HALIFAX, FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 2024

 

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON SUPPLY

 

11:52 A.M.

 

CHAIR

Nolan Young

 

 

THE CHAIR: Order. The Committee of the Whole House on Supply will come to order.

 

The honorable Government House Leader.

 

HON. KIM MASLAND: Thank you, Chair. Would you please call the Estimates for the Premier, Resolution No. E19, E23, and E35.

 

Resolution E19 - Resolved that a sum not exceeding $11,371,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Executive Council, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

Resolution E23 - Resolved that a sum not exceeding $5,744,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Intergovernmental Affairs, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

Resolution E35 - Resolved that a sum not exceeding $2,637,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Regulatory Affairs and Service Effectiveness, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

I will now invite the honourable Premier to make some opening remarks for up to an hour if he chooses.

 

The honourable Premier.

 

THE PREMIER: It’s a pleasure to be here today on behalf of the Premier’s Office, the Executive Council Office, the Office of Priorities and Planning, and the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs. Together, these entities provide support to the Premier and to the Executive Council and its committees in carrying out government, departmental, and legislative duties, to advance the priorities of the Government of Nova Scotia, which reflect the priorities of the people of Nova Scotia.

 

Today I am pleased to be joined by my deputy minister, the Clerk of the Executive Council, Laura Lee Langley, and Executive Deputy Minister and Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Tracey Taweel. Joining us in the gallery: Deputy Minister of Priorities and Planning Jennifer Church; Executive Director of Financial Advisory Services Li Jin; and Executive Director of Financial Advisory Services Mike O’Brien.

 

I want to thank the teams at the Premier’s Office, the Executive Council Office, the Office of Priorities and Planning, and the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs. The work of government only happens when committed public servants roll up their sleeves and get it done. I am pleased and honoured to work with such a talented team of dedicated Nova Scotians. With that, I am happy to take some questions from members opposite.

 

THE CHAIR: As per the practice, we will begin our first round of questioning with the Liberal Party.

 

The honourable member for Yarmouth.

 

HON. ZACH CHURCHILL: I’d also like to welcome the public servants who serve our province. A question for the Premier: On September 4, 2023, the Premier travelled to New York. There was an airfare of $994.42. It was one-way airfare. My question to the Premier is: What public business brought him to New York during that time and will he please table his itinerary?

 

THE PREMIER: The Province has an incredible partnership with Varian. Significant work in cancer research, supporting Nova Scotians who are living with cancer and experiencing a cancer diagnosis - there is significant work happening there.

 

Varian is part of a larger Siemens group. That trip, we went to Princeton, just outside New York, to visit with Siemens Healthineers. It was an exciting day. We talked a lot about artificial intelligence and the advancements that are happening with Siemens Healthineers and through the Varian group of companies.

 

I remember how struck I was that day. They have a supercomputer at Princeton - I think it’s called Arthur - I can’t remember, but it was the name of a human - that is fed scan results. On this day, they showed us several lung X-rays that had been done over the years. I believe, at the time, the order of magnitude on . . . (interruption).

 

THE SPEAKER: The honourable Premier.

 

THE PREMIER: Sorry about that.

 

I forget the exact numbers, but order of magnitude - they fed, I think, in the range of a million scans of historical lung X-rays and the corresponding diagnoses for those X-rays, and the supercomputer learns.

 

They were getting to a point where the reading of these X-rays and scans that were provided and fed into the supercomputer - whose name escapes me - the accuracy of the computer’s reading of the scans was within 95-point-something per cent of the world’s leading experts in lung diagnoses and issues.

 

For us - for Nova Scotians - this is so incredibly exciting and important, for the following reason: With the development of the YourHealthNS app and the move to provide Nova Scotians with their own health records that they could see right on the app - you’d have your own, if you had a historical, in this case lung, scan, or X-ray. You can have it right on your app. You could have access to that, freely and as frequently as you would like.

 

Imagine the point in time - it’s not too far in the distant future. We must be looking out into the world and seeing what’s happening - where you could take that X-ray that you have and agree to proactively run it through a supercomputer and use artificial intelligence to get a second opinion or to get an initial diagnosis.

 

Imagine in the health care system itself, where the supercomputer could do the initial one and identify a few scans as ones we want to prioritize then provide for an in-depth referral to an expert here. Just imagine the efficiency of the system.

 

As leaders in the health care space - under the direction of the Minister of Health and Wellness and the health leadership team, with CEO Karen Oldfield and the whole health leadership team - we’re looking at what’s in front of us today. We must catch up. We’ve got a lot of work to do today.

 

We’re looking to the future so we can be the province that proactively provides Nova Scotians with options through these incredible technologies and innovations. The work that is happening at the Nova Scotia Health Innovation Hub here is world-leading. It really is. We’re gaining such recognition for that.

 

Through the meeting with Varian and Siemen Healthineers in Princeton, which was the meeting the member asked about, that relationship now is a significant partnership with Varian that we’ve signed. They have a presence here in the Nova Scotia Health Innovation Hub. One of the Varian executives was telling me how he wants to move his family here. I mean, that’s a normal thing, right? When you expose people to Nova Scotia, they say, “I want to live here.” He said the relationships that they’re building with other companies and researchers and innovators who are in the hub - it just fosters this environment. It’s happening right here in Nova Scotia.

 

[12:00 p.m.]

 

One of the executives told me an interesting story. He is here so much working on some of these innovative projects that when he came into the Nova Scotia Health Innovation Hub one morning, somebody was in the kitchen - he went into the kitchen and they said, “Oh, there’s space in the fridge if you want to throw your lunch in.” They thought he was a local because he had integrated so well into the system. He was telling us - I was actually with him when he was with a whole room full of Varian employees. He was talking about Nova Scotia in such glowing terms, and he used that example as where everyone’s a local.

 

To answer the member’s question, and he referred to the fact of it being a one-way ticket. I believe it was a one-way ticket from New York to Halifax or the other way, I can’t remember - the member might wish that it was a one-way ticket to somewhere else that the Premier had - but it was actually part of a larger trade mission we were on that included Boston, New York, I think, and then from New York to home. It was part of an overall mission.

 

I’m so excited to talk about the benefits of these trips. That one trip to Princeton, I was urged to do by a number of people in the health care profession: “You’ve got to get to Princeton and see what they’re doing on artificial intelligence.” That one trip inspired me so much and it’s just what drives us to make sure that Nova Scotians have access to the innovations that are happening in the world.

 

We can lead the way from here in the Nova Scotia Health Innovation Hub and from Dalhousie University and from the research that’s happening led by some of our amazing health care professionals here in the province, like Dr. Dunbar and so many others. I’d love to have an opportunity to talk about how excited we are about those and how excited Nova Scotians should be about the leadership role we’re taking on fixing this national health care crisis.

 

To answer the member’s question, we spent the better part of a day, most of the day, with Siemens Healthineers in Princeton on that particular trip he has referred to. I hope that answers his question.

 

ZACH CHURCHILL: I know from some experience in Cabinet that there is usually follow-up documentation from IGA related to these trips and usually follow-up work that needs to happen. We’d also like to see the Premier’s itinerary if he could please table those.

Were there any personal events going on around that time, as well, that would have brought the Premier to that area?

THE PREMIER: Happy to provide the itinerary. I believe the member might be referring to - it would be well-known to Nova Scotians that my daughter lives in New York. I definitely had dinner with my daughter when I was there, if that’s what the member is curious about. She was not at the Princeton meetings. I actually wish she had been.

 

She is an incredibly intelligent, smart person who is very driven, and I think that if she’d had the opportunity to spend the day at Princeton with these world-leading artificial intelligence researchers and investigators, she would have been equally as inspired as I was and equally as passionate as I am about making sure Nova Scotians have access to the very best. She actually focuses on corporate litigation, so at some point in her career, she is probably going to work in the corporate world, and I hope it is on working on initiatives like she would have had the opportunity to see there.

 

I’m happy to provide my itinerary. If the member is curious if I had a chance to see my daughter when I was there, I would absolutely assure the member that I would never miss an opportunity to see my daughter.

 

ZACH CHURCHILL: I do want to congratulate her on her success as well. As the father of two daughters, I hope mine will be successful.

 

I’ve got some questions related to renovations in the Premier’s Office. Have there been any renovations since he’s assumed office? Specifically, has there been a gym installed in One Government Place, and is access to that gym exclusive to the Premier and his chief of staff, or all staff in One Government Place?

 

THE PREMIER: Of course, the Premier’s Office, on the seventh floor of One Government Place, has been the Premier’s Office since, I believe, the early 1990s. I think Premier Savage moved it from this very building over to One Government Place for whatever the reasons of the day may have been. It’s been there for quite some time.

 

It’s my understanding that really nothing was done in the Premier’s Office over that period of time. Nobody wanted to be the Premier who spent money on the Premier’s Office. In fact, I remember a couple of exchanges I had with former Premier McNeil over a desk in the Premier’s Office, and thinking to myself how ridiculous that was in hindsight.

 

My understanding is that nothing really happened up there. It was shag carpets and paint coming off the walls. Just prior to the election in 2021, the Premier of the day, as it were, signed the order to do a bit of work in the Premier’s Office, so I guess he identified that some work was necessary in the Premier’s Office - paint, freshen up some furniture, stuff like that. Possibly he thought he was coming back - but either way, the Premier’s Office was definitely freshened up at that time.

 

Since I’ve been Premier - obviously, we are big advocates for healthy workplaces. As members would know - as government employees would know - there is a government gym in the Johnston Building, in the basement. I know quite a few members use that particular gym, and it’s open to everyone. I have fond memories of the gym in the Johnston Building. My father was the commissionaire at the Johnston Building when I was first elected, and I used to use that gym quite a bit. Oftentimes, the way the House hours would sit, I would often use it later at night. I remember when I was first elected, I think the gym hours were something like 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., or something in that range. I’d try to go and jump on the treadmill at 9:00 p.m. or 9:30 p.m. or 10 p.m. Often it would be much later in the evening, after the day.

 

My father was very proud of his military service. He was a military man through and through. When I would try to go at that hour, he would say, “The gym’s closed.” “Come on, Dad, can I go down to the gym?” “The gym is closed. The hours are posted. Those are the rules.” I had to negotiate with my father, in his capacity as commissionaire at the Johnston Building, that if I wanted to be able to use the treadmill after hours, I needed written permission from the Minister of Transportation of the day. Actually, that was Minister MacLellan at that time. I remember he literally wrote me a letter that said, “To the commissionaires at the Johnston Building, it’s okay if the member for Pictou East uses” - that was what my dad required me to present, not once, but every single time I went in to use that gym after hours.

 

We believe in a healthy workplace. We believe in a healthy Nova Scotia. This is why physical fitness is something we promote. There was a treadmill and an elliptical installed in One Government Place. I try to use it extensively sometimes. The stress level gets a little high in the roles we all have. Question Period on a normal day in the Legislature would be 2:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. By the time of media scrums and stuff, it might be maybe 3:30 p.m. when I get back to my office. The stress level is high at that time. My blood pressure tells me that maybe I should go and exercise at that time for a little bit, so I often use it at that time at this point in my life, but sometimes in the evening, sometimes earlier in the morning.

 

It’s certainly used extensively by me. I can’t speak to others who may have used it, but it’s certainly a place that I consider a little sanctuary in the run of a busy, stressful, important job. I hope that answers the member’s question.

 

ZACH CHURCHILL: We now know why former minister MacLellan got hired, doing personal favours for the Premier to get him into the gym after hours. Is access to that gym exclusive to the Premier, or is it available to any other staff who work in One Government Place?

 

THE PREMIER: First off, I just want to say that former minister MacLellan - Geoff MacLellan - is an incredibly intelligent person. He did incredible work for us in his time when I was here in government. I certainly had great respect for him when he was a Minister of the Crown and the House Leader for the government, and as a person.

 

We were happy to work with him on the housing stuff. He brought some experience to the table there, and some insight, and some compassion, really, to that role. I was sorry to see him go from that role, and I’m proud to have worked with him and to know him. I certainly wouldn’t minimize his abilities down to a certain human gesture for another member of the Legislature. I do want to say that.

 

One Government Place is a controlled access building. There are commissionaires at the entrances. It is a sign-in, sign-out building. There’s a number of reasons for that. One of the things that I would say most surprised me, when we formed government and I had the pleasure to begin to serve as Premier, was that Nova Scotians are a kind people.

 

I can tell you that over my time in politics, I have knocked on tens of thousands of doors, and people are kind and polite and respectful. It is rare when somebody is not. I think in my time of being out in the public and engaging with Nova Scotians - certainly in a political capacity of knocking on doors - I can recall three doors where somebody was rude. Just three, in tens of tens of thousands.

 

Nova Scotians are a kind, compassionate people. In fact, I often tell the story about the first time in my 2013 campaign, I knocked on a door, and the gentleman opened the door and he looked at me, and he went to slam to the door. But I put my foot in it, and he couldn’t slam it. He looked at me and he asked, “What are you doing?” And I said, “What are you doing? You didn’t even say hello, you slammed the door.” He said, “You know what? You’re right.” He took a step back, and he said, “Hello.” And then he slammed the door in my face.

 

But this is a very rare occurrence. Nova Scotians are kind people. But in the position of Premier, there are a significant number of threats made against the Premier, and oftentimes the Premier’s family. This is why the Premier has a security detail in many situations. It’s an unfortunate safety precaution that is absolutely necessary.

 

When we look across the spectrum in politics in different jurisdictions, we hear stories. I have had just a couple of instances. One ended up being publicized here - I don’t know how it got to the media, but they did get it - where a gentleman tried to physically assault me as I walked down the street in Halifax. These are rare occurrences, but having precautions about them and being thoughtful about them and trying to avoid them is just a necessary aspect of public life at this time.

 

To that end, One Government Place - the building itself - is a controlled access building, as is this Legislature. The gym itself is not a locked room if that’s what the member is asking.

 

ZACH CHURCHILL: Recently, there have been six new positions hired to the Premier’s Office. Could the Premier please tell us what those six positions are for?

 

[12:15 p.m.]

 

THE PREMIER: A couple of things. As the government evolves - and we are always focused on the delivery of service to Nova Scotians - how do we best serve Nova Scotians? How do we best manage the operations of government? These are constant discussions in every single department of the government, and they should be constant.

 

The work of government will never be done. There will always be work to be done in government. We always say we do what we can. We always wish we could do a little more, particularly around budget time when we see the asks that people have, the well-formulated requests of support from government. I wish we could do them all.

 

In this particular year if we would have accepted every proposal and every request - and I do say they are quality - the deficit we would be looking at would be in the magnitude of $1 billion to $2 billion higher. We always want to do more. There is always a need, but we always have to be mindful of how we manage the operations of government.

 

The member has asked about the FTEs in the Office of the Premier and the Executive Council Office and the addition of six FTEs. I can tell the member that two of those FTEs are very specifically focused on the Mass Casualty Commission’s recommendation implementation.

 

Nova Scotians are very familiar with the Mass Casualty Commission and the unthinkable tragedy that happened in this province. As a result of that, the commission did some incredible work and came forward with a number of recommendations. A number of Nova Scotians - certainly a number of family members and also commissioners and people involved in the commission - have mentioned to me and said to me in various interactions, Premier, please don’t let this be a study and the commission findings sit on a shelf.

 

People know about government reports that sit on shelves and gather dust, and nothing happens. We don’t want that. We’d been very focused on action, but certainly the requests around the Mass Casualty Commission are very near and dear to all Nova Scotians. We want to act. We want to do what we can.

 

This is really important work that the Mass Casualty Commission has done, and it’s really important that those recommendations be taken seriously, in co-operation with the federal government. They have a role to do in that space. I think Nova Scotia has acted very quickly on the recommendations. We are doing what we can at the quickest pace we can.

 

We will not lose focus of the importance of implementing the Mass Casualty Commission’s recommendations, so two FTEs are focused on implementation of the Mass Casualty Commission’s recommendations.

 

We also have two additional FTEs around governance and accountability. This is a governance and accountability unit. It’s a redesign - a little restructuring, if you will, Chair. This is to look at making sure we are maintaining the highest levels of government, the highest levels of accountability in the government, in the departmental structure for sure, but also in the ABCs and the other entities that are doing work on behalf of Nova Scotians. So the governance and accountability unit - two FTEs there.

 

I can’t understate the importance of the work of this group. Certainly, in this Chamber we talk a lot about accountability and the need to be accountable. We are a very open and transparent government. I know sometimes there are some efforts to undermine that effort, and I guess that’s part of the political theatre of life. The reality is that in this province we have a very - shall we say - thorough media core who hold us to account. We have a very talented Opposition that holds us to account. We have everyday Nova Scotians who are very focused on what happens in this province and making sure that their government never loses sight of what is important. There are multiple layers of accountability. But certainly, within the highest levels of government - the Premier’s Office, the Executive Council - we are also very focused on governance and accountability.

 

So two FTEs for the Mass Casualty Commission recommendations and implementations, two FTEs for the Governance and Accountability unit’s redesign. The member asked about six. The final two FTEs that the member is asking about have to do with two additional senior executive administration coordinators, I believe would be the exact title. But this is part of the team of executive deputies that we created. People will be mindful, they’ll be aware of the structure of government, with a minister and a deputy minister and an associate deputy minister, and everyone working in the groups.

