have had to lay people off as a result. It is causing harm to our businesses.

That is something that also could have been in the Financial Measures (2026) Act - changes there, or a stand-alone bill to change the legislation around that. I believe as of yesterday, Prince Edward Island also have changed their refundable laws. People in Prince Edward Island are also now getting 10 cents back on their refundables. Nova Scotia is stand-alone there. We're falling behind in that area.

[Page 4536]

There are many things that I could bring up. I have in the past. I won't now. I have always encouraged the government of the day, whether it's the previous government or the current to take into consideration border equity. Some people propose, and there has actually been a movement in the past for Maritime unity and for trying to push our Maritime provinces to work together, remove interprovincial barriers. I do believe that it would improve financial prosperity for all of us as a Maritime region. We do need to find ways to strengthen ourselves financially, clearly, as we see the budget that is before us with a deficit of $1.2 billion, with a forecast of continued significant deficits, with a forecast of debt-to-GDP that is ballooning and that will put unnecessary barriers on the future for our children and our grandchildren.

So thank you for the opportunity to give final remarks on the FMA. I am disappointed with the government's motion that is before us to end the debate on this important bill and the 20 bills that are inside of it.

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

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : Speaker, I will just add a few words to this debate on the FMA. The first thing I want to say, I want to speak to the motion that we're on actually. I know that we are allowed to speak to the motion or to the bill itself. I first want to speak to the motion.

Speaker, this motion is something that the government has in their tool box to limit debate, and that's what's happening. We in the Opposition or members of this House have tools in our tool box to speak on bills, dilatory motions, and all kinds of things.

Say, for instance, had the motion we're on right now not have been moved, then there was a scenario where someone in the Opposition may have moved a dilatory motion to hoist this bill. That is send it back. That motion, that dilatory motion could have been debated for hours and hours. Every member of the House would have an hour to speak on that bill. Inevitably, it would have been voted down, I presume, by this government. Then we would go back to the main motion which would give everyone another hour to speak on the bill. In essence, our debating time on this bill has been cut in half.

Some people will be super relieved by that, Speaker. People want to go home for the Easter weekend, but other people believe that it is inherently undemocratic, fundamentally undemocratic. I want to say this: However annoying and tiring debate is in this House, and let me tell you, it's been pretty freaking trying over the last couple of weeks, what with the debate and then the points of order and the interruptions from all sides saying that's not allowed, that's not allowed, that's not allowed, directing the Chair. It has been something I have never seen in my nine years in this House. I have never seen debate like this.

[Page 4537]

However annoying and irritating debate is - I speak for myself because I have been annoyed and irritated many times in this House in the last couple of weeks - the fact is that it is a privilege to be here. I use that term in two ways. It is our privilege: we are privileged to be here, to speak on behalf of our communities - I don't mean just our geographical communities, our constituencies, but also our cultural communities.

I have been speaking about arts and culture in the last several weeks because that's the community I'm from. I have been speaking a lot about Dartmouth North and the community of Dartmouth North in terms of poverty issues. I have been talking about women's health care quite a lot. That's a community I'm part of. I identify as a woman, and so health care for women is of particular importance to me. I speak as a mother. I speak as a member of the francophone community in that I am half francophone, but my children are francophone and they attend the CSAP.

[1:45 p.m.]

So I am connected with that community. I speak on behalf of all kinds - not on behalf of, but for all kinds of communities, and it is my privilege. I'm allowed to do that because I have been elected to be here, and it is my privilege in that I am lucky to be able to do it.

The privilege, as in parliamentary privilege, is that we can say what we feel needs to be said in debate on a bill, within reason, as long as it's parliamentary language, as long as we're not defaming someone - although I would also say that I think in the last couple of weeks, that has been pushed past limits that are fairly unacceptable in this House.

In this case, this motion that we are speaking to right now - or I'm speaking to right now - has taken away some of that privilege. Now, it was the Government House Leader's privilege to invoke this motion, and it is my privilege to say that it is undemocratic. So that's to the motion.

I want to spend most of my time speaking today on the bill itself. The first thing I want to say is that omnibus bills are bad, and the FMA should not include everything from meat inspection to EV taxes to Crown lands protection, or not protection, depending on the way you see the changes. Omnibus legislation is undemocratic and very harmful. I see why it happens. I understand why it happens.

It's certainly not for reasons of efficiency, but it is for reasons of political posturing and so that frankly, when we leave here - because we've seen it done already this session, but also we've seen it done based on former votes - the government can say, well the Opposition voted against school lunch programs because in the same bill that enacted school lunch programs, there was some awful clause and we couldn't vote for it. So that's the thing.

If the government thinks that people don't see through that, I think that the government needs a little wakeup call, to be honest. People are smarter than that. Nova Scotians are smarter than that. But since we are talking about the FMA and this giant omnibus bill, I will talk about, first of all, the clause around electric vehicle taxes, or the new levy on electric vehicles.

[Page 4538]

I talked about it last night and I just want to be on the record in third reading to say that I do not agree with this new tax on electric and hybrid vehicles. There are a number of issues: (1) there is no definition of hybrid; (2) there is no science or evidence to back up the fact that the owners of electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles are not contributing money that could go towards roads. I drive a hybrid vehicle and I only buy gas, so I am paying the motive fuel tax, and I am also paying sales tax on that gas. As gas prices shoot up, I'm happy that I have a hybrid because I'll be paying slightly less of those prices, but nonetheless, it's inherently unfair. It looks backwards. People who currently own vehicles were not expecting this tax. It's not fair to them, and it will influence people who are looking ahead.

While we are in a situation where the federal government is incentivizing EV purchases, making deals with China on cheaper EVs, and while we have a bill that we in this province abide by - or are trying to abide by - which is our Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act, where we have carbon emissions targets, where we make a pledge to prioritize electric vehicles, we are now taxing them. Square that circle for me. I don't think you can.

While we talk about taxes and financial measures, I will remind people about the budget that this piece of legislation is enacting. That is a budget of, yes, spending, so it's not technically an austerity budget, but it does have austerity in it in the way that it is cutting certain programs. I'm going to frame my comments around this in three words: mad, sad, and glad. Permit me to expand on those three words.

I am mad for several reasons. Like I said, I have been mad many times over the last month that we've been looking at this bill. I am mad that this government is using the budget and the FMA to pit communities against each other. As my honourable colleague, the Leader of the Official Opposition, said earlier, this is a lose-lose. To defend Nova Scotia means we need to care for each other. Instead of that, this government, this bill, this Act, this budget, is pitting communities against each other. We can have health care if we give up culture. We can have housing if we cut programs to Mi'kmaw communities.

