On November 3, Bill 19 (The Owls Head Act) was defeated with a vote of 28 against and 22 in favour. But what does that mean, how did each MLA vote, and where do we go from here?
November 3, 2021
Nova Scotia Legislative Assembly
Assembly Debates
Bill No. 19 – Owls Head Act.
Results of the Vote
The motion is defeated with a vote of 28 against and 22 in favour
NAYS
- Hon. Brad Johns (PC)
- Hon. Tory Rushton (PC)
- Hon. Barbara Adams (PC)
- Hon. Kim Masland (PC)
- Hon. Allan MacMaster (PC)
- Hon. Karla MacFarlane (PC)
- Hon. Michelle Thompson (PC)
- Hon. Pat Dunn (PC)
- Hon. Tim Halman (PC)
- Hon. Steve Craig (PC)
- Dave Ritcey (PC)
- Hon. Brian Wong (PC)
- Hon. Susan Corkum-Greek (PC)
- Hon. Brian Comer (PC)
- Hon. Colton LeBlanc (PC)
- Hon. Jill Balser (PC)
- Trevor Boudreau (PC)
- Hon. Greg Morrow (PC)
- Hon. Becky Druhan (PC)
- Larry Harrison (PC)
- Chris Palmer (PC)
- John A. MacDonald (PC)
- Melissa Sheehy-Richard (PC)
- John White (PC)
- Danielle Barkhouse (PC)
- Tom Taggart (PC)
- Nolan Young (PC)
- Kent Smith (PC)
YEAS
- Hon. Patricia Arab (Liberal)
- Hon. Tony Ince (Liberal)
- Angela Simmonds (Liberal)
- Hon. Zach Churchill (Liberal)
- Hon. Iain Rankin (Liberal)
- Hon. Derek Mombourquette (Liberal)
- Claudia Chender (NDP)
- Gary Burrill (NDP)
- Susan Leblanc (NDP)
- Lisa Lachance (NDP)
- Suzy Hansen (NDP)
- Kendra Coombes (NDP)
- Rafah DiCostanzo (Liberal)
- Ali Duale (Liberal)
- Lorelei Nicoll (Liberal)
- Hon. Keith Irving (Liberal)
- Hon. Brendan Maguire (Liberal)
- Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin (Independent)
- Carman Kerr (Liberal)
- Braedon Clark (Liberal)
- Fred Tilley (Liberal)
- Ronnie LeBlanc (Liberal)
What Does This Mean?
The name of this bill was inspired by the secret delisting of Owls Head Provincial Park. If it had passed, the bill would have prevented this from happening again. The Owls Head Act was a bill that would have strengthened the protections of pending provincial parks and wilderness areas in Nova Scotia. It would have ensured that these properties (not yet legally protected) couldn’t be delisted without public consultation.
Our fight to save Owls Head Provincial Park continues.
Where Do We Go From Here?
There is an opportunity, through the applicants’ appeal, to change what’s known as the “common law.” Our legal system is a combination of common law and civil law (legislation).
The common law is law that is not written down as legislation. Common law evolved into a system of rules based on precedent. This is a rule that guides judges in making later decisions in similar cases. The common law cannot be found in any code or body of legislation, but only in past decisions. At the same time, it is flexible. It adapts to changing circumstances because judges can announce new legal doctrines or change old ones.
Where Our Legal System Comes From, The Government of Canada
The applicants (Bob Bancroft and Eastern Shore Forest Watch Association) are heading to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal to fight for Owls Head Provincial Park and a new age of environmental law in Canada. You can learn more and support their campaign here.
Video of the Debate
Transcript of the Debate
THE SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.
GARY BURRILL: I’m pleased to speak to Bill No. 19, the Owls Head Act, this afternoon. The Owls Head Act, or more formally, An Act Respecting Parks and Protected Areas, is in fact a series of modifications to three pieces of legislation concerning protected lands in Nova Scotia – the Provincial Parks Act, the Special Places Protection Act, and the Wilderness Areas Protection Act. It provides, very simply, that where land has been provisionally granted protection or been designated for protection, it may not have that designation removed without a process of public consultation.
The purpose of Bill No. 19 is therefore to guarantee that in future, no protected or designated lands may ever be removed or delisted from that designation in a secret, hidden, or surreptitious way, such as was the case with the Liberal government’s disposition of Owls Head Provincial Park.
