New Brunswick Legislative Assembly, Wednesday 14 May 2025
On Wednesday, May 14, 2025, the New Brunswick House of Assembly opened with introductions—including staff and volunteers from the Canadian Cancer Society—condolences, congratulations, and Members' Statements in which opposition and government members clashed over school libraries, child welfare, nurse retention, and property tax reform. Routine Proceedings included tabling of the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Economic Policy, a notice of motion to extend job-protected illness leave, and passage of Bill 14 at third reading. Second reading debate proceeded on several measures, including Bill 20 (Special Appropriation Act 2025), Bill 12 (repeal of the Pension Plan Sustainability and Transfer Act, whose amendment was defeated before the bill was referred to committee), and a lengthy, detailed clause-by-clause examination of Bill 33, An Act to Amend the Community Funding Act, marked by points of order over relevance and decorum. The sitting concluded with second reading debate on Bill 21, An Act to Amend the New Brunswick Income Tax Act, aligning provincial provisions with federal changes and extending the child benefit for six months after a child's death, with opposition members raising concerns about retroactivity and fairness.
Members' Statements
Cuts to school libraries and literacy support
Mr. Austin
Austin mocked the government's euphemisms for its cuts, citing thesaurus synonyms like 'reduced' and 'slashed' to describe cuts to school libraries and librarians, concluding 'a cut is still a cut.'
Bill 19, Right to a Healthy Environment
Ms. Mitton
Mitton previewed tomorrow's debate on Bill 19 and challenged the Premier and Leader of the Official Opposition to allow their caucuses a free vote on the bill at second reading.
Fisheries and new markets for seafood
Mr. Mallet
Mallet praised the fisheries as central to Shippagan-Les-Îles communities and welcomed government efforts to open new markets, noting the Minister's representation at food expos in Toronto and Barcelona.
Cuts affecting vulnerable New Brunswickers
Ms. M. Wilson
Wilson alleged a trend of targeting vulnerable people, citing cuts to food banks, child welfare, school literacy, supports for vulnerable students, seniors, pharmacy clinics, and Chimo.
National Nursing Week and nurse retention payment
Ms. Sodhi
Sodhi thanked nurses during National Nursing Week and announced a second $5,000 retention payment for eligible nurses tied to a one-year return-of-service agreement.
Government's 'ready, fire, aim' approach
Ms. Bockus
Bockus criticized the government's reckless approach, citing the air-quality testing flip-flop, confusion over nurse redeployment, and the Child and Youth Advocate stepping in over child welfare cuts.
Property tax reform (Bill 22)
Mr. M. LeBlanc
LeBlanc criticized the former government's 43% tax base growth and rising assessments and promoted Bill 22 as a first step toward property tax reform.
Premier's silence on nurse redeployment statements
Mr. Monahan
Monahan quoted CBC reporting on the Premier's and Health Minister's earlier statements about redeploying nurses without layoffs, accusing them of a contradictory story this week.
Government listening to frontline workers
Ms. Wilcott
Wilcott described door-knocking conversations with teachers, nurses, parents, and students, saying the government heard and acted on their calls for more staff and a focus on patients and learning.
Government demoralizing frontline workers
Mr. Weir
Weir argued the Holt government is demoralizing rather than transformative, saying its reckless approach has hurt teachers, nurses, and child welfare workers across the largest departments.
Routine Proceedings
Introduction of Canadian Cancer Society guests
Mr. Hogan
Mr. Hogan welcomed staff and volunteers from the Canadian Cancer Society, who held a morning breakfast to raise cancer awareness, advocate for early detection, and discuss the tobacco settlement, naming numerous guests in the gallery.
Remarks on Canadian Cancer Society and cancer prevention
Hon. Mr. Dornan
The Minister of Health, having missed the earlier introductions, spoke about the well-attended Cancer Society breakfast, highlighted statistics that two in five people will experience cancer, and stressed the importance of prevention and evaluation over treatment.
Welcoming Canadian Cancer Society guests
Ms. Mitton
Ms. Mitton joined colleagues in welcoming the Cancer Society staff and volunteers and noted she would introduce a motion on job-protected leave, a measure the Society has advocated for.
Condolences for Dennis Brooks
Ms. Wilcott
Ms. Wilcott offered condolences on the passing of Dennis Brooks, a community champion in Fundy Heights, Saint John West, a skilled cabinetmaker and carpenter who founded Brooks Restoration and gave generously to those in need.