I have said it before and I will say it again: We can have it all. When I say that, this government accuses me of being someone who is in favour of raising taxes and overspending. That is not the case. I didn't say that. Budgets are about choices. We can spend on health care and use the economic return on investment that the arts and culture community - film, art, performance, tourism, heritage - we can use the money that is generated by investments in those places to pay for health care. To suggest that we can't, and to suggest that it is impossible to do both, is simply untrue.

I am mad that this government continues these see-through talking points that suggest we need to make a choice or pit one community over another. Then I am mad that when the government tables a budget and tables an FMA that does this pitting of community and value against each other, then realizes that oops, we probably should have thought about the impacts of that a little bit further, quickly reverses some of the cuts - the most egregious, racist cuts - and then comes back and says: That's all we can do. It's not a good way to govern. The FMA is the legal framework that enacts the budget, and it is pitting communities against each other.

[Page 4539]

Now I'll go to the sad part. For God's sake. Go ahead.

THE SPEAKER « » : I have it, thanks. The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, I'm unsure, but did the member call the government racist and say "the most racist cuts"?

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

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : I'm not sure what that interruption was for, but I can affirm that yes, I did call the cuts racist. I do not believe that's unparliamentary language. If the member would like to make a point of order, let him, and I'll let you rule on it, Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll let him? Okay. (Interruption)

ANOTHER HON. MEMBER: Can we have a recess?

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : A recess?

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. The comments go through the Chair. Thank you. (Interruption) Order. Thank you.

The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.

BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, first of all, this continuously yelling at other members is unparliamentary. Second of all, those members stood up and said the word "TNT" was unparliamentary, yet calling the government and the government's actions racist is not? We need a ruling on this because it certainly is unparliamentary.

THE SPEAKER « » : We will be in recess for a few minutes.

[1:56 p.m. The House recessed.]

[2:04 p.m. The House reconvened.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

There was a point of order raised by the member for Halifax Atlantic. This is extremely close to the line of unparliamentary language. It was used to describe the cuts. It wasn't directed at a specific person. There was also not an initial reaction to the language.

[Page 4540]

Based on those two factors, I will allow the member to proceed, but I will remind the member to be mindful of decorum in this House.

Are you rising on a point of order?

The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : I just need clarification from both you and the Clerk. So it is okay to say that this government's policy is racist? That is not crossing the line? That was exactly what was said.

THE SPEAKER « » : I've made my ruling.

The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate that.

As I was saying before, I am going to give my comments in the context of the three words "mad," "sad," and "glad." Mad: I've just demonstrated again how that can happen so easily in this Legislature. I'm mad that the government has pitted communities against each other. I am sad for the people who are losing their jobs because of the budget and the enactment of that budget through the FMA.

I am sad that the government does not see the economic benefit to this province of the arts and culture. They say they do. The members will stand up and say, "We appreciate the arts," but what they are doing - the action - is stronger than the words.

Yes, $66 million is continually rolled out. That's excellent, but it is less than it was. Today it will be less than it was in the fiscal year 2025-26. That is not acceptable, because what happens, Speaker, is people make plans. People get hired. They start jobs. They buy houses based on employment. They have babies based on employment - based on this belief that their government believes in what they're doing.

The fact is that the carpet has been ripped out from under many people. I am sad for the people like Lily Falk, who stood or sat at Public Bills Committee and talked about how she cancelled her appointment to remove her IUD when she lost her job with the Perform! program. I am sad for her and the 400 artists that she coordinated to be hired, to go into schools, to fill the gaps in art education in this province, despite what the government members want to say about that. That's a fact, Speaker.

I am sad for the kids. I am sad for the little kids in Dartmouth North at John MacNeil school who did projects with Emma FitzGerald, a visual artist and a writer in our province. Emma went into John MacNeil school. Emma is famous for this book that she wrote and drew called Hand Drawn Halifax - beautiful pen and ink sketches of different buildings and notable architecture in Halifax. She went in and the kids at John MacNeil, who live in - let's face it - inner-city Dartmouth, essentially, a quite low-income area with high needs - those kids got to learn how to draw their community.

[Page 4541]

That might seem like a really small thing, Speaker, but you know what? It's not. For people who don't have access - there are people who go to John MacNeil school and then the junior high that they feed into, John Martin Junior High, who have never been to downtown Halifax before. It's a 20-minute bus ride. It could be thousands of miles away.

I am sad for those kids who don't get the opportunity to work with Emma anymore. I am sad for Emma because it was part of her income.

I'm sad for my constituency assistant, Rebecca, who supplements her income by going into schools and talking about her books that she writes. I'm sad for all the artists and authors who won't be doing that anymore, and it's not just about their income. It's about the actual impact.

I'm having a hard time hearing myself think, Speaker. I'm wondering if you could ask for more silence in the room if that's possible.

It's not just about income and it's not just about livelihood, but that's a big part of It's also about what we gain when we participate in art, when we experience art. It's about what we gain when people come to our province and say, "Oh my gosh, I mean, that place, there's just something so special about it. I can't even put it into words." That's our arts and culture that is that sort of indescribable feature of this place.

Finally, I'm glad. I'm glad that this government has finally shown the people of Nova Scotia what they really stand for, because before this Premier was Premier, he stood with the film industry and continued to do that once he became Premier. He invested heavily in the film industry, and I am very happy about that. I applauded those investments as I applauded the investments to Arts Nova Scotia two years ago. I cried when the minister at the time - the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board - delivered that part of the Budget Speech out of pure relief for the arts sector.

The Premier did a good job convincing this province that he was a different kind of Premier, that he valued arts and culture and now I am glad because people have seen the truth, that this government is like Conservative governments all over the place that use dirty politics to pit people against each other, dirty politics to pit people against each other to prioritize large business and resource extraction over individual human connection. That is what is happening with this bill.

So I am mad, I am sad, and I am glad. With those three words, I will take my seat.

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

[Page 4542]

HON. BECKY DRUHAN « » : Thank you, Speaker. I am pleased to rise today, just after 2:00 in the afternoon on the Thursday before Easter weekend to speak to what is both third reading of the Financial Measures (2026) Act and is also speaking to a motion that government has put forward to end debate on the Financial Measures (2026) Act.

I have three things that I want to talk about in the course of the time that I have available to me. The first, as many have been doing - in the course of third reading at least, even though it was much more constrained at prior stages of this bill - is to talk about the budget generally. That is the tradition in talking on the Financial Measures Act and so I will have a few words about that.

