HANSARD
NOVA SCOTIA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
STANDING COMMITTEE
ON
HEALTH
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER
Gender-Based Violence
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
HEALTH COMMITTEE
John A. MacDonald (Chair)
Adegoke Fadare (Vice Chair)
Hon. Susan Corkum-Greek
Ryan Robicheau
Nick Hilton
Lisa Lachance
Rod Wilson
Hon. Iain Rankin
Hon. Derek Mombourquette
[Lisa Lachance was replaced by Susan Leblanc.]
In Attendance:
Judy Kavanagh
Legislative Committee Clerk
Gordon Hebb
Chief Legislative Counsel
WITNESSES
Lynn Gallant Blackburn
Lucy Bowser
Department of Justice
Cynthia Carroll, Associate Deputy Minister
Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women
Nicole Johnson-Morrison, Associate Deputy Minister for the Department of Opportunities and Social Development and the Status of Women
Josie McKinney, Acting Executive Director, Status of Women
Transition House Association of Nova Scotia
Ann de Ste Croix, Executive Director
Willow House (Cape Breton Transition House Association)
Dr. Jodi McDavid, Executive Director
Adsum for Women and Children
Dr. Meghan Hansford, Manager, Housing Support Team
Bryony House
Rachel Shepherd, Executive Director
HALIFAX, TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2025
STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
1:00 P.M.
CHAIR
John A. MacDonald
VICE CHAIR
Adegoke Fadare
THE CHAIR: Order. I call this meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Health. I’m John A. MacDonald, the MLA for Hants East and the Chair of the committee. Today, we will hear from witnesses regarding Gender-Based Violence.
A reminder to please make sure your phones are on silent. Also, please be sure not to touch the microphones; if paper hits them, they will reverberate. For the members on the left, we won’t rise like we normally would. That’s why the mics are lower. I’ve got extra notes this time. We’re not normally in this room.
I’ll ask the committee members to introduce themselves for the record by stating their name and their constituency. I’ll start with MLA Rankin - just to surprise him.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
THE CHAIR: For the purposes of Hansard, I recognize the presence of Chief Legislative Counsel Gordon Hebb, Legislative Committee Clerk Judy Kavanagh, and Sherri Mitchell is our support clerk.
I’d like to welcome everybody for coming. What we’re going to do first is to start by introducing your name and whom you represent, then I’ll come back and do opening statements. I’m going to start with Ms. Shepherd.
[The witnesses introduced themselves.]
THE CHAIR: Before you speak, I’ll recognize you. Your mic will go red, then you can speak. Don’t worry, we’ll wind up doing the same thing by mistake and speaking before.
MLA Wilson, do you want to do the introduction for the person before I get them to do theirs? MLA Wilson.
ROD WILSON: Sure. I would like to introduce someone who’s very well-known on this issue and topic, and a hero and mentor in our community, executive director of Adsum for Women and Children and one of the founding groups in partnership with the government of the Bridge, Ms. Sheri Lecker is in the gallery today. Welcome, Ms. Lecker.
THE CHAIR: First, opening statements. As we have a full amount, I’d like you to keep it under about two minutes. I believe the clerk informed you. Now I have to go back to my list to find the right order. Ms. Shepherd.
RACHEL SHEPHERD: To the Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. It is an honour to be here with my colleagues and fellow advocates. My name is Rachel Shepherd, and I am the executive director of Bryony House, Nova Scotia’s first and largest emergency shelter for women and children fleeing intimate partner violence. For over 45 years, we’ve provided 24/7 shelter, crisis support, and advocacy to survivors facing the immediate and long-term impacts of gender-based violence.
In the Halifax region, we are the only shelter that accepts children. Serving the largest population in the province, we have capacity for 36 women and children, and we are consistently full. We always have a waiting list, and we triage and assess daily. In the past year, our team has responded to thousands of calls and texts on our distress line. We sheltered hundreds of women and children, some for as long as 12 months. Our support extends well beyond the shelter’s doors. Our housing support worker alone housed over 300 women and children last year.
We provide all services using a harm-reduction framework. This approach recognizes that survivors are the experts in their own lives. Harm reduction is essential in the context of intimate partner violence, where survivors may be navigating substance use, trauma, poverty, and isolation, all of which are deeply connected to health outcomes.
Intimate partner violence is an epidemic and a public health crisis. Survivors experience higher rates of chronic illness, injury, substance use, mental health concerns, and trauma. Children exposed to violence can face lifelong health risks.
At Bryony House, we address the social determinants of health every day. In doing so, we relieve pressures on health and intersecting systems such as emergency rooms, mental health services, child protection, and police. When women and children have access to safe housing, health care, affordable child care, food security, and a livable income, they are better protected from intimate partner violence and better positioned to rebuild their lives. Investing in gender-based violence services is investing in public health. Responding to intimate partner violence is not only about justice. It is about health equity, system sustainability, and community well-being.
Thank you for hearing all of us today.
THE CHAIR: Dr. Hansford.
DR. MEGHAN HANSFORD: Something I’ve learned in my work and holding a doctorate in family violence intervention is that charting pathways to the work requires sector diversity. Lack of diversity can lead to biased perspectives, limited viewpoints, and missed opportunities. Our panel today, although experts, is missing some of those critical voices, both in terms of community representation and in terms of the scope of the work. Leveraging and incorporating the expertise from our ANS and Indigenous colleagues must be built into the foundation of the work as we move forward.
This work also must be framed through two lenses: First, public health with a critical focus on the social determinants of health being adequate housing, poverty, food security, and education that impact and determine an individual’s health. Second is behavioural science, which provides us with valuable insight into what drives individual, societal, and cultural change.
A good example of where these two things intersect and have come together to provide incredible results over time is smoking. Smoking has become socially unacceptable. Public health campaigns shifted social norms, and coupled with legislation, policy, and education that promoted behavioural change, reinforced the belief that smoking is harmful. We need to apply this public health model to the context of gender-based violence.
There are three levels at which this work needs to be undertaken. First, primary prevention: This is the long game of tackling societal norms and altering systems that perpetuate oppression, reinforce the conspiracy of silence and victim blaming that surrounds IPV. In terms of smoking, this is where we saw public health strategies have a major impact on the public’s perceptions and behaviours. This tier is receiving the littlest action and attention in the sector but eventually will have the biggest impact.
Early intervention: This identifies and addresses risk before escalation. With smoking, this is cessation clinics, therapies, and alternatives like patches. With intimate partner violence, this is where the determinants of health - like access to safe, affordable housing - come into play. This is where coordinated support for families and children is instrumental. Timely, accessible, and culturally competent care is critical. There is some of this work that is happening in community and that needs to be amplified and better supported.
Finally, we have response: This is how our current systems are based and our funding is weighted. This is our emergency room. This is crisis response and damage control: police, sexual assault nurses, shelter, and apprehensions of children. But by this stage, it’s too late. If you have a cancer diagnosis from smoking, it causes significant lifelong damage and potential fatality. It is the same reality for gender-based violence. We need to prevent the cancer from happening before the crisis and before it’s too late. Today is our time to take action and move forward in those steps. The research is there. We need to chart a path forward.
THE CHAIR: Dr. McDavid.
DR. JODI MCDAVID: Thank you for inviting me to be here today. I want to acknowledge the Chair, as well as the honourable members of the Committee on Health, and also to acknowledge the other esteemed guests and experts with us here today. I am the executive director of the Cape Breton Transition House Foundation, a shelter for those fleeing domestic violence and gender-based violence. I am also an instructor in Gender and Women’s Studies at Cape Breton University.
One pressure on our organizations, especially in the rural context, is the lack of health services in our communities. 211 Nova Scotia produces an annual report - and I’ve provided some copies for you - of which I provided a section from CBRM showing that the highest request in that municipality is mental health support services, while the highest unmet needs are food support and utilities support.
The lack of mental health supports, food, and economics creates barriers to leaving violent situations. As a sector, we’ve seen more pressure since COVID and Hurricane Fiona. We have people coming to our door for sandwiches and even going through our green bin. We have referrals which do not fit our mandate - because they are unmet needs which fall under social determinants of health - and no one to fill them. This is a huge collective challenge.
Education is another key area. I have four suggestions for public education interventions which government could participate in. The first is to work with the federal government to make subsidized birth control quickly available. There may be financial benefits for the Province in doing so, but many women in gender-based violence situations are not in control of their own bodies.
Another is educating the public on risk factors related to lethality. Women living in relationships with these factors are often very unaware of their risk of being murdered by a partner.