If ever there were a piece of Opposition legislation that recommends itself to the government’s support, surely this might be it. Throughout 2020 and 2021, the Premier, in his former capacity as Opposition Leader, had matched the NDP’s condemnations of what was done to Owls Head blow for blow, referring to the absence of due process there as, I believe at one point he put it, “despicable.” The Owls Head Act provides the government this afternoon with an opportunity to plug a democratic loophole so that protected lands in future are always dealt with more transparency and visibility to the public.
Madam Speaker, people will recall that the whole issue of the delisting of Owls Head Provincial Park never came to public light at all until an enterprising reporter determined that some time previous, the Cabinet had prepared the land for potential sale to an American developer of a golf course by means of a confidential Cabinet mechanism called a “minute letter.” No sooner had the public had a chance to take this fact in than it was revealed that this process had taken place in the context of private meetings between members of the government and a former Liberal Cabinet minister, Michel Samson, whose stated agenda for these conversations, the provincial lobbyist registry revealed, was, “acquisition of and access to Crown land for Lighthouse Links” – that was the golf course developer.
If I were the new government, I would take the opportunity of the Owls Head Act being debated today to support it and pass it and thereby have an opportunity to distance themselves as much as possible from the absence of transparency to do with Owls Head, which they had joined previously in condemning. Not just the transparency – absent also from what happened at Owls Head was any sense of the adequate regard and respect for the public voice, for community consultation.
Owls Head didn’t just appear on the 2013 Parks and Protected Areas Plan a week or two before it landed there. It had been understood on the Eastern Shore to be a park, a public park belonging to the people of Nova Scotia, for at least 45 years. Its place on the Parks and Protected Areas Plan was developed out of decades of that organic understanding and community consultation. It was over 40 years ago, in June 1980, in Volume 4, No. 24 of Conservation, a then-quarterly publication of the Department of Lands and Forests, that Owls Head was included in the Eastern Shore Park System Master Plan.
During the 2009 Colin Stewart Forest Forum and the 2011 12 per cent lands review process, over 2,000 written submissions were brought forward. Input was received from hundreds of people at 17 public open house sessions. In 2012, Owls Head Provincial Park
appeared in the Provincial Parks and Park Reserves map series of the department. Until the park was surreptitiously removed from the mapping of the department following the breaking publicly of this story, Owls Head also appeared on the online Department of Lands and Forestry map titled Parks and Protected Areas – a System for Nova Scotia.
It was out of all this extensive community consultative background that Owls Head was then listed on the 2013 Parks and Protected Areas Plan list, which was developed out of an extensive and historic consultation and which was then passed over and disregarded with the appearance of the minute letter, to which I previously referred, by which Owls Head was removed from the designated list.
Madam Speaker, the Owls Head Act is particularly relevant in this moment when land protection has become a matter of such importance because there is a wide range of areas across Nova Scotia which are in a similar situation to that which Owls Head had been in prior to its delisting. That is areas which have been on a list of places under pending protection for some years and which, without the protections of the Owls Head Act, are similarly in a vulnerable situation. Among them are the Mersey River Provincial Park, Pomquet Beach Provincial Park, Monk’s Head Provincial Park and Blue Sea Beach Provincial Park. Wilderness areas such as the Economy River Wilderness Area and the St. Andrews River Wilderness Area are in a parallel situation, as are the Glen Brook Nature Reserve and the Mulgrave Hills Nature Reserve.
There are still over 150 areas that are not legally protected in the 2013 Parks and Protected Areas Plan. The people of Nova Scotia deserve to know that if there’s any change to the pending status of those areas and that pending status, that change cannot be made without the broad, respectful, public consultation by which these areas were put forward for various forms of protection on that list in the first place.
Madam Speaker, it is a significant moment in which the present government could enact the provisions of the Owls Head Act. The government at this moment is before the House with its Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act. An important component of this Act, of course, is its goals and its provisions on this very subject, land protection.
Now in the NDP, as we will be speaking about directly, we think that these goals could be properly strengthened. We support a land protection goal of 30 per cent by 2030 with an interim goal of 25 per cent by 2025, and we support the immediate protection of all the designated lands in the 2013 Parks and Protected Areas Plan, including Owls Head. In these matters, we differ from the government, which has put forward a more modest goal and a goal which does not come complete with interim steps by which to get there. We share with the government the view that it is very important that those land protection goals, as in that piece of legislation, ought to be in that legislation. It is true that in that legislation’s previous iteration, they were not.