Condolences for Bill Miller
Ms. Scott-Wallace
Ms. Scott-Wallace paid tribute to Bill Miller of Petitcodiac, who died at age 87, remembered as a founder of the Petitcodiac Boys & Girls Club, a devoted minor hockey supporter, and active community volunteer.
Condolences for George Robert Chown
Mr. Monahan
Mr. Monahan recognized the passing of George Robert Chown, a lifelong farmer and woodsman of deep faith from Prescott Hill, a member and deacon of the Collina United Baptist Church who was married to his wife Sherrill for nearly 55 years.
Congratulations to Hadrien Gayap
Mr. Doucet
Mr. Doucet congratulated Hadrien Gayap on defending his master's thesis on the use of artificial intelligence in lung cancer detection, obtaining permanent residency, and his community involvement with the Knights of Columbus.
Tribute to Debby Lord
Ms. Bockus
Ms. Bockus paid tribute to Debby Lord, retiring after 20 years as director of the St Andrews Community Youth Activity Centre, noting a community barbecue on May 23 and her request for donations to the St. Andrews Creative Playground in lieu of gifts.
Congratulations to St. Thomas University graduates
Mr. Coon
Mr. Coon congratulated St. Thomas University's 2025 graduating class, including pages Tyler Dupuis and Dhruv Manish, valedictorian Charley Goldrich, honorary degree recipient Ilkay Silk, and Governor General's Medal recipient Gavin Woodward.
Congratulations to Melody Landry
Mr. J. LeBlanc
Mr. J. LeBlanc congratulated Melody Landry on the success of her Filipino-Canadian takeout restaurant and grocery store, SARAP, in downtown Shediac, praising her contribution to the local food scene and provincial diversity.
Riverview Youth Appreciation Awards
Mr. Weir
Mr. Weir congratulated recipients of Riverview's Youth Appreciation Awards, recognizing outstanding Grade 12 students for achievements in sports, arts, community service, and academics.
Congratulations to Heather Patterson
Ms. Mitton
Ms. Mitton congratulated Heather Patterson, President of the Sackville Food Bank, on receiving the King Charles III Coronation Medal, recognizing her leadership through the pandemic and her advocacy against poverty and food insecurity.
Recognition of École Abbey-Landry
Ms. Vautour
Ms. Vautour recognized École Abbey-Landry in Memramcook as the third school in the world to receive the highest honour as a conscious entrepreneurial community school, noting her earlier involvement with the movement.
Introduction of Cuffman Street Elementary School students
Hon. Mr. Randall
The Minister welcomed students from Cuffman Street Elementary School in Fredericton North and later gave a further shout-out to Marchelle, who organized the group's visit to observe House proceedings.
Point of order on guest introductions
Mr. Savoie
Mr. Savoie raised a point of order objecting to Minister Randall discussing government accomplishments and priorities during Introduction of Guests; Mr. M. LeBlanc disputed the point, and the Speaker reminded members that introductions should be short and confined to introducing guests.
Fifth report of the Standing Committee on Economic Policy
Ms. Vautour
As Chair, Vautour submitted the fifth report reporting Bills 8 and 13 as agreed to and Bill 7 (An Act Respecting Travel Nurses) as amended; the motion to concur was carried.
Notice of Motion 32 — extending job-protected leave for serious illness
Ms. Mitton
Mitton gave notice of Motion 32, urging the government to introduce legislation extending unpaid job-protected leave for serious illness from 5 days to 26 weeks, to align with federal EI sickness benefits.
Notice of Opposition Members' Business
Mr. Oliver
Oliver announced the opposition would debate and finish Motion 7 (silage wrap), Motion 15, and Motion 17 tomorrow.
Notice of debate on Bill 19
Ms. Mitton
Mitton gave notice that Bill 19, An Act Respecting the Right to a Healthy Environment, would be debated tomorrow.
Government business agenda
Mr. M. LeBlanc
LeBlanc outlined the day's plan: third reading of Bill 14 followed by second reading of numerous bills (20, 12, 33, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 22, 24, 35), all to be referred to the Standing Committee on Economic Policy.
Orders of the Day
Third reading of Bill 14
The Speaker
Bill 14, An Act to Amend the Fair Registration Practices in Regulated Professions Act, was read a third time and passed.