A third could focus on resources to leave. A lack of resources is one of the very common reasons why women are forced to stay in these situations; while a final one could be normalizing discussing what gender-based violence is and how it now appears in our society, to normalize these conversations.
Finally, there is no single answer to how to end gender-based violence in our province; however, I appreciate the opportunity to share what we experience as frontline workers and I welcome the opportunity to collaborate further.
THE CHAIR: Ms. de Ste Croix.
ANN DE STE CROIX: Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I do also want to begin by acknowledging the Chair, and the other honourable members of the Health Committee and the other guests and experts joining us today. My name is Ann de Ste Croix. I’m the executive director at the Transition House Association of Nova Scotia. We are an umbrella association representing 12 violence-against-women organizations across the province. Our member organizations provide shelter, outreach, second-stage housing, and other support services to women and their families experiencing violence.
As has already been stated here today, gender-based violence is not just a justice or social issue. It’s a public health crisis with deep and lasting impacts. In 2024, Nova Scotia had the third-highest femicide rate per capita among all provinces in Canada. Furthermore, research consistently shows that survivors face significantly higher rates of chronic illness, depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders; yet too often, women and their families who seek safety are met with systemic gaps instead of support.
At THANS, we’re seeing a growing number of women arrive at shelters with complex and intersecting needs such as trauma, substance use, and mental health challenges, yet few have access to the services required to support their recovery. This growing complexity isn’t just a reflection of what’s happening in our shelters; it mirrors broader gaps in our health and social systems.
These systemic challenges were recently underscored by a 2025 study led by Dr. Alexa Yakubovich conducted right here in Nova Scotia. It is the largest Canadian study to date examining health care responses to domestic and sexualized violence. The findings of this report are striking. Nearly half of health care professionals surveyed had encountered new cases of domestic or sexualized violence in just the previous six months, yet only 35 per cent said addressing it was a goal of their team. Most reported lacking the training and resources to offer appropriate support. This is happening in a province with the highest self-reported cases of intimate partner violence in the country.
From a social determinants of health perspective, the women we support are navigating poverty, housing precarity, trauma, racism, and isolation, all of which heighten the risk of experiencing violence and create barriers to accessing care. When mental health and addiction services are unavailable or siloed, community-based organizations like our shelters are left trying to fill the gaps, often without the tools or funding to do so effectively.
[1:15 p.m.]
Our message today is simple: The health system is a critical point of intervention, and we must strengthen its capacity to recognize and respond to gender-based violence. This means embedding trauma-informed training, developing clear referral pathways, and building integrated cross-sector partnerships between health care and community-based organizations.
We appreciate the committee’s focus on access to care and look forward to working together to advance a more coordinated, survivor-centred response that meets the needs of women and families across the province.
THE CHAIR: Ms. Bowser.
LUCY BOWSER: Thank you for listening today. I am a lifelong resident of Nova Scotia. I am a daughter, I am a sister, and a mother. I am also a nurse in my home community. I’m saddened to be here today; my presence brings a reality of my lived experiences. I am of hundreds of women in our province who have become resilient, resistant, and primal to protect our children and ourselves.
Here’s my current situation with two directly affected children, now aged 16 and 14. Throughout their childhood, they have endured threats of kidnapping, allegations of sexual abuse, violations to our home, damages to our property, harassment on every forum. Please gently consider my children. My daughter refused to leave the house for two years, including school after it was unpunishable, when this person stalked her outside of our home. Please think about a young man who tucks a crowbar in bed with me at night.
Here’s the response of RCMP in my community:
“No wonder he is mad - you won’t let him see his kids.”
“No one will be returning your call. Don’t call back.”
“He said he didn’t do it.”
“There’s no laws against being crazy.”
“No, I can’t see the other reports, they were not given to me.”
“You should just leave your home.”
“Until he causes physical harm, there is nothing we can do,” and most of all, “We do not enforce Family Court orders.” My Family Court experience has only provided a forum for continued abuse for this man to yell, dictate court dates, make foolish demands and absurd accusations. Court staff endure abuse from this man, and the fear is widespread in our community.
A common question is: Do you have an emergency plan? My answer is: Yes, we live it every day.
I have four children in total. All fear daily that this person is going to cause harm to me. My older children text me daily, “Are you alive?” This is not metaphoric. They live on the edge of an impending emergency. I have armed my home with German shepherds, limit my activities, and keep the kids under obsessive surveillance. We have been left for years feeling helpless and scared. This is a ticking time bomb.
My father passed away this previous October. As a family, we made peace with his impending death. There was one exception. He remained scared for my family, having been a witness to tolerated behaviours, not understanding why a province he loved wasn’t protecting us. However, I wish I could tell him now, “People are listening.”
THE CHAIR: Ms. Blackburn. I apologize, Ms. Gallant Blackburn.
LYNN GALLANT BLACKBURN: That’s okay. Good afternoon. My name is Lynn Gallant Blackburn. I’ve been an advocate for 20 years, working to create awareness about the impacts of intimate partner violence. It is my hope that my lived experience can influence change that we need to see across the key portfolios in government.
Prior to December 2005, I never thought I would be a victim of violent crime. When I heard stories in the news about women being killed by their intimate partners, I would question how something like that could happen, but I never believed it could happen to my family. I had no understanding of how prevalent intimate partner violence was and continues to be in our province.
On December 27, 2005, two days after we celebrated Christmas together, my 36-year-old sister Paula Gallant was violently and senselessly murdered in her home by her husband, a man she loved and trusted, while her 11-month-old baby lay asleep in her crib. It was not the heat of the moment; it was a premeditated and carefully executed murder. On August 17, 2010, the man who walked free among us for almost five years was arrested and charged with first-degree murder and the death of my sister. With an agreed statement of facts, he was able to plead to second-degree and was served a life sentence with no eligibility for parole for 15 years.
It only took weeks following Paula’s murder for me to transition from victim to survivor and advocate for change. On December 5, 2024, on what would have been Paula’s 55th birthday, I released my book called For the Love of My Sister with the generous support from the Nova Scotia Women’s Centres Connect. Transition House Association of Nova Scotia and Leeside Society have been strong advocates as well, and it is my intent to use the proceeds to fund art therapy projects for abused women. This true story chronicles our journey to justice, preserves Paula’s legacy, and demonstrates how the love of family and the community in which she lived can positively impact change and work together to achieve justice.
Since the release of my book, I have met with the honourable Iain Rankin, who serves in the community where Paula lived and taught, as well as the honourable Minister Druhan and Minister Martin and their teams to share my lived experience and offer insights on the changes our family influenced through our journey and the proposed changes that I feel are still needed.
This past March, the National Office for Victims invited me to participate in a round table in Ottawa for victims, as my advocacy now extends into the federal system of justice. My voice is for those silenced by intimate partner violence and for the children who also become the forgotten victims in these horrific crimes of femicide.
Thank you for listening.
THE CHAIR: ADM Carroll.
CYNTHIA CARROLL: I appreciate the opportunity to be here today with my government colleagues and especially alongside community representatives and advocates to speak about this critically important issue - one that continues to be a high priority for government as a whole and for the Department of Justice.
Intimate partner violence is a serious, pervasive, and deeply harmful issue in our communities. It is, quite frankly, an epidemic - one that requires more than any one department or one sector to address. It demands a coordinated all-of-government response and meaningful ongoing partnerships with community organizations, advocates, survivors, and those with lived experience.
Our justice system plays a vital role in this work through prevention, protection, and accountability. The Department of Justice invests in programs and services that support victims and survivors and hold those who commit violence accountable. This includes establishing the newly formed gender-based violence division and providing more than $7 million in funding for domestic violence courts in Halifax and Sydney, counselling supports for victims, grants to community organizations, legal advice for survivors, initiatives to combat human trafficking, and a specialized prosecution team for sexual violence and human trafficking cases.
This work we do cannot be done in isolation. The voices of survivors and community advocates shape how and where we focus our efforts. Together, we are working to prevent violence before it happens, support those who have been impacted, and build safer, more resilient communities.
I want to thank you again for this opportunity to be here today and your attention to this important and urgent issue. I look forward to the conversation.
THE CHAIR: ADM Johnson-Morrison.
NICOLE JOHNSON-MORRISON: Thank you to the members of the committee. I want to say that we are very pleased to be here today. As explained before, I’m joined here by Josie McKinney, who is the acting executive director of the Nova Scotia Status of Women Office. We would like to take the opportunity to talk about this important issue today because it really is deeply rooted in Nova Scotia’s society. It continues to impact far too many Nova Scotians. Gender-based violence in all its forms is a complex social issue, and to address it we need a real, comprehensive, and society-wide response.