It’s an important thing because legislation is an open, visible, public matter. You cannot change legislation in our system behind closed doors. By its definition, all legislation is there for all to consider. All legislation is there for all to see.
This is precisely the principle that the Owls Head Act brings to the range of legislation that covers various types of land protection in Nova Scotia: the principle, namely, that land protection is too important for official changes in the status of designated, or pending designated, properties to be able to take place without the transparency and respect for the public voice that are required.
THE SPEAKER: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
BRENDAN MAGUIRE: It’s a very important bill and I just want to take a few minutes to speak on this.
There are a few things that I want to clear up. First, what the member to my left has said, especially around the list of protected properties – the hundreds and hundreds of protected properties – that was put in under the NDP government.
The thing was that they had five years to protect these properties and they did not. They scrambled at the last moment before the 2013 election to put together a list of properties because they were being challenged publicly on their environmental backbone. They had an opportunity to protect this land and so much more, and they chose not to.
One of their biggest accomplishments – they did some great stuff – and I have lots of respect for the former Premier whom I know quite well, Darrell Dexter – but the Leader of the NDP was part of that government, a prominent part of that government. So we can’t erase history here. We can’t say that things happened, or didn’t happen, and they had nothing to do with it.
Bowater’s one of their greatest accomplishments. They tout Bowater and the saving of all that Crown land. They’re taking this private land and turning it into Crown land. I would challenge anyone here, especially who knows the forest industry, to go and see how much of that Crown land that they protected and celebrated, and that they cut. They allowed to be cut.
It’s one thing to say you are an environmentalist and you’re here to protect the planet. It’s another thing to actually do it. The members are agreeing that I’m right on this. That’s great to know. So their greatest environmental land protection accomplishment was actually saving land and then transferring it over to be clear-cut. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
I’ll get into why we support this bill. I just envision in my mind – I’m very imaginative – days, weeks, minutes, hours before the election maybe an email goes out scrambling and saying to grab the land quickly, we need to find something that gets the people back on our side. Then hundreds and hundreds of submissions came in and they just threw it on a list and said there it is, but nothing happened with it.
I would put our environmental background and the achievements up against anyone. MV Miner was something that we took great pride in cleaning. Pictou Landing First Nations and the environmental racism that happened there and was there under previous governments that did nothing, nothing for those people, for those communities.
In my own backyard, the RDM – no, sorry C&D site in Harrietsfield. We begged the former government to do something, please. Not a thing. The Liberal government gets in and those decisions are made, money is spent, and people get the government ‐ the environmental government they deserve.
One of the things I will say about Owls Head is that there was no ‐ quite simply, there was no commitment to sell it off. Cabinet did not proceed with that. That is misinformation, and I see the member shaking his head over there. I’d tell him to table the documents if he has them. That’s misinformation that was put through during the election. It was an election ploy from members. What was asked is quite simply public consultation.
The former Premier of this province, the member for Timberlea‐Prospect, one of the biggest environmentalists I know and one of the reasons why I supported him was his stance on coastal protection, his stance on the environment, his stance on land protection. I am hearing a lot of chirping, Madam Speaker, and especially from the NDP side and, respectfully, when they stood up to speak, we didn’t say a word. So we would ask for the same.
Consultation was to be had. Indigenous consultation was to be had. It would not ‐ the sale of that land would not be approved ‐ would not be approved – without significant public consultation. People needed to have their voices heard on all sides, and for members who may shake their heads or think that’s not true, I will take you back to early years of the Liberal government that ran the fracking situation. A large percentage of this province didn’t want it and a percentage of this province wanted it.
It would have been quite easy and quite simple just to say no, we are not doing it. So, what did we do? We went to the public. We allowed the process to take place. We allowed people to have their voices heard and, in the end, we heard loud and clear from the people of Nova Scotia that fracking was not something they wanted. Again, previous governments and their claim to be environmentalists could have done something about fracking but chose not to, I think, because they felt it was a pretty divisive issue. We went to the public; we listened to the public. There were public consultations held and the decision was made to move away from fracking.
I think it is important that we listen to people and we look at options. I am not saying that you have to support everything, and listening to people does not mean you have to support the options that are put in front of you. It means that you actually listen to them and you let them have their say on all sides, no matter if they agree or not. I mean, this is democracy.