The second thing that I want to talk about is the motion that's on the table before us because we have largely been focused on the Financial Measures (2026) Act and that's reasonable because that's what we're supposed to be debating at this stage. I think it is also important to acknowledge and give voice to the impact of the motion itself, that government has put forward.

Then the third thing that I will talk about is the Financial Measures (2026) Act itself. I think in my remarks on the Financial Measures (2026) Act, I'm going to go back to front because I've tried to go front to back previously but that always seems to end up in not getting to the end through a combination of not enough time being available, like the motion that's before us now, by virtue of the fact that it is such an extensive omnibus bill that contains over 130 clauses and 20 bills, and also through unique and persistent points of order in relation to relevance.

[2:15 p.m.]

Those are the three things that I'm going to talk about. Before I get into them, I have appreciated the comments that have already been made by members of the Opposition on this debate. I want to point to a few of them.

The first - in no particular order and not attributing because I didn't make note of who mentioned them when they mentioned them.

The first is - and always should be the thing that's top of mind when we do what we do here, when we do what we're called to do here, and when we do what we're privileged to be here - being guided by what is right, what is just, and what is for the public good. That's a good starting point for any issue we face and any debate that we have. I love that it was mentioned specifically in the context of this Act and this discussion.

The second thing that I wanted to echo was the idea that government should promote social cohesion, and that government's actions, decisions, policies, legislation, and approaches should promote social cohesion. I completely agree with that. I 100 percent agree with that.

I want to acknowledge that there's a tension in that because the system that we have - the parliamentary system that we have, in particular the fact that we have a party system built into and baked into our parliamentary system - means that it's easy to veer into adversarial positions that do not promote social cohesion. It takes effort to do this job in a way that works within the party structure that exists and that works within the oppositional structure that inherently exists when there's government and Opposition but still does promote social cohesion. There's tension there, and it's easy to slip into a place that doesn't promote social cohesion. It takes effort and intentionality to do things in a way that does, in fact, promote social cohesion. That's an important point, and it's one that we should all aspire to.

[Page 4543]

Another of the comments that were made in the course of Opposition's remarks on the Financial Measures (2026) Act is that action taken should reflect our commitments and their commitments, our commitments being the broader commitments of this House, and their commitments being government's commitments: the things that they speak to, that they say that they hold dear, and that they say that they will follow through on, on behalf of Nova Scotians. I think that that was raised in relation to environment and climate goals, but it's a good point.

The reality is that it's not - words absolutely matter, but actions matter more. If what we say is not reflected in what we do, then what we say is of no value. If what we say is not reflected in the laws that are passed, if what we say is not reflected in the investments that get made, and if what we say is not reflected in the policies and regulations that are implemented, then what we say - not only does it have no value but it undermines Nova Scotians' confidence in government. It undermines Nova Scotians' confidence in the integrity of their democracy. It strays from promoting social cohesion, and it is not inspired by, prompted by, and in accordance with what is right, what is just, and what is in the public good. That was compelling to me, too.

Another principle that was referenced - and I think this was referenced - we reference it over and over again. The other Independent member leaned into this, and I appreciated her comments on it, in that our actions and government actions should enable accountability and transparency. That underpins all the other things.

We may work with what is right, what is just, and what is in the public good in mind. We may try to promote social cohesion. We may act in ways that reflect our commitments and government's commitments that have been articulated, but - there's a big but - if there's no transparency associated with the work that is being done, then even the best efforts to do those things fall flat, because they can't be demonstrated.

Accountability and transparency is about demonstrating adherence to all of the things that we're supposed to adhere to, demonstrating adherence to principle, demonstrating adherence to law. That's why it is so important that we have institutions and structures and practices that allow that transparency, that empower that transparency, and then that support accountability.

The final thing I'll say, before I go on to talk about those three things that I wanted to talk about in relation to the bill, is that we have to acknowledge that you cannot please everyone. We know that. You can't be expected to please everyone. Government can't be expected to please everyone. We have diverse interests and diverse needs and diverse perspectives. I don't think that anyone in this Chamber, anyone in this House is calling for that.

[Page 4544]

What we should at least do, what we should always be doing, is considering everyone. Even if the actions that we take inherently cannot please everyone, we at least need to consider everyone, because that's our role. That is our role, to ensure we consider what is right, what is just, what is in the public good. That requires us to consider all aspects of that for all Nova Scotians, in every step that we take, in every argument that we make, in every law that we pass.

Those are things that are compelling to me, not just in the context of this debate around the Financial Measures (2026) Act and this conversation that we're having this afternoon, but in all the work that we do. I wanted to express my appreciation to the MLAs who articulated those principles and spoke to them passionately. I wanted to echo them because I think they bear repeating. They bear repeating on a daily basis. They are centring. They are grounding. They can lead us in the right direction if we are mindful of them in our work.

Moving on now to the budget, I'll start with the fatalistic thing. Let's be clear; that ship has sailed. The budget moved through first, second, and third reading already. That was the Appropriations Act, 2026. That is the process of the appropriations Act. It moves through this House in a different way than the other bills do.

Debate occurs sometimes when we are speaking about the Financial Measures (2026) Act. It also occurs when we speak in Supply. I believe that I heard it also occurs in Estimates. I think that there's an academic, and probably practical, and maybe legal, debate to be had over whether Estimates are intended to be debate, or they're intended to be questioning. That we can leave aside for another time. I would submit that they are intended to be questioning and an opportunity for government to share information that Nova Scotians are requesting, rather than it being debate. We don't need to get into that now.

The reality is, we have seen the Appropriations Act, 2026 already pass through first reading, second reading, and third reading. All that is left to happen for the Appropriations Act, 2026 to pass is Royal Assent, which will happen at the end of the sitting, whenever that occurs, when the Lieutenant Governor comes, closes up our proceedings and gives the King's approval, the Crown's approval on the laws that we are passing, or the laws that are being passed.

I have been asked a few times by people who have been so upset by the budget, "Is that an avenue for interrupting the passage of the budget?" It is another step. There is another step that remains, and technically there is the ability for the Lieutenant Governor to not give Royal Assent. It's a very rare occurrence that that happens. It's very rare. The reason for that is we are not - say governed; I'm going to be a little loose with this language - we are not governed by a king. We are governed by this democratic institution.

[Page 4545]

For the most part, that moment of Royal Assent is a bit of a formality. There is discretion retained, and in very exceptional circumstances it is used and can be used, but they are incredibly exceptional. This is not that, because what that would mean is that the king is overriding the democratic will. We don't want that to happen, right? We stand for principles of democracy.