We are working across government with our partners in the sector, including those who are here with us today, with law enforcement, with communities, and both members that represent the MCC and the DFI final reports to end gender-based violence in Nova Scotia.
Our commitment shows up in many ways. It is in the more than $100 million that was in this year’s provincial government budget to support gender-based violence. It was represented in the increased funding that we have shared with the sector and the partners, which includes a $17 million investment in transition houses, $3 million to support the YWCA work, and $5.1 million that represents funding through the national action plan.
It’s also in the Nova Scotia Labour Standards Code. Recently, government has passed a five-day paid domestic-violence leave for victims and survivors of domestic violence. It’s also in our schools. It shows up in curriculum development in the public school system in programs like GuysWork, a prevention and early-intervention program for boys and young men that’s now permanent within our public schools. It’s also in the work government does to encourage women to consider careers in STEM and to run for elected office. It’s a commitment that’s now enshrined in legislation through Bill No. 482, An Act to Declare Intimate Partner Violence an Epidemic.
I am really proud of the work that we are doing to try to address gender-based violence, but we know that there’s a lot more work still to be done, as we’ve heard from all the colleagues across the committee witnesses today. We are incredibly fortunate that the province has organizations like THANS and Adsum for Women and Children as well as many other representatives today who are bringing their leadership, experience, and expertise to help guide us in this work. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today and to listen to the first voices that will be coming to us today from this panel. Thank you for the opportunity.
THE CHAIR: The way this committee works is 20 minutes for each caucus. Ms. McKinney doesn’t have any opening comments. The first will be the Liberals for 20 minutes. When it hits 20 minutes, I will apologize when I have to say - sorry. It’s been a while since I’ve been in this Chair, I guess. I’ll have to issue “Order.” I apologize. It’s just for time. I wrote it wrong, but I knew it was going to be MLA Leblanc.
MLA Leblanc.
SUSAN LEBLANC: Thank you, everyone, for being here. I just want to thank you, first of all, for your opening comments. You’re all coming at this from different perspectives but you are all - we are all, hopefully - working toward the same thing, which is the eradication of gender-based violence and intimate partner violence. I want to thank Dr. Hansford for acknowledging that we need to do better when we’re putting together panels and make sure that a diversity of voices is heard. I hope that we who are making the agendas and picking the witnesses for these committees have heard that comment.
I also want to acknowledge that there’s an inherent stress - well, I don’t know. Maybe it’s not stressful but it feels stressful to me that there are a number of people here who receive and rely on government funding and then there are other people who give out the government funding. (Laughs) I hope we can have a good honest conversation acknowledging that we don’t want to crap all over the systems that are in place right now, but we also know that things need to be different and better. I’m going to start with that lens and begin my questions.
My first one is for people who are working in the sector. The Mass Casualty Commission, as everyone knows, recommended epidemic-level funding for gender-based violence prevention and interventions. We did, as the associate deputy minister pointed out - or maybe didn’t point out but acknowledged that we did pass legislation acknowledging the epidemic in the province, which is a good first step, but I’m wondering if one of the shelter or transition house representatives who are here today could speak to the extent to which this recommendation is being implemented. We know we have an epidemic; are we actually working with epidemic-level funding at the moment?
THE CHAIR: Do you want to pick one to start?
SUSAN LEBLANC: Dr. Hansford?
THE CHAIR: Dr. Hansford.
MEGHAN HANSFORD: Thank you for those comments and for that lens for us to have this conversation. I think the short answer is no. I think there’s a lot of work to do, and I think today I didn’t want to come from my perspective with data and evidence, because we have those three reports that map out what we need to do. We need to move forward with those next steps and to make sure that - the programs that are operating right now in a response level are overwhelmed and exhausted and every day it is very hard to offer hope to those whom we are serving when there is no hope because there is no place to go, there is no money to be had, and that’s getting harder and harder.
We need, first of all, epidemic-level funding, which cannot necessarily be defined because we need to start doing that work, and then we need to evaluate what that is over time. It’s kind of hard to just put out a number and then that number financially stays there for years as the cost of living goes up and different things. The short answer is no. We need to be sustaining what we have already and funding it appropriately, and then also putting some urgent funding toward the primary prevention programs that we have starting out, and then also, critically, the early intervention strategies across the board.
[1:30 p.m.]
SUSAN LEBLANC: Part of the offering hope is probably being able to offer a space. Are there areas in need of shelter or transition house expansions that are not currently being funded? For those of you who are offering places for people to actually stay, what kind of funding are you lacking? What are the gaps for those places? Dr. McDavid. Sorry, the Chair will acknowledge you. (Laughs)
THE CHAIR: Thank you, MLA Leblanc, because that saves me. Dr. McDavid.
JODI MCDAVID: We do receive core funding, of course, and during this process, there’s been a lot more transparency about how we get operational funding and all those sorts of things. However, yes, there are still areas that are not funded. Some of us, like our organization, receive a huge amount of support from the community, but we do have to go out and ask for that.
Our physical structure is not really funded by the government in terms of maintenance or anything like that, and it needs to be done. As we see people with more complexity coming from domestic violence where we’re talking about other intersectional issues - maybe being active in use, maybe having many children, maybe having some sort if disability - many of our structures were built in the 1980s and are not suitable, sometimes, for those situations We don’t have the funds to remodel, per se.
Travel funds are also a huge issue because our catchment area is over 5,000 square kilometres. We get people who won’t come into the shelter because how would they go to work? They work near their community. The money for putting somebody in a hotel or something in that community or bringing somebody back and forth to work does not exist. The other place where we have a hole - although there is some funding - is that emergency money for survivors because, very quickly, they have to get an apartment. They have to have food for their children. They have to pay for child care. That is a huge amount of money that they’re expected to come up with up front, and there’s not a lot of support for that.
SUSAN LEBLANC: I’m wondering if someone could speak to the occupancy rates and general demand for out-of-shelter support. How often are the shelters and transition houses operating at full capacity? Are there secret emergency beds that are always full or not full? Can someone speak to that, maybe Ms. Shepherd?
THE CHAIR: Ms. Shepherd.
RACHEL SHEPHERD: We are often full. We do keep a wait-list at Bryony House. That is triage, and we work with the people who are on the list, doing safety planning. If someone is in imminent danger, we always have space. We can make space. We find space. We work with the other transition houses across Nova Scotia, and we pay for their bus or a taxi. We’re always going to find a space, but we are often full. It takes a lot of work to navigate.
SUSAN LEBLANC: We’re hearing a lot about disconnections across the sectors that are prolonging experiences of gender-based violence. Health care professionals lacking knowledge of community resources to refer people to, long waits for mental health care which we heard about in the opening comments, and of course, there’s just not enough affordable housing options for individuals who want to leave an abusive relationship.
From your view, is government doing enough to close the gaps that too many survivors are falling into? Anyone?
THE CHAIR: Ms. de Ste Croix.
ANN DE STE CROIX: I think there are initiatives that the government has recently taken on that have been successful but need to be expanded upon and moved out of the pilot stage. For example, the Survivors of Gender-based Violence Benefit: we have heard from across our membership that being able to access this benefit for housing has been helpful for survivors, but that in accessing it, there have been certain barriers. Our understanding is that this is a pilot project that is two years in length. To see that benefit continue, expanding it further, and reducing the barriers to accessing it - for example, you need to be a Canadian citizen in order to access this benefit. Many of the folks who are coming into our shelters have precarious status, but in all other aspects would be eligible for this funding.
I also want to go back to the funding question very quickly, because I think something that I’m often hearing from a provincial level is a lot of the funding within our sector is for new or innovative solutions to gender-based violence. When making a funding application, you need to come up with an entirely new project or a new program in order to be eligible for funding. I think this is a real barrier to being able to sustain and expand existing programming and solutions that are working.
An example that I could provide is outreach in our rural communities, which my colleague Dr. McDavid spoke about. A lot of our member organizations have very large catchment areas and may only have one or two outreach workers providing services to three or four counties, but the funding to support those positions and expand outreach aren’t necessarily there. I think it’s really important to look at what’s working already. There’s no need to always reinvent the wheel.