People approach me all the time with ideas that I just don’t agree with ‐ fundamentally don’t agree with – but you listen to them. You hear them out and then you make a decision. A good leader makes a decision based on consultation and listening to the public. It was very difficult to have that conversation and to get to a point where – not just on Owls Head but on many different things – where we can have that debate in the public when members of the Legislature are villainizing individuals left, right, and centre. It’s one thing to villainize an MLA because I guess that’s expected, but it is another thing to members of the public – members of the public whom you’ve never met, quite frankly. I know that’s not something I’m in the practice of doing, whether I agree with somebody or not. It did not become an issue for the NDP in particular until an election was looming.
I go back to their five years in power, and I think one of the things that people had hoped to see from that former government was more protection, more land conservation. We had the Purcell’s Cove Backlands as a great example in my own community. It took the Liberal government – the former Liberal government – and HRM and different stakeholders in the community to come together to finally protect that land, to make that option available.
My experience before being an MLA was like kind of beating your head off the wall on some of these important projects, some of these important issues for the public. Listen, Madam Speaker, I understand. I understand that there are a lot of things on the government’s plate and there are a lot of pressures on them, and sometimes these things get pushed to the side, but they don’t get pushed to the side in communities.
I think most people should have a right to have their voices heard. I would have liked to hear a robust conversation on the subject. I think we know – it’s clear – I know for my community, I went and talked to people from all sides on this issue. It was very clear in my community where people stood, and I represent the people in my community, so we have to represent their wishes and their views.
We had heard from other members – not just on the government side, but on the Opposition side – that there were some concerns coming in, and people would like to have their voices heard. I think what happened was instead of acting in a true democratic fashion and allowing all voices to be heard, we rushed out, or individuals rushed out, and silenced or plugged their ears to different opinions and views.
I do think this bill is a good bill. I think that we need to have an open process, and there needs to be more consultation, but the process can’t just be one-sided. The consultation can’t be one-sided. That’s what I would remind some members of the House of.
I know where I stand, and I know where the people of my community stand. I would hope that when they’re thinking of this bill, they’re thinking of everybody. We’ve got to be able to have mature debate on difficult topics without name-calling and villainizing and turning people against each other. That seems to be the norm now with a lot of topics. We don’t want to sit in a room and have a discussion. We want to point fingers and say you’re wrong and I’m right and that’s it.
I kind of blame social media a bit for that. I think people get caught up in their own little circles and that’s it.
I do respect the member for Halifax Chebucto and the bill that he’s brought forward, and we’re going to support this bill. We’re going to support this bill. We think it’s a good bill. But I just want to remind people that when we’re having these conversations, we’ve got to be able to listen to all sides. I truly believe that democracy works, and the voice of the people will rise through it all.
We have seen that from the fracking issue. We have seen that from the environmental racism in Pictou. We have seen it with that issue where very few people in this Legislature spoke up on it; in fact, outside of government and a couple of members in this Legislature, very few people spoke up on it. Yes, there were members from different Parties who spoke up on it, but I would think that this would have been an issue that brought everybody together.
I want to thank the honourable member for Halifax Chebucto, who has been here quite a while and has done a fantastic job in his role. I want to thank you for bringing this forward, and we will be supporting it.
THE SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables.
HON. TORY RUSHTON: I thank the members opposite for the conversation on Bill No. 19. Just to make a few points, respectfully. I know exactly where our Party stood during the election on this issue. I know exactly where my colleague the former Environment critic stood on it when the issue came to him and there were questions asked in this very Chamber a number of years back.
We certainly disagreed with how the process started with this. We certainly made the bold statement that when we formed government, we would certainly look into what the previous government had signed and agreed to with that process. In respect of the whole process, we do know, Madam Speaker, that right now that is in an appeal process.
When we go back and speak as department representatives and as ministers, we certainly take legal advice very, very strongly. I’m going to try very strongly, as we go through the discussion today, to stay away from the idea and the process and how we got there.
I do want to speak about the bill at hand. Outside of the title of the bill, there certainly are great aspects in that bill that I don’t think that anybody in this Chamber could debate. One of my first questions or briefings that we had in and around protected lands and how lands get there and how lands could potentially come off, it was very evident to me that there was a bit of cloudiness in and around that aspect, how lands could come and go and how it could disappear without formal notice, how it gets off the wish list – if you will – to an actual protected list and the whole process.