 

We as a government have incredible talent in that pool. At the deputy level, for sure; at the ADM level, for sure; and just people working for the Province. There are incredibly talented people working for the Province of Nova Scotia.

 

I often say that there are only two types of people in the world, really. I believe there are only two types of people in the world: You have problem-solvers, and you have problem-stretchers. There are problem-stretchers in the world, and there are problem-stretchers in an entity as big as the Province of Nova Scotia.

 

I have been so proud and honoured to really come to the true realization that there are a lot more problem-solvers. That is across the entirety of the government. Certainly, what we did is we looked at it and we said, we have all these talented people who are maybe in a department - just focused on that department - when possibly their skill set could be useful in other areas.

 

This became very clear to me as we looked at some of the challenges facing the province, some of the opportunities facing the province, and we would end up having discussions about, well, gee, this deputy over here, they might be kind of perfect for that particular issue. Well, there’s already a deputy over there, so we can’t kind of cross-pollinate. That was kind of what we said. Well, that’s not right. That’s not in the best interest.

 

So we came up with the concept of executive deputy ministers. I’m joined by one here today, a talented problem-solver. We looked at the executive deputy structure and said, Well, how about we have this executive deputy structure that can literally be supportive of any department on any given day? They meet and they talk about challenges, opportunities, what we need to focus on: “How about you do that one? Can you go and support that? Can you do this one?”

 

That’s how we mobilized the talents of people. That’s how we unshackled them from some pre-designed structure where you don’t get all of the necessary brain power focused on an issue. We created this executive deputy structure. It’s working incredibly well. I’m so pleased by how it’s working. It was essentially structured off something the federal government has; they have a similar thing. We didn’t have that here, so we saw it and we said, That’s a good idea, and we’ve got the brain power, so let’s bring it here. So we brought that here. Of course, as we organized that group, we needed to support that group too. Two of those FTEs are senior executive administrative coordinators to support the executive deputy group.

 

The member asked about six FTEs, so in summary, that would be two FTEs on the Mass Casualty Commission recommendation implementation. It would be two FTEs on the Governance and Accountability units redesign, and it would be two FTEs for senior executive administrative coordinators to support the executive deputy structure that we implemented.

 

That’s the sixth. We think it’s working pretty well. I’m certainly happy to take any constructive insight from the member as to how we may modify that in any way, but that’s where we are for this budget.

 

ZACH CHURCHILL: There’s been a lot of conversation recently about the change to the taxpayer subsidies’ financial assistance to the wine industry. Could the Premier please tell the House if he himself directed his Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and/or the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation to make a move on this? If that was a direction from his office, or if that advice came from the Ministry of Finance and Treasury Board or the NSLC? And did he direct them either verbally or in writing?

 

THE PREMIER: Could I get the member to repeat the question?

 

ZACH CHURCHILL: For the recent changes that were made in the NSLC, which has been a topic of discussion in the House and the public, the question is: Did those changes get made as a result of a directive from the Premier - or his office - to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board or to the Nova Scotia Liquor Commission, or was that based on advice and recommendations that either came from Finance or the Nova Scotia Liquor Commission?

 

THE PREMIER: No, it wasn’t the direction from the Premier’s Office.

 

ZACH CHURCHILL: Was it a recommendation from the Department of Finance and Treasury Board or the Department of Trade to make these decisions, or was there a recommendation that came from the Nova Scotia Liquor Commission? If that recommendation did come from any of those government bodies, could the Premier please table that recommendation for the House?

 

THE PREMIER: Obviously this has been a real discussion point, and the member is certainly interested in this. He is having a bit of trouble getting off the wine, I would say, but I respect the fact that he has questions about it. I’m not sure of the capacity he is asking here. Can he direct me to a specific line item in the budget that he might be interested in?

 

ZACH CHURCHILL: Specifically, the Premier has made assertions that these changes were because of a trade decision made by the WTO. I have read that trade decision - I don’t believe the commercial bottlers were even implicated in that. There certainly was not any prescription in that decision from the WTO to make these changes.

 

The Premier has also asserted that Australia must sign off on that. According to that trade decision, that’s also not true, so we’re wondering where the advice came from. The Premier has said in the House that it potentially came from trade lawyers. There seems to have been a few departments involved in this - the Department of Finance and Treasury Board, the Department of Agriculture, potentially the Department of Economic Development - and of course, the eventual decision on these changes was made at the Nova Scotia Liquor Commission level.

 

The question we’re trying to get at here and the answer we’re trying to find is: Where did this advice or recommendation come from? I’m wondering if it was driven out of the Premier’s Office, either verbally or in writing, or if this recommendation came from the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Department of Finance and Treasury Board, or the Nova Scotia Liquor Commission directly. I certainly know the advice wouldn’t have come from the Department of Agriculture.

 

My question to the Premier is: Could the Premier table the documentation that demonstrates this is advice that came from experts in the trade department, the experts at the Nova Scotia Liquor Commission, or the Department of Finance and Treasury Board?

 

THE PREMIER: The member asks the question whether this was a directive from the Premier, and the answer is no. There would have been multiple discussions with trade lawyers and the departmental level. I think the Department of Finance and Treasury Board might be better placed to answer some of these questions when they come up in Estimates, and possibly the Department of Agriculture.

 

[12:30 p.m.]

 

I would ask the member to ask those questions in that place. It’s not something that is under the Premier’s Office. I will say this, though: As Premier I am very focused on growing the economy of this Province. I am always interested in opportunities to grow the economy of this province and to help those businesses in this province grow. Those are discussions I always want to have. The member is asking if I directed something on this policy, and absolutely I did not.

 

THE CHAIR: Before I recognize the honourable member, there’s something in here that keeps beeping. I don’t know what it is, but if it’s around you, can you just mute it? What is it?

 

The honourable member for Yarmouth.

 

ZACH CHURCHILL: Advice from department officials, having been in Cabinet for close to eight years, does come in the form of briefs and advice to ministers. If indeed there was advice from the Department of Trade or of the Department of Finance and Treasury Board or the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation on this, usually that would be in written form.

 

Could the Premier please table that advice to the minister related to the changes to the wine program so that we may take a look and evaluate that advice in the Chamber?

 

THE PREMIER: I think I understand what the member is asking for and driving toward. I want to tell the member I am not aware of any outside-of-Cabinet discussions that may have taken place on policy. Of course, discussions that take place in Cabinet are confidential for a number of reasons. Outside of Cabinet discussions on this, I’m not aware of any briefings.

 

I appreciate that he would love for there to be one to exist, but the reality is that there was a trade dispute raised by Australia. Nova Scotia is committed to coming into trade compliance. We will also always seek ways to help and support industries in this province, including of course, the wine industry but not limited to the wine industry. We will always look to support to grow the economy of this province. The province is growing at an incredible rate, for sure, and that’s a good thing. We will never slow down on our efforts to grow the economy. You can’t.

 

The services that we all talk about in this Chamber every day as to what additional services could we provide - we all want to provide additional services, that’s why we get involved in public service - to do the best we can.

 

You have to generate wealth before you can pay for services, so if we don’t have a growing economy and a growing tax base, we can’t grow the services that we are providing to Nova Scotians. The two go hand in hand. We’re always looking to grow the economy.

 

I would say to the member that any deliberations that I may have been involved in for this policy would have been after the policy was brought forward to the Cabinet table to be discussed, and I’m not aware of any other briefing notes from my office.

 

ZACH CHURCHILL: We have had different messages from the Premier and from the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board on this issue. When this decision was first made public, it was all about the trade decision and being compliant, and the Minister and the Premier went so far as to say that Australia had to sign off on a new subsidy program for our wineries. We were told it was based on advice from trade lawyers.

 

Again, in my experience, I think, pretty consistently across the Westminster parliamentary system, the public servants tend to provide that advice in briefing form, in writing. However, the message has changed slightly on this, which is why we’d certainly like to see the evidence that advice came from Trade on this, because now the Premier said - which is contrary to what the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has said - this is more about economic development and expanding the sector. This is precisely why we’d like to see where these recommendations came from.

 

The Premier challenged my expertise on trade, rightfully. I am not a trade expert. I don’t believe the Premier is either. We do wonder why this happened because the evidence

that this is a trade issue I do not think is there. Again, the bottlers weren’t even implicated in the trade decision. There was no prescription to subsidize the companies that import grape juice from other jurisdictions across the world, which lowers the cost of production here and gives them a very strong competitive advantage from a cost perspective against those who are spending money on growing grapes and putting money in the ground and building facilities here and farms here.

 

The economic data also suggests this isn’t a good investment either because it can severely jeopardize the grape-growing and local winery sector - farm-based sector - which generates - I believe for every dollar that is invested in it, about $77 in return. We would be trading that for a $5 subsidy on every dollar on every bottle for bottling. There may even be a negative implication from a value perspective for the Treasury Board.

 

We do need clarity on this. We are wondering why this happened. The trade data that I’ve seen in reading through the World Trade Organization’s report does not suggest this is an issue. The economic data I’ve seen suggests that this could actually be detrimental to our economy overall, and we have not had any analysis presented to the Chamber. We’ve just been asked to trust that the right conversations happened at Cabinet.

 

There must be some economic financial analysis or trade analysis that the Premier can provide to the Chamber to substantiate his positions on this because the consequences seem to be potentially very serious.

 

THE PREMIER: I appreciate the member’s tenacity on this issue, but there are many places where the tenacity would be better placed than in trying to bring sensitive trade discussions to the floor of the Legislature in such a public format. It’s very dangerous and selfish, to be honest.

 

The member has asked about the legal advice and has offered his own legal advice as well, which is very gracious of him. I respectfully decline that and will stick with the legal advice from the Province’s lawyers on this. Of course, legal advice is privileged. It would be equally dangerous to put that legal advice into the public realm.

 

We are committed to a trade-compliant solution to the challenge that Australia raised in the Summertime, in June. Australia will get to opine. They’re going to weigh in on whether they believe Nova Scotia has reached a trade-compliant solution. I believe, in Australia’s assessment of whether that is true, they will be reading quite heavily the comments of the Opposition and the government’s response. In that respect, the member is really going down what I would say is a very potentially destructive path and that’s very unfortunate, but I would stand by the advice we’ve received from the lawyers.

 

I will stand by the work of the dedicated public service, which has been presented with a problem and the problem stems back to a structure that was designed in 2015. I believe the member would probably remember the initiation of that structure, which would have happened at tables that he sat at, by his calculations. If the member was part of a process of designing a structure that has now been challenged at the highest levels in the international trade world and found to be inappropriate or not compliant, let’s say, now this is a problem. This is a problem, and it’s a problem that we as a province have committed to solve. We have committed to come into trade compliance. We have also committed that we will try to find ways to support the industry and others in trade-compliant manners.

 

When we look at the whole picture, it’s hard to bifurcate part of a problem and say, Well, there’s a little problem, but the rest of it, that doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t really work like that in the real world. It’s a problem. We’re trying to solve a problem, and we’re trying to solve it by June. Between now and June, the discussions will continue.

 

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has met with industry officials. The Minister of Agriculture has met with industry officials. I have not met with industry officials. I trust the work of the Cabinet and the departmental staff to find a solution to the problem that is trade-compliant. I have great faith in their ability to do that, and throughout that process we will respect the age-honoured tradition of legal advice being confidential and privileged, for obvious reasons.

 

We would say that we are great believers in the potential of the wine industry. We are great believers in the quality of the grapes that are grown in this province. As a matter of fact - and I am not a wine expert by any stretch of the imagination - what people have told me is that, in a world where the climate is changing - and our climate is absolutely changing - in recognition of the changing climate, we in this Legislature collectively tabled and passed very aggressive climate goals, baked right into the legislation. The climate is changing, and the climate is changing in such a way - even though it’s destructive in many ways, in other ways it creates different and new opportunities. The way the climate is changing, I have been led to understand from experts, could actually be very favourable for certain types of grapes that we grow here.

 

The changing climate could be to the detriment of traditional wine-producing areas and grape-growing areas like parts of California, parts of France, and to the benefit of our grape-growing industry. There is incredible potential, but incredible potential can only be seized when you are respectful of the law, and you are respectful of international trade obligations that we collectively have as a country.

 

I would say to the member that the team on the government side, collectively, will work with the industry, but will not try to ignore in any way, shape, or form the obligations we have to come into trade compliance. It has to stay front and centre in the window, and that’s where it will always be for this government.

 

ZACH CHURCHILL: Certainly in Nova Scotia, back in 2015, there was definitely a focus on building our grape-growing sector and our wine sector. It’s something that our government would have been very proud of, and it’s led to a sector now that’s valued at $250 million that I’ve heard the Premier speak very highly of. In the majority of speeches I’ve heard him speak, he’s referred to our Annapolis Valley as the Napa Valley of the East.

 

I’m sure he’s not opposed to those policy decisions that were made that helped that sector grow, that helped us grow more grapes here and produce real value out of that sector economically with a $1 to $77 rate of return on that investment. Nova Scotia, along with other jurisdictions, were brought into the trade dispute by Australia, I believe Quebec, B.C., Ontario, and the federal government on this. We weren’t alone in that. It’s good to see that other provinces are investing in this sector as well, probably for longer than we were.

 

[12:45 p.m.]

 

Again, this doesn’t seem to be a trade issue, and we’ve had different stories that have come out of the government’s side - one that it is a trade-compliant issue and one that it is an economic development issue.

 

The reason why we are being tenacious about it is because we’ve heard from the farm wine sector that this could devastate all that they have achieved over the last decade because it will use taxpayers’ dollars to give the companies that bottle wine here - who do not put money in the ground or grow grapes and who don’t have the same costs of doing business, who have a cost advantage anyway because they are importing cheap juice from other jurisdictions where they are also subsidized to grow grapes. They will now have a further cost advantage over the local sector because their prices are going to be even lower, and taxpayers’ dollars are going toward the potential lowering of their price.

 

I believe that the Premier’s government has actually made this a trade issue and will keep it as a trade issue by moving this into the Department of Finance and Treasury Board where there are jurisdictions that provide financial support to their grape growers where they are trade-compliant - I think Italy would be an example of this - because those subsidies are provided as agriculture subsidies. I believe the Premier may, in fact, be keeping this as a trade issue by having these new subsidies run through the Department of Finance and Treasury Board instead of the Department of Agriculture.

 

The preferred markups were what were challenged by the World Trade Organization. We can’t do those anymore, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense to subsidize the importation of a cheaper product to compete with local growers and producers that are really having an incredible impact on our economy, and an exponential impact on our economy when you consider the impact to tourism and the small business community as well.

 

Instead of doing what other jurisdictions have done - every other jurisdiction; Nova Scotia is the only jurisdiction that I am aware of that subsidizes the importation of foreign product - to me, it’s like subsidizing the importation of apple juice to compete against local cideries where the apples are grown here in Nova Scotia. We have an incredible horticulture sector as well. It’s like subsidizing the importation of maple syrup to be bottled here to compete with maple syrup that is actually taken out of our trees and produced here. It really doesn’t make sense to me and that is why this is a topic of great consideration.

 

My question to the Premier, and I have a couple here: If it wasn’t him or his office that directed the Department of Finance and Treasury Board or the NSLC to make these changes, if he cannot table evidence of the advice that he was given, whether on trade or on the economic impact of this, could he tell the House which minister or department advised Cabinet to make this change?

 

Can he explain to the House why he has chosen to do a subsidy program through the Department of Finance and Treasury Board which will actually create a greater risk of there being trade challenges to this program instead of providing an agriculture subsidy to the people who are growing the grapes in the ground here where, very clearly, the jurisdictions that do have not been under threat of breaching international trade agreements?

 

Can the Premier explain why we are the only jurisdiction that is doing it this way and subsidizing the importation of foreign product instead of focusing on the product that is grown here?

 

THE PREMIER: Just a little clarity from the member: Could the member direct me to where in the budget documents this line might be relevant? Just so we can focus the team on a response.

 

ZACH CHURCHILL: These sorts of answers explain the tenacity that we feel we have to have on this issue because we ask, and we ask, and we ask. We’re not getting clear answers on this. We have heard from the industry that they’re not getting clear answers on this. We actually heard from Mr. Peller - the Ontario-based company - who does create jobs here and bottles in Nova Scotia. We are thankful for that. We heard from him in a public article that the government actually reached out to him to ask him what to do here.

 

This is a very confusing situation to evaluate. We do not have concrete policy rationale presented for this decision from either an economic analysis standpoint or a trade standpoint. We have not seen any documentation. We’re just told that it’s a trade issue, and the confidentiality of Cabinet prevents the Premier from sharing everything. We do not know which department even presented this advice to the Premier if, in fact, he was not the one who directed this. There seems to be some evidence that it wasn’t the government at all that asked for this but actually the sector that asked for it, according to Mr. Peller’s public statements.

 

If you compare how Nova Scotia has reacted to this issue to every single other jurisdiction in this country that has been implicated in this trade disagreement, we are an anomaly, a glaring anomaly. In no other jurisdiction has the response to the trade issue been, Now we have to subsidize the importation of foreign goods to compete with our own locally grown sector. Again, the risk of this is serious because of the cost advantage and the market share to the local sector. They’re very adamant about this.

 

It’s not just our party that’s saying this. We are echoing what we’re hearing from the farm-based wine sector. They think this could ruin them. Again, it’s because they are the ones putting serious capital in the ground here. They’re heavily leveraged. They have built farms. They have grown grapes. They have built wineries that people from all over the world are visiting. We may lose that, according to them, and instead get bottling manufacturers - factories that don’t have the same level of economic impact and are not destinations for tourists to visit.