SUSAN LEBLANC: This is a thing that throughout the not-for-profit sector drives me crazy: that there’s operational funding for certain things, but then otherwise you have to apply for project funding. You’re always coming up with an idea, and then you never know if you’re going to get it, and then it’s only a year long. I completely agree with you that we just have to make operational funding at least a three-year cycle or even more and, obviously, fund it properly.
I also want to speak about the housing benefit. My office and I have had two pretty big examples of those barriers. One was in the news a few weeks ago, and then we’ve been helping another person. The barriers are ridiculous. One situation is the lease that the person has is on the wrong letterhead, so it has delayed the receiving of the benefit by six weeks. We just have to do better.
Speaking of that, survivors face problems across the housing spectrum. We’ve heard from survivors who are struggling with wait-lists for public housing, struggling to access the Survivors of Gender-based Violence Benefit, struggling to change the name on rental leases, and struggling to sort out equity in the case of home ownership.
This is for you, Dr. Hansford: Can you speak to how your team of housing support workers is navigating those barriers in those situations?
MEGHAN HANSFORD: Sure. I think it falls in the interim between, as Dr. McDavid said, the way that the systems were created, especially with shelters, in the 1980s. It’s kind of remained siloed. Shelter will always be a critical support, but we need to be creative about how we’re reaching the folks who are looking out for support. One of those ways is providing wraparound care that is not just with housing support workers, but also with social workers, family that’s involved, having all that wraparound support.
The other is looking at how to creatively fill the gaps that are there. We’ve created a pilot project and we’ve been working on it at Adsum for a few years called housing advocacy and eviction prevention. It exists solely to prevent those from entering homelessness to begin with, to be able to avoid all of that trauma for children and women and families in particular, of entering the shelter system, and to create some stability. That is one way where you can apply for one-time funding, whether that means a down payment for your first month’s rent. That could even just be changing the locks on your house if the user/perpetrator has left. We’re looking at all of the different, creative ways that we can provide one-time supports and funding to be able to meet those needs, to keep people housed, and to further prevent trauma and harm.
In other ways, we also have a master lease program. Shelter is not the answer for everybody. Family composition, we’ve talked about that. If you have male children over the age of 16, you’re not necessarily eligible. There are wait-lists and strains that way. We have to look at ways where people can have access to supports and adequate shelter. We have a master lease program where families can move into leases, into apartments across the HRM, and they can stay there for as long as they need until they find suitable housing for themselves. If it’s a good fit for them and a good fit for the landlord, they can take over the lease. There are lots of different ways we can look at treating the housing piece in particular. We have to be creative around how we’re approaching it.
SUSAN LEBLANC: How often are women returning to violent relationships because alternative long-term accommodations or housing options aren’t there? Do we have any statistics?
THE CHAIR: Is that for Dr. Hansford again?
SUSAN LEBLANC: Anyone.
THE CHAIR: Anyone? Ms. de Ste Croix.
ANN DE STE CROIX: I don’t have specific numbers to offer, but what I can offer is that we do know that lack of affordable housing is one of the primary reasons why women return to their abusive relationships or are unable to leave in the first place.
The question around housing makes me think about second-stage housing here in the province. For those who are not familiar, second-stage housing is longer-term shelter that is being provided by our member organizations. Cape Breton Transition House - Dr. McDavid can speak to this more clearly. These are rental units that are offered at a discounted rate that are specifically for survivors of gender-based violence. There are a number of these units across the province, but we need an investment in more of them. They do provide a critical step in that housing spectrum for those who are leaving abusive relationships.
We are in a housing crisis here in the province, and we see the impact of that every day within our shelters. There was a question earlier about the vacancy rate within our shelters. Again, I can’t offer exact numbers, but I can say anecdotally that across the province, our member organizations are operating at capacity. There are circumstances - as Rachel Shepherd indicated - where we’re able to work together to accommodate someone, but that often means making someone leave their own community in order to get housing and be removed from the connections and the supports that they have in that community. I think second-stage housing is a critical point that we need to invest in.
SUSAN LEBLANC: Hearing all of that, are there any immediate steps we could take right now today to improve survivors’ access to safe housing, whether that’s more money for hotels or whatever. If someone calls you today and says: I’m in a very bad situation, what needs to be available for that person right now? How can we be making that better?
JODI MCDAVID: I think that more emergency funds that people could apply for would greatly help that. A lot of people do have a safety plan. They do have some support. Where they’re lacking is in that financial aspect. That is definitely a factor, whether that’s money for hotel stays or money for a first month’s rent or things like that. Those things are definitely something that comes up constantly.
Another thing that we run into is that people do want to access the shelters, but also, they want to have some access to some of the things in their home. While I understand this is Health and not Justice, one of the things that people can do is get an emergency protection order in order to have some access to the home. Unfortunately, within that system there are still some problems, and people have a very hard time getting an emergency protection order. There is also some education that is going on within that system with the judges and the legal support for that system, but it is a great tool to allow somebody to be able to have a time period to access a home where there’s been a lot of violence - for them to remove their children’s belongings, get their educational materials, or whatever so that they can actually depart. A lot of times, what’s happening is that the abuser is holding all means of departure - ID, whatever. Going back to that EPO system and improving that EPO system would be a great benefit, as would emergency money.
SUSAN LEBLANC: That’s really helpful. Thank you very much. Perhaps we can circle back around there. I just want to get through the questions I have planned, and then maybe come back and ask folks from the Department of Justice about that.
[1:45 p.m.]
Somebody mentioned this in their opening statement, but one thing we’ve been hearing more and more from experts on the ground about is that a free birth control program would help combat reproductive coercion. Can somebody speak to the potential benefits of having the costs of birth control covered through a pharmacare program for the individuals whom you work with? Actually, Ms. de Ste Croix, would you be willing to take that one on?
ANN DE STE CROIX: Sure, thank you. Yes, I think reproductive coercion is often not a form of abuse that people are familiar with or think about. As Dr. McDavid mentioned, many of the women who come into our shelters may be experiencing reproductive coercion and don’t have control over their own bodies. A form of abuse is restricting access to birth control or destroying someone’s birth control, which of course can have larger health implications with unwanted pregnancies.
To the point that Dr. McDavid raised, which is that finances are often also a barrier for women who are coming into our shelters and experiencing violence, this is just another barrier that they’re experiencing. Being able to access birth control at no cost would be invaluable in order to mitigate reproductive coercion, but also to give women more financial independence and control over their own bodies as well.
THE CHAIR: MLA Leblanc, with five seconds.
SUSAN LEBLANC: See you next round.
THE CHAIR: Thank you - 20 minutes are up. Next will be to MLA Rankin.
HON. IAIN RANKIN: I want to thank all the organizations, government officials, and those who are here sharing lived experiences. That’s very powerful testimony, and brave to come forward in the public and share things that are difficult to talk about. As a kid growing up in Timberlea, no matter how many times I hear the incident of Paula Gallant - that happened 20 years ago just a couple streets from where I grew up - it still touches me. I would recommend all Nova Scotians read the book, especially MLAs and those who are working in the field here.
I’ll just start with a general question to Ms. Gallant Blackburn. This is 20 years of advocating. That’s a long time. I just want to ask the question of how you’re feeling today. Are the things that you’ve been advocating for for so long - how do they differ from what you’re advocating for today?
THE CHAIR: Ms. Gallant Blackburn.
LYNN GALLANT BLACKBURN: Thank you for the question. It’s hard to believe that 20 years has passed. I will say, she still teaches. She teaches all of us that it is a human issue. It’s everyone’s issue. Through these past 20 years, I’ve been fortunate to be surrounded by incredible people who work in the sector who continue to drive change and continue to raise awareness about what is required to help eradicate intimate partner and gender-based violence.
I’m hopeful. I go through waves of feeling frustrated and feeling anger. I will tell you, each time we lose a woman in our province to intimate partner violence, it is a re-trigger for me. It’s a re-trigger knowing what those families are going to go through, and the journey that they’re going to travel. Whether the perpetrator kills himself or goes to jail, that family is left to travel this journey based on the actions of another human being.
I always say that it’s not just about funding, and I think that was mentioned today. It’s very complex, and I think we need to work together to understand the complexities and how to put forward the recommendations and funding that are going to support what we need to see going forward.
IAIN RANKIN: I want to talk about supports for families and what the government provides. I wonder if we could start with describing the types of supports that were received by you and family members back when the incident happened, and the medium of how those supports were delivered. This is so people can get an idea of - as you say, this is a very human issue and important for even the mechanism of how we provide supports as a government. How was that information provided to you and your family after such a tragic incident occurred?