Second reading debate on Bill 20, Special Appropriation Act 2025
Mr. Austin
Austin continued debate opposing the $217-million special appropriation, arguing government has not itemized how the money will be spent, warning of ballooning deficits and roughly $614 million in annual debt servicing (about $2 million per day in interest), and stressing fiscal responsibility.
Bill 20 – Special Appropriations Act (fiscal responsibility remarks)
Unknown
A member argued government is about making responsible choices, warning that adding deficits to debt raises interest payments (currently $614 million, potentially exceeding $1 billion), and criticized the government for running a $600-million deficit and now seeking another $218 million.
Bill 20 – Special Appropriations Act
Mr. Arseneault
Arseneault explained that appropriation bills are routine and used by all previous governments (citing bills signed by Ernie Steeves in 2022 and 2024), noting this money has already been spent mostly by the previous government in an election year, and urged the opposition to send the bill to committee to obtain the details they seek.
Bill 20 – Special Appropriations Act
Ms. Scott-Wallace
Scott-Wallace argued the bill is a big deal given the $600-million deficit, insisting the House is not a rubber-stamp factory and that the government must be accountable for spending; she questioned allocations to General Government ($101.9M), Health ($25M), Transportation ($6M), and other departments, and used household budgeting analogies to stress fiscal prudence.
House recess and resumption of Bill 20 debate
Madam Speaker
The Speaker recessed the House at 11:59 a.m. until 1 p.m., after which the debate on Bill 20 resumed.
Bill 20 – Special Appropriations Act (continued)
Ms. Scott-Wallace
Continuing after the recess, Scott-Wallace reiterated concerns about holding the government to account, noting details will be examined in public accounts, and raised the Sussex ER not being open evenings and inadequate ambulance service as examples of poor value for increased spending.
Adjournment of debate on Bill 20
Mr. M. LeBlanc
Mr. M. LeBlanc moved the adjournment of the debate on Bill 20 so the House could continue with the rest of the day's agenda; the motion was carried.
Debate on proposed amendment to Bill 12 (Act to Repeal the Pension Plan Sustainability and Transfer Act)
Mr. Monahan
Mr. Monahan continued his speech opposing the reversal of the shared-risk pension model, arguing shared-risk plans are secure (funded at 120%), that reverting to defined-benefit plans is costly and unfair to the majority of New Brunswickers without pensions, and that the change was an unnecessary campaign promise reopening a settled matter.
Proposed amendment to Bill 12 defeated
Madam Speaker
The Speaker put the question and the proposed amendment to Bill 12 was defeated.
Second reading of Bill 12
Madam Speaker
Bill 12, An Act to Repeal the Pension Plan Sustainability and Transfer Act, was read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Economic Policy.
Second reading of Bill 33 (An Act to Amend the Community Funding Act)
Hon. Mr. Kennedy
The Minister of Local Government introduced Bill 33 to implement municipal fiscal reform, detailing a new funding model that increases local government funding to $138 million in 2026 (a $63-million increase) rising to $188 million by 2030, comprising a $75-million Fiscal Capacity Fund, an $18-million Regional Services Support Fund, and a $45-million Capital Renewal Fund, alongside a temporary 2026 property assessment freeze and a new equalization formula.
Bill 33 – Community Funding Act amendments (Minister's remarks)
The Minister of Local Government
The minister described the new capital renewal fund to help local governments maintain existing assets, explaining that the bill sets the objective, structure, payment schedule and funding formula details to be established by regulation. He noted that fiscal capacity funding will be indexed starting 2027 and capital renewal funding starting 2031 via a local government cost index capped at 5%, with a five-year Act review from 2030, and thanked departmental staff and municipal partners while touting $63 million in additional funding for 2026.
Bill 33 – Community Funding Act amendments (Opposition response)
Ms. Scott-Wallace
Speaking for the official opposition, she acknowledged the bill's intent but raised numerous concerns and questions to be pursued in the economic policy committee, including the repeal of the 'provincial tax base' definition, shifting tax-base determination to regulations, reduced transparency and accountability, removal of transitional grants, ministerial discretion, potential funding shortfalls from repealing sections 5 and 6, and safeguards for equitable allocation. She praised municipal leaders and sought assurances that changes would not reduce funding for essential community services.