 

We’re just trying to figure out why, and it’s not clear. We would like to get some clear answers from the Premier on this. Where did this advice come from? Why is he acting in this way, making a decision that is a complete anomaly to how every other jurisdiction is reacting to this, where they actually changed their programs to have subsidies to the agriculture sector through the agriculture department, not subsidies through the finance department?

 

THE PREMIER: The member says he’s not getting answers - he’s actually getting answers, but he doesn’t like them. That’s the reality. We just disagree. The member, in my estimation, just has it wrong. I appreciate and can have a certain amount of respect for somebody who knows they’re probably wrong, sees they’re probably wrong, but still keeps charging ahead with it. There is something to be said about that strength of character.

 

The reality is that the member has said that it’s either a trade issue or an economic development issue. It’s actually both. That’s the difference, Chair. We always look at these things through the whole lens. We believe that this is a significant economic development opportunity. He wondered why we’re not investing in the growers. Somewhere in the range of tens of millions of dollars over the last few years have been invested in the growers themselves. It would be disingenuous to say that there’s no investment there. This is an extremely sensitive trade issue. We have until June to get the fine details in place. Those discussions continue with the industry, and they will continue.

 

THE CHAIR: Order. That concludes our first round of questioning from the Liberal Party. We’ll move on to our colleagues from the NDP.

 

The honourable member for Dartmouth South.

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: I want to thank the Premier for being present and Deputy Minister Langley and Deputy Minister Taweel and, in the gallery, Deputy Minister Church - Happy International Women’s Day. Thank you for being here today to answer a few questions.

 

In the conversation to which I was listening attentively, the Premier mentioned that some of the increase in funding was for a governance and accountability unit. I think that sets the stage well. We do want to talk about accountability today.

 

In particular, I have a few questions about lobbying. I did sit with the honourable Premier when he was over on this side of the House and heard him many times raise the issue of a lobbyist registry and how weak our lobbyist registry was. I also heard him criticize then-Premier McNeil for not publishing his calendar and not letting people know where he was.

 

While I know the Premier asserts that they have a very open and transparent government and I’m sure there are good people in the office working towards that, we have questions.

 

My first question, since the Official Opposition was asking about wine: Was the Premier lobbied directly by the two bottlers, whom we understand have been beneficiaries of the program that was recently announced?

 

THE PREMIER: I guess a couple of things I would say to the member - probably straying pretty far from the Premier’s Office budget but that’s okay. I would say the discussion is about - I’ve heard the Opposition say and I’ve seen a media report that the commercial wine program is for two participants. I just want to correct that: It’s absolutely false. It’s a program that would be open to anyone who would want to participate in that. The first thing is that I just want to set the record straight on that. It’s not limited to two participants in any way, shape, or form.

 

What I would say to the member’s question is that I have discussions with Nova Scotians every single day about issues and opportunities. It would be rare that a day would go by that somebody wouldn’t stop me to talk about Nova Scotia, to talk about perhaps a challenge they are experiencing or perhaps an opportunity.

 

Oftentimes teachers, as an example, might stop me and say, Why don’t we do this? I’ll say, Why don’t we do that? I often say, Did you have to come to the Premier, was there nobody else? Why don’t we try that in the education sector those things would go to?

 

I might talk to the minister or people working in the department and say, Why don’t we try that?, so across the educational sector there would be a number of tests and tries. They are happening right now in classrooms around the province. That would have bubbled out of one of the 60 staff meetings that the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development has done across the province. That would have been a response to the Ideas for Education campaign that was put out there.

 

It could have been a response to something mentioned to a member of the Legislature. There are any number of ways - and there should be any number of ways - that a Nova Scotian can be heard and suggest ideas and then have them evaluated - in the health care sector for sure. People say, Well, why don’t we try this? We actually did a competition, it was very public, where people submitted their ideas for improvements, big or small, to help them do their job in delivering better health care to Nova Scotians. That was a very formal process. There are informal processes.

 

In a small province like Nova Scotia, I pride myself on working hard. I believe myself to be a hard worker. I believe that you get out what you put in. I put a lot in to representing people and being Premier. I get a lot out of it. I get a lot of satisfaction when we can have a positive outcome.

 

It’s not all positive. Sometimes there are things you just can’t help with, but I make myself accessible to Nova Scotians. I stop and chat with them. I have time to interact with them, and I take great joy and honour in doing that. I mentioned earlier today that that is not without sacrifice, and the members of this Chamber would know that as well.

 

[1:00 p.m.]

 

On International Women’s Day, I mentioned my wife - this morning - and the support she provides my family and me. She says, “Sometimes you’re not present.” I’m not present in the moment because my mind is elsewhere, even though I’m physically present. It gives me a little chill right now, thinking about that conversation with her. I try to be present in those moments. I try to be present in my children’s lives and present for them. I try to be present for Nova Scotians.

 

Do Nova Scotians talk to me about ideas and improvements for this province? Absolutely. Do Nova Scotians stop me and tell me when something went wrong or there was a bad outcome, where government let them down? Absolutely they do. Do I make time for all those interactions? One hundred per cent I do. It’s my absolute responsibility. This period in my life is totally dedicated to Nova Scotia and to Nova Scotians.

 

If the member wants to know if I have spoken to people in the wine industry - yes, I have. I have been at their vineyards. I’ve stood in fields and looked at grape quality with them. I’ve stood beside the famous Nova Scotia phone booth with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I have been present in their places of business. I have heard their ideas on how to grow the industry and diversify the industry. I do believe, at my core, that there are opportunities to diversify the industry and grow segments of it. I do believe that the bottling sector is an opportunity to help diversify, and I believe it’s an incredible opportunity in and of itself.

 

If we were to walk into the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation today and look at all the bottles of wine that are there for sale, you would find that somewhere in the order of 3 per cent would be in the category that we would call Nova Scotia craft wines. Of wines that are sold today in Nova Scotia - 3 per cent. Imagine the opportunity that is - to grow that to 5, 10, or 15 per cent. Let’s be ambitious about what’s possible, given the incredible grape quality that we have and given what I understand from the experts is an improving grape quality as the climate changes.

 

I believe we’ll see growth in that sector - 65 per cent of the wines on the shelves of the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation are bottled elsewhere. They’re not bottled in Nova Scotia at all. They’re bottled elsewhere and sent to Nova Scotia, and a significant portion of those wines that are bottled elsewhere are bottled in Quebec. They’re bottled in Quebec and sent here. They’re already on the shelves. They’re for sale in Nova Scotia today. I believe that is also an opportunity. As much as there are opportunities for our Nova Scotia craft wines and our Nova Scotia grapes, there are opportunities in the bottling sector to diversify, so that, when something like a polar vortex comes and causes trouble, there are other diversification elements to the industry.

 

To answer the member’s question: Have I spoken with people in the wine industry? I have spoken with them. I haven’t been directly involved in the discussions around the program today. That would be under Finance and Treasury Board and Agriculture. Through the departmental staff, there have been extensive consultations, and those will continue. I know that the counsels - the lawyers who are engaged by the Province - our external counsel, international trade experts to advise on how to be trade compliant. There are many moving parts, but all these moving parts, when you put them together, it’s an incredible opportunity.

 

I think it’s incumbent upon us as leaders to elevate ourselves, look out into the future as to what is possible, try to design policies that help Nova Scotia drive toward that, and seize those incredible opportunities that are before us.

 

I guess what I would say to the member’s specific question is: I meet with a lot of Nova Scotians, I speak with a lot of Nova Scotians, and it would be my absolute intention to continue to do that.

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: The question I asked was whether the Premier was lobbied by the only two beneficiaries to date of the program that was announced in January. I asked that question because when we FOIPOPed the Premier’s schedule, we see that on December 15^th he did, in fact, meet with Carl Sparkes and John Peller in his office. Not in front of a phone booth, not in a vineyard, not touching the soil and getting his photograph taken, but in his office, he met with the two beneficiaries of this program in December. This was before the consultations or announcement - as the farm wine sector has put it - was made about this program, which is convenient timing.

 

My question is: What was the Premier asked and what was discussed at that meeting? I will table that.

 

THE PREMIER: I don’t recall a meeting with those two gentlemen in my office. I am not sure what the calendar entry the member might be referring to. It could have been staff on the agricultural file, it could have been any number of things. I personally don’t recall a meeting with them in my office.

 

I will say to the member that I have had discussions with many people in the industry about various segments of the industry. I have had discussions with both of those gentlemen at different points in times in different formats about what may be possible on the bottling side of things, but I don’t know specifically about that particular meeting. I am not sure where the member might have got that.

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: This isn’t an assertion, Chair. I tabled a copy of the Premier’s schedule, so if the Premier doesn’t recall the meeting, then maybe his memory can be refreshed by a member of his staff, but we certainly see in his calendar that he met with these two gentlemen. What we couldn’t find through FOIPOP, since the Premier does not publish his calendar as had been the practice, is evidence of meetings with the farm wineries, with the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, with all of the people who are currently challenging this controversial program.

 

I wonder if the Premier can tell us if he met with any of those groups, and if the Premier can recall, after a conversation with his colleagues, this particular meeting - we’d appreciate any light he could shed on that as well.

 

THE PREMIER: The member said it was a meeting in my office. It actually wasn’t. I do recall meeting with them, but it was not in my office, so I apologize for the confusion on that. The specific question is what? Maybe the member can repeat the question.

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: Well, now that the Premier remembers meeting with them, what was discussed?

 

THE PREMIER: Thank you, and I do apologize. The member was very clear that I met with them in my office and that is not something that I remembered, looking at it in the context of this.

 

We discussed Nova Scotia. We discussed the opportunities for the wine industry, for sure. I said earlier about the changing climate and the potential for our grape production. I actually think the first time I heard that might have been in that discussion as to what is possible for a growing industry - for a growing province, quite frankly. We spoke about a number of issues and opportunities.

 

Mr. Peller has operations across the country; very significant operations, so he has experience in different jurisdictions. We talked about a number of issues around what it’s like to live and work in different jurisdictions. I’ve obviously lived and worked in different jurisdictions myself.

 

I don’t want the member to have any misunderstanding about my love for this province and my desire and focus on seizing opportunities that are available. I will listen to anyone who talks about something good for this province. I will talk to anyone who talks about an opportunity to establish a company here, to grow a company here. Those discussions might be five minutes on a streetside. They might be a couple of minutes in the gallery up here with a guest. They could absolutely take place anywhere. I’m always open to those discussions.

 

I think that’s what people should expect of the Premier of a province, so I’ll continue to do that. I’ll continue to share my enthusiasm. I will continue to encourage people to grow their operations here. I will continue to encourage people to move here. I believe it’s my responsibility as Premier to be the number one salesperson for the province, and I will absolutely continue to do that. I would hope that I would do that with the member’s support and blessing.

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: Just to close this topic, I want to confirm, given the conversation we’ve had over the last few minutes, that even though the Premier met with Mr. Sparkes and Mr. Peller - the only two beneficiaries of this program the December prior to the January that it was announced - and that even though the farm wine sector has said that this took them by surprise, and even though he confirmed to my colleague, the Leader of the Official Opposition, that the decision to enact this program did not come from the Premier’s Office, that he didn’t have anything to do with that decision.

 

I just wonder if the Premier can confirm again that that is the case - that this decision had nothing to do with the conversation he had with these two gentlemen, the December before the January announcement, and that he did not direct anyone in government to pursue this program.

 

THE PREMIER: Even though all those things, Chair, I did not direct anyone to pursue this program.

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: It’s a world of coincidences. I want to stay on the topic of accountability. Again, I’m glad to see - actually, can I have that tabled document back? You can table it first, then can I have a copy back? I’m going to refer to it in another question.

 

I want to stay on the topic of accountability. I want to ask about alternative procurement. This came up - I know that this isn’t, in theory, the purview of the Premier’s Office, but this again goes to lobbying and questions around lobbying, which certainly is the purview of the Premier’s Office. Because it is the Premier who is lobbied, even though we don’t really know that much about whom he’s lobbied by and when.

 

According to a recent allNovaScotia article, $8 million of the $18 million contract that was at the heart of the issues raised by the Auditor General in Hogan Court was directed to EY as the principal contractor for the development of the YourHealthNS app, an app that we’ve heard a lot about from the Premier. We’ve heard a lot about it. I know the Premier’s going to want to talk about it, but hopefully not for too long.

 

Our question is that, even though we were told that there was $8 million to EY, the Nova Scotia Health Authority also reported to the media that a research firm named Think Research was involved. But we don’t know as much about that and so I wonder if the Premier could tell us what work Think Research is providing, and at what cost to Nova Scotians?

 

[1:15 p.m.]

 

THE PREMIER: Obviously, procurement doesn’t fall under the direct purview of the Premier. There is a minister responsible for procurement, and I hope they get the opportunity to also spend a few hours in Estimates talking about the procurement policies and rules of the Province, which are extensive. There are extensive public procurement policies and rules, and I’m not the minister responsible for those, so I don’t have an intimate working knowledge of the procurement rules and responsibilities, but I have absolute faith in the team at Procurement and the teams across government that would oversee procurement, for sure.

 

Suffice it to say, I do know that there are many ways to procure things. There are many paths to procurement, and that’s just the fact of life. There are times when a government wants to be innovative, and maybe it’s a limited potential pool of people who could provide a good or service. There are times when government has - it might be a change to an existing process. The member mentioned EY, and I believe in the case of Ernst & Young, they were already on a government procurement and there was some question as to whether that was essentially the same procurement or if it should have been a new one or a modification. I think the minister has spoken about that.

 

In terms of the YourHealthNS app, I would like to speak extensively about that, but I do want to be conscious of the time as well. We might get an opportunity a bit later, I hope. The YourHealthNS app is an absolutely critical piece of technology for the delivery of health care in Nova Scotia. There are many jurisdictions that want a piece of that action. They like what we’re doing, and they are looking at our leadership there.

 

One of the things that I think is most important about the YourHealthNS app, and there are lots of functions of it, but the Get Care function is incredibly important. If you push that Get Care button within the app, it will take you - it’s a chatbot that walks you through. First off, it confirms that if it’s 911, call 911. Are you in Nova Scotia? These types of things. Then it gets to some symptoms and offers you different paths, different ways to access the care you may need.

 

We know that there are a number of care pathways in this province. We’re leading the way in what we’re doing with pharmacies and working with pharmacists, expanding their scope. The pharmacy care clinics, the mobile clinics, the virtual care - these are all important pathways.

 

I remember at one point when I was in the Preston by-election out talking to Nova Scotians, a gentleman had actually mentioned to me, he said, “I don’t know why some people say that the health care system is not working. It worked just fine for me.” I asked him about his interaction with the system. He said, “I took my child to the IWK and I was in and out. A couple of hours, in and out, diagnosed, had everything I needed. Worked just fine.” I just noticed the minister there - she may have been with me at the time, actually. I said, “Can I ask what was the diagnosis?” He said, “Absolutely. It’s my daughter and she had strep throat.” I said, “Did you know that you could have taken her to the pharmacy down the road, 10 minutes, in and out?” He was like, “I didn’t know that.”

 

It really focused me on, when you open up all these additional pathways to care, it’s really important that people know about them. That’s why this Get Care part of the app is so critical, why we really want Nova Scotians to engage with the app and find those most appropriate, most timely pathways to care. Over 210,000 Nova Scotians have downloaded the app. They’re using it, they like it, it’s helping them.

 

The vision was an app. A vision is only a vision unless you execute it. Through the execution of the process, Nova Scotia Health Authority - and this would be a question for the Minister of Health and Wellness and the Nova Scotia Health Authority on the exact interworking of the execution of it. I just open up the app like everyone else, and I like what I see. And sometimes I give them some suggestions on - maybe there’s some more functionality you should look at.

 

Certainly, doing an assessment of the clinical services, the clinical pathways, understanding these things, and then the navigation of the pathways to access care, access provider, capacity through the virtual care system, these are important things. And there are a number of experts, internal and external to the government, who would be working on a development like that app. My understanding is Research Development was one of those parties working on the development of the app through the clinical pathways and through the navigation part.

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: I appreciate that. That’s also our understanding. As the Premier said, there are a lot of rules around procurement, but this government is especially fond of what’s called alternative procurement, or ALTP. That’s really a euphemism for “no procurement at all.” They decide who they want to give a contract to, and then they just do it.

 

In March 2023 Think Research announced a five-year, $40 million agreement with a new client. I’ll table that. They didn’t release information about who that client was at the time, but according to the government’s own procurement database, that client was us - the Government of Nova Scotia. Think Research was awarded a $49.6 million contract in February 2023.

 

I am curious. I want to ask the Premier: Has he been lobbied by Think Research, given that - my understanding is that - this is worth more than all the alternative procurement deals signed by Nova Scotia Health Authority in the entire year of 2021. An untendered contract of almost $50 million to Think Research is not the standard procurement process. Was the Premier lobbied to do this?

 

THE PREMIER: First off, I want to clarify that alternative procurement process is not some kind of made-up thing. I don’t think the member said that and perhaps didn’t mean to imply it, but certainly cast aspersions on alternative procurement . . . (interruption). No? You are happy with the alternative procurement practices? Okay, not happy with it.

