NDP leader wants Halifax transportation study released
Chender was responding several days after a CBC News report showed that housing and transportation costs in Halifax for 2024 were similar to those in Toronto.
The Progressive Conservative government has announced steps throughout its mandates to try to boost housing stock, although Chender said more needs to be done on that front.
But when it comes to public transit in Halifax Regional Municipality, there has been "almost no action," she said during a news conference on Monday.
"We need action on that today. It's becoming less and less reliable to take transit in Halifax at a time when we need it more and more."
Having an effective public transit system is a way to save commuters money while also addressing congestion on the roads, which has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic, said Chender.
During its first mandate, the Progressive Conservatives created the Joint Regional Transportation Agency, an entity tasked with looking at transportation throughout HRM. The organization has since been rebranded as Link Nova Scotia and given a provincewide mandate.
Prior to that change, however, the agency produced a report looking at transportation issues and options to improve things for the Halifax area. The government first got a draft of the report a little less than a year ago before eventually getting the final report earlier this year.
To date, however, it has not been made public.
"One would have to assume that active transportation and public transportation are big chunks of that report that this government so far has not wanted to release, talk about or act upon," said Chender.
Some portions of the report, which contemplate expanding the highways leading to and around HRM and exploring a commuter light-rail system, were included in the Progressive Conservative platform during last year's provincial election.
But there have been no further details since then.
Speaking to reporters recently, Public Works Minister Fred Tilley could not say when the report would be made public or explain why it's taking so long to share it.
"We want to action the report, obviously, so we're looking at things that we can get actioned and in a timeline," he said.
"I understand the frustration with it, but we will be releasing that report once we have more information to share, as opposed to just sharing the report."
MORE TOP STORIES
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Today's basic science is tomorrow's game-changing invention. Trump's cuts threaten both.
In fact, 30 years is often how long science takes to mature from a cool discovery to something that's life-changing, says the MIT professor. But he worries those discoveries are about to come to a screeching halt. 'If the administration and Congress follow through with what they said they were going to do,' says Bawendi, 'it's going to be the destruction of the scientific enterprise in this country. And that's really scary. Not for science, but for the economy. For national security. And the leadership of the US in the world.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Within the next few months, Congress will vote on whether to approve the White House's proposed Advertisement Still, President Trump can only hold office for three-and-a-half more years. Can't science pick right back up in 2029? Advertisement Don't bet on it, Bawendi told me. 'Compare this to COVID,' he says. 'We were locked out [of my lab] for six months in COVID... It took me two years to go back to where I was.' During those six months, equipment broke or degraded. Older students graduated without spending time with younger students, who needed to learn from them. 'So,' he says, 'it's not something you can just shut off and then turn it back on.' The administration's attacks on immigration and immigrants aren't helping, either. Bawendi says that about half of his PhD students are from other countries. 'They're ambitious, incredibly smart, and they work with native-born students.' Moungi Bawendi's once-obscure chemistry is in flatscreen TVs, where it enhances the quality of the display. The discovery won the MIT professor the Nobel Prize in 2023. Craig F. Walker One of the enormous strengths of American science is its ability to attract the best minds from around the world to help solve hard problems, Bawendi says. Foreign PhD students are key parts of the research labor force, taking on the repetitive tasks and data analysis that can lead to breakthroughs. 'Certainly my foreign students are all going to leave,' he says. 'Because they're scared. And they don't feel like there are any opportunities here.' But if international students don't attend graduate school here, won't there be more space for aspiring PhD students from the US? 'The number of American students who want to do PhDs is not big,' says Bawendi. 'It's hard work. The pay is not great. Being a graduate student for five, six years at low wage? There are other things they could do that are much easier with better pay.' Bawendi worries that it all adds up to 'a potential generation of young students that [will be] destroyed.' Elementary and high schools have seen Advertisement And funding for doctoral and postdoctoral students is likely to be decimated: the administration Government support remains critical to basic science – research aimed at understanding rather than commercializing. That makes it unlikely that corporations will step in to fill the gap created by research funding cuts. And that's a problem. The beauty of basic research comes from serendipity – the 'aha' moments when the research path takes a surprising turn, or when applications emerge that had never been imagined. Thirty years ago, Bawendi says, he had no idea the work he was doing would enhance flatscreen