LYNN GALLANT BLACKBURN: Well, again, if you can just imagine waking up and finding yourself in very uncharted waters, it’s like being dropped into a foreign country without a translator or a map. You wait for that person to come and make sense of it. You wait for the road map. You wait for somebody to decipher the steps.
In our case, which, again, was 20 years ago, I was told things like: Gosh, it’s a shame she died at Christmastime because we’re low on resources. I was told intimate partner violence is a hard case to solve. There was a lack of support. There was a lack of understanding what a family going though intimate partner violence - which I didn’t even understand existed.
I was fortunate at that time that the Status of Women Office provided tremendous support to me as did some of the transition houses, but within government - we did have a victim services department - both policing and on the justice side - but I would say those services were really broad and weren’t really focused on families that had endured intimate partner violence. I would say there have been improvements made, especially at that time. I will say that our family advocated for those changes, but I do know that there’s more work to be done. In hearing from other victims of either intimate partner violence or gender-based violence collectively, we need to improve those services, especially around the Criminal Injuries Counselling Program.
I know we made improvements in October around funding, which was great to see, but it’s not just about funding - it’s about making sure that families and especially the children have the support with regard to trauma-centric resources that can help to support them through their journey. It’s not just a one-time deal. We go through this our whole lives and I think we need to make sure that especially the children who potentially have been subject to abuse and violence get the long-term support that they need. What we don’t want is that behaviour to perpetuate as they get older and see recurrences of that.
IAIN RANKIN: A follow-up to that question around supports and the continuing of care, especially for youth: We’re talking about babies in many instances. I’ll ask the question first to you and then to government: Given that Paula’s daughter was 11 months old at the time and is now 20, has there been that direct reach-out in recent times, given that adolescence is a very vulnerable age, and how often do you see this reach-out happening?
LYNN GALLANT BLACKBURN: I don’t believe there’s a program within government today that exists to provide that and it certainly hasn’t been offered to Paula’s daughter. I will say that I would consider her to be one of the fortunate ones, because she’s grown up in our family and we’ve ensured that she has the support required and is engaged with professionals to help her through this journey. It’s not easy. When you think of the trauma that she has to process and then live with for the rest of her life, it is really complex. I think of the kids who grow up without that kind of support. I worry about how they’re functioning. When an 11-year-old son is on his dad’s back as he’s stabbing his mother repeatedly and there’s no follow-up to ensure that that child gets the support they need - is something I think we need to seriously look at.
IAIN RANKIN: Before I redirect to government, I’ll ask you another question in the same vein, because it was also Ms. de Ste Croix, I think, who mentioned the dearth of availability of training for specialized trauma care. I want to ask a question: If you think that mental health and addictions is the appropriate type of support for victims who have endured such heinous things happening to loved ones that surely have a long impact on them for the rest of their lives? Is the Mental Heath and Addictions Program really the appropriate spot for this type of treatment?
LYNN GALLANT BLACKBURN: In my experience and from speaking with others, it’s not. The front door in can be challenging. The assessments don’t always get to the level of complexity that the person is looking for support for, and getting the right resource the first time is key. I do know from experience. Twenty years ago, through the Criminal Injuries Counselling Program, we were sent a very extensive list of therapists whom the Province supported for supporting families. It’s the responsibility of the victim to literally vet that list and find a resource. I can tell you that both my sister and I did not experience anything positive through that. What I’m understanding now is the Mental Health and Addictions Program and that front door in is providing very similar challenges because we don’t have the depth of support to offer to victims of intimate partner violence.
IAIN RANKIN: I will ask the government a couple questions around that, but for the limited time we have, I want to ask about the Rewards for Major Unsolved Crimes Program because that was mentioned in the book and how it didn’t exist before the lobbying of the Justice Minister at the time. I think it was a previous PC government at the time. We had the rewards program, and we see it in emails and stuff. It’s still engaging. How do you feel that’s working today, and are there any modifications that you think could help to make sure that it is working to the best of its ability?
LYNN GALLANT BLACKBURN: You’re correct. We didn’t have one at the time, and our family lobbied for it. It was first launched with the $50,000 reward, and then we lobbied again, and it was increased to $150,000. Again, I believe that was in 2009, which was the last time the reward funding was available. We’ve had some success with the program, so I think that’s great. I also have seen where the reward has been increased, depending on the case, which I think is another positive. I think re-examining that funding and making sure that it’s adequate is key. We can’t just settle for things that are in place. We always have to review and make sure that they’re fitting the current needs.
IAIN RANKIN: I’ll cross over to the government officials, if I can ask a similar question. Is it still the practice that we give a general list of supports to victims and victims’ families? I know that in this case, something was mailed out, which I don’t think is a real human-centric approach. How does government deal with traumatic events and the victims and victims’ families, and how do they support them? Is it limited to mental health and addiction support or is there availability for private treatment? Are there holistic types of treatment for the families of victims? Maybe the Department of Justice would be appropriate.
THE CHAIR: ADM Carroll.
CYNTHIA CARROLL: I just want to acknowledge what Lynn very much described as the emotional and psychological impacts of IPV, and the government’s commitment to continue to support and do better for survivors on their path to healing.
With respect to what happens after an IPV incident, whether charges are still under investigation or before the courts, the provincial Provincial Victim Services Program at the Department of Justice actually reaches out through a phone call, not a letter, and has a conversation with the victim to talk about options and what services are available through Victim Services with the Province. Those services vary. We heard a little bit about criminal injuries counselling and, as also acknowledged, the hourly rate for that program has recently increased.
[2:00 p.m.]
What that has done, actually, is added an additional 70 psychologists and counsellors to the list that’s available to families. One of the things that is really important about that list is we are getting more culturally diverse counsellors, which is critically important, as well as more counsellors who speak various languages. Again, that’s very important in our province.
One of the important components of this is ensuring that all counsellors on the list do practise trauma-informed practice. The list is for a variety of different counselling and psychological services. IPV would be one, as well as human trafficking and other victims of criminal and violent crimes. The list is diverse, but we certainly are having improvements.
In addition to that, I also want to acknowledge that for children, under the Criminal Injuries Counselling Program, there is no defined time limit. Children actually can continue to access services up to the age of 19. There is no time limit on the use of those funds that are available because we do know that children grow and change and do need support across their childhood into youth and young adulthood. I think that might wrap up the question, but again, I want to give time to my other colleagues who may want to chime in on this.
THE CHAIR: MLA Rankin, do you want another one?
IAIN RANKIN: I just caught on something: that supports are available to the age of 19. You think about lifetime impacts from people who are dealing with incidents when they’re babies, and in university is one of the most stressful times in your life. Would you acknowledge that there could be some gaps within the CIC system and that we could be more proactive in dealing with circumstances that are life altering?
CYNTHIA CARROLL: Thank you for that follow-up. I would say that it’s critically important, as we listen to the first voices and lived experience here today and those across the province, that we always continue to review and look at whether or not the services and supports that we have in place are adequately supporting victims and survivors across the province.
THE CHAIR: MLA Mombourquette.
HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE: I appreciate everyone being here today. To both of you, thank you so much for telling us your story and taking the time to be with us in the committee today.
I only have a few minutes in this round, but I do want to talk about one thing. I think it’s an important conversation that we’re having. It’s been brought up a few times around substance abuse, and substance abuse being part of the issue. It’s been brought up multiple times in reports - the issue of substance abuse. As a Province, we talk about expanding access to certain products. There’s a conversation now around access to alcohol and expanding that beyond where we are now.
It’s important for me to hear from the organizations, as well, about the significance of substance abuse. Are the victims getting the supports that they need if they’re fleeing as a result of substance abuse or if they need support themselves? An important conversation as we’re having these conversations as a Province, expanding particular services - I offer that to any member of the committee.
THE CHAIR: Ms. Shepherd.
RACHEL SHEPHERD: It’s a challenge that we face every single day with the clients we serve. A lot of the clients we’re working with are using substances. They all intersect, all of these things that we’re talking about - mental health, addictions, trauma, poverty. I think it’s really important that we meet the survivors where they are, and we need a diverse range of services for the people we’re serving. I think, too, that both things can be true. You can be experiencing intimate partner violence and you can be experiencing mental health concerns or substance abuse. The intersection needs to be met. We need to have services for people who are experiencing all of those things, and it’s a delicate service to provide.
DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE: Thank you for that because it is an important conversation. It’s a conversation that goes to the comments that were made today around multiple departments of government coming together to work on an issue. As we expand a product or we expand a service, we need to ensure that we’re talking to the experts and advocates on the ground about some of these decisions we’re making.