 

So the member is not happy with the alternative procurement practices. That’s okay, but the fact of the matter is that the alternative procurement process is laid out in international trade agreements, which we’ve been speaking about here. They have 23 circumstances where all provinces have agreed to the validity of using an alternative procurement process.

 

The member might not be happy with alternative procurement practices - I guess we can confirm that at this stage, maybe has some other feelings a little deeper than just unhappiness with them.

 

The reality is (interruption) You are not? Just unhappy. (Interruptions)

 

THE CHAIR: Order. The honourable Premier.

 

THE PREMIER: Any kind of insinuation that anyone would make that there is some nefarious activity around alternative procurements practices is just unfair. I would make that a blanket statement. There are absolutely times when they are necessary, as evidenced by the trade agreements, as evidenced by the fact that provinces have signed on to these. It does speak to a broader topic. I know that the members opposite sometimes focus on additional appropriations, and how they’re not right and should come back to the Legislature. We table a budget here. We pass legislation in here.

 

There are times when government just needs to act. It could be a natural disaster; it could be an opportunity to push forward on health care quicker. The alternative procurement process is definitely a legitimate procurement, for sure. I just want to be very, very clear on that. Things come through the Legislature, and people advance positions.

 

I think it would be unfair to those people administering the procurement processes to make any nefarious statements about the use of alternative procurement. It’s disrespectful to the people working in the province, for one. It also undermines the counterparty, which is providing a service to the province, because when you cast aspersions on that process, you really undermine their ability to deliver as well. It’s something we need to be very careful about, as people in leadership positions. No Nova Scotian - not many Nova Scotians - would be unfamiliar with this government’s urgency on the health care file. We are “More, faster” on health care. We want to move fast, and we want to do more. We think very strongly that Nova Scotians have a right to expect that their government feels an urgency on fixing health care, and that their government feels an urgency on fixing the other challenges that are before this province. We feel that urgency.

 

“More, faster” is our MO, and I’m very proud to say that that has filtered down through many layers of government, and that people also feel it. As we feel that urgency on health care, just as strongly as any other area, we look for opportunities where we can do more and go faster. We believe very strongly that the YourHealthNS app is an important tool in the delivery of health care to Nova Scotians. We do want to do more, and we do want to do it faster. This app and the development of this app is part of that process. My understanding - and I wasn’t directly involved in this procurement. I’m not a coder, I’m not on the ground, and I’m not an expert on clinical pathways. But my understanding from speaking to the team is that that counterparty, Think Research, brought something to the table in the form of prior experience on the chatbot aspect of the app, and brought experience in clinical pathways from working with other jurisdictions.

 

I’m sure the health team would have more detailed information on the procurement itself. As a general theme, I would say that “More, faster” is what Nova Scotians have a right to expect. We won’t shy away from trying to do more and trying to do it faster and finding like-minded people within the government - like-minded people within the province, like-minded people within the technology industry - who can help us do more, faster. That’s what Nova Scotians have a right to expect.

 

THE CHAIR: Just in regard to our back-and-forth dialogue, sometimes we’re unable to catch things for the record. If there are questions, just stand and I’ll recognize you.

 

The honourable Leader of the NDP.

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: My question to the Premier was whether he had been lobbied by Think Research. The Premier chose instead to talk about alternative procurement, which I think he asserted I had strong feelings about, which was the question that I asked. I literally don’t know what that means. I will share what my feelings about alternative procurement are, which are the same as those of the Auditor General, who, at the centre of the damning report around Hogan Court, pointed to the use of untendered contracts - contracts that had been signed through alternative procurement processes. I’m paraphrasing here, but essentially, she and others have pointed out that while there are appropriate places for alternative procurement, as a rule, the reason we have robust procurement policies is because they are open to secretive uses of funds.

 

We still have so many questions. The Auditor General still has so many questions about what happened with Hogan Court Plaza. The reason that she still has those questions is because alternative procurement was used. It wasn’t an open procurement process.

 

Again, my question is: Has the Premier been lobbied by Think Research? I am asking that question because the Premier’s calendar shows that in fact, he was - not once but twice. On November 17^th there is a meeting with Think Research. I don’t know if that was in the Premier’s Office or where it was, but it is in the Premier’s calendar. Then, ironically, just after Carl Sparkes and John Peller left the Premier’s office, Think Research came in on December 15^th, wherever it was - I don’t know, maybe it was in a vineyard - wherever those meetings were.

 

[1:30 p.m.]

 

Again, my question is: The Premier has met with Think Research, who was awarded a $50 million untendered contract twice. What was discussed and was he being lobbied?

 

THE PREMIER: I’m trying to be mindful of the timeline that the member was laying out and obviously of the picture that she made an attempt to paint. I believe the member initially said that Think Research announced a procurement with the Province in March. Maybe I can ask the member to clarify that.

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: I tabled a press release from Think Research in March, saying - not naming the Government of Nova Scotia, but saying that they had this new client - $40 million. I guess it is an assumption that our contract for $40 million with Think Research was that contract.

 

THE PREMIER: Just for clarity, then, this is a March press release, and is the member asking me about meetings in November and December later on in the same year?

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: My understanding is that those meetings were the November and December prior to the March announcement. That’s the timeline that I am laying out here.

 

THE PREMIER: Thank you to the member for that clarification. I can’t recall the exact substance of those calls, but they would definitely have been around innovation and technology in health care. They would 100 per cent have been on what is possible, what’s happening in other jurisdictions, what can happen in Nova Scotia, and certainly would have been around my desire to do more and go faster for Nova Scotians and being inquisitive about technologies that might be available.

 

I can’t remember the exact substance of those discussions, but they would certainly have been around health care technologies. I don’t think there should be any questions about that.

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: Well, it turns out Think Research is one of the few folks who show up on the Registry of Lobbyists, which would probably suggest that they were lobbying. Whether or not that was successful, we can’t say. I wonder whether the Premier or his team knew that in the Registry of Lobbyists, Jenni Byrne is listed as the agent for Think Research. Of course, Jenni Byrne is Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s chief adviser. I am wondering if that connection between that party and this particular company has influenced the Premier’s decision to award them an almost $50 million alternative procurement.

 

THE PREMIER: No.

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: Okay. Well, I think that this conversation has given us a lot to think about. I will remind the Premier that when we started here talking about the budget and the line items for the Premier’s Office, he really made a point of governance and accountability, and how important that is.

 

I guess I’ll ask another question: The CEO of Think Research - not the registered lobbyist - also has very strong Conservative ties. In fact, he was the chief of staff to the Ontario PC Leader, much like the head of the apparently arm’s-length Nova Scotia Health interim Leader was once a Progressive Conservative chief of staff here in this province. Can we think of that as influencing the Premier’s decision to award this alternative procurement process, and do you need to have a connection to a Conservative party in this province in order to be awarded alternative procurement?

 

THE PREMIER: Who is the CEO of Think Research?

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: The CEO of Think Research is Sachin Aggarwal, who was the chief of staff to a previous Ontario PC Leader. The registered agent is Jenni Byrne, a key adviser to Pierre Poilievre. These are my questions. As I mentioned, alternative procurement, which the Premier says I have strong feelings about, certainly are - the folks in the public health care sector have strong feelings about it, because they want to understand where our health care dollars are being spent, and how, and that there’s good oversight.

 

Here we have a situation where a huge alternative procurement contract, almost $50 million, was awarded to a company that we don’t know much about, except that their lobbyist is an adviser to the federal Conservative Leader, and their CEO is a well-known conservative.

 

THE PREMIER: I can’t speak to the political history of the CEO. I actually believed he was a Liberal, to be honest - but political history means nothing to me. The only thing that means anything to me is moving Nova Scotia forward. I think we’ve shown in our role here - the member opposite was asking about former Liberal minister Geoff MacLellan. Why did we engage him? We engaged him because he’s a smart person who cares about the province.

 

I think if you look carefully at the decisions we make, it’s always in the interests of Nova Scotians, and it crosses political lines all the time looking for the best people. I certainly don’t hold past political involvement against anyone, or for them. It doesn’t mean anything to me. I think it’s something that definitely happens. I can’t even tell you the number of former members of this Chamber who tell me that when their time in politics is up, they’re completely unemployable because of their political background and affiliation. That is a completely disappointing thing, when I hear that. The members of this Chamber bring different skill sets and different backgrounds, and they represent political parties - for the most part, not always - when they’re in this Chamber, and to have that be held against them, or to make some insinuations over their abilities because of a political affiliation, is not something that I - it doesn’t cross my mind. It really doesn’t. I only focus on Nova Scotians.

 

I only believe that that gentleman had a Liberal connection, because I think we had some gentle ribbing in one of the conversations. It 100 per cent means nothing to me. Ability means something to me, and ability to perform on something, that’s what matters to me.

 

So as we look at the health care file and we look at people who can partner with us, there are a number of significant entities in the Health Innovation Hub right now who are doing incredible work. I actually don’t know any of their political backgrounds either, and I couldn’t care less about it. They’re doing good work in the Health Innovation Hub, and I’m impressed by that.

 

In terms of the app and the development of the app, I’m impressed. I wish they’d go a little bit faster on some of the technologies, and there’s a lot more that can be done there, but I’m certainly impressed with where it is today from where it came. I think how it got there is from the determination of the team internally under the leadership of Scott McKenna, an incredibly talented person whom we’re lucky to have here in Nova Scotia.

 

He was employed elsewhere and has lived elsewhere, but he loves Nova Scotia and wanted to come back to Nova Scotia. He is giving it his all to make sure that this app is the best experience for Nova Scotians, and 211,000 people have downloaded it and they’re using it, and it is helpful.

 

There’s lots of work to be done, but we got it to that point because we worked with smart people. We got it to that point because we leveraged other ideas of things we had seen in other jurisdictions. The member might not know much about Think Research, by her own representation - I’m not trying to characterize anything about knowledge, but I believe the member said, “I don’t know much about Think Research.”

 

Think Research is a public company - a listed company - bringing in expertise to Nova Scotia for the benefit of Nova Scotians, and I absolutely want to be perfectly clear: I don’t work in the Procurement office. I don’t issue directives on what should be procured from where. This is not something that is in my daily routine or my purview. I trust the people around me to make good decisions about what is possible. I trust the people around me to be focused on providing services to Nova Scotians. There’s an entire group that works on procurement through the Nova Scotia Health Authority. I’m not sure if the Department of Health and Wellness would have been involved in this procurement or not, but I know that I was not involved in it.

 

What I would say my involvement would be is in constantly pounding to go faster and do more. I would say that we don’t get everything perfect, in terms of government policy. We don’t get it all perfect, but we do move forward, and we do have the courage - I think was the word used earlier - to admit when we didn’t get it perfect and when we got it wrong. We’ve had to do that. Nova Scotians may recall a prior budget where we had an idea that we would tax non-residents. It turns out that it wasn’t too good an idea. We acknowledged that it wasn’t a good idea, and we’ve backed away from that.

 

We learned along the way that if you ever want to see or hear how attached somebody feels to Nova Scotia - even though they don’t have their primary residence here - if you ever want to know how much they care and feel attached, just tell them that you’re going to call them a non-resident and tax them more. They have a certain reaction to that. I actually learned about some extremely high-profile educational leaders and titans of industry who actually have a connection to Nova Scotia. They have a residence here in Nova Scotia and spend some of their time here in Nova Scotia. That was a positive outcome of how we didn’t get it right on the policy. We’ll just keep moving forward, and we’ll try to do the best we can.

At the point in time that I was surmising, as the member was, on the political background of the CEO of Think Research, I believed that it was a Liberal connection somewhere in there. The staff have just told me that the CEO actually worked for Michael Ignatieff, whom I don’t believe was either a Conservative or a PC member. He actually has a Liberal background, but it matters not one iota to me.

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: At the end of the day, this question is about transparency and accountability, and about lobbying. We have a situation where a registered lobbyist met with the Premier twice. After that, an almost $50 million alternative procurement contract was awarded. The Premier says that he wasn’t lobbied. I guess we’ll have to draw our own conclusions.

 

At the end of the day, I agree with the Premier. I think it’s not totally around partisanship. I think it’s around access to the Premier’s Office. This is why we FOIPOPed

the Premier’s calendar. It would be a lot easier if he would just provide it, as has been the practice in the past. He won’t. So we are forced to FOIPOP it. What we see when we FOIPOP it are meetings in advance of lucrative contracts that benefit folks, some who are registered lobbyists, some who are not. I guess we have to draw our own conclusions.

 

We couldn’t actually FOIPOP the Premier’s whole calendar, because it’s expensive and it takes a long time for the FOIPOP request to actually be complied with. I think that’s maybe a whole other conversation for another department.

 

[1:45 p.m.]

 

I guess, going back to Hogan Court, which I referenced: Can the Premier tell us if he met or was lobbied by Cresco, Shannex, Lindsay Construction, or EY Canada while he was deciding - or while the government was deciding - to move forward with what the AG has roundly criticized as the unaccountable Hogan Court project?

 

THE PREMIER: I just think this is such an important discussion because it matters to Nova Scotians. It matters to Nova Scotians in the sense that the member stood in here and quite clearly tried to draw a connection from somebody whom she assumed was a Conservative to some contract, quite clearly tried to draw a connection from Jenni Byrne to this. Obviously there’s a lot of stretch on the member’s part.

 

The fact of the matter is it was all based on inaccurate information. It was all based on the premise that somebody was a Conservative at some point in their life, so therefore must have benefited from that at this point in time. It’s just not true. It’s not true anyway, but it wasn’t even true that the person was a Conservative. It actually matters, and then to stand up and say, Well, I was just saying that, but I didn’t really mean it.

 

The background is that any alternative procurement is posted publicly on a website. It gets much debate in the media and in the public, and certainly through the Auditor General’s report. So there’s nothing that’s not in the wide-open public purview. Every single aspect of it is, and to insinuate that there’s something that’s not, it just wouldn’t be fair. I wouldn’t let that stand, either.

 

The reality is that I meet with a lot of people. I’m happy to recount the types of situations where I interact with people. It is extensive. I would, in fact, try not to leave a room without interacting with everyone in that room in some way, shape, or form. I believe myself to be very accessible to the public. I meet with people who are currently engaged in something, some business relationship with the Province. I meet with those people. They’re across the spectrum, from doctors to teachers to businesspeople. We have those discussions. I meet with people who would dream of wanting to do business with the Province - I meet with them too. The member has pointed out a couple of entries from my calendar where there was essentially a contract in the end. There would be pages and pages and pages and pages of people whom I meet with that, to use a better word, didn’t go anywhere for them.

 

I’m interested in ideas, and I believe that I should always be open to ideas, so I make myself accessible to hear ideas, and I make myself accessible to hear what’s working in another jurisdiction, and how somebody may have been involved in that. Did it work? What would you do differently? This is all part of the discussion of ideas.

 

Really, I do think that the deliberations that lead to a policy - there are many deliberations that happen that lead to a policy. There are many deliberations that don’t lead to a policy. It’s just the way it is. I think when you try to pull one thread out and make some assumptions and draw a line, like the member has done here with the CEO, who’s just an upstanding businessperson who has now had his name put down here and said, You’re no better than the fact that you work for a Conservative, when he didn’t actually work for a Conservative - it’s not fair to people.

 

When the Premier meets with people in the Opposition, the media will try to use that in some way that kind of lessens them. I just don’t like it. It’s just gross, for lack of a better word, and when you think about what’s happening, it’s almost as if somebody approaches one of those things that you draw on - what are they called? - the easel, and they put one line on the page, and then somebody comes along and says, You know what? That’s an awful picture. That’s the worst picture I’ve ever seen.

 

The fact of the matter is the picture’s not drawn yet. That’s why the deliberations of government go through many stages. There are many lines, and guess what? Sometimes the picture doesn’t get finished, or it is an awful picture, but there’s a process that has to go out. If the member’s position is that the Premier should not be open to meeting with people, then I reject it. We’re never going to agree on that.

 

If the member’s position is that by the very nature of having had discussions with the Premier, that they are a person of lesser quality and they’re only talking to the Premier because of some political affiliation, I just reject that. We can’t run our province on that type of thinking. That’s a type of thinking that has held our province back for generations. No more.

 

This is the time when we are unleashing the potential of this province. This is the time when we are building Nova Scotians up. We’re building this province up, and we’re doing it one person at a time, one discussion at a time, one idea at a time, one meeting at a time, and we will continue to do that, because the potential for this province is so, so great that we can’t let political ideologies and petty politics interfere with reaching the potential of this province.

 

I am focused on one thing: the potential of this province and growing this province. That is all I focus on. We are growing at an incredible rate in this province. We would normally grow by somewhere in the range of 5,000 people a year - 5,000 people a year. That’s what we would normally, traditionally grow by, and that would be that 20,000 people would move to Nova Scotia and 5,000 would move away, and then that would be 5,000. A lot of those 20,000 might move here for school, and that’s why the move away part was so high too. Maybe they came for education, but we would normally grow by 5,000, and that’s kind of where we were.

 

Members may remember how difficult it was - what an aspirational goal it was - to reach one million Nova Scotians. That took a little while. It was pretty aspirational at the time, but guess what? We didn’t grow by 5,000 last year. We grew in the range of 40,000 Nova Scotians. It’s absolutely incredible growth, and we’re not struggling to meet a million. We zoomed right past it. I think we’re 60,000 people past that million now, so we are growing and we have the challenges of growth.