Bill 33 – Community Funding Act amendments (Green response)
Mr. Coon
Mr. Coon argued the committed funding falls far short of the $200 million municipalities identified as their collective shortfall, reaching only $188 million phased in over five years, and does not address municipalities' expanded responsibilities such as economic development, transportation, homelessness, health care recruitment and housing. He criticized inadequate regional transportation, citing a poor VIA Rail trip he took with the member for Tantramar as an example of provincial neglect.
Point of order on relevance to Bill 33
Hon. Mr. McKee
Hon. Mr. McKee rose on a point of order arguing the speaker had been talking about trains, tracks and other items rather than municipal financing, asking the member to get to the bill; the Deputy Speaker acknowledged a transportation linkage from QP but asked the member to tighten his connection to the bill.
Second reading of Bill 33 – Mr. Coon's remarks
Mr. Coon
Mr. Coon criticized the bill for downloading responsibilities onto municipalities without adequate funding, noting the $138M rising to $188M falls far below municipal demands and fails to diversify revenue sources away from residential property taxes, though he praised the new, fairer equalization formula and the 2024 MOU's five principles.
Second reading of Bill 33 – Mr. Coon calls for amendments
Mr. Coon
Mr. Coon argued municipalities should be treated as a partnership rather than a parent-child relationship, suggested amendments could be added at committee within the bill's scope, and characterized the bill as 'fair' but not yet 'good,' saying he looked forward to committee study after speaking for 14 minutes and 31 seconds.
Points of order on relevance and decorum during Mr. Savoie's speech
Multiple
As Mr. Savoie began speaking, Hon. Mr. McKee raised points of order that he was not addressing the bill, and Mr. M. LeBlanc objected to Savoie's remarks that the Justice Minister's legs would 'get a workout,' calling them a threat and demanding a retraction; the Deputy Speaker asked members to tone down rhetoric, direct comments through the Chair, and stay on Bill 33.
Second reading of Bill 33 – Mr. Savoie's remarks
Mr. Savoie
Mr. Savoie asserted the opposition's right to speak on the bill as long as needed, credited the former government for the structural local governance reform (reducing 340 local governments to 77 with 12 RSCs) as the precondition for fiscal reform, and praised Local Government department staff for supporting new governments.
Second reading of Bill 33 – Mr. Savoie on timelines, equity and consultation
Mr. Savoie
Mr. Savoie argued fiscal reform was intended to be in place for 2026 by 2025 rather than delayed to 2031, raised concerns about whether the Community Funding Act changes are equitable across larger and smaller municipalities, criticized linking the assessment freeze to the $138M funding increase, and described his efforts as minister to engage municipalities consistently through a proposed summit and the Provincial Municipal Council.
Bill 33, An Act to Amend the Community Funding Act — second reading debate
Mr. Savoie
The Leader of the Opposition delivered a lengthy speech recounting the history of municipal structural and fiscal reform, arguing that the new government appears not to have adequately consulted municipalities and stakeholders on the bill, with mixed reactions being received via emails. He said he had deliberately stayed out of the file as a former minister and expected reforms sooner than May.
Explanation of the Community Funding Act and its definitions
Mr. Savoie
Savoie explained that Bill 33 amends numerous aspects of the Community Funding Act governing provincial grant funding formulas, and read out the Act's definitions (community, current year, Fund, heavy industrial property, Minister, municipal tax base, etc.), noting the Act's close intersections with Finance and Treasury Board, Service New Brunswick (assessments), and the Local Governance Act.
Tax base computation formulas and assessment system change
Mr. Savoie
Savoie read the computation provisions for municipal, rural community, and rural district tax bases (Crown/PILT adjustments and Local Governance Act references), and noted that for the 2025 taxation year the province changed from a forward-looking anticipatory assessment system to a look-back system based on actual numbers, which he considers more beneficial for taxpayers.
Non-residential property multiplier (section 5) and tax fairness concerns
Mr. Savoie
Savoie explained the section 5 formula and the 1.4–1.7 non-residential multiplier sliding scale that municipalities requested, noting Service New Brunswick's systems lack capacity for multiple tax classes. He expressed disappointment that most municipalities set all non-residential property at 1.7, raised tax-fairness issues from coupling non-residential to residential rates (historically done to prevent a race to the bottom), and highlighted the particular challenge for Saint John with its large heavy-industrial tax base. A brief exchange with the Deputy Speaker confirmed Savoie had unlimited speaking time as Leader of the Opposition.