I know that I have had a few conversations with the previous Minister of Lands and Forestry when I was critic. There’s a commitment in this House. We may debate on the percentage of protected lands, but there’s a commitment throughout this House that as a whole body, as the elected representatives of Nova Scotia, we have to do better for our lands. We as a government have said we can protect lands, but we can also have an economy and a robust sustainable land asset within our Crown lands. I just wanted to recognize that.
I also wanted to take a minute to recognize the dedicated staff who do work behind the scenes to allow these lands to be protected, to do the studies to see how it goes to the next level. They’re very much dedicated to the Province of Nova Scotia. No matter what government sits on this side of the House, their work continues. They continue to brief the minister of the day on the aspect of where their studies have brought them to, and it’s up to the elected officials – the minister and the government of the day – to make those decisions. I just want to take that minute to recognize the provincial staff who are certainly supporting all the ministers who are here today, and previously.
Just a few aspects about Crown land and the land that makes up Nova Scotia – Crown land essentially belongs to the people of Nova Scotia. I know it’s called Crown land, but it belongs to the people of Nova Scotia. As stewards of our departments, it’s our duty to ensure our lands are fostered the way that Nova Scotians want. Our land makeup is that about 70 per cent of Nova Scotia is private lands. That leaves 30 per cent of Crown lands to be allocated. This is a vast difference than what we see in B.C. or Quebec, or even in Newfoundland and Labrador, where up to 90 per cent of the land mass is Crown land.
We could debate the goals of what we want in a percentage of a protected area, but we’re very adamant in the bills that we presented and the mandate letters that the Premier has given to me and other ministers. There needs to be that protection aspect. I firmly believe we can achieve the protection aspect through lands and waterways, but the protection of it is for the betterment of our climate and to ensure that there is a future of Nova Scotia for our next generations to come.
It’s very clear in my mandate letter that 20 per cent will be achieved in protecting the total land mass by 2030. There is a list of parks and protected areas. There are about 100 sites that are remaining on this plan and each site is unique. As you go and look at each site, there are different aspects and studies that have to go into each piece of land – different consultations
When I was critic, I think I criticized the former Minister of Lands and Forestry many times – or the Leader of the Official Opposition; I know that I’m going to get rebuttal with that – did you do enough stakeholder consultation? I expect that. Our government wants to be held up to the highest critique level of this province to ensure that we are doing the job that we were elected to do and to ensure that we’re doing what has been set out in our mandate letters from the Premier.
Staff are reviewing many areas. Implementation will take place throughout what is already being written into this, already things that our department has set forward for the protection of lands. Credit where credit is due: some of that was done by the NDP government. The Liberal government took over and bettered it. It’s our job as the government to better that process.
I go back to the statement that I made when I first opened my remarks. One of my first conversations when I had a briefing on protected lands was, how can there be so much cloudiness? How can the public have so many different opinions on one issue, such as the title of this bill?
There was never ever a public consultation process done. Can we go out and talk to every single Nova Scotian? No, but we do have process. There is a process to follow and I’m encouraging staff to come back to me on how we can better that process. How can we have a process for how that land gets on a wish list? How can we have a process on how that land moves to becoming a protected area?
Staff have told me that on those long lists of lands, there are lands there that don’t actually meet the criteria that were put on back in the ‘50s. They don’t necessarily meet the criteria anymore. Are we going to just take that off as a government? No. There has to be a process and public consultation has to be included in that.
Government has several tools to protect land. These include different types of designations. I appreciate the Leader of the New Democratic Party for bringing it up. There are wilderness protected areas, of which Nova Scotia has over 70 areas. A wonderful example of this is the French River Wilderness Area.
We have nature reserves that have the highest level of protection for unique and rare species or features. Provincial parks, which I know that every single one of us heard about when we were campaigning: the want for parks to be expanded and parks to be further developed. I’m certainly going to look at this as the minister. I know that I’ve had many questions in my years in this House about the parks that we find in the Cumberland area that are being, since the COVID-19 times, more utilized.
We should be very proud of it. We have a lot of uniqueness here in Nova Scotia. Every chance I get, I speak about the UNESCO geopark that runs from Cumberland County to Colchester. I know my Colchester counterparts would argue that it runs from Colchester to Cumberland County. The fact remains that we have a UNESCO geopark right here in Nova Scotia.