 

For sure, we have the challenges of growth, and people will see those in the health care system and people will see those challenges of growth in the housing situation, but as Premier, as the government, we accept the challenges of growth. We accept them and we welcome them, because in this province we’ve seen the challenges of decline - communities shrinking, schools closing, incredible debates. Have you ever been to a debate on a school closing? The motions in that room are so intense, because when you close a school you really kind of close off the future of that community in many people’s eyes, and I agree with them.

 

We’re not at that stage in this province. We are growing at an incredible, incredible pace, and we’ll accept those challenges, why we’re building new schools. As we face those challenges, and as we’re honest about the challenges and the need to address them, we have to be open to listening to people - maybe those who have done it before, experienced similar challenges - we have to open our minds to what is possible.

 

My commitment to Nova Scotians is that as long as I have the privilege to be the Premier of this province, my mind will be open to any idea, no matter where it comes from, what political background somebody has. I will listen and I will respect their opinion and there’s a place for them in this province.

 

THE CHAIR: Order. As we’ve reached the two-hour mark, I just wonder if you’re good, Premier, or do you need a couple minutes’ break?

 

The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.

 

HON. ZACH CHURCHILL: I’ve heard the Premier’s comments. In this House we do have a concern about certain individuals who do have close relationships with the Premier, who have done fundraising with the Premier. I think there’s been some very clear evidence that there is partisanship, favouritism that does happen within this Premier’s government. We saw that when independent boards of our economic development agencies and our venture capital agencies were collapsed and the Premier, according to his own words, appointed his personal friends and associates.

 

I think we saw an example of this where we have an individual who could gain from these changes to the wine sector subsidy millions of dollars, whom the Premier kind of admitted to doing fundraising for. The Premier said that was possible. That’s not a no, and I think it’s well-known that Mr. Sparkes has hosted multiple fundraisers for the Premier. Very successful fundraisers, by the sounds of it. When we do see this sort of favouritism happen, I think we do have to question it and ask questions around it.

 

There is another relationship that I’ve asked about in the House, and that is with, I believe, the Premier’s chair of his fundraising committee, Scott McCrea, who also played a role in the transition organization of the Premier. There does seem to be some indications that Mr. McCrea is still playing a role in the Premier’s administration, in an advisory capacity. I’ve heard that - again, I’ve not seen anything in writing, but I have heard from people, who have been directed to speak to Mr. McCrea, from the development world. I’ve heard that to be the case even with universities that have housing projects. They’ve been directed to Mr. McCrea. I’m wondering if the Premier can tell the House what that relationship is, if there’s an official role that Mr. McCrea has in his office or in his government, if Mr. McCrea is on the payroll.

 

Also, I’d like to know if the Premier utilizes Mr. McCrea’s facility, Queen’s Marque, for meetings. I know that the premiers were hosted there. I’ve heard that there are other meetings that are coordinated in that facility, and if there is a special rate that the Premier may have on those meetings. Just trying to understand and get clarity on the relationship, what it is, if it’s official, and if there are any benefits that the Premier thinks Mr. McCrea is getting from that relationship.

 

THE PREMIER: There’s a lot baked into that little statement, I’d say, by the member. It’s very consistent with what I just spoke about from the questioning from the prior member.

 

Just a couple quick snappers, and then I’d like to get into a more fulsome discussion about how I see Nova Scotia. No, not on the payroll. No, don’t use the Queen’s Marque facility for meetings. I have been to restaurants there and spoken to people. Maybe the member will have some further questions about my dining habits and what I might get when I go to certain places.

 

What I would go back to is I met Mr. McCrea when I was campaigning to be the Leader of the PC Party. His name surfaced as somebody who cares about this province and invests in this province and is somebody whom I should speak to. I know that Mr. McCrea speaks to anyone who cares about this province. I know he spoke to - I believe he spoke to Premier McNeil a number of times on a number of different issues. He does make himself available to me. I am sure he would make himself available to any member of this Chamber who wanted to talk about the potential for this province. If there are any questions about how he feels about the potential for this province, I urge the members, when they leave the Chamber, to walk down to the waterfront and walk around the Queen’s Marque facility and just drink it in.

 

That is a magnificent facility, and you don’t invest in a magnificent facility like that - I don’t know what that cost, but it’s a significant investment - you do not invest in a facility like that unless you believe in the future of the province.

 

[2:00 p.m.]

 

What I would say is - and his investments are not mobile, they are real estate. You are not picking up a building like that and saying, I am not happy about Nova Scotia, let me take my building and move it somewhere else. He is all in on the future of this province. And because he is all in on the future of this province, he’ll talk to anyone about what he thinks is possible, absolutely anyone, because he cares about the province.

 

I also care about the province. I initially met him when I was campaigning to be the leader of the PC Party. I spoke to him a couple of times after that, heading into election day in 2021, when it became clear to us and my campaign leadership team that the PC Party was going to form the next majority government and that we were hours away from forming the next majority government, when it was an absolute certainty in the dying days of the campaign. It was an absolute certainty to our team but not many others. You weren’t reading a whole bunch of stories about how the PC Party was going to storm into a majority government, but I knew because I was out talking to Nova Scotians. I was travelling the province, working very hard day after day after day, talking to Nova Scotians, listening very carefully to Nova Scotians.

 

It took a while for the pundits and the experts to even imagine that it would be anything but a Liberal landside on election day. Everyone thought this will be an absolute Liberal landside. It’s just an absolute pure formality, this 30-day campaign. It turned out that campaigns matter. It was not a Liberal landside. It was a PC majority, a very strong PC majority. On election day the PCs won 31 seats.

 

That was then, Speaker, because we don’t have 31 seats anymore. We have 33 seats now. As we’ve been governing this province and working with Nova Scotians. People have noticed. A by-election came. I don’t know why there was a by-election. A member left the Liberal caucus - I’m not sure of the circumstances of why that decision was made - but a member left the Liberal caucus, and there was a by-election in a Liberal stronghold, a 20-year Liberal seat.

 

Some people in the Chamber here say that the PCs are only a rural party - well, that’s absolutely not true, Speaker, we are a Nova Scotian party. So the by-election came and at the end of that by-election there was another PC seat - an incredible member. That was a wonderful thing, a great addition to our party. Since then, we picked up another member, whom I have to say is exceeding my expectations, to be honest. His tenacity for Nova Scotia and to provide service is really something to behold, and I’m incredibly proud.

 

Heading into that election day, the campaign co-chairs, when we chatted the night before, I asked them what they thought: Where are we at? Campaigns have lots of highs and lows, for sure. Sometimes the campaign team would send me the polling in the morning, and sometimes they wouldn’t. I would read a little bit into the days when I didn’t get the polling, but it didn’t stop us. We just kept working, kept working.

On the eve of the election I asked the campaign team, “What are you thinking?” They said, “Could be anywhere from 27 to 32.” That was kind of what they thought. That’s always a little disappointing because there’s a whole bunch of other candidates who are good, quality people who worked really hard, whom you know aren’t going to be successful, so your mind kind of goes to them. They asked me what I thought, and I thought it would be 31. That was what I thought.

 

I tell that story because the member is interested in my relationship with Mr. McCrea, an incredibly generous businessperson. I wouldn’t even be able to imagine the financial contributions he has made to so many organizations - schools, community groups, organizations that the financial side would be just absolutely breathtaking, but also of his personal commitment of time. He is extremely generous with his time to organizations. He is extremely generous with his investment of time in the province. I’m just reflecting on this because the member has asked about the relationship.

 

On the morning of the election - quite early in the morning - I had reached out to a few people: Would you be on my transition team, would you be willing to step up and be a member of the transition team? Some people would say, Well, what’s involved? How much of a time commitment is it? Which I always kind of downplayed. It’s a significant ask of somebody. I think about after the election and a new government and you get them in and you have to select. There are lots of decisions to be made, especially this time. Just after the election, the government pretty much left the building and walked away. I remember it was raining and COVID and stuff, and the former Premier just kind of walked away from everything. We weren’t even sworn in yet and we were trying to manage all this.

 

People have questions about what is the time commitment for the transition team? What’s involved? I would always kind of downplay it: Well, it’s not a whole pile, you know. But there are binders and binders and binders. I reached out to a number of people at that time: Would you be a member of the transition team? Different reactions, and some of them reacted with, Well, are you going to win? Are you going to win, or why don’t we maybe wait until the results come in? They were reading stuff in the media about what they expected would happen and I’d say we’re going to win and we are going to form a government and we are going to do our very best for Nova Scotians every single day.

 

I was just reminded of that very early morning phone call to Mr. McCrea saying, We’re going to win tonight and I’d be honoured if you would step up on that transition team and help through the transition, which he, of course, agreed to do because he’s so committed to this province. Any other time that I have asked him for his thoughts on different aspects, he has been generous and free with his time on that. He has all kinds of insight into the education system, all kinds of insight into the economy, and certainly other aspects of managing the province.

 

I won’t let it stand that a member of the Opposition would come into this Chamber and take a person of his character and try to minimize it for some political gain. It’s just - it’s really shocking when you hear members try to assassinate the character of upstanding Nova Scotians just because they talk to the Premier. It’s not fair and it’s certainly - I’m happy to replace that word . . . (interruption).

 

THE CHAIR: Order. The honourable Premier.

 

THE PREMIER: I’m happy to retract the turn of phrase there. I think the sentiment is well-known. No, he’s not on the payroll. Yes, he cares about this province. I hope that answers the member’s question.

 

ZACH CHURCHILL: Thank you very much, Chair, and I’d like to thank the Premier for his response. I am happy he mentioned the seat gain that he had, as well, because, particularly with the member for Halifax Atlantic, I think we do get another example of how this Premier does operate on a transactional basis, where there is an offer, in this case for substantial financial gain - a $50,000 increase in salary - compounding impact to pension as well.

 

The Premier did ask if it had something to do with me. I can only go by what the member for Halifax Atlantic said and that’s that it wasn’t. It’s that he was offered a position in Cabinet. That’s fine. He’s allowed to leave and take that position.

 

I do think that is a demonstration of part of the culture of decision-making with the Premier, where there are favours done, there are transactions that happen: If you fundraise money for me, there is potentially financial gain for you. I think we potentially see an example of that in the recent decision on the changes to the winery program, and we’re wondering if that’s the case elsewhere.

 

There was a cancelled public tender shortly after the Crown corporations were collapsed and after the Premier appointed his personal friends. This is something that we FOIPOPed. So for the House’s understanding, there was a public tender for the old NovaScotian Crystal building that was advertised. There was a successful proponent - I believe it was Benjamin Bridge winery.

 

A public tender was granted during the time that Develop Nova Scotia was independent and had its own board. After the government assumed control of Develop Nova Scotia and put the minister in charge and appointed - according to the Premier - a personal friend, this tender was cancelled. These are the things that we do worry about when there are fewer protections in place for the public - when there are more opportunities for partisanship and favouritism to come into play with serious decisions, which in this case may have impacted a public tender.

 

This tender - and again, this was on the NovaScotian Crystal building on the waterfront, right next to the Queen’s Marque, directly next to that, very close to Cable Wharf, and here is some correspondence that we were able to retain from a FOIPOP. This tender was issued on March 10^th, 2022. It closed on April 14^th, 2022, and was cancelled on August 25^th, 2022.

 

Here is correspondence - you’ll see that the cancelling happened after the collapsing of the independent board, and when Develop Nova Scotia was brought in under the minister and under the direction of Wayne Crawley at the time - a personal friend of the Premier, according to the Premier.

 

This is correspondence. April 28^th, 2022: “I hope to inform the proponent in two weeks.” May 12^th, 2022: “Develop staff says I assume we aren’t in a position to contact the proponents this week.” May 12^th, 2022, Develop vice president: “It could be any day, week, or month.” Develop says, “Okay.”

 

The next thing, in May 2022, there are responses that are completely redacted. After the Develop vice president says we could contact them any day, week or month, the next round of correspondences are completely redacted. We don’t know what they say.

 

The next correspondence, Develop says: “Yikes. Okay, thanks for the heads up. I’ll carry on with the review phase language and let him know that as soon as we have an update, we’ll provide it.”

 

A briefing note that is dated between July and September says, “tender closed and preferred proponent selected,” so we know that that had happened. July 18^th, 2022: “Crown review ongoing continues to delay decision-making, impacting business timeline, and creating risk to reputation.” The rest is redacted. So Develop Nova Scotia staff saying the ongoing Crown review is impacting the business timeline on this, creating a risk to reputation - the rest is redacted.

 

Someone inquires about the tender, August 8^th, 2022: Develop vice president says, “I think at this point you could simply reply that the property is the subject of an open procurement, and until such time that it is consummated or terminated we aren’t able to entertain any proposals on the subject property.” August 25^th, 2022, allNovaScotia inquires: A tender was cancelled on August 25^th, 2022. “Could you please tell me why it was cancelled and what’s next for this property?” Staff debating messaging - completely redacted, just about - staff is debating messaging. It includes: “We are still going through approval here but will get back to you ASAP. In the meantime, I wanted to flag that the department has asked that you also get Wayne’s sign-off on this one.” Wayne Crawley - all capitalized, with two question marks. Neither request has returned as they did not get sign-off from Wayne. It is reported as such in allNovaScotia.

 

[2:15 p.m.]

 

September 13, 2022 - a media request from the MacDonald Notebook - and now they have the messaging down:

 

The Business Development Opportunity for 5080 George Street was cancelled. Develop Nova Scotia and Nova Scotia Lands are in the middle of a transition to consolidate and become Build Nova Scotia. Once Build Nova Scotia is formally established, the future of the site will be re-evaluated, ensuring that the land holdings of the Province are used to the highest potential.

 

There are two proposals submitted in response to the business development opportunity. This response was approved by Wayne.

 

We have an example here where, shortly after the government assumed control of Develop Nova Scotia, a publicly tendered property that was awarded to a proponent was cancelled. The Premier’s personal friend was involved in this. He required sign-off. It’s clear that the minister and the department provided direction on this.

 

I’ve also heard that this was then repeated with the Vic Suites building on the waterfront. There was another public tender that was awarded. Again, I believe the proponent was Benjamin Bridge. That was also cancelled after it was awarded.

 

What people who’ve been involved in that are saying is that Scott McCrea has had an influence on this decision, that Scott McCrea has met with Build Nova Scotia, and that there may be a desire on the part of Mr. McCrea to acquire those properties. I don’t have any evidence of that. I say that on the record - I don’t - but there’s enough based on the Premier’s behaviour, his decision-making, and his obvious tendency to reward friends. We see it with the NSLC board, where most people on there are people who worked for the Premier on this campaign, including his campaign chair. I think we almost saw it with the shipyard purchase in Lunenburg, which the Premier wisely pulled back on. Now we’re wondering if there is outside influence.

 

Again, these are questions. I’m wondering: Why would a public tender that was awarded be cancelled shortly after the government retained control over that independent board? Is there any truth to what’s being said? That is because Mr. McCrea may have designs on those facilities, because they do . . . (interruption).

 

THE CHAIR: Order. I just want to state that we’re getting close. Everyone here is an honourable member. I genuinely believe that. We’re close to the line here on some of this.

 

If I may read: “The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members . . . Remarks which question a Member’s integrity, honesty or character are not in order.” It’s never in order. I’m not saying that we breached that - I’m just saying we’re at a fine line here.

 

“A direct charge or accusation against a Member may be made only by way of a substantive motion for which notice is required.” I’m not saying we went over the mark or not, but we’re on that fine line.

 

The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.

 

HON. ZACH CHURCHILL: I am certainly not accusing anybody of anything. I’m asking a question that’s important in terms of understanding why this decision would have been made, if there was influence outside of government on it, and what those influences might have been.

 

THE PREMIER: I just want to say that in my time in public office and my time in the Premier’s chair, I’m not perfect. I say things a little wrong sometimes. They’re highly publicized events when the Premier misuses a word or says something wrong. People know. People are certainly informed to know about that. Certainly, the most recent one would have been around the state of emergency.

 

As serious as that situation was - and I spoke to the mayor and apologized for my phrasing on that - we did respect the state of emergency as a party. It was a serious thing. It was to be respected. We expected it would be respected when the time came.

 

I was really surprised, the week when CBRM was under a state of emergency, to see that two Liberal caucus members had just ignored the state of emergency and drove to Halifax to take part in a Liberal Party event and were on the stage smiling and carrying on - under a state of emergency. I will say, on our side, we did respect it and our members stayed.

 

I say that for a couple of reasons. The first is that the phrases I used were not appropriate. I certainly apologize for that. I’ve done it a couple of times. There were a couple of things I’ve said. When we were reorganizing the Crown corporations we identified two successful businesspeople - highly competent people - whom we thought could be nice interim positions to help through the standing-up and the reorganization while we identified the permanent long-terms. It was only ever meant to be interim. They have other gigs going on, very busy people. If you want somebody to do something, you find the busiest person. We identified two people.

 

In the ensuing media scrum, one of the reporters said, “Who are these people? I don’t even know who these people are.” I said, “I know these people. I know their character. They’re friends.” The simple use of that word has really caused a lot of - I’m going to say - reputational damage and personal anguish to the two individuals who were just trying to step up. You hear time and time again - the general theme here this afternoon has been along the lines of - anyone who does something in this province can’t be of any quality. It must be for some other nefarious reason. I sincerely apologize to those individuals.