As much as I would love to see the budget not pass through that stage, as much as I think the budget does need to go back and be redone, as much as I think the budget is harmful to many Nova Scotians and is and will do damage, I don't think I would advocate for Royal Assent not to be given because I respect the democratic structure and process that we have and we need to work within that.

What I can say is that I'm hearing people across the province and in Lunenburg West say that they do not feel like the democratic process is working for them because the democratic process is supposed to involve each of us who are elected to represent the people in the area that we live coming in here and putting forward by our words, in argument, in debate, in questions, and by our actions in our votes, the will of the people who elected us.

There are many Nova Scotians right now who say they don't feel that their will, that the will of their community, is being reflected in this House. Many, many people are saying that, and I understand their frustration with that. I absolutely understand their frustration with that, but even so I respect the structure that we have enough. I respect democracy and I believe in it. I think it is - and I'm not the first to say this, I think this is Churchill - it is the worst system of government except for all the rest, right?

It's flawed because people are flawed. We have to work every day to overcome those flaws and be better than we were the day before, and that is democracy. So as much as I - as many people who have reached out to me, and folks I know have written to the Lieutenant Governor to ask that the budget not pass through Royal Assent, that he withhold the Crown's approval of the Appropriations Act, 2026, I don't want that.

I understand why people do, but I think that our best answer and our best path forward is to do everything we can to make sure that our system of government - our democratic system of government - does allow people to feel like it works for them; does allow Nova Scotians to feel like it works for them. I don't think that having Royal Assent withheld serves that end and serves that purpose. That's the first thing that I want to say about the budget.

The second thing that I want to say about the budget is this: It's just a plan. It's only an estimate. That is all it is. It's numbers on a page that the government may or may not actually follow. We know from many Auditor General reports that the government regularly doesn't follow the budget. That is the complaint, or that is one of the complaints, around the question of additional appropriations.

[Page 4546]

Additional appropriations are expenditures of the government that happen outside the budget process. We'll have conversations, we have had conversations about the transparency and the challenges associated with that. I raise it now not in relation to those things, but as a reminder to everyone that the budget is just a plan and government can and does regularly deviate from that to the tune of $6.7 billion dollars - not an insignificant deviation.

[2:30 p.m.]

The reason that's important now is because government's actual decisions around spending - the approximately $20 billion that the budget encompasses - those actual decisions don't happen right now. They didn't happen when we were debating the Appropriations Act, 2026, or when we were taking our steps through Estimates to question government or debate going into Supply. They don't happen on Royal Assent, which will happen when we wrap up our session. They will happen in the minister's offices over the course . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order, order. I just heard a phone. I don't know whose it is. Thank you for telling on yourself.

I just ask that everybody's phone be off. It is a Rule of the House.

The honourable member for Lunenburg West.

BECKY DRUHAN « » : Those actual decisions - the decisions about how and when that $20 billion will be spent - are going to happen in ministers' offices over the coming year. They are going to happen at the Cabinet table every week or every two weeks - Thursday mornings, during debates and after debates, over the coming year. They will happen in the weeks ahead, the days ahead, and the months ahead.

What that means is that there is an opportunity for Nova Scotians to continue to work to influence the way that government spends in the coming year. There is an opportunity for Nova Scotians to continue to connect with their MLAs to have the path changed, to deviate from the plan. There is an opportunity for Nova Scotians to continue to connect with those ministers in whose offices those spending decisions are made, to connect with Cabinet members who also participated in the spending decisions, and to connect with members of the Treasury and Policy Board who have a significant role in that.

So as much as it's a bit fatalistic that the Appropriations Act, 2026 is through but for the formality of Royal Assent, it is, in fact, I think, a beacon of light and of optimism for Nova Scotians that those spending decisions are not yet made and they're not yet final.

I think we'll continue to hear from Nova Scotians loudly and clearly in the days and weeks and months ahead of us as government does take those steps to make those decisions around which of the spending plans that they made they'll follow through on, which they will deviate from.

[Page 4547]

I think that is actually a reason for optimism and a reason for hope. It's a path forward for Nova Scotians who have deep concerns about the budget that has been tabled, and the budget that will be passed this session.

Before I move on to my comments about the budget, I will just reiterate the inconsistency that exists within the budget as it has been portrayed to Nova Scotians. Other members have spoken about this, and I've spoken about this at other stages. This is a budget that was foreshadowed as being an austerity budget. It certainly landed for individual Nova Scotians as an austerity budget, with austerity measures that meant cuts across the province impacting multiple groups of people in very negative ways, so it feels like an austerity budget.

Even when the government went back on some of those planned cuts - although I'm still not confident that we have an entirely good sense of exactly what has been reversed and what has not been reversed, and decisions do seem to continue to trickle out. I think more will be learned about that in the coming days as well.

Even though this budget feels like an austerity budget for individuals in communities across the province - and many of those individuals are folks who are from historically disadvantaged communities so there is a disproportionate impact for those Nova Scotians - even though it feels like an austerity budget and it was marketed as an austerity budget, it is not an austerity budget because there is over $1 billion of deficit associated with this budget, so it spends richly. It just doesn't spend richly on individual Nova Scotians and on our community members, community groups, and folks who have historically been disadvantaged.

It is a rich budget, but the where, the why, and the how of the lavish spending in this budget is not really easy to find. It's not easy to find in past spending because we've seen those excesses spent in past times through additional appropriations, which we know, through the Auditor General's analysis, make it difficult to understand. That's the case for this budget as well. We've talked a lot about the cuts, but it's not really clear where all the spending is going and to what effect.

Again, before I leave that for my comments on the budget, I will come back to my ray of hope, which is the fact that there is a path forward for Nova Scotians who are not happy with what the budget says. That path forward is to continue to make their voices heard with the specific ministers who are responsible for the spending, with their MLAs who represent them, with Cabinet as a whole, with the Department of Finance and Treasury Board, and with the Premier. That's the path that we can walk to continue to work to influence government's spending decisions, even after the budget passes at the end of this session on Royal Assent.

The second thing that I want to move on to is the motion itself that's in front of us. I won't spend a lot of time talking about it, but it does, again, bear mention because - and it's funny, I'm going to sound a little like a broken record because I'm pretty sure this is the same motion that was called on second reading of the FMA. It was calling the question.

[Page 4548]

For folks who need a reminder of what that is, it means that the government has put a motion forward to end debate and to call the vote so that we vote on it. Rather than allowing the debate to unfold with the opportunities that might be available to the Opposition to call for an amendment to the question that's on the floor, this motion prevents that from happening. As we heard from one of the NDP members who spoke, this effectively cuts in half the opportunity for debate of the Financial Measures (2026) Act at third reading - cuts our time in half. Why does that matter? What difference does that make?