TVs. The cuts happening now 'freeze out the innovative discoveries' that will 'provide the tools of the future,' he argues. If there's a kernel of good news here, it's not for the US, says Jeremy Berg, the former director of National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the NIH. Other nations 'are just ecstatic,' he says. And then there's China, which has plowed huge sums into challenging US leadership in science and technology, seeking to dominate the clean energy sector and rapidly shrink the US lead in artificial intelligence. Advertisement Jeremy Berg, the former director of National Institute of General Medical Sciences at then NIH, says research funding cuts under the Trump administration are gifts to competitors, such as China, which is challenging the US for leadership in artificial intelligence and other technologies. Andy Wong/Associated Press 'If you're China and you're interested in being the world leader in research or in biomedical research,' Berg says of the Trump administration's funding cuts, 'this is a gift beyond your wildest dreams.' Berg believes that the repercussions for science — and for consumers — are coming more quickly than we might think. NIH-funded researchers frequently test new treatments through clinical trials, which are conducted in collaboration with academic medical centers, such as Children's Hospital and Mass General. Hospitals, in turn, recruit patients and assign staff to organize trials. They may pay for extra MRIs or blood tests for the trials. But if researchers can't afford to pay hospitals, the system for validating science will fall apart. Already, according to Berg, hospitals are hesitating to do business with NIH-funded researchers. Once, those grants were basically a sure thing. Now, collaborators aren't sure they'll get paid back. Berg knows of several academic medical centers refusing to work with researchers who have multi-year NIH grants, unless the researchers can produce new letters each year confirming that the money is still coming. 'Scientists used to trust NIH as being a good faith partner. Patients used to trust doctors who were doing NIH-funded research,' says Berg. 'Participants — when asked to participate in a clinical trial [by a doctor or scientist] — were confident that you weren't just going to say in the middle of the trial: 'Oops, nevermind.'' In addition to NIH grants being cancelled outright, Berg says that lots of other grants have been 'shadow terminated.' Even though the grant hasn't been canceled, the money has stopped flowing, leaving scientists without ways to pay the bills. Berg estimates that the Trump administration has withheld nearly $3 billion in approved grant money. Advertisement Berg hopes that Congress will ultimately refuse to rubber stamp the Trump administration's proposed An aerial view of Kendall Square. Basic science underpins the world's premier biotech cluster. David L. Ryan/Globe Staff Still, even if research funds escape the proposed cuts, that doesn't mean they're safe. It's unclear how much latitude the NIH and NSF have to terminate grants, but that hasn't stopped the Trump administration from withholding or canceling funding. The effects of research cuts are unlikely to be felt immediately, says Myron Kassaraba, Vice President of Investment at MassVentures – a quasi-public venture capital agency. 'But,' he adds, 'it's certainly going to result in fewer inventions.' Those inventions range from medicines to communications technology, says Kassaraba. And they give rise to lots of companies – as the biotech cluster in Kendall Square can attest. 'The impact here [in Massachusetts] is as significant as in any region in the US,' Kassaraba says. Still Kassaraba believes the state can find a way through the lean times. 'The inventiveness and resourcefulness' that got Massachusetts to where it is, he says, will 'hopefully serve us well going forward. I think we'll find a way to keep the innovation engine running.' Follow Kara Miller
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
Our schools are struggling because teachers unions don't put kids first
The idea that the same things that are good for teachers and their unions also are good for students is utter nonsense. My kids attend public schools in Texas. They've had some tremendous teachers, who I'm thankful for. Although we've had a good experience overall, it's clear that public education in the United States needs to improve. K-12 students in America lag peers in other industrialized countries in math, and reading skills have hit a new low. And while students struggle in core subjects, many parents say their children have been indoctrinated with a liberal political bias. If you doubt that last point, listen to the National Education Association's Teacher of the Year Ashlie Crosson, who delivered a speech that hailed education as a political endeavor at the union's recent national conference. Crosson, who failed to acknowledge public schools' mediocre results, seemed to be more pro-union than pro-student during her speech on July 4. Opinion: Trump should eliminate Education Department. Get bureaucrats out of our schools. Teacher of the year: 'What's good for educators is what's good for students' Crosson, an English teacher at Mifflin County High School in Lewistown, Pennsylvania, said what teachers want is the same as what students need. "What's good for educators is what's good for students," Crosson told fellow union members. "The best way to advocate for our students truly is to advocate for ourselves (teachers)." It's understandable that the NEA's teacher of the year is pro-union. But the idea that the same things that are good for teachers and their unions also are good for students is utter nonsense. Unions shield their members from the consequences of poor performance and even bad behavior. How does that help students? Crosson also said teaching is a political endeavor. She said the COVID-19 pandemic galvanized union involvement: "Once I realized how deeply political our profession had always been, I knew I could no longer stay on the sidelines." To new and struggling teachers: Don't give up. America's kids need you. | Opinion Education should not be political, and certainly not partisan. Yet, according to the Pew Research Center, nearly 60% of teachers "identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party." The NEA's partisanship has grown so extreme that even the union admitted recently that it must do a better job of representing its Republican members. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, even served as a member of the Democratic National Committee for more than 20 years before resigning in June. During the pandemic, teachers unions pushed to keep schools closed far longer than necessary. They put fearmongering ahead of students' needs. That had devastating consequences for our children's education, and five years later, the achievement gap still hasn't been erased. So much for the needs of teachers unions matching the needs of our children. Texas and other states adopt universal school choice If public schools really were meeting students' needs, then the widespread adoption of school choice measures would not have nearly as much momentum as it now enjoys. Texas recently became the 16th state to adopt universal school choice. That means all families in states like Arizona, Florida, North Carolina and Ohio are eligible to apply for state assistance in attending private schools. We value our nation's teachers, of course, whether they work in public or private schools. They're vital for our nation's future. But the teacher of the year's speech was more pro-union than pro-child. And it's that mindset, shared by millions of educators, that has contributed to our nation's mediocre educational results. Nicole Russell is an opinion columnist with USA TODAY. She lives in Texas with her four kids. Sign up for her newsletter, The Right Track, and get it delivered to your inbox.
Time Business News
4 hours ago
- Time Business News
Will the Australian Government Ban International Speakers from
As the Free Speech Summit approaches on July 19th–20th at the Star Theatre, Gold Coast, questions are once again swirling about whether the Australian government will attempt to block international speakers from entering the country—just as they controversially did last year with conservative commentator Candace Owens. Hosted by the Australian National Review ( the is set to become one of the most important gatherings for independent media, political dissidents, and truth-seekers in Australia's history. With over 22 high-profile speakers flying in from around the world—including doctors, journalists, influencers, and whistleblowers—the stakes are high. And so is the scrutiny. A Pattern of Silencing Dissent? Last year, Candace Owens was denied entry to Australia due to her political views and controversial opinions, sparking widespread criticism from free speech advocates and civil liberties organizations. The Australian government cited 'potential social unrest' as justification—an eerily familiar tactic used by authoritarian regimes to block dissent. Now, similar concerns have been raised that the same strategy could be used to interfere with the Free Speech Summit, which features guests known for their unapologetic stances on censorship, COVID-19 narratives, globalism, and government overreach. What Are They So Afraid Of? Speakers scheduled to appear include Stew Peters, Steve Kirsch, Max Igan, Aussie Cossack, Dr. Ben Tapper, and Jamie McIntyre, founder of and outspoken critic of globalist agendas. Their topics range from vaccine injuries to government censorship and the manipulation of mainstream media. Given the history of politically motivated visa cancellations and bureaucratic interference, the possibility of governmental obstruction looms large. After all, allowing such speakers into the country runs counter to the carefully curated mainstream narrative. Why You Must Attend or Tune In Despite potential hurdles, the Free Speech Summit is going ahead—and growing in strength. Thanks to generous sponsors, over 10,000 global livestream tickets are now being given away for FREE, courtesy of Additionally, 1,000 in-person tickets have been donated by the major sponsor for the event and a leader in offshore real estate development for those seeking freedom and prosperity outside the West. Whether you're attending in person on the Gold Coast or tuning in online from anywhere in the world, this is not just another conference. It's a stand against censorship, a rally for liberty, and a beacon for those who refuse to be silenced. But if the government were to block international guests, it would only reinforce the event's central message: free speech is under siege in Australia. What to Expect •Groundbreaking exposés from whistleblowers and medical experts •Courageous journalism from banned and deplatformed media voices •Academy-style awards night recognizing the heroes of independent media •Real solutions and community for those resisting globalist control Don't Wait – Reserve Your Free Ticket History shows us that when regimes want to control the population, the first thing they do is silence those who speak out. The Free Speech Summit is a resistance to that tyranny—and a rallying cry for Australians and the world to take back their voice. Visit to reserve your free livestream ticket, or secure one of the final in-person tickets to attend this landmark event. The time to speak freely is now—before it's too late. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