 

The worst part about it is, as a small province, you need external advisers. You actually need people outside of this bubble that we live in to bounce things off. My goodness, they should be able to do that without the Opposition latching on to their names, making social media posts about them. Just today, in this short amount of time we’ve been here, and I hope I have another opportunity to do some more time because imagine that here today, we’re not talking about the health care needs of the province. We’re not talking about the housing challenges the province faces. We’re not talking about affordability issues. We’re not talking about the things that Nova Scotians talk to me about.

 

You know what we’re talking about? We’ve identified now - if I went through the list of names that the Opposition have identified - reputable Nova Scotians who, when the call came, answered the phone and stood up. A list of them, I think we’re probably on five or six of them now, who have been razed in this Chamber today, all in the context of passing some insinuations about their character, about their ability. We could be talking about meaningful stuff, important stuff.

 

I just want to say that in the form of issuing an apology to those people who have stood up and answered that call to help out. When the Province came calling, they answered the phone. As a result of that, the member opposite is making it his own personal mission to lessen their name. That’s an awful shame. We’ll continue, and I’m sure in the course of the afternoon, they’ll identify another group of distinguished Nova Scotians who also maybe interacted with the Premier somewhere. I’m not ashamed to interact with Nova Scotians.

 

The member started off his discussion with an insinuation: “The kind of party” were the words that he used. In other words, continuation of the theme that it’s only the PC members to whom I’d be interested in talking. I think my track record is very clear that that’s just not true. If anyone would actually want to take a look, it’s absolutely not true. I could list off three or four examples right now of high-profile Nova Scotia traditional Liberals who have served in very high-ranking capacities in the Liberal Party, whom I have engaged, worked with, employed - whatever - because they were the right person for that time.

 

I won’t lessen their name by dropping it here on the floor of this Chamber, but I want the member to rest very assured - and he knows who some of them are, but he doesn’t know who all of them are, because they’ve distanced themselves from this particular Liberal rant. I don’t care about somebody’s political affiliation - they do and they can.

 

I care about a lot of other things: health care, housing, affordability, moving this province forward. That’s what I care about.

 

The member actually said that it was some type of transactional agreement to the new minister’s decision. If I were a lesser person, I’d dig into that, but let me just assure the member that I personally saw something in the minister. I saw incredible ability, I saw incredible passion, and we had extensive discussions as a team as to whether he was the right person for this challenge.

 

Again, remember the way we see the world from this side: problem, solution. What’s the problem? What’s the solution? We faced a set of circumstances where we had a member who had to step down. First and foremost, that was the concern: support for our colleague, for our friend, for our member, and I was very pleased to see his return to the Legislature.

 

It left a hole in the management of the Province. As a group, we collectively said, This is a problem, what are the solutions? Collectively - through numerous discussions, I would say - we identified that there was a person who could be a part of the solution. We were looking for another solutionist, and we identified somebody whose lived experience, whose passion, whose caring, and whose understanding could be exactly the solution here.

 

I saw something, my team saw something, and I’m telling you, we were right on that one. We’re not always right, but we were absolutely right on that one, and I think the team would say that unanimously.

 

Through the course of that discussion, I happened to catch little snippets on the media now and then by accident - somebody might have had it on an iPad or something, and I might have caught it - but somebody said, You’ve got to look at this, you’ve got to see this. I actually saw the Leader of the Official Opposition in the media talking about values, and his values, and how somebody else’s values maybe didn’t align with this - this is what he said. I don’t know why he’s doing that. It’s not his values.

 

It begs the very serious question as to what the member opposite’s values are. I think that’s been on full display in the last little while here, and I won’t delve into that. Others can certainly understand it. I want to be very clear on what the values of the PC Party are. These are documented PC values. The reason they’re PC values is because they are Nova Scotian values. The reason that Nova Scotians reach out with their feedback, and why they feel the way they do about our government right now, which I think is reasonably favourable - a week is a long time in politics, and things could change, and tomorrow could be a new day, but I think at the moment they feel very favourably about the fact that this government is getting things done. We’re getting to work and we are getting things done.

 

They don’t expect perfection, but they expect effort, and they see an effort from this government that they haven’t seen before. The values of the PC Party - responsibility. We have a responsibility to Nova Scotians to act responsibly as their government, but Nova Scotians also have a core personal responsibility to own up to their own actions and to make good decisions. Responsibility is certainly a core value of the PC Party.

 

[2:30 p.m.]

 

Accountability - be accountable. As a government, from a government perspective, we need to be accountable to Nova Scotians. We do that. We are open and accountable. Why are we open and accountable? Why are we so willing to discuss policies and our view of what that is? It’s a core value of our party, and it’s a core value of party members that they are also accountable for their reactions.

 

There has been some discussion in the Chamber recently about the Coastal Protection Act. The Leader of the NDP, in a scrum, said - it is a quote, and I can table it - it is transcribed. Somebody transcribed it, I don’t know. “The Premier seems - I mean, I really do think this is an ideological disagreement. This is a personal issue, what you do with your waterfront property.” We believe this is a collective issue.

 

I do believe in people being responsible for their actions. I do believe in people being accountable for their actions, accountable to their friends, accountable to their neighbours, and accountable to their community. I do believe that. Maybe the member is right - I do believe in personal responsibility, and I do believe that Nova Scotians would do the right thing, given the right information. That’s the Bluenoser spirit. That’s why we are who we are. That’s why we love this province.

 

The member said, “But we believe” - and I think that’s in the context of the NDP – “we believe it’s a collective issue.” So it’s not a personal issue on your personal waterfront, it’s a collective issue. That’s a values distinction. Maybe that’s a value of - I don’t know what the Liberal Party values, I don’t know where they stand on that. It would probably be whatever they thought might get them a nice headline.

 

We believe deeply in core values, because they are Nova Scotia values. We believe in accountability, we believe in entrepreneurship, and we believe there are those who have the ability to create jobs and grow the economy. We support entrepreneurship. We want people to want to succeed, grow companies, employ people, and create other opportunities.

 

In this province we teach students in our education system a lot about how to write a resumé - a lot of resumé-writing classes. There are not as many entrepreneurship classes. We believe in entrepreneurship, so that is a core value. When the member talks about values, I don’t know what theirs are, but I’m very clear on what ours are.

 

Does the Premier meet with businesspeople? Yes, the Premier meets with businesspeople. Do you want to know why? Because it’s a core value of his to support entrepreneurs, to support those who are making things happen, who can create jobs and create opportunities. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. I don’t think that’s a bad thing at all. It’s a core value of ours.

 

Another core value - just for anyone who wants to follow along, if you Google the PC Party website, you’ll find these. I want to share my insight on those values, because the member talked about whether - imagine referring to somebody as a transactional decision. Taking on the responsibility to look after and manage the department - imagine the importance of that portfolio, the impact it has on so many Nova Scotians, the immediate impact on Nova Scotians, and take on that responsibility.

 

Yes, there’s a compensation difference, absolutely there is, but I don’t know that it’s commensurate with the responsibilities we’re taking on and putting on in this case. That’s a significant portfolio.

 

The member talked about his values, but I don’t know what they are. I know what mine are: responsibility, accountability, entrepreneurship, patriotism. This is why I want to talk about patriotism. It’s about those who care about their province and actually care about their community. We see them every single day.

 

I talk about the Bluenoser spirit. We hear about the Bluenoser spirit. After the mass casualty tragedy, in speaking with some of the family members, one of them always talked about how it’s not the Bluenoser way - the Bluenoser support and the love that they feel.

 

I said to him, “Man, you’re right.” I had to ground myself again in what it means to be a Bluenoser. This is why people always talk about and you always hear about the Bluenoser spirit, and I always talk about the Bluenoser spirit. He would message me often and say, “I just saw you on the news. I know who you’re thinking of when you say that word. I’m thinking of their family right now, for sure.”

 

What the Bluenoser spirit really speaks to is patriotism. It’s caring enough about your community to put them first. The people we’re talking about today - and the members opposite will put those people in a certain light. They believe there’s some political advantage to casting a certain light on those people. I don’t agree. I just disagree with that.

 

The light that I would shine on those people is patriotism. They are there and they stand up. Can you imagine taking on a responsibility like the Department of Community Services right now? That’s a patriot. That’s a core value. That’s somebody who cares about Nova Scotians who says, “I have a lived experience. I have the intelligence. I have the desire, and I want to help.” That’s patriotism. That’s a core value of the PC Party.

 

The last one I want to touch on in the short amount of time that I have here this afternoon is respect. It’s treating all citizens equally - that’s a core value of the PC Party - regardless of ability, race, gender, religion, or language. Treating people with respect. That’s one of our core values.

I would often say, when I have a chance to speak to large groups of people, that no matter whom you love, how you pray, the language you speak, the colour of your skin, the political party you support, no matter any of those things, there is a place for you in Nova Scotia. The PC Party is a government that will respect you, will listen to you, and will do their very best to support you.

 

The member talked about the kind of party that we are. He talks about his own values and how others are different, but I can only go by what I see and what I read. What I see gives me a certain understanding of what values he may hold. What I read in things like the Auditor General’s report and how there was this major effort to conceal a misappropriation of funds until after an election - that shines a little light on values too. If it means that a member on my side has different values than the member, I’m very glad for it. Responsibility, accountability, entrepreneurship, patriotism, and respect are the core values that we look for in others and that we want to associate ourselves with, with people like that.

 

In the process of assuming a new government and organizing the structure of that government and how best to service Nova Scotians, we talked about some of the specific FTEs in the Premier’s budget. That may have been the only question about the Premier’s budget in the Budget Estimates. I’m happy to share my views on things. That seems to be what the members are looking for. I’m happy to do it at length.

 

In the process of organizing the structure of government so that we can best serve the needs of Nova Scotians, we looked at our Crown corporations. We specifically wanted to stand up a new organization that would be in the best interests of Nova Scotians. That was through Build Nova Scotia, that’s one, and Invest Nova Scotia, and there were some other changes as well.

 

As we were standing up those new entities, there were some decisions that had to be made. I think the member was referring to a tender that had happened before but was cancelled in the process of standing those up, as we reassessed as a Province what is the best use of taxpayer assets across the board. Through that process, that tender was cancelled. It happens and we move forward.

 

I think what I just want to say is that those are the types of decisions that happen all the time in government. I love data. We really focus on managing with data and making data-driven decisions. That’s a big focus of ours. When we came into government, there wasn’t a lot of data, particularly around health care.

 

I was actually quite surprised that in the health care system, in the bed utilization and the management of beds inside our health care facilities, if you were going to admit somebody, you literally had to phone the second floor: Do you have a bed? No. Third floor? No. Fourth floor, do you have a bed? No. A telephone call tree. Then you get to the end and there is no bed, you start again - no real management. That, of course, would have been under the purview of the former Minister of Health and Wellness and his time there.

 

We’re focused on data, that’s why we put the command centre in. We brought everyone together and put them in the same room. If you haven’t been there, Chair, I invite all members to go to the command centre and see the good work that’s happening there. Another technological advancement in bringing innovation to the forefront.

 

They’re actually sitting in a room and they’re saying, Okay, there’s a bed, or here are all the people in the emergency department who are waiting to be admitted so we know we have four here - where do we get these beds? It’s all data. We’re very focused on data to make data-driven decisions.

 

My point is I don’t know how many decisions are made in the run of a day in government. Maybe it’s something I should try to get the data on. Should I get that data, Deputy Minister? It would be an extensive list of decisions that are made every single day on different policy initiatives on different situations. There would be so many decisions every day.

 

I wish I could say, You know what? I’ve got my finger on every single one of them. I actually would probably feel more comfortable if I could say that I know every single one of them, because I’m a micromanager and I’m trying to be better at micromanaging. I don’t know how good I’m doing at that.

 

We have incredible people in the province and they make decisions every single day. There was a decision made to cancel this. I trust that decision. I’m not exactly sure who made that decision. It wasn’t me. I absolutely have faith in the people working for the Province of Nova Scotia, in their values, that that was the right decision.

 

We have to have faith at our very core in this province. We have to totally believe at our very, very core that everything that is possible for this province is not just imagined. We can actually do it if we believe it at our core. I don’t want to leave any shadow of a doubt. I believe in this province at my very, very core. I have dedicated this portion of my life to public service because I believe in this province at my very core.

 

When you believe at your very core, it means that you believe in the people who are delivering services to Nova Scotians. They are incredibly talented, dedicated people who share that Bluenoser core value. They really do. It’s the reason they’re working for the public service - because they want to provide public service.

 

Sometimes there is a disconnect between the core values of Nova Scotians and the political theatre. I don’t know if that’s parliamentary or not, but it’s certainly what we experience when we come to this Chamber: political theatre. It’s a shame when political theatre really puts a lid on potential, and that’s what happens.

[2:45 p.m.]

 

I know that when I was Leader of the Official Opposition, I spent a lot of time trying to encourage people to engage in the political process, and recruit candidates. Some of you in this room it actually worked on, thank goodness. It’s very difficult to entice people to come into the political arena to do public service. The number one thing people say about that is that it’s because of social media and this and that, and the impact on their family and on their kids, and the broad circle, right?

 

We sign up for public service, we accept that. I talk to my kids all the time about what people might be saying about their father, what my core values are, and what theirs are, and we try to keep that open connection, because they’re people and we’re actually people too. Carol and I talk about this all the time, but through all that, we made a family decision to enter politics and try to do public good.

 

Everyone else in this Chamber also made that same decision, with their eyes wide open to what people may say or do, or how they treat us or act toward us. Nova Scotians who are just trying to do the best they can, who get a call from the Province that says, Hey, can you help with this? It’s time for you to step up. They’re not expecting and they’re not signing up for that level of - I’m trying to find a word that’s parliamentary-appropriate, but they’re not expecting that they’re going into this political arena where they can be an actor in somebody else’s political theatre, and it is awful. It is absolutely awful.

 

When I think about calling people to help to stand up on a board or to help with an issue, it’s with some reluctance, because they say - I’ve seen what they say. What are they going to say? Maybe I can’t help you on this one, or maybe what a waste of talent, when people get vilified.

 

What I would say to the member on the question of the tender is I’m not familiar with the details of that tender, but I have absolute faith in those who would be familiar with the details of that tender, and I have absolute confidence that they would have made the right decision. I also believe that, like myself, they would also stand up and have the courage to say when they made a mistake, because that happens too. It’s not just me who makes them; sometimes people who work in public service make a mistake and they say, I made a mistake on that one. That could be a simple thing, like an email went to the wrong person or whatever - I don’t know.

 

I don’t mind people making mistakes, because it means they did something. I think that the more dangerous situation is when people don’t do anything. That’s a far more dangerous situation. Members who have been around this Chamber for a while would be familiar with people not doing anything, because they would have watched a government for a number of years that didn’t do anything. I don’t know what the legacy of that government is, but I know what ours will be. Ours will be a commitment to doing things.

 

We’re moving the needle on a number of things in health care, in housing too. There’s work to be done, there’s no question, but I’m happy to talk about some of that work that’s being done.

 

I just want to leave the member with an opportunity, I guess, to raise some of his concerns about another Nova Scotian, which will no doubt be the next thing on his agenda - maybe pick somebody else off. I’m hopeful he can find something in the budget to talk about because I’m happy to talk about the budget.

 

I’ll just leave this portion of the discussion for now with a reiteration of something that I think is very important. That is operating from a place of integrity and to hold myself to that level. I hold my team to that level. Being driven by true core values and not losing sight of your values just because you want to try to make some political gain. That’s something. I have to look in the mirror every single morning. In addition to that, I have to look my wife in the eyes and look my children in the eyes and know that, while I have the honour and privilege to be Premier, I did the very best I could with the situations that are in front of me. They’re not always pleasant situations.

 

I heard a very famous political figure at one time talk about the challenges of leadership. He used the expression that when it makes it to that office, it’s not always good. He described it as sewage and how it doesn’t flow uphill. It flows in a certain direction, right? If it’s an easier decision, it’s made somewhere else. We sign up for these positions to make the tough decisions and we’ll continue to make those.

 

We will support those around us who also make tough decisions. The member referred to the cancellation of a tender. Whoever made that decision, I’m sure that was not an easy, flippant decision. I’m sure they probably had to go through a number of discussions and analysis to reach that conclusion. I respect that process and I’m sympathetic to their experiences in having to reach that decision.

 

There are always pros and cons when you make these decisions. I respect those who make decisions. Those are the people I respect. I am okay if they make a mistake when their heart is in the right place and they’re doing the very best they can.

 

During the time of transition, for the standing up of the ABCs, there were decisions that were made. I certainly respect those decisions. I hope that answers the member’s question.

 

HON. ZACH CHURCHILL: The Premier has a very interesting tactic when asked questions - to misdirect and to counterattack. It would be very clear to anybody watching this debate that our questions are actually about the Premier’s behaviour, not anybody else’s.

 

The Premier can sit here and pretend that this is about regular, everyday businesspeople and Nova Scotians, but these are actually questions about people who have fundraised for the party, who have been involved in the electoral apparatus of the Progressive Conservative Party. There’s evidence to suggest that there are, potentially, decisions being made to their financial advantage. These are legitimate questions to ask. In fact, the Opposition wouldn’t be doing too much of a job if we didn’t.