Well, it would matter on any bill, but it particularly matters on the Financial Measures (2026) Act because the Financial Measures (2026) Act is such a hefty omnibus bill. This is a bill that is actually 20 bills, and it's 20 bills that cover a wide range of topics and a wide range of issues. Unlike the name implies, many of them are unrelated to actual financial measures. Many of them have nothing to do with financial measures. Many of them have nothing to do with the budget necessarily, other than in an ancillary way, or a yes-you'll-have-to-spend-money-to-do-it kind of way, but that's not what a financial measures Act is supposed to be. It's not what it normally is. A financial measures Act is normally implementing the things that need to be implemented for the budget to happen, so changes to tax legislation. There certainly is some of that in the Financial Measures (2026) Act, but there's all sorts of other stuff too.

If instead of proceeding as an omnibus bill, they had proceeded as individual bills, then this third reading would be multiplied by 20. The amount of time that we should have to debate what is in the Financial Measures (2026) Act is potentially what we have multiplied by 20, and that's at every single stage of the bill. So it is significant that the government has tabled a motion that we're now debating that cuts the time - the limited time that we already have in the Financial Measures (2026) Act - effectively in half. This is an Act that Nova Scotians are asking us to debate. This is an Act that Nova Scotians want us to talk about and want more information on.

It matters that our time is limited on this, and it matters that we won't have the time available that we should've had to debate it. That's all I'm going to say about that. I went over that in more detail when we had this motion brought forward in second reading. If anyone wants additional information, I'm always happy to chat, or you can look at my remarks from second reading. It's important, so I wanted to mention it.

That is the motion that they put forward. If they didn't want to debate whether this is enough time to debate or not, they shouldn't have put the motion forward. If they didn't want that to be part of the content of our debate, then they shouldn't have put that forward.

I'm going to move along now.

THE SPEAKER « » : So because we had this eye contact here - you can talk about the bill as well, just in case you didn't know.

[Page 4549]

BECKY DRUHAN « » : Yes.

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

BECKY DRUHAN « » : Yes, that is exactly what I was moving on to, so I appreciate that, Speaker.

That was the third thing that I said I wanted to talk about in my time available. The FMA itself is the bill that's on the floor for debate. I'm going to start by saying that I don't support it. I won't be supporting it. That was probably apparent from my comments that were made throughout the other readings and in the course of the variety of votes that we had on the clauses at Committee of the Whole House on Bills, but it bears repeating again now.

I am also going to say at this moment - sort of in line with what I said around the Appropriations Act, 2026 - I see no world in which this moves through and doesn't get passed. The government has a supermajority. There has been no indication that they are not going to proceed with the bill. There has been the removal of clauses, which I greatly appreciate, and I know that community members who were advocating appreciate it too. There remain problematic clauses throughout the Financial Measures (2026) Act. I won't be supporting it when it comes time to vote.

First, I'm going to just make a couple of comments about how this debate has unfolded and the information that has been available to us. Then I'm going to go through back to front to address the clauses themselves - not the clauses, the Acts that are included, more broadly than the clauses.

I want to say this: I appreciate that we have heard a few ministers who have provisions in the FMA speak now at third reading. I didn't have an opportunity to go back and compare the time because I know there were some comments as well made by ministers during Committee of the Whole House on Bills. I appreciate their comments now. Better late than never, I would say. I will go back to a reminder for everybody that at the introduction of this bill, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board spoke for six and a half minutes. Ministers have since gotten up to say that Opposition has it wrong, Opposition is suggesting things that are not accurate, Opposition is causing people to be unduly concerned because of their inappropriate or wrong or inaccurate interpretation. That's why we have second reading.

Second reading is the opportunity for government ministers to get up and explain what the bill is supposed to be about and what it will do. It does a disservice, yes, to us in this House, where we have had to try and muddle through and figure it out, and then later be told after significant hours have passed that that's not what government intended. More than that, it does a disservice to Nova Scotians.

[Page 4550]

We have heard things from ministers now at third reading this afternoon that Nova Scotians had questions about, and that they made submissions on through Committee of the Whole House on Bills and in writing and by coming to our offices and in the course of protests. If, in fact, what government is now saying is true - about how these clauses are interpreted and what they mean - all of that could have been avoided by sharing that information at the beginning. That didn't happen. We only had six and a half minutes at the beginning, and the rest of it has unfolded in response to that.

That's not an ideal process. It's a process that causes upset and concern for people. I think that that bears mentioning because that has informed the debate, and it still informs our understanding of the terms of the Financial Measures (2026) Act.

[2:45 p.m.]

The other general thing I'm going to say about what we've heard from government ministers now on third reading of the bill is that I appreciate that they've gotten up and made assertions and claims about what is intended by the bill, but what I didn't hear any of them do was link their comments to the language in the bill.

Fundamentally, it's not the ministers' comments in this House, and it's not our comments in this House that define what the laws are. I've mentioned this before our words matter, and lawmakers will reference the debates that happen in this House if there's ambiguity in the Act that has passed.

If a bill is passed, a piece of legislation is passed, and lawmakers or courts are referencing the law, and they read the law and say the meaning is not clear, if and when that happens, they will go to the Hansard, they will go to the debates, to determine what was meant. There is import to what we say here. It can have an impact on how laws are interpreted, but that's a rarity. Typically, in the analysis of a law, lawmakers and lawyers don't get that far because the words themselves, if they speak for themselves and are clear, then you don't take the further step to look at what's said in Hansard.

The reason that matters is the fact that ministers have gotten up and spoken - saying doesn't make it so. They've gotten up, quite indignant that we've apparently misinterpreted what the law says, but not a single one of them pointed to the words in this Act to say, "Here's why your interpretation is wrong." Not one of them has done that.

I'm not left with much confidence in what they've said because my analysis is based entirely on the words in this bill because the ministers didn't speak to it. I couldn't interpret this Act in light of what the ministers said when they stood up on second reading because we only had six and a half minutes for one minister.

Saying it doesn't make it so; it comes down to the wording of the legislation that's in front of us and the actual terms of the bills. That's what the courts are going to apply, for the most part. They're not going to look, in all cases, back at what we said here, on the floor of this House, so it's those words that matter.

[Page 4551]

There is still time available in third reading now to hear from members of the government who are interested in not just providing assurances that Nova Scotians' worries are not founded but actual analyses that point to the provisions of this bill that support the things that they've said. That would be beneficial for all of us.