Debate on Community Funding Act — equalization and transitional grants, municipal financing
Unknown
A member read through the text of a bill on community funding clause by clause in English and French, commenting on how the province conducts property assessments as a service to municipalities, the difficulty municipalities would face finding assessment professionals, and how assessment overhaul intersects with the Community Funding Grant. The member discussed provisions fixing the total community grant, municipal and rural community budget estimates with ministerial partnership budgeting, and monthly payments to municipalities and rural communities.
Community Funding Act — equalization grant formula and municipal reliance on it
Unknown
The member read the equalization grant formula provisions and reflected that, because of the need for fiscal reform, municipalities came to rely on the equalization grant as the province eroded the municipal tax base; the speaker argued municipalities should be able to grow their own tax bases and provide services, with equalization serving only as a safety net.
Community Funding Act — transitional grant, Regional Services Support Fund, special circumstances and grants
Unknown
The member continued reading provisions on the transitional grant phasing out from 2023 to 2027, the establishment and administration of the Regional Services Support Fund, payments and grant applications, conditions on monthly payments where municipalities or the Minister collect property tax, and grants to municipalities and rural communities where universities are located.
Community Funding Act — stimulation grants, review, administration, regulations and transitional amendments
Unknown
The member read provisions on stimulation grants (capped at 15% of the community grant), power to assist municipalities in financial difficulty, a five-year review requirement, administration and regulation-making powers, and transitional provisions and consequential amendments to An Act Respecting Local Governance Reform.
Bill 33, An Act to Amend the Community Funding Act — second reading debate
M. Savoie
Mr. Savoie read extensively from Bill 33 into the record to illustrate the complexity of the Community Funding Act amendments, walking through repealed definitions, new definitions (capital project, capital renewal funding, local government cost index, fiscal capacity funding, group, etc.), the cost-index formula, and equalization and capital renewal grant provisions. He repeatedly flagged concerns about provisions giving the minister discretion to fix funding amounts and index values, questioning what data and criteria would be used and signaling that these matters would be pursued in detail at the Committee on Economic Policy.
Second reading of municipal fiscal reform bill (Community Funding Act amendments) – transitional and commencement provisions
Unknown
The member reviewed the bill's transitional provisions (2025 equalization, transitional and regional service commission grants), a consequential amendment defining 'provincial tax base,' and the commencement clause, noting that some provisions take effect on Royal Assent (sections 5-6, parts of 11.1, sections 14-17, parts of 16.1, and section 23) while others await proclamation, and demanded a detailed government explanation of which and why.
Concerns over the 5% cap on the local government cost index and ministerial discretion
Unknown
The member raised stakeholder concerns that the 5% cap on the local government cost index in subsection 4.2(2) is arbitrary and risks creating funding gaps amid inflation, and questioned the broad discretionary power granted to the minister over funds under subsections 11.1(4) and 16.1(4).
Need for predictable municipal funding and clear funding parameters
Unknown
The member argued the bill grants the minister broad discretion to set 2026 funding and 2026-2030 capital renewal funds, undermining the certainty that fiscal reform was meant to provide, and called for clear, practical guidance to avoid administrative burden, especially on smaller municipalities.
Municipal autonomy, discretionary funding of infrastructure renewal, and centralization
Unknown
The member stressed that municipalities need predictability and autonomy, warned that 'The Minister may provide' language in subsection 16.1(2) allows the province to withhold infrastructure funding or attach conditions, and criticized the shift from unconditional grants toward conditional, targeted streams as centralization rather than partnership.
Legislative uncertainty and Cabinet powers under sections 16.2 and 25
Unknown
The member questioned whether subsection 16.2(2) ('The Minister shall') is binding and expressed concern that subsection 25(1) gives the minister and Cabinet broad power to determine criteria, potentially allowing unilateral decisions to not proceed, particularly amid anticipated lower revenues from a declining GDP.
Summary of broad changes: new cost index formula and repealed/replaced provisions
Unknown
The member summarized that the bill adds a local government cost index formula (combining population growth, CPI, non-residential building costs, and wages), repeals sections 5 and 6 and the section 12 equalization formula, removes section 13 transitional grants, and questioned how extreme population changes could distort the calculation.
Capital renewal grants, stimulation grants, and expanded Lieutenant-Governor in Council powers
Unknown
The member noted new section 16 capital renewal grants set at the minister's discretion for 2026-2030 with the formula deferred to 2031, repeal of the 15% cap on stimulation grants, and expanded regulatory powers for the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to determine non-residential property assessed values, questioning how government would set values for non-residential and heavy industrial properties.