My question, through you, Chair: Have any of you been consulted by government on the potential expansion of alcohol into stores or any of those decisions that government may make into the future?
THE CHAIR: Dr. Hansford had her hand up first.
MEGHAN HANSFORD: I think this is delicate territory because addiction is a symptom of trauma. Most of us probably operate from a harm reduction approach, working to support people on a continuum of care. It’s not so much the access to things, but it’s about actually doing that preventive work to prevent the trauma and deal with the trauma when it happens.
THE CHAIR: Order. Sorry. The 20 minutes for the Liberal caucus is up. Twenty minutes for the PC caucus - MLA Corkum-Greek.
HON. SUSAN CORKUM-GREEK: Thank you. I feel that it’s only appropriate if we could let the doctor continue.
THE CHAIR: You can do that. I couldn’t.
SUSAN CORKUM-GREEK: I know you can’t.
THE CHAIR: Dr. Hansford, go ahead and continue.
MEGHAN HANSFORD: Yes, addiction is a symptom. I think instead of focusing on that piece in itself - which is important for both perpetrators of abuse and children who grow up with that, and certainly for victims - we need to be looking at that level of intervention that happens immediately, either in childhood and getting those supports in place and counselling right in the immediate so we can start to unpack and dismantle that trauma and to give those supports before it moves on to anything else.
Addiction, in particular with survivors, is a coping mechanism because they don’t have access to appropriate timely treatments. When we look at the recommendations from the Desmond Fatality Inquiry, the Mass Casualty Commission, and the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, those are the key recommendations that we can all hopefully get on board with today to talk about.
We’re very housing focused, but one of the key recommendations is around looking at mental health and being able to target some funding and specific interventions: Indigenous-led health interventions, interventions with the Nova Scotia Sisterhood and the Nova Scotia Brotherhood to look into and support those things. If we could walk away from anything today, I think that’s a really important recognition - that mental health, supports, and trauma must be recognized from childhood on.
SUSAN CORKUM-GREEK: Thank you, Dr. Hansford. I think you were speaking to an important relationship, but also distinctions. I appreciate giving you the opportunity to continue those thoughts. To all of you - and I spoke to everyone, ironically, except for our departmental folks before the meeting started - again I would say thank you so much for being here. Thank you so much for the vitally important and not-a-bit-easy work that you do.
Every one of us sitting here are MLAs representing areas of this province, and we rely on our relationships with you, both to improve the services that we have but also to help us with individual cases with which we come into contact, and that’s very important. Particularly, to those bringing first voices, it is a particular courage to share those voices with us.
One of our colleagues earlier had asked about services and access. There was a very full answer from the ADM for Justice in terms of the services that are available and how the process works when an incident of intimate partner violence reaches the court system, reaches into the justice system. I’m wondering if we could have someone from Status of Women because, of course, there are different points along the journey of women and of families where there are other avenues to access services and supports. I’m hoping that someone could enlighten us a bit as to what those services are and how families and women can access them.
THE CHAIR: ADM Johnson-Morrison.
NICOLE JOHNSON-MORRISON: Thank you for the question. I think it’s an important opportunity for us to talk about the breadth of areas within which this work actually lives. I know that a lot of what I’ve heard from colleagues who sit on the panel today and who have shared about the work that they are actually involved in - but I think some of the pieces that Status of Women have been involved in have also helped to support and contribute to the work that many of these organizations are doing.
For example, in terms of what might be available, it might be free counselling. There’s the 211 Nova Scotia helpline and it’s for all genders, men, and women, for accessing support. If there’s anyone who’s facing some form of gender-based violence and is looking for opportunities to get some free counselling, that is available to all of them. We have supported a number of organizations like the Nova Scotia Native Women’s Association that provides this type of counselling and support to many who are accessing this type of service and who are actually facing some form of domestic violence. We’ve also provided funding to Lilac Place, which provides a lot of free trauma counselling. These are organizations that are at the forefront of the work. We’ve certainly heard from both first voices today in terms of how meaningful it is to actually have that connection to organizations that are living this in the sector all the time.
There are other places that we provide funding to, like Alice House, which provides counselling as well. These are really important pieces because it’s spread throughout the entirety of the province. In fact, I think we have supports for men and boys who are also part of this whole puzzle. It’s not just women who are impacted by domestic violence and intimate partner violence. We actually have 18 counsellors who are supporting men and boys, and this is throughout the entirety of the province.
Those are some of the pieces that I’d like to share, but I’d also like to invite my colleague, Josie McKinney, to share a little bit more about some of the work that we’re doing in this area.
THE CHAIR: Ms. McKinney.
JOSIE MCKINNEY: Thank you for the question and to my colleague for the opportunity to add to the answer. I think what’s really important is that there are multiple different points of entry for members of the community. What we know, especially from learning from our colleagues whom we provide support to - colleagues including those who are sitting at the tables in front of me - is that there’s no one door that’s going to fit everyone, especially when you start factoring in the diverse experiences that we have of Nova Scotians: the cultural differences, language differences, different intersecting needs and intersecting identities.
Part of the work that Status of Women does is when we are looking to support organizations, we’re looking at the breadth of organizations that we can provide and what are those organizations that are reaching populations that we perhaps haven’t been reaching? An example of that would be an organization called the POSSE Project, which is connected to the Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre, which works with youth at the street level. That’s a very challenging group of folks for government to connect to because there could be a lot of distrust in government.
Status of Women also just provided support to a program started by the Nova Scotia Brotherhood initiative called Barber Shop Talks, which is connecting with Black and African Nova Scotian men in spaces that make them feel comfortable. Working with the Nova Scotia Native Women’s Association and the Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre is really answering something that the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls called for, which is Indigenous-women-led projects - being able to provide funding to them to be able to provide a wraparound support that is cognizant of their unique needs as Indigenous people living in Mi’kma’ki. I think that is something that we do in partnership with other departments, but we also do in partnership with and informed by the expertise of folks whom we have here today.
[2:15 p.m.]
SUSAN CORKUM-GREEK: I’d like to, if I may, pose a question to Ms. Bowser. In your opening comments, you gave us some very impactful glimpses into the reality of your household. We’ve had other witnesses here speaking, notably Ms. Gallant Blackburn, about the impact on families, but when you speak of your child being unable to attend school - and as a mum who’s dealt with a child with an anxiety disorder, I respond to all the struggles that - you know, being a parent is one of the hardest jobs we ever had and yet you have gone through this trauma being tucked in with a crowbar. May none of us not be impacted when we hear those things.
Realizing that your children’s experiences are their own - as a mum, again, I don’t speak to my child’s experience. That’s hers to share. But as a mum, what supports have your family been able to access and, very much as importantly, what would you wish that there was in terms of any additional supports?
THE CHAIR: Ms. Bowser.
LUCY BOWSER: What I wish there were for supports is a more appropriate response system. I know I tend to sound hard on the RCMP but generally that’s the first point of contact. When you’re met with resistance and you’re met with a cloud of doubt and lack of interest, that’s definitely a barrier. I have accessed my local community shelter, which is Tearmann Society for Abused Women. They were very helpful. I did apply for an emergency protection order through them in the presence of their office.
Another barrier I ran into: I was denied that due to the fact that this was a Family Court matter. That was from the justice who heard my plea that day. I had also been denied a peace bond by a judge, and that was the rationale as well - that it’s a Family Court matter. We pushed on through the Family Court for two years to get my no-contact order. Then, of course, it was violated, and we’ve had multiple violations, being told by the RCMP that the Family Court order is not enforceable by the RCMP. I was told it was enforceable by Community Services, who, when I contacted them, had no idea what I was talking about.
There were so many barriers to getting that court order enforced and only has it been since last January, when there was a very bold violation of the court order where I made a social media post and I screamed from a rooftop that I was fearful for my life and my family’s life and I reached out to Ms. Blackburn, who also advocated on my behalf, that the father of my children, my ex-spouse, was criminally charged.
SUSAN CORKUM-GREEK: Thank you for sharing that. Those are all my questions at this time.
THE CHAIR: MLA Fadare. Did I get it right this time?
ADEGOKE FADARE: Yes, you did.
THE CHAIR: Perfect.