I'm going to go through now each of the provisions that are here for each of the bills that are here and have a few comments about them. I'm going to make myself a little stickie on Clause 137 because that's the effective date, and that matters for each of these provisions. I've got that now.

Starting from the back - I'm glad to have finally gotten to the back in debate on the floor. Oh, we got there; this was the Securities Act, which we debated last night and had many rulings on the relevance of comments on.

I'm going to go back, and I'm not going to take a ton of time on each of these because I do want to get through all of them. I do want to make a few comments that I was not able to get to last night in the course of debate in relation to the Securities Act because it's important.

Again, these might be great changes. I don't know. We really haven't heard anybody speak on them. There are benefits to this. The Securities Act amendments establish a dispute resolution process. They establish an opportunity for individuals who have disputes about securities - that might be individual investors who have issues with their investment firms to go to this dispute resolution provider, rather than through the courts. As someone who has spent most of her career involved in dispute resolution, I can say that alternative dispute resolution is actually often a really good channel. It can be tailored. It can be efficient. It can be faster. It can be cheaper. There are a lot of benefits to having an alternative dispute resolution process that is outside the courts. I am not at all against that particular option being made available.

But as with everything, the devil can be in the details. Those are the kinds of questions that I was trying to explore at third reading on this. These amendments made some pretty sweeping changes and dramatic changes to the current process. The current process involves disputes going to the courts.

This process will allow the designation of a dispute resolution service. It provides investigative authority. It allows binding decisions. They are negotiated decisions, but they're binding decisions, which means they hold each of the parties to those decisions, and it doesn't allow appeal to a court.

That is not always the case with alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. It is not always the case that there is no recourse to the courts, and that makes a pretty serious imposition on people's rights as they exist now. As they exist now, people's rights are that you can take those disputes to the courts.

[Page 4552]

It's also important to note that the decisions are not reviewable by the commission. That means the decisions of this independent dispute resolution service are final decisions. You can't take them anywhere else.

That means there's a lack of appeal and review, and that removes a typical safeguard that exists in administrative and judicial processes. It also concentrates the authority. In combination with the immunity provisions, which mean that the staff of the dispute resolution service are protected from liability, that reduces accountability. If decisions are being made that are incorrect or harmful, these are decisions that have no path for review.

The other thing that's important to note is that information obtained through these processes is kept confidential. That's important, because it means it's not transparent. Unlike the court system, which is transparent, this system will not be, and that's important to Nova Scotians. We've talked a lot about why that's important to Nova Scotians.

I believe as well - let me just check the Act - documents and information shared are exempted from FOIPOP. So not only is there no public disclosure through the course of the court process as it stands now, but documents are also not disclosed under FOIPOP. It's a very sheltered, very confidential, very private mechanism that is being created, which significantly changes people's legal rights to obtain the attention of the courts.

What we haven't talked about - and I wasn't allowed to get there last night when I was discussing this - is whether it's mandatory. That's an important question. Not every dispute resolution mechanism is mandatory. If it's optional, then some of those concerns that I just described are alleviated. If it's optional, people can potentially decide to just proceed to the courts and not go through the dispute resolution mechanism.

The legislation is actually not express on this. The provisions that are drafted - the provisions that are in the FMA - are not clear on whether it's mandatory or not. But they do create the authority in regulation power to make this mandatory. If this becomes mandatory, then all of the concerns that I just expressed are on the table. That is a significant concern.

Just before I move along from that, I want to ask, and again, I'm hopeful that maybe somebody from government - because there's opportunity here at third reading - can potentially stand up and speak to this, but what are the specific scenarios that will be addressed through this? What does this mean for Nova Scotians fundamentally?

This is a complicated piece of legislation, a complicated set of amendments to a complicated piece of legislation. The question for us is, what does this mean to Nova Scotians? So here are some scenarios that I wonder about. Is this a system that will be used if a Nova Scotian believes they were sold in investment that didn't match the risk tolerance or their financial situation? That's a position a person finds themselves in. Are they now going to have to go through a mandatory and entirely confidential system that means their dispute will get resolved but they will have no ability to appeal that and the public won't know? I don't know. We don't know that. I'd love to know if that's what will happen. Could this apply where a senior loses a significant portion of their retirement savings after relying on advice that they didn't fully understand? Would a senior find themselves in a position of instead of being able to have recourse to the court, again a public scenario, and I acknowledge it can take time, it can take money to get recourse through court.

[Page 4553]

There are benefits in having a dispute resolution service, but if that is a scenario that is captured under this dispute resolution service, is that something that should be subject to judicial review? The decision will be binding, but should that senior not have the opportunity to then go to the court for a review of that because this legislation would prevent that?

Could this system be used where there's a disagreement about how an investment account was handled, so delays in executing on trades or failure to follow instruction? Again, is that a scenario that we want to see addressed in a completely confidential, non-transparent forum with no recourse to the court? I don't know but I would love to know from government whether that's going to be captured. Could this process be used to vary - which means change - or set aside contracts between a financial firm and a client and, if so, are we comfortable with assigning that level of authority which is usually reserved for court to a body whose decisions can't be appealed?

We know from the legislation, because it refers to credit rating as being one of the subjects that can come within this system: Could this system be used to correct or change information that affects an individual's credit rating or financial standing? These are issues or decisions that have long-term consequences. Again, do we want that? Do we want to prevent people from having recourse to the courts if that's the situation they find themselves in?

Might we find ourselves in a situation where financial firms prefer this system because it's faster, less public, and avoids the scrutiny of open court proceedings - but to the detriment of individuals who may have legitimate concerns that are not individual concerns? To be clear, in these cases, if they are one-offs, then maybe it's okay that it would proceed this way, but sometimes these things aren't one-off issues. Sometimes these things are systemic issues and in those cases having the transparency of a court system becomes very important.

Could a person go through this entire process, receive a final decision affecting their finances, and have no ability to appeal even if they believe the outcome is wrong? I can answer that: The answer to that is yes. That is what this process sets up. This process sets up the possibility because, again, individuals are fallible, we're not infallible. People can make mistakes. Any person can make a mistake.

The people who are involved in this dispute resolution service are going to be the people like any other and may make mistakes, yet if the outcome is wrong as a result of that, the individual who is impacted is not going to be able to appeal to the court. How does that align with our expectations of basic procedural fairness? Will this system gradually replace the role of courts in resolving financial disputes between individuals and powerful institutions? That's something that we should be concerned about and at least be able to turn our mind to. Again, I say all of this as someone who has regularly used alternative dispute mechanisms.