Ministerial power to determine data and calls for practical funding comparisons
Unknown
The member criticized subsection 4.2(4), which allows the minister to determine values when data is absent, as effectively letting the minister 'make up data' contrary to evidence-based decision-making, and requested practical demonstrations comparing funding amounts under old versus new formulas municipality by municipality.
Rural municipalities, timing of reform, and administrative capacity
Unknown
The member warned rural municipalities lacking capacity could be left behind, asked 'why now' given the recently enacted existing legislation and whether empirical evidence justified the changes, and noted the bill is silent on administrative capacity while tying new reporting and compliance requirements to funding access.
Closing remarks and signal of intent for committee stage
Unknown
The member concluded the exhaustive second reading by thanking the Deputy Speaker, emphasizing the goal is ensuring the bill works as intended rather than opposing it, urging the minister to prepare answers before committee, expressing hope for openness to amendments, and stressing the reform must fairly treat both residential and non-residential/heavy industrial properties as wealth creators.
Adjournment of debate on Bill 33
M. LeBlanc
Following remarks concluding debate on Bill 33 regarding property tax legislation, M. LeBlanc moved to adjourn the debate so the House could continue with Orders of the Day; the motion carried.
Second Reading of Bill 21 — An Act to Amend the New Brunswick Income Tax Act (introduction)
Hon. Mr. McKee
The Minister introduced Bill 21, explaining it aligns the New Brunswick child tax benefit and working income supplement with recent federal changes, including extending benefit eligibility after a child's death from one to six months (retroactive to January 1, 2025), plus housekeeping amendments for federal compliance.
Opposition remarks on Bill 21 (Cullins)
Mr. Cullins
Mr. Cullins supported the compassionate provision extending benefits to grieving parents but raised concerns about the bill's retroactive scope (some provisions reaching back 10 years), its practical benefit to ordinary New Brunswickers versus administrators, clarity and communication, and the pandemic-era childcare context.
Opposition remarks on Bill 21 (Bockus)
Ms. Bockus
Ms. Bockus commented that anything easing taxpayer red tape is positive and commended the extension of the child benefit period to six months as humane, while stressing the opposition's duty not to rubber-stamp bills and to ask questions about their impact.
Opposition remarks on Bill 21 (Monahan)
Mr. Monahan
Mr. Monahan spoke in support of Bill 21, praising it as both technical and compassionate, welcoming the six-month benefit extension and retroactive commencement dates, and expressing hope the bill would move swiftly through the necessary stages.
Opposition remarks on Bill 21 (Lee)
Mr. Lee
Mr. Lee acknowledged the bill's purpose and commended the child benefit extension as humane, but urged scrutiny of the legislation, particularly its retroactive amendments reaching back a decade, questioning who is affected and whether a clear public interest is served.
Second Reading of Bill 21, An Act to Amend the New Brunswick Income Tax Act – opposition concerns on retroactivity, transparency and fairness
Unknown
An opposition member raised five concerns about the bill: its retroactive tax provisions dating back a decade, questions over who actually benefits from largely administrative changes, the lack of clarity and plain-language accessibility, the pandemic-era context affecting low-income families, and the House's duty not to rubber-stamp technical bills. The member concluded by supporting the compassionate provision extending benefits to grieving families while urging a more careful, human-centred approach.
Second Reading of Bill 21 – Mr. Weir's remarks on housekeeping, unintended consequences and committee questions
Mr. Weir
Mr. Weir described the bill as needed housekeeping aligning provincial tax law with federal regulations and extending the child benefit and working income supplement to six months after a child's death, praising the minister and department. He stressed the risk of unintended consequences, especially for low-income New Brunswickers, and listed numerous questions he would raise in committee about rationale, consultation, distributional impacts, corporate tax structure, offshore loopholes and revenue projections.
Point of Order during Bill 21 debate
Mr. M. LeBlanc
Mr. M. LeBlanc rose on a point of order, arguing Mr. Weir had strayed off topic by discussing cuts to education, and asked that he be reminded to speak specifically to Bill 21. Mr. Weir replied he was only using unintended consequences as examples, and the Speaker directed him to restrict his comments to the bill.
This is Tabled's summary of the sitting, written from the official record; Hansard is only ever quoted at the link above. Search New Brunswick Hansard for the words themselves, or read this sitting in the archive.