 

The Premier talks about responsibility and accountability. He’s been very selective with the Auditor General reports that he’s referenced in this House. I’ll point to the one on over-budget spending where the Auditor General has said that there’s no accountability by the government, that the over-budget spending process is not accountable or transparent. On responsibility, capacity versus need, the fiscal capacity is there, but the need has not been demonstrated. The Auditor General has actually included, for hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent - for 100 per cent of the transactions looked at in this report, the Province spent prematurely without even establishing a need. We saw that with the purchase of Hogan Court: “Although we acknowledge the significant challenges and pressures that exist throughout the healthcare system, addressing them should not promote a culture where expediency takes precedence over appropriate due diligence and value for money.”

 

The reason we ask these questions is because the Auditor General has made it very clear that the Premier doesn’t operate and his government doesn’t operate on a responsible mandate of delivering value for money for the taxpayers. He has spent billions of dollars outside of his own budget on areas that the Auditor General has determined no due diligence was done for, no market assessments were done, and there wasn’t even an established need.

 

While I appreciate the Premier’s bombast and his political theatre, the evidence is piling up that, in fact, how he operates is exactly the opposite of how he says he does.

 

THE CHAIR: Order. That concludes the second round of questioning for the Liberal Party. We’ll move on to the next round for NDP colleagues.

 

The honourable Leader of the NDP.

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: Where to begin? The Premier spent a lot of time talking about political theatre. In fact, I think he spent something like 20 minutes, while not answering the question he was asked, talking about political theatre, which is ironic. We are asking questions, and we are getting speeches.

 

The Premier is in a particularly privileged position around his capacity, ability, and opportunity to give speeches about how much he loves Nova Scotia. That’s kind of a big part of his job. He does it all the time. In here, it would be great if he could answer questions, because I know he is not used to being in Estimates, but that’s where we are. We’re asking questions.

 

The Premier also mentioned something about his time as a member of the Opposition and as Leader of the Official Opposition. I want to say a few things that I remember about the Premier’s time as a member of the Opposition. I remember the Premier spending hours and hours attacking the Liberal government in Public Accounts Committee and elsewhere, including members of their staff. I remember him suing the Government of Nova Scotia, the good people that he now presides over, for not releasing a $1.5 million - this is in the context of billions of dollars of spending - contract for the Yarmouth ferry, one that he was told by the Public Service was sensitive and couldn’t be released. Yet with cameras following him and his Chief of Staff to the courthouse, a big smile on his face, he launched a lawsuit against his own government.

 

I member the Premier, as Leader of the Official Opposition, railing - to the media, in the gallery, and to whoever would listen - against Stephen McNeil for not giving the Information and Privacy Officer order-making powers. This from a Premier who will not give the Information and Privacy Officer the budget request that she has asked for.

 

It’s a bit rich to be lectured about political theatre. The theatre in this Chamber ensues when we can’t do our jobs. As many members of this government seem to be challenged in acknowledging, our jobs are literally to criticize. If I could come into this Chamber every day and give a speech about all the things I love about this province, about how excited I am - and I have given those speeches. I remember my reply to former Premier Rankin’s budget, when he gave a $100 increase to income assistance - we celebrated that. We celebrate parts of the Premier’s budget. We celebrate the permanent funding to women’s centres and transition houses. This is something we fought for, for a long time, and we celebrate.

 

If it were my job to stand up here and celebrate the government’s accomplishments, I would do that, but that’s not my job. My job is to come in here on behalf of Nova Scotians, on behalf of the people who elected me, and ask the government hard questions about why they made the decisions they did. It’s literally the definition of the work of the Opposition - work, I might add, that was done superbly by the Premier when he sat on this side of the House.

 

I would just appreciate the ability to ask questions. I would echo the words of my colleague: We are not calling into question the credentials, the talents, or the usefulness of any of the people who have been named in this Chamber. What we are asking about is the way the Premier’s Office and this government figures out what they are going to do and who they are influenced by. These are important questions for us to be answering.

 

Another controversial decision that has been made in recent days, to say the least, was the decision not to move forward with the Coastal Protection Act.

[3:00 p.m.]

 

I’m going to ask the Premier about whether he had conversations about that, but I want to start by reading a letter that I received from a Nova Scotian about this Act. It was, in fact, a letter that I think the Premier and minister were copied on, but I was also copied on it. Also, because the Premier did raise the Coastal Protection Act in my view, we can talk about that. He says:

 

For the past 20 years I have worked as a documentary and educational media producer, focused primarily on ocean-related issues. I have filmed, interviewed, worked, and lived alongside scientists, entrepreneurs, policy makers, fishers, Indigenous community members, ship captains, sailors, seafarers, engineers, dock workers, divers, teachers, and students, to name a few.

 

My work has taken me to the coasts of Australia, Indonesia, Namibia, Egypt, Turkey, France, Italy, Greece, the U.K., Costa Rica, Panama, the U.S., and all three coasts of Canada.

 

Because my eyes are bad, I’m going to switch to the paper version here. Please give me a moment.

 

I have learned many things along the way, but I carry few as preciously as this: coastal development impacts us all. We share the land and the water. It is all interconnected. Coastlines are ecologically essential for juvenile fish, shrubs and plants, birds, insects, mammals - literally millions of species, and they are all part of a natural system that reaches out far into the ocean, and yes, deep inland. This is not some high-concept ideal. This is a proven fact.

 

Development that goes unregulated can lead to habitat loss and species depletion that can have cataclysmic effects on our entire regional - and in fact, global - environment. Across the world, there are countless examples of how coastal development has led to costly problems. Quite literally, costly in terms of lives. Or if you so chose: costly in terms of jobs, infrastructure, billions of dollars.

 

But this is not just environmentalism for the environment’s sake. Forestry, farming, and fishing are all dependent on a healthy coastline. Young economically important fish rely on a sanctuary of coastal waters to grow - nurseries that can be suffocated by increased erosion. Forests and farms get nutrients from birds that eat fish and poop it out all over the land. And where do seabirds nest and eat? These are but a few examples.

 

A healthy coastline is also the first defense against storms and other weather events. However you feel about climate change, surely you have seen how devastating a Category 4 hurricane can be to coastal communities, and not just for those who live near the water.

 

You would likely know this. I am sure you and your team have spoken with scientists, engineers, fishers, farmers, and other coastal community stakeholders. Or, then again, perhaps not. It seems that your recent decision - to shutter an Act that originated with all-party support - rests largely on input, or lack thereof, from 30,000 people who own property on Nova Scotia’s shorelines - an arguably shortsighted consultation, given the above.

 

You say you only got approximately 1,000 responses, and therefore conclude that the other 29,000 must be opposed to regulations. This is, perhaps, a logical guess. Many are likely wealthy - it costs a lot to own land on the coast - and didn’t want to be told they can’t build a new boathouse right on the water.

 

Of course any new regulations would give them pause. It’s a little bit like polling Canada’s federal inmates on how they feel about hockey rinks in prisons. Maybe not the most objective focus group. Many things would give us pause.

 

Some of those 29,000 may say government can’t or shouldn’t restrict what they can do to their properties. But let’s go ahead and dismiss that argument. We do this all the time, everywhere. Building codes, zoning, permits - there are all kinds of formal development restrictions that we have to adhere to, ostensibly for the greater good. I trust you would not give in to such a selfish argument.

 

Now, if you don’t agree with the above, if you want to suggest it’s not really about what I say or what you think, there’s also this: democratic process demands that you count only the ballots that are submitted. Abstentions are not counted - not in any due process of any modern organizational structure. As a government official, I suspect you know this. When you abstain, your position is simply not counted as neither for nor against the question at hand.

 

If one feels strongly about an issue and is given a chance to express one’s opinion, one must speak up. If not, one must accept the consequence of that non-participation. This is the essence of democracy.

 

You just got 29,000 abstentions, and by your own admission, the 1,000 votes cast seem to be substantially in favour of pursuing the Coastal Protection Act. Therefore, contrary to recent statements, it seems there’s overwhelming support for the Coastal Protection Act.

 

And if that’s not enough, well, please send me the survey. In fact, send it to all of us. We are all Nova Scotians with a vested interest in this province, which includes its coastlines - coastlines that are vital to our economy, our health, our culture, and our identity. We are east coasters. Coastlines impact us all.

 

Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

Scott Simpson

 

I’ll table that.

 

In light of this letter, which expresses hundreds of conversations I’ve had with folks in the last little while, I want to ask the Premier - the tongue-in-cheek silent abstention stuff: Were you lobbied? Did the people who stop you in the street - did the people you talk to all the time - tell you that you should not pursue this Act? Who were they? What did they say? Why did you make that decision?

 

THE PREMIER: I missed the first of the letter. I wonder if the member can read the letter into the record again. I’m just teasing.

 

I want to thank the member for the important question on the Coastal Protection Act. I believe I know Scott Simpson. I don’t know if that disqualifies his ability to give me a contrarian view or not, but I know lots of people who give me contrarian views, and some I would consider very close friends, not just friends. I do receive information from all sides. I imagine it wouldn’t be nearly as entertaining, appealing, and headline-grabbing to take something - an opinion of somebody who disagrees with the Premier but the Premier knows and put that out there.

 

There are some instances of people being very public in their disagreements with me and government decisions who are people I know very well, socialize with, and certainly respect their opinions. I respect the opinions of people as their opinions, no matter their political background and no matter my relationship with them. That’s kind of the irony of this afternoon. I think the members opposite would be quite shocked to know that some of the people who’ve been very public in their opposition to some of the decisions are people I know very well.

 

In terms of the member’s initial - now I do want, in response to the question, I do want to walk through elements of the question. I think that’s fair. The members have a big preamble, with lots of things in there that, in my estimation, need to be addressed out of respect for them being tabled. I’ll take some time to do that as well. I think that’s a fair exchange that people can make. The member would say it’s my job to answer questions, and absolutely: Here I am, answering questions. When I leave here, I’ll probably answer questions in the media, I’ll probably answer questions on the phone tonight, and I’ll certainly answer some on the street. I pride myself on being very accessible and open, and I’m not shy about owning my words, even when I regret having said some. I will answer every question that’s asked, and I want to be comprehensive about how I answer them, and I hope the member finds that fair.

 

The member spoke about what I believe she termed as a lawsuit that we launched in Opposition against the government of the day over information around the Yarmouth ferry. That’s absolutely an accurate characterization. We did take the government to court to seek information that we believed should be in the public realm. The government had advanced arguments that it should not be. We proceeded to court on that. We handled that in house with my chief of staff - an intelligent person who happens to be a lawyer. She’s been with me since Day 1 as my chief of staff. I’ve only had one chief of staff. I know others have a number of chiefs of staff that they work through, but I have great trust and faith in my chief of staff and she took it to court, against the province, in a very distinguished law firm. I remember those days in court very well, seeing the group of lawyers on the other side, two benches deep sometimes, and Nicole on my side and one colleague.

 

Yes, we did take them to court because we deemed that that would be information that was in the public realm. Guess what happened in that case? The court agreed with us, that it should be in the public realm, so that was a wise decision in the interests of taxpayers, that I would make yet again.

 

There has been lots of discussion around order-making ability for the office - Freedom of Information. It is something I was very vocal on, that they should have order-making and I certainly would have used that particular court case as exhibit A, in my estimation of why there should have been order-making abilities. Certainly that was the situation where the commissioner had ruled or presented the opinion that the information should be out. If they had had the ability to make that order we wouldn’t have had to go to court to get it, but we did. That would have been kind of Exhibit A as to why I would have been in support of order-making ability.

 

A couple of things have changed since then in my understanding and view of things. I’m going to preface this: I did have a wonderful meeting with the commissioner last week about some of these very issues and it was a very insightful and enjoyable meeting, I want to say that. She is an awesome person and she does incredible work on behalf of the province.

 

The amount of requests that come in to the province are - it’s a record number every year. I think this year the minister would be able to present the numbers, but we had a discussion with the commissioner about the sheer volume of requests. Every year it’s a record. The year would end at the end of March - March 31^st - and I think in this year in January we surpassed the record from last year, which was a record. It’s an incredible volume of requests, generally from the media and the Opposition.

 

Many times, these requests are nothing more than what could be described as a fishing expedition. I’m talking about requests along the lines of: We want every email from the Premier’s Chief of Staff between July 20 and July 29, 2022, and that’s it. That’s not the spirit of the Act.

 

The response from the government, incredible people working for the Province, is really incredible, I think something like 93 or 94 per cent of all the requests that come in are responded to in a timely fashion, as laid out by the Act. The volume is just unreal.

 

The Act is often, in my estimation, violated from the other side by people asking these broad questions: Let’s just see what happens. The intent of the Act is to make sure the government is transparent and open. Certainly if you think of situations like somebody wants to know why their neighbour had their culvert approved and they didn’t - those types of things are routine - a Nova Scotian gets the information, no questions asked. Some of the broader ones, there’s some good reason to debate that.

 

When I first came to office there were a couple of very clear situations which gave me pause for thought. One was media outlets had requested the security details and schematics for a youth detention centre. They wanted information on the security of the youth detention centre - correctional officer schedules, schematics. I honestly can’t think for one second - and I’ve tried to understand - I can’t for one second think what public good could be served by releasing that information. When I see that in order, to release that, a little bit of pause for thought and I think of those people who would be resident in that youth facility, those who would be working there, their families, I don’t see what the public good could be. I raise that as one example. There have been others.

 

I would say to the member, Yes, I pledged - I think it was in the platform, I can’t remember exactly - but I certainly pledged, whether it was written down or verbal or whatever, there was no question that I made a pledge that, as Premier, we would grant order-making ability and we have not done that yet. The discussions will go on.

 

Those types of things - there are three or four, but I just put it out there as one, which most Nova Scotians, when I mentioned that to them asked if I was serious. It kind of shows the concern that I think as a people and as a province, we should have some concern.

 

[3:15 p.m.]

 

We will work through that. As I said, we’ve had a meeting. I think my team has now had a couple of meetings. There’s another one scheduled, I think. We’ll work through that and get to a place that I think would make sense. We’re not there today.

 

I do want to speak to the member’s commentary around the general theme that when they raise the names of Nova Scotians in this Chamber, they’re not actually intending to do any harm or it’s not really about that Nova Scotian. It’s only about the Premier. You can’t separate those things. I don’t mind answering questions. I’ll do that all day, but you’ve got to come with the facts.

 

Now, we’ve talked about the CEO of a public company who’s done some work for the Province of Nova Scotia and other reputable jurisdictions. He had his name raised at this committee in the context of the only possible reason he would have secured that work is because he was a Progressive Conservative chief of staff, I think. Then a simple Google search showed that that wasn’t actually true. He was a chief of staff, but it was for a Liberal.

 

In my mind, that makes no distinction. In the member opposite’s mind, where he thinks that everything is fixated on political ties and stuff, it does make a distinction. I have to question the thought processes of somebody who says, Boy, this is a good one and I’m going to jam the Premier up right now, I’m going to get there and I’m really going to go after that Premier.

 

In the meantime, the collateral damage on somebody whom now we’re talking about is based on a complete untruth. We saw that even on the floor of this Chamber yesterday when one of the member’s colleagues stood up and said that the Premier said the words “whiny” and “hateful” and all these things. None of them was true. I never said those things.

 

I just ask - I focus on the credentials of people. I focus on the job at hand and the credentials. Who is capable and qualified? I would urge a little smidgen of caution in the zest and the desire to bring the Premier down or something like that. Just a little bit of caution on the people you drag into that political theatre. That is political theatre.

 

I will own my words every day of the week, as I said. Lots of times, somebody puts my words back in front of me and I admit that I said it but I shouldn’t have. I’ll own my words every day of the week. What I won’t own is somebody making things up. We can’t govern from a position of making things up. It’s unfortunate when you see made-up things draw Nova Scotians into that web of political theatre. I would hope that a little bit more research might be done on those types of things.

 

The question, I believe, at the core of this was: Who influences the Premier? I don’t remember the exact words, but I believe that’s kind of the spirit we eventually got to after the member’s opening statement on it. The answer is all Nova Scotians. It literally is. I listen to all Nova Scotians.

 

I disagree with some parts of the letter that’s been tabled, but I don’t disagree with the general theme of the importance of our coastline. I don’t know about other jurisdictions - there were a bunch of countries listed and stuff like that. I don’t disagree with the importance of our coastline. I appreciate the efforts to create a narrative that, somehow, we don’t care about the coast. I understand that that’s a nice headline to put, but it’s just not true.

 

Again, if we can reel in the make-believe stuff and stick to the facts, the facts are that we care deeply about out coast. We are a coastal province. We’re pretty close to an island, when it’s all said and done. We care about our coastline.

 

I value deeply the ability to get in the car and drive a short distance to a beach, to a cliff, to do some hiking or do some sightseeing. I value that tremendously, and would never take an action as a government to jeopardize that. I don’t care who asks me. I wouldn’t care who asked me, or who came down and stood in front of me and said, Thou shalt ignore your coastline. It’s not happening, because we care about the coastline.

 

What we also understand is that there are always alternative ways to approach something. The government of the day - supported by members and with the information we had - yes, we supported that. They decided that legislation was the way to do this. Legislation to legislate what people can do. There are alternative ways to get there as well, and there are a number of them. We decided, having formed government and spoken to Nova Scotians, department staff, experts, and all types of people and backgrounds that Mr. Simpson reeled off there - that there is a different way, and we believe we’ve found a more appropriate way. That is that we work with Nova Scotians and we work with municipalities. I believe the minister met with municipal leaders this week, and we’ll continue to have those discussions.