ADEGOKE FADARE: First of all, I really appreciate the incredible work you all are doing. It’s very important work. As a government, we recognize that it’s very important. I just want to ask you a quick question. We, as a government, recognize that gender-based violence is an epidemic and one that affects individuals, families, and entire communities, but with this issue it’s complex and widespread. It often feels overwhelming to know how to engage. Many people are deeply touched and they care about this, but they struggle to see how they can make a difference.
My question is to someone within the sector or probably someone within government. What advice do you have for people who recognize the urgency of this epidemic that we’re talking about here today and want to be part of the solution? What are the meaningful ways they can contribute, whether it’s at a personal level, as a community, or even regarding it as a system? As a follow-up, what are the practical steps - because I think it’s always essential - that all of us as Nova Scotians can take today to help create what we will call a safer community? Either anyone within the sector could go or Dr. McDavid.
THE CHAIR: Dr. McDavid.
JODI MCDAVID: That’s a great question. I think that, as Nova Scotians, there are a few things that we can do. One thing is I know that NSGEU has taken a huge stand against domestic violence, and they’ve talked to a lot of their members and developed policies about that. I think everyone could go to their workplace, even if it doesn’t directly affect them, and say, “What is our policy for domestic violence? What if somebody here suffers gender-based violence? What are we going to do for them? Are we going to make it easy for them to take their days off? Do we have an emergency fund as an organization?” This could be workplace, schools.
We have a lot of issues where somebody doesn’t have permission to take the children, but they’re showing up at the school. Even if it doesn’t affect you, use your voice and say, “What would happen?” If you’re on a school committee, “What does our school do in these situations? What provisions can we make for children going through these situations? Can exams be deferred?” Things like that.
I work at a university as well, and it also has come up at university. Students are having these issues. What can we do for students? What is the policy? How can people - making it really clear to people how they can access those special provisions.
I think another thing is that individuals can contact transition houses and take things. They usually have a healthy relationships course, and a lot of that is geared toward people who come through our shelter system, but it’s also done for the public. I think it’s very helpful to learn what some of the signs are that are problematic because a lot of people don’t realize. There are so many different ways in which people are abused, online and digitally. We all are aware of physical abuse, but there’s financial abuse, elder abuse. There are all sorts of different types of abuse now. I think trying to become more educated on it yourself is very helpful for an individual.
I also think that even if you’re a small organization - what we identified at one point is that one of the places where trafficking victims are most available for an intervention is a gas station. Even if you work at a gas station, you can talk at the gas station and say, “What will we do? How could we identify this? What should we be looking for?” If you’re not sure, reach out to an organization that could support you in making that policy or procedure.
THE CHAIR: Ms. McKinney.
JOSIE MCKINNEY: Thank you, Dr. McDavid, for your answer. To build on that, the great thing in this province is that there are so many experts at the forefront of this discussion that any Nova Scotian can tap into. If folks are looking for a great landing page, the Status of Women website does host the Province’s Nova Scotia Domestic Violence Resource Centre. Folks can go there to learn more. At that site, they will also find new documents prepared by the Department of Labour, Skills and Immigration that talk about how employers can show up for their workforce, not just through domestic-violence leave but to get to those points that were just shared about how you talk to an employee who’s experiencing intimate partner violence.
On that site, you can learn more about Western University’s Neighbours, Friends and Families program. I just want to acknowledge that the Transition House Association of Nova Scotia is helping to lead an additional rollout of that programming. That really is just what it says. It’s teaching neighbours, friends, and family to be able to have these tough conversations.
Finally, I would say that there’s a lot of work happening in our schools, not just on what it looks like to have a healthy relationship, but what it looks like to tackle unhealthy gender norms through programs like GuysWork, or to tackle systemic inequities, so conversations happening around Indigenous experiences, African Nova Scotian experiences. As parents, support those conversations. Support your children in-home as they navigate those tough challenges in school. There is a lot of opportunity for folks to become involved in a way that’s safe and responsible and we hope that they do.
ADEGOKE FADARE: I recognize I have only 30 seconds left. Just a quick one: The government is making historic investments in addressing this epidemic. I just want to ask this directly to ADM Johnson-Morrison. We know there’s a lot of funding that has been created. What programs and services have been presently strengthened as a result of that funding? I know there’s a historic (inaudible) over the years of about $17 million.
THE CHAIR: ADM Johnson-Morrison.
NICOLE JOHNSON-MORRISON: There has been a significant increase that has been made, as you point out, in the 2004-05 budget: the historic increase of $7.7 million, bringing the investment for core funding to the sector to $17.9 million. That has been historic because it had not happened in over two decades.
Additional to that, one of the things that’s been really important for us to do is to listen to the sector. Earlier this year, when THANS came to us to share that there was a specific need, telling us about what the sector was actually in need of, we responded by providing an additional $17.8 million specifically to respond to the request that came from the sector. It's really important for us to focus on being sector-led in this work and it’s really important that when the sector is advising us in terms of things that are required, that we’re able to respond. We were very pleased to be able to do that.
THE CHAIR: Order. That concludes the PCs’ time. The next round will be six minutes each. MLA Wilson.
ROD WILSON: Did you say six or 60?
THE CHAIR: It’s five for you now. No, six. (Laughter) Six minutes.
ROD WILSON: I’ll make the most of my time. I want to sincerely say thank you to everyone for coming today. I know first-hand, personally and professionally, the work that you do and I can’t thank you enough. Thank you for sharing your experiences first-hand. I sincerely mean that for many reasons.
I’m also really sorry you have to be here today, because I’ve heard your requests in this sector so many times before. You have to come here today and speak to us in front of television, share your personal experiences, to make asks. I’ve heard these over and over again. It must feel sometimes like no one’s really listening. To your point, Ms. Bowser, you have to shout at the top of your lungs. I’m truly sorry that you have to be here today and I hope you’re heard.
With that, I really want to direct my question to the deputy ministers. We’ve heard today about great investments in funding, but we’ve also heard from front lines that it’s not enough. It’s not enough. It’s not meeting - also the transition houses but long-term needs in terms of housing and mental health services. Cheques are great; action is better. Hearing all the barriers to care, to safety, my question to the deputy ministers: What will be three take-home, measurable asks that you’ll take to the minister today after listening to our guests? Measurable and doable - can you give me three asks that you’ll take to the minister today after everything you’ve heard?
THE CHAIR: ADM Carroll? Who wants to go first? ADM Carroll.
CYNTHIA CARROLL: Again, I want to thank everyone here today for sharing their experiences. To your point, it’s not easy, and there’s also a reliving of trauma that happens every time first-voice lived experience share their story, and that’s something, I think, that needs to be recognized and acknowledged.
There’s so much that we need to keep going. I think listening and learning and moving forward together, continuing to listen to the sector, understanding investments that have been made to date and how they’re having impact - when we talk about epidemic-level funding, I think it was acknowledged: What exactly does that mean and what will have the most impact? I think that’s the story that we’ve started to learn today and we’ll continue to learn. The information is there. I know that our minister and deputy minister are very committed, as is all of government.
[2:30 p.m.]
I think if anything, today has talked about the uniqueness of each person’s experience with intimate partner violence and the supports and services that are needed and the ongoing work that still needs to be done in collaboration with community and across government. There are many take-aways today, and I think it’s important to honour and recognize all that we’ve heard.
ROD WILSON: Great. Can you give me one recommendation that you’ll take to the minister based on what you heard today?
CYNTHIA CARROLL: I think for me, one of the things - a take-away for me - Ms. Bowser’s experience around the importance of education and training across the sector and understanding - whether it’s an emergency protection order or a peace bond - how those are implemented and our response to victims and survivors in the intimate partner violence space.
THE CHAIR: MLA Leblanc.
SUSAN LEBLANC: With the last few seconds that I have: We have touched on this peace bond situation and the RCMP not being able to enforce Family Court orders. I’m wondering if, Ms. Bowser, you could speak to any other failures of the justice system that impact the mental health of survivors and any recommendations you can offer that we can take away.
THE CHAIR: Ms. Bowser.
LUCY BOWSER: I think for that I’ll speak mostly on behalf of my children. When we reach out to RCMP, the feeling of being safe - it gets denied. The kids, obviously, are conscious of the fact of what’s happening, because it’s happening to them too. When we think we’re going to get help and we don’t, I have to explain to them that this isn’t going to happen or that isn’t going to happen - we don’t have this peace bond and it’s every man for himself. We have to cover each other’s backs. That’s really difficult.
If I could just speak quickly too about support for - in my experience, Tearmann Society for Abused Women - there was nothing more they could do. They didn’t have the supports, legally, and I had to - that was it. There was nothing else they could offer me because they were not supported by the system.