[Page 4554]

I see their value. I think they're incredibly important. We don't want to send every dispute to a court. It's great to have alternative dispute resolution mechanisms because you get specialists - they're people who have specialized knowledge; you get efficient processes; it can be less expensive; and it can be less onerous for everyone involved. I am not against this in principle or in philosophy. I have a great deal of concern though.

[3:00 p.m.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. It's getting awfully loud in here. We need to respect - I've said this I don't know how many times; I'm sure somebody will look it up. We need to respect whoever is speaking.

The honourable member for Lunenburg West.

BECKY DRUHAN « » : Thank you, Speaker.

I have a great deal of concern with how this is drafted and the specific terms that are set out in Clauses 129 through 135. In the absence of any commentary from government, those concerns remain active. Nova Scotians need to be aware of them, and I hope government will speak to them.

I'm going to continue, again, moving back to front in the legislation, the FMA. I'm not necessarily going to talk about everything I've spoken about before, but I do want to speak about a few of these things.

I'm going to talk generally about the expansion of compliance officer and conservation officer authority and - not their role but the authority that's available to them. I will begin that by saying nothing that I'm going to say about this is in any way to be taken as criticism of those staff people who work within departments. I have a great deal of respect for our conservation officers and for compliance officers. I know that they take oaths. I know that they have professional obligations and duties. My commentary is not in any way impugning their diligence, their skill, and the job that they do.

My question and my concern arise in government's complete inability, even 24 days into this sitting, to tell us on the floor of this House what protections exist to ensure that all of those officers who operate in multiple different departments are shielded from potential political influence. These are officers who do not exist in the protection of an independent body. They exist within government. Any expansion of their authorities, while I do not at all question the motivations, the skill, or the professionalism of those officers, they are in a position where they report directly through a department that ultimately reports to a minister, who is a political body by nature.

[Page 4555]

I would be less concerned if government - if any of the ministers had been able to point to safeguards that exist, but nobody has. In the absence of any minister being able to speak to those safeguards, I have to put on the record my concern around expanding the authorities of those officers. Again, that has nothing to do with the officer's skill, diligence, or professionalism. It has to do with the safeguards that ministers are supposed to be able to speak to and to preserve, which they haven't been able to do.

Continuing moving backward through the Act, we come to the provision on electric and hybrid vehicle levy. We debated that quite extensively through the course of this, so I'm going to put it on the record once again now at third reading that I'm not in support of this levy. It is an unnecessary and unfair tax that is being implemented on people who are attempting to transition to more responsible consumption of electricity, and I think it's - I don't support it. None of the people in my community who have reached out to me support this either. We have heard lots of Nova Scotians speak out against this new tax.

Then we come to Clause 109, which is the Public Service Superannuation Act. Again, this is an extension of the term for reviews under the pension plan from five years to seven years. Government has given no reason for why this is beneficial, but we have heard many folks speak to why it may have a negative impact. That's something I'm not in support of as well.

I've spoken already about the expansion of authorities for the various officers. There are provisions in here around compliance officers. There are also provisions in the FMA around the expansion of the role of the conservation officers. Again, none of this has to do with their professionalism or their dedication or their commitment to their role; this is about government's inability to articulate any safeguards that are in place around them.

Maybe what I'll do is I'll flip through my bundles. Oh, goodness, the forests - I want to pause here on this.

I think I said earlier that community is appreciative of the retraction that government has shown in relation to the easement clauses that were in here originally. I was pleased to see, our community was pleased to see those provisions. Those are Clauses 52 and 54, which amended the Community Easements Act and the Conservation Easements Act, and are removed from this bill, but we remain deeply concerned about the provisions of the Forests Act. This is one of the many references to saying it's so doesn't make it so.

I appreciate that the Minister of Natural Resources has given her vehement assurance that the concerns that my constituents and others have raised about the negative tax implications that will arise as a result of these changes to the Forests Act - she's given assurances that that won't actually happen. The reality of the language in this Act is such that it remains a concern. It's a problem because of the words in the Act. The words in the Act I don't think are ambiguous. Ultimately a court will decide that. Maybe a court finds they're ambiguous and then does go back through the Hansards to hear the minister's comments that the worries of community will not come to fruition. I would suggest, why would we leave it to that?

[Page 4556]

Why would the minister not table an amendment to this legislation that makes clear that what she has said is the intent behind this is actually reflected in the language of these provisions? Right now, it's not. Right now, that's not what the bill says. I think that my constituents remain concerned.

Even if that language was amended, this still does create an onus and a burden on folks who are participating in carbon sequestration around information that they have to share. Even if there are no negative tax implications, there is a burden associated with these provisions that means that information needs to be shared by these folks who are engaged in this work that is not a broader reflection of what's required of the rest of the forestry sector. That continues to be a concern for me and for the people who have reached out to me.

The minister also mentioned that other folks in forestry have called for these changes to be made. I actually haven't heard that. If that's the case, I would love to hear from them, or it would be great to hear from the minister if she could identify who they are. Again, I think we should be hearing from all Nova Scotians, and we can't do everything to please everyone. If there's a balancing of interests that needs to be made here, as the minister has suggested, we need to understand whose interests they are and exactly what they are to be able to balance those interests. That's the function that we have here in this House.

Again, there is an opportunity still for the minister to provide information on that. I would invite her to do that, because I certainly want to know. I know that the folks who reached out to me who are involved in forestry and who are concerned about these provisions - they would like to know. I think that's what we're here for. That's why we have the opportunity for all of us to get up on our feet and share information. I'm hopeful that maybe the minister will do that and provide more clarity around this issue.

Similarly, there were some comments made as well by the minister here at third reading around the issues that are brought up by Clause 93, and the gypsum question, and the provincial ownership of that. She did clarify, and there was some debate and some questions that we raised here in Opposition at Committee of the Whole as to whether that clause impacted private rights that are held right now - private ownership or not. I am glad she confirmed what I believe to be the case which is that it doesn't have an impact on people who currently own land, but I didn't hear her really address the question of the devaluing that will happen as a result of those provisions.

I am glad to hear that it isn't going to have an impact on private land as it is currently held, but it does appear to still have the impact of devaluing that private land, if the gypsum is found there and subsequently government takes ownership in some way, either through some kind of transaction - and so that remains a concern that hasn't been addressed.

I'm just about to the end of my hour. My intention wasn't to go an hour. I had things that I wanted to say, and it has taken me an hour to say them. There are still other things that I want to say, because I've lots of folks who have reached out about other things that I haven't had a chance to cover in this one hour, but I will wrap it up now and just simply say, I will vote against this. I don't expect government, at this point, to vote against it, but I know I will be voting against it. I expect there will be other members who vote against it.