 

We all value our coastline. We all know that our climate is changing. It is changing. That is obvious. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Office of Emergency Management - when we designed the Cabinet positions, honestly, we looked at the minister responsible for the Office of Emergency Management and we didn’t really understand the workload that would be entailed there. Certainly maybe eight or 10 years before we formed government, the provincial coordination centre was only stood up once or twice. Not very often, in all that time. So it was certainly not our expectation that we would be stricken by so many terrible events that it would be stood up - I think it’s six or seven times in the last two years. This has been a very intense portfolio.

 

Yes, our climate is changing. Yes, we have to take steps to protect our coastline. We believe that we can work with Nova Scotians and work with municipalities and work with interested people to make sure that all the information is there to make good decisions to protect the coastline.

 

I am probably driven by my core values. We spoke about core values a little earlier today. It is amongst my core values that I believe in personal responsibility, and I believe in people making decisions that they then own and are responsible for. I believe that is relevant here in this context because when we provide the maps and the information to people, if somebody were to build in an inappropriate area, I believe that is a personal choice. I do not believe they should then, if something happens, turn around and come to the government and say, You’ve got to buy my house now. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in accountability, and people being made to be held accountable for their own decisions. I think with the coastal protection plan we have found a policy - a balance - that is good for our province.

 

We’ll continue to assess. If we need to take a different route later on, we’ll take a different route later on, but for today, I believe in Nova Scotians. I believe that with the appropriate information, they will make good decisions. I’m willing to support them and have faith in them as we move forward.

 

In terms of the specific question about the Coastal Protection Act and whom I heard from on that, I heard from many Nova Scotians from many areas of the province. Most of them did not live on the coast, if that answers the member’s question.

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: I think we’re having three different conversations, so I’ll try to pick up on all of that. That wasn’t my question, but I’ll come back to it.

 

On the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, I think there are a number of requests because I would suggest that we have a record amount of information being withheld. We don’t have the Premier’s calendar; we have more alternative procurements than we’ve had in the past, we don’t have that information about how procurements go out to tender; we don’t know how decisions are being made.

 

The Premier may call it “fishing expeditions.” I, myself, don’t put through those FOIs, but I would say that freedom of information is sort of a tenet of the democratic work that we do, and one the Premier fought very strenuously for. In the spirit of owning our words, which the Premier proudly said, I also will say that I misspoke when I was asking about the lobbying by Think Research. What I was primarily asking about was the fact that the Premier met with them twice, that Jenni Byrne is registered publicly as a lobbyist, so I am not dragging anyone’s name through the mud or casting aspersions. I am just saying that Jenni Byrne, who is one of Pierre Poilievre’s chief advisors, is registered as a lobbyist for the company that the premier met with, who then got the $50 million untendered contract. That’s the story there.

 

When I mentioned that someone had been a Tory chief of staff, I misspoke. In fact, they were a Tory donor - I’ll table that - so I apologize. He wasn’t a Tory staffer, and I made a mistake and I think that’s fine.

 

Moving on, I guess I want to get back to the Coastal Protection Act. I’m glad we can have this conversation about our difference of views on this issue of coastal protection and what we think people can and can’t do. The Premier said a lot about his core values. I actually stood in the Chamber with this Premier when he voted for this legislation, along with every other member of this Legislature.

 

My question is: When the Premier voted for the Coastal Protection Act, was he voting against his core values or has someone caused him to reconsider or does he have a new set of core values? What was it that influenced him - I’m not asking if he talked to people who didn’t live along the coast. The people I’ve talked to along the coast, tons of coastal municipalities - I’ve tabled all that information - want this Act.

 

Were the Premier’s core values core when he voted for the legislation, or are they a different set of core values now that he doesn’t believe in this legislation and they go against his core values? I’m not clear on that.

 

THE PREMIER: Just to circle back, as the member has essentially requested that I circle back with the preamble to the FOIPOP, the reality is that 93 or 94 per cent of FOIPOP requests are responded to in a timely fashion. That’s the reality. Some of them are extremely broad and some of them that would be in the - not in that 93, 94 per cent would be ones that there’s an issue with.

 

The member mentioned my calendar. I’m not too sure of the details of the calendar - the public-facing part of it - but obviously the member was able to get my calendar. She tabled it here today and showed me a page from it, so I don’t think there’s an issue there with it being - it was available under the FOIPOP. It sounds like it worked just fine under the FOIPOP system, as it does 93, 94 per cent of time.

 

In those other periods of time, members may be interested to know - and maybe this would shed a little light on how we view these types of things - can you believe there was a FOIPOP request that came through that somebody wanted to know the details of the Premier’s security detail? Somebody sent a FOIPOP in. They wanted to know the details surrounding the Premier’s security detail.

 

We spoke earlier about - it’s a sad reality of the world, and it’s rare, but the Premier does have a security detail. Oftentimes, when I am out and around, the RCMP will assess where there may be an elevated risk or not, and they will staff accordingly. Sometimes I don’t even know they are there, to be honest.

 

[3:30 p.m.]

 

I was at a public town hall recently, and then in the weeks after, I was at an event where a number of law enforcement officers were being honoured, and I had a little chat with one and one of them said, I was at that last event you were at. I said, I hadn’t seen you. He said, I was plainclothes, hidden in the crowd. That says a lot - it said a lot to me. It gave me a good source of comfort, actually.

 

Imagine sending a FOIPOP request and saying, We want the details of the Premier’s security detail. That’s just the reality of life. A request like that would be in that other 6 or 7 per cent that is held up, for whatever reason. Discussions will be ongoing, but the volume of the requests is absolutely through the roof. I respect people’s ability to make those requests, but we also need to be honest that many of them are, I would say, straying away from the intentions of the Act. Government needs to have the ability to deliberate and make decisions on policy.

 

There are certain things that government needs to have the ability to talk about before people can get out in front of it, through the media or whatever. This was an interesting Supreme Court of Canada case where the Supreme Court weighed in very heavily in recognizing the need for government to be able to govern. Imagine if, while you are just trying to assess information and get objective views on things, somebody puts it out in the media or on social media and gathers up - well, then you can’t have an objective discussion about it anymore.

 

Government has to have the ability to govern. There are certain things that just should not be in the public realm. There will always be people trying to get it, putting in requests and trying to see if they can get at it and get it in the public realm. They will have their own reasons for wanting to do that, but it’s just not always appropriate. There are times when government has to hold the line and say, No, it’s not appropriate for that to be in the public realm. We will continue to do that, as necessary, in the deliberations around policy.

 

I appreciate the member’s apology for her mischaracterization of the role of an individual. The apology was lessened by the “but” – “I’m sorry, but” - the person wasn’t chief of staff, it was a donor. Again, the mere statement of saying this person is a Progressive Conservative donor is made to elicit an emotional response. Like, Well, that’s a Progressive Conservative Party donor, so therefore there must be some reason.

 

There’s a motivation for the statement that has gone well beyond credentials, ability, and all that. Interestingly enough, I took a quick look at what was tabled there. I am not familiar with the person’s political background, but not only were they not a chief of staff for a Progressive Conservative - they were chief of staff for a Liberal - now we have something tabled that says they are a Progressive Conservative donor.

 

What would a Nova Scotian think when they hear that? If somebody is trying to paint a picture of a relationship with a Premier, and someone says, “Well, that’s a Conservative donor,” they’d probably assume it’s a donor of mine or there’s something - in fact, the tabled document says the person donated in Toronto to the Conservative Party of Canada.

 

Now, I am not a member of the Conservative Party of Canada. I have been very public and honest about that through a number of election campaign debates. I am not a member of that party. They might as well have said that this person is a donor to the United Way in B.C. It has nothing to do with me, yet the theme - the constant desire - is to paint a picture, even in the face of evidence that the picture does not exist. That’s not right, Chair. The person does good work, it’s a public company, they’ve done it before, they understand the clinical pathways, they brought to the table something that could speed up our delivery of the app. We respect that and we entered into a transaction - not me, the Province of Nova Scotia. I just want to be clear on that.

 

The member, again in the same light, mentioned Jenni Byrne, who - I am familiar with the name. I have met her. I think I met her nine years ago in passing somewhere. The conversation wouldn’t have extended past two minutes - probably like, “How do you like Halifax? Enjoy Halifax?” I don’t know her. I am not familiar. I believe the mentioning of her name was meant to elicit a response. Is that called dog whistle politics? I think there’s a turn of phrase that refers to people who do those types of things: Let’s say this and try to elicit some response.

 

I don’t know the person. I believe she’s probably a wonderful person. I don’t have the information to make that . . . (interruption).

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: I believe the Chair instructed us to avoid casting the integrity of other members into question. When the Premier says, She’s the type of person who uses dog whistle politics - I’m paraphrasing - it certainly sounds like my integrity is being called into question.

 

THE PREMIER: I did not say that the member is using dog whistle. I was talking in general terms that that is what it referred to. You can check the Hansard. We are very familiar with the situation where paraphrasing something in saying something that’s just simply not true. I didn’t say it was. We experienced that yesterday. One of the members of the NDP had to apologize for misrepresenting. That member kind of apologized at that time. I’ll leave that to the Speaker of the House.

 

THE CHAIR: Order. Just for a second, I didn’t catch the whole exchange there, so I’ll just ask all members - we’ve got 14 minutes and 27 seconds left of the day - if we could just get back on track here and move on . . . (interruption). On your point of order, I’ll have to take it under advisement. I never caught the entire exchange. I’ll take ownership of that.

 

THE PREMIER: Just before the Chair takes it under advisement, I want to be clear. The member raised a point of order and said that I said that she specifically engaged in dog whistle politics. I didn’t say that, so when the Chair looks at the transcript, hopefully he’ll see that it’s not something that I said, and we can stop this pattern of misrepresenting things I’ve said. That would be a good thing.

 

THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Dartmouth North on a point of order.

 

SUSAN LEBLANC: Chair, when the Premier says there’s a pattern of misrepresentation, that suggests that people in the House who are participating in the pattern of misrepresentation are deliberately misleading the House. That is also unparliamentary and I ask you to rule on that.

 

THE CHAIR: Back to the honourable member for Dartmouth North, could you state that again, please?

 

SUSAN LEBLANC: I might forget exactly what was said, which is a human issue. We don’t always remember. We don’t have photographic memories, but I believe the Premier just said that there was a pattern of misrepresentation in the House. When he says that, that to me suggests that the people participating in the pattern of misrepresentation are misleading people, and to suggest such a thing is unparliamentary. I ask you to rule his comment out of order.

 

THE CHAIR: Order. This entire exchange back and forth has been kind of convoluted here. I’ll take everything from the exchange under advisement.

 

With 10 long minutes left, the honourable Premier.

 

THE PREMIER: Trust me, it’s going to fly by. It’s going to fly by because I do want to talk about something that is important.

 

I’ll just circle back. If it will help the Chair, I will restate the use of the word “misrepresentation” if that will help the Chair. I withdraw that statement on misrepresentation.

 

THE CHAIR: Okay, withdrawn. The honourable Premier.

 

THE PREMIER: So we’re good to move on. I just want to make sure that we all kind of understand where we were.

 

The Conservative donor - not a Nova Scotia donor, not a PC Nova Scotia donor, and not a Tim Houston donor - Jenni Byrne, I’m sure, is an upstanding person, but…(interruption).

 

THE CHAIR: Order. We can’t refer to names in the Chamber. The honourable Premier.

 

THE PREMIER: The member asked about the Coastal Protection Act that had previously been before the House, and now government has taken a different path.

 

What I would say to the member - the member asked specifically about if my core values had changed, and whether that led to something. I just want to be very clear with the member that, no, my core values didn’t change. They were instilled in me at a very young age, and they remain firmly intact. They will remain firmly intact because of the influence that my family had on me. Many of those core values that I have would have come from my parents and certainly my father, with his military - he was definitely a man of honour. I miss him tremendously, but I’m grateful for the values that he did instill in me.

 

From the Opposition benches, at that time we certainly understood the value of the coastline. What the government had put forward seemed like a good way to get there and a good idea, so we supported it at the time. But when you have more information - what’s the expression, Chair? “When you know better, you do better?” So more information and more focus on the Act itself through the consultations and engagement process - more information, again.

 

Through all of that process, we reached the conclusion as a government that there’s another way to do this. Legislation is one way, but there are other ways, and one other way was through the plan that the minister has put forward. It’s a good plan. We’ll work with Nova Scotians on that plan. The minister has been meeting with municipal . . . (interruption). I’m not sure if you want me to cede some time back to you?

 

We have a good coastal protection plan, and Nova Scotians will work with us on that. We’ll work with them on that, and we’ll work towards our collective goal of preserving our coastline for future generations. We all have that responsibility.

 

I think it’s important that we don’t let the narrative stand that somehow the government has given up on protecting the coast or they scrapped some effort to protect the coast. That’s absolutely not the case. We have a new approach for protecting the coast, that’s for sure, and we’ll work with Nova Scotians on that. I think that’s a good thing. I think we’ve reached a good place for the information we have today. It is consistent with my core values and with what I believe are the core values of Nova Scotians.

 

[3:45 p.m.]

 

I want to just reiterate for the member who was curious if my core values have changed: They have not changed, and they remain to be responsible for my actions and to hold others responsible for their own actions as well. That’s a core value of mine - to be accountable for my actions and hold others accountable for their actions. That’s a core value.

 

In this case here, I think it would be very clear that where we have landed as a government, in terms of government policy, is consistent with those core values. The Act at the time - we had a certain amount of information. I know the Opposition would probably be somewhat sympathetic about when legislation comes through and you try to do the best you can, based on the information, but the Opposition parties don’t have access to the resources that the government does for research. We’ve seen some pretty dramatic research failures, even today. I’m sympathetic to those, because it’s hard when you are in Opposition to have the resources to do research that’s thorough, accurate, and fact-based. We’ve seen that today - what happens when it doesn’t.

 

At that time, we were in Opposition. We agreed with the sentiment of protecting the coastlines. It’s incredibly important, we agreed with that. We are all on the same page with that. When we got into the details of the how; even by the former environment minister’s admission and the former Premier’s admission - the question asked today to the former Premier was very forceful on the Coastal Protection Act. He was asked today: When you were Premier, why didn’t you proclaim it? I believe his answer was, We were doing consultations, and we were seeking more information.

 

We carried on with that process of consultations and finding more information. When we had more information, we made a different - and we would argue better - decision. Not everyone will agree with that. There will be extremes on - it would be people on each end of the spectrum. We heard a letter there today, as well, from somebody who has very strong opinions on that.

 

We are just working with the information we have. We’re working with Nova Scotians and trying to make the best decision at that certain point in time, and that’s today. The former Premier - the former environment minister - was in the same place. He also voted for the legislation, as did his party, but when he was sitting in the chair with the pen to proclaim it, he said we need more information. We are no different, so we went to get the information, and when we have it, we are what we are.

 

I want to conclude on this issue by saying to all Nova Scotians that we have great respect for our coastlines, we value our coastlines tremendously, and as a government, we will do what we can to preserve them. I am happy to continue discussing the coastline. I do have some resolutions here if the members want me to read the resolutions.

 

CLAUDIA CHENDER: I realize, while the Premier has let it be known that he won’t be presiding over the rest of the debate of his budget, we will still be asking questions of the Premier’s Office. If he chooses to be here to answer them, that’s great. If he doesn’t, then we’ll understand that he doesn’t want to answer them.

 

I appreciate the comments that the Premier gave. I appreciate the ruling that governments need to govern, but they govern on behalf of people, and they need to be accountable to those people. It is that accountability that we are asking about.

 

Information and Privacy Commissioners all over Westminster democracies have powers that, in some cases, can be overridden by Cabinet, but they are allowed to exercise their authority to determine with their expertise what is in the public interest. Parliaments all over the world have to be accountable on the floor of legislatures about the spending decisions they make but are unallocated in their budget. In the case of majority governments, those spending decisions aren’t up for debate. It’s about accountability - making them accountable.

 

This government refused the recommendation of the Auditor General, in a precedent-setting event, to not make those spending decisions accountable or public at all. I will just close by saying that the Premier mentioned the limitations of Opposition. We are here because of the limitations of Opposition. A few weeks ago, I talked to a former Tory cabinet minister, who said: “You know, when I was in government, we would go on ministerial trips - fact-finding trips. We would get briefed in detail on bills. We would understand the process of making the bills. We would have time to read the legislation, understand it, and research it so that we would know when we were voting what we were voting on.” It’s too bad that doesn’t exist at all anymore.

 

I have introduced legislation after legislation for years to try to return this place into a place where we can make good legislation and where the opposition is not limited but is able to do their job. I certainly hope that next day, whether it is the Premier or the Premier’s designate, if he is busy elsewhere, can answer some questions about why the Premier feels that, in order to govern, he needs . . . (interruption).

 

THE CHAIR: Order. The time allotted for consideration in Supply today has elapsed.

 

The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.

 

JOHN WHITE: Chair, I move that the committee do now rise and report progress and beg leave to sit again on a future date.

 

THE CHAIR: The motion is carried. The committee will now rise and report its business to the House with a short recess.

 

[The committee adjourned at 3:52 p.m.]