It was announced on July 10th, 2020, during the pandemic. It’s a storybook of beautiful scenic areas that are shared along our coastline on the Fundy Shore. I say that that book hasn’t even had a chance to be opened up yet because of the pandemic. It’s a unique area to our Nova Scotia heritage, the history of Nova Scotia. It’s showcased. Some of those scenes are in areas that can be protected, that can be put on a list.
My point in talking about the UNESCO geopark is that it wasn’t just one body that decided, hmm, we’re going to do a geopark. It was multiple levels of government. It was multiple levels of consultation and many years of hard work of the Municipalities of Colchester and Cumberland and many years of dedication from the provincial and federal levels of government.
My point is that there has to be collaboration. There has to be process. In order to get designated as a UNESCO geopark, there was a process followed. That process is – to come up with the topic at hand of protecting lands, there are legal aspects on achieving that. There are several steps that need to be taken. Staff at both my department and the Department of Environment and Climate Change are working collaboratively to identify some of those areas.
Values that we consider as a government are remote large areas; mostly natural state, with few human contacts or impacts; and representative examples of full-spectrum Nova Scotia landscapes. As a government, we recognize the fact that we want to recognize the utilization of recreational aspects on our Crown lands.
It’s not just about protection of lands and aspects. We know that we have a vast forestry industry, and we’re moving on to the Lahey model of how ecological forestry is done. That was started by the previous government. We’re taking the reins on it. We’re going to move forward on that.
I know I had a discussion with the Leader of the Official Opposition on how the management guide actually has started to be implemented. There’s been a little bit of debate in the House the past few weeks whether that has been implemented or not. There’s a whole vast usage of our Crown lands. Yes, our government is committed to having a sustainable resource within our Crown lands. Our government is committed to the recreational facility use of our Crown lands. Our government is committed to protecting the lands.
Part of what’s in this bill – as I’ve stated before, we are committed as government to some of those aspects, and some of those aspects in the bill that the NDP have tabled have certainly started to take shape within our government, within our mandate letters. I greatly appreciate the NDP doing their job to hold government to account, to ensure that we’re moving through the steps to protect land in the proper way, and understand that we’re going to have a process.
I look forward to my colleagues opposite in their Critic roles to have conversations to ensure that these protected lands are going to move forward with a process and give government the tools that they need to work with and have stakeholder consultation, so that at the end of the day, the public does have their say.
THE SPEAKER: If I recognize the member, it will be to close the debate. The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party
GARY BURRILL: I move second reading of Bill No. 19.
THE SPEAKER: There has been a call for a recorded vote.
We will ring the bells until the Whips are satisfied.
[The Division bells were rung.]
THE SPEAKER: Order, please. The motion is for a recorded vote. Are the Whips satisfied?
Before we proceed with the recorded vote, I’ll just remind all members to remain completely silent while the Clerks record your vote. I’ll remind all members to stand up with a simple “yea” or “nay.”
[The Clerk calls the roll.]
NAYS
Hon. Brad Johns
Hon. Tory Rushton
Hon. Barbara Adams
Hon. Kim Masland
Hon. Allan MacMaster
Hon. Karla MacFarlane
Hon. Michelle Thompson
Hon. Pat Dunn
Hon. Tim Halman
Hon. Steve Craig
Dave Ritcey
Hon. Brian Wong
Hon. Susan Corkum-Greek
Hon. Brian Comer
Hon. Colton LeBlanc
Hon. Jill Balser
Trevor Boudreau
Hon. Greg Morrow
Hon. Becky Druhan
Larry Harrison
Chris Palmer
John A. MacDonald
Melissa Sheehy-Richard
John White
Danielle Barkhouse
Tom Taggart
Nolan Young
Kent Smith
YEAS
Hon. Patricia Arab
Hon. Tony Ince
Angela Simmonds
Hon. Zach Churchill
Hon. Iain Rankin
Hon. Derek Mombourquette
Claudia Chender
Gary Burrill
Susan Leblanc
Lisa Lachance
Suzy Hansen
Kendra Coombes
Rafah DiCostanzo
Ali Duale
Lorelei Nicoll
Hon. Keith Irving
Hon. Brendan Maguire
Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin
Carman Kerr
Braedon Clark
Fred Tilley
Ronnie LeBlanc
THE CLERK: For, 22. Against, 28.
THE SPEAKER: The motion is defeated.