[Page 4557]

For Nova Scotians who remain deeply concerned about any of the multiple provisions of this Financial Measures (2026) Act which will be passed at some point - recognizing that not all of them are going to be passed on Royal Assent, not everything takes effect right away - there is lots of opportunity still, after Royal Assent, for these provisions, some of which will not pass until government proclaims them, Cabinet proclaims them.

There is an opportunity for government not to proclaim them, and so if individuals have concerns about particular pieces of this legislation that do not come into effect on Royal Assent, there is an opportunity for government to change their mind. There will be lots of folks who will continue to reach out to ministers in relation to these clauses.

There are other clauses that we've talked about that raise real questions about constitutionality and breaches of the Charter. In relation to those, there are court processes that will figure that out, so if it is not correct when it moves through the floor of this House, I'll tell you right now, there are lots of lawyers out there who will be very interested in supporting Nova Scotians to challenge those provisions in front of the courts, and then we will see it undone in the future. I'd rather not see that happen.

This is the time when we can prevent that from happening, but at the end of the day, if we can't prevent it here, there is another body that has the ability and the autonomy to do that in support of Nova Scotians.

With those remarks, Speaker, I'll take my seat.

THE SPEAKER « » : Is the House ready for the question? No? Somebody's got to stand up.

The honourable Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : Speaker, I move to close debate on the Financial Measures (2026) Act.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is to close debate on Bill No. 198.

There has been a request for a recorded vote. We will take a short recess until the Whips are satisfied.

Ring the bells. Call in the members.

[Page 4558]

[3:14 p.m.]

[The Division bells were rung.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. Are the Whips satisfied?

The motion is that the question be now put.

The Clerk will conduct a recorded vote.

[The Clerk called the roll.]

[3:29 p.m.]

YEAS	NAYS
Hon. Brian Comer	Claudia Chender
Hon. Nolan Young	Lisa Lachance
Hon. Kim Masland	Susan Leblanc
Hon. John Lohr	Hon. Iain Rankin
Hon. Brendan Maguire	Hon. Derek Mombourquette
Hon. Tim Houston	Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin
Hon. Barbara Adams	Suzy Hansen
Hon. Michelle Thompson	Hon. Becky Druhan
Hon. Dave Ritcey	Krista Gallagher
Hon. Twila Grosse	Rod Wilson
Tom Taggart	Lina Hamid
Marco MacLeod
Adegoke Fadare
Hon. Susan Corkum-Greek
Hon. Leah Martin
Chris Palmer
Melissa Sheehy-Richard
Hon. John A. MacDonald
Hon. Brian Wong
Hon. Trevor Boudreau
Brad McGowan
Kyle MacQuarrie
Tim Outhit
Rick Burns
Julie Vanexan
Dianne Timmins
David Bowlby
Nick Hilton
Hon. John White
Hon. Timothy Halman
Hon. Scott Armstrong
Hon. Jill Balser
Hon. Colton LeBlanc
Hon. Kent Smith
Hon. Greg Morrow
Hon. Tory Rushton
Ryan Robicheau
Damian Stoilov
Danny MacGillivray

[Page 4559]

THE CLERK » : For, 39. Against, 11.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is carried.

I will now put the question.

The motion is that Bill No. 198 be read a third time.

There has been a request for a recorded vote. We will take a recess until the Whips are satisfied. The Whips are satisfied.

The Clerk will conduct a recorded vote.

[The Clerk called the roll]

[3:33 p.m.]

YEAS	NAYS
Hon. Brian Comer	Claudia Chender
Hon. Nolan Young	Lisa Lachance
Hon. Kim Masland	Susan Leblanc
Hon. John Lohr	Hon. Iain Rankin
Hon. Brendan Maguire	Hon. Derek Mombourquette
Hon. Tim Houston	Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin
Hon. Barbara Adams	Suzy Hansen
Hon. Michelle Thompson	Hon. Becky Druhan
Hon. Dave Ritcey	Krista Gallagher
Hon. Twila Grosse	Rod Wilson
Tom Taggart	Lina Hamid
Marco MacLeod
Adegoke Fadare
Hon. Susan Corkum-Greek
Hon. Leah Martin
Chris Palmer
Melissa Sheehy-Richard
Hon. John A. MacDonald
Hon. Brian Wong
Hon. Trevor Boudreau
Brad McGowan
Kyle MacQuarrie
Tim Outhit
Rick Burns
Julie Vanexan
Dianne Timmins
David Bowlby
Nick Hilton
Hon. John White
Hon. Timothy Halman
Hon. Scott Armstrong
Hon. Jill Balser
Hon. Colton LeBlanc
Hon. Kent Smith
Hon. Greg Morrow
Hon. Tory Rushton
Ryan Robicheau
Damian Stoilov
Danny MacGillivray

[Page 4560]

THE CLERK « » : For, 39. Against, 11.

THE SPEAKER « » : 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 the order of business Government Motions.

GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, I move that you now do leave the Chair the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on Bills.

THE SPEAKER « » : We will have a short recess while the Clerks prepare.

[3:52 p.m. The House resolved into the CWH on Bills with Deputy Speaker Tom Taggart in the Chair.]

[Page 4561]

[8:20 p.m. CWH on Bills rose and the House reconvened. The Speaker, Hon. Danielle Barkhouse, resumed the Chair.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order, please. The Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on Bills reports:

THE CLERK « » : That the committee has met and considered the following bill:

Bill No. 193 - Powering the Economy Act.

and the Chair has been instructed to report progress on this bill and beg leave to sit again.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, I just want to thank everyone for a great week. As we head into the Easter weekend, I hope everybody finds a little bit of relaxation, some peace, and that you get to spend time with your family and loved ones. Be safe, have fun, and I hope the Easter Bunny visits everybody.

That concludes government business for today. (Interruption) I mean . . . (Laughter) I just said "bunny." We could go Energizer Bunny, folks. We could go from Easter to Energizer.

I move that the House do now rise to meet again on April 7^th between the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 11:59 p.m.

Following the Daily Routine and Question Period, we'll continue with Committee of the Whole House on Bills and third reading.

Also, I want to say thank you to all of the staff and everybody. (Applause) To the Pages, I know it's been a long week. We appreciate everything you do. Go home. I hope you are able to enjoy some time off this weekend with your family and loved ones.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is that the House do now rise to meet again on Tuesday, April 7^th, between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 11:59 p.m.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

We stand adjourned.

[The House rose at 8:22 p.m.]

[Page 4562]