THE CHAIR: MLA Leblanc, five seconds.
MLA Rankin for six minutes.
HON. IAIN RANKIN: I have a specific one that I’ll follow up with to see if there’s traction. When witnesses to crimes of this nature and other natures go to court, they are paid $5 per diem, and they get 15 cents per kilometre. I brought this up in the House recently and the minister committed that she would absolutely - her words - look into it.
I just want an update on if there’s been traction on that. It’s April, and I think government people know that they see their adjustments - they get paid about 60 cents per kilometre when they travel. If we want people to step up and present in court to hold people to account, that should be adjusted. I just want to ask Justice if they’ve made the adjustment or if they’re going to.
THE CHAIR: ADM Carroll.
CYNTHIA CARROLL: I want to acknowledge that, as you acknowledge, the minister recognizes that the witness fees under the Costs and Fees Act haven’t been updated in over 20 years. The minister has committed to reviewing them. That work is beginning.
We, again, recognize that work will also help ensure greater access to justice for witnesses by reviewing those fees. Our minister and the department are committed to doing that work.
IAIN RANKIN: It seems pretty straightforward when we’re, I think, at the end of the pack in the country.
I’ll ask a question around the policing issue. The Mass Casualty Commission did make clear that failures in policing, particularly around ignoring warning signs of gender-based violence, contributed to preventable tragedy. I think Ms. Bowser did a great job today highlighting some of the breakdowns and the culture within our agencies. The recommendation that the Province look at a policing review came out. The Province is six months later than the commission recommended to put that review together and it was due in April. I asked about this a couple of times, and we continue to drag on and we still have no review to look at structural change in policing in the province to prevent things like this from happening. Can I get an update on when this review will actually come out? I’ll also ask a supplementary: if the Status of Women are engaged in that review.
CYNTHIA CARROLL: We certainly understand the urgency of the policing review as it pertains to the Mass Casualty Commission and the large portion of work that relates to that review. The review is coming forward. I think the commitment was Spring 2025, and my understanding is that we are still on track.
IAIN RANKIN: I will note that HRM also tasked a review finding the exact same things about the challenges with the policing model and they’re waiting for leadership from the Province before they can make any significant structural change in the HRM area with a dual policing model. Time is of the essence, but I’ll also reference a motion that I will be putting forward around putting together a round table. There is precedent for this. Certainly, in HRM there was a previous round table with respect to violent crime in the city. Given that this is an epidemic and that we need a societal response, I’d ask if the advocates or organizations would think that a round table would be helpful.
THE CHAIR: Anybody? Dr. Hansford.
MEGHAN HANSFORD: I think that’s exactly one of the recommendations and the way that we need to move forward. This is not going to be solved by Health alone. It’s not going to be solved by the Department of Opportunities and Social Development or the Department of Growth and Development. This needs to come from all levels of government, Indigenous governments, and across departments. Until those conversations are happening and those silos are broken down, we’re only going to be working on little pieces. It really does need to come together and be sewn into the fabric. Absolutely, that is a good step forward.
THE CHAIR: Ms. Gallant Blackburn.
LYNN GALLANT BLACKBURN: If I could add to that, because I think that’s an excellent point, but I also think victims need to be present. As I mentioned, I was invited to Ottawa in March to participate in a round table for victims of crime. The sharing of information is extremely beneficial in moving forward change and improving programs. I think any round table that happens has to have the presence of not only government but victims and those impacted by intimate partner and gender-based violence.
THE CHAIR: Anyone else? MLA Rankin’s asking. Ms. de Ste Croix.
ANN DE STE CROIX: I’m seeing a tick-down. Sorry. I just have a general comment that I want to share, which is: To go back to the mental health and addiction services and other systems that victims and survivors interact with, I think what we’re talking about is making these systems survivor centred. What that means is often the burden of violence is placed on victims and their families and those within their lives - the community at large. I think we need to make those systems trauma-informed, violence-informed, asking survivors and their families: What do you need in making those accessible as best as possible?
THE CHAIR: You did that exactly at zero, so I didn’t have to interrupt you. Last six minutes - MLA Hilton.
NICK HILTON: Thank you, everyone, for joining us today for this eye-opening conversation. It’s something that we’ve personally experienced in Yarmouth in the last eight months, and our community still continues to heal and grieve as we move forward. I’ve been wide-eyed just listening to the stories and the information being shared here today, and I can’t thank you enough.
I’d like to shift the conversation just a little bit. We know where there are victims and survivors that there is a perpetrator. I know not all perpetrators are men, but I think we can fairly say that in the majority of times they are. This question is to Ms. McKinney: What kind of role does prevention play in your work? In particular, I’m interested in understanding how we are reaching boys and men in setting new expectations, and whether you have seen success in that approach.
THE CHAIR: Ms. McKinney.
JOSIE MCKINNEY: Prevention is, as has been already said, absolutely critical. That includes reaching those who use violence, who are predominantly men. There is some really groundbreaking work happening in Nova Scotia.
On the prevention side, I’ve already mentioned the GuysWork program. What’s really impressive about GuysWork is that it has gone through an evaluation, and some of the feedback that we’re hearing from boys who have completed that program - for folks who don’t know, it’s Grades 6 through 9 - is that we’re seeing increases in their being willing to seek help, which is critically important, and decreases in feelings of loneliness. This is a program that’s actually recognized nationally. There are other programs complimentary to that where we see healthy relationships for youth. That’s led by the Antigonish Women's Resource Centre & Sexual Assault Services Association, and some bystander training that that centre is also helping the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development to develop.
Moving into prevention and response, the Strengthening Fathers program which is led by the Department of Opportunities and Social Development but is delivered on the ground by organizations like New Directions, BRIDGES institute, Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre, the East Preston Family Resource Centre, and many others - Family Service Nova Scotia, New Leaf. These are organizations that, due to their collaboration, are offering programming now in this province in all 18 counties at various levels of intervention. Going back to that - having multiple different doors of entry.
One success story that I’ll share from that which really gets at the multigenerational impact is one of those programs works with both women and men together. One of those programs - New Directions in Amherst - when they first started, it was mostly referrals coming from systems, not men self-referring. They’re really starting to see a significant increase in men self-referring to that. One story that was shared was a father who had successfully completed the program brought his young son to go meet the staff who work there because he was so proud of what he achieved and really wanted to share that experience of getting help and being vulnerable. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t more work to be done - of course, I think we’ve all learned that today, there is so much work to be done - but I think it’s incredible to see what is happening.
The last thing I’ll say, just on engaging men and boys, I would be remiss to not mention the leadership of women and women-serving organizations in calling men in to do that work. It’s just such a great collaborative approach that’s happening in this province to get everyone involved.
THE CHAIR: MLA Robicheau.
RYAN ROBICHEAU: Thank you, everyone, for being here and sharing your experience. I understand that the Desmond Fatality Inquiry Final Report includes 25 recommendations, 12 specific to the Department of Justice. My question is for ADM Carroll: I’m wondering what the progress is on those actions to date. I know that we’re pressed for time.
THE CHAIR: ADM Carroll.
CYNTHIA CARROLL: As you acknowledged, the Desmond Fatality Inquiry stands as a firm reminder as to why the work across government to address intimate partner violence, mental health, and public safety is so critical. We know that the work for the inquiry is actually happening alongside the recommendations for the Mass Casualty Commission Final Report which actually allows for greater collaboration and a whole-of-government response to this important issue.
We are making progress on the 12 Desmond Fatality Inquiry recommendations involving the Department of Justice. We know that five are considered complete in that report, five are well under way, and two actually continue to require advocacy between Nova Scotia and the federal government.
RYAN ROBICHEAU: Thank you. That’s all I have.
[2:45 p.m.]
THE CHAIR: I’m going to allow closing comments. I’m going to go backwards from how I went forward. Ms. McKinney, do you have any closing comments you’d like to add?
JOSIE MCKINNEY: I’ll defer to my colleague, ADM Johnson-Morrison.
THE CHAIR: ADM Johnson-Morrison.
NICOLE JOHNSON-MORRISON: Thank you for the opportunity to have been here today. It was really important to hear the first-voice experiences, so thank you to all the witnesses who took the opportunity to share today. This work is important, and we’re continuing to work from the perspective of this being very sector-led, and we look forward to continuing our engagement with the sector going forward.
THE CHAIR: ADM Carroll.
CYNTHIA CARROLL: Thank you again, Chair, members of the committee, and fellow witnesses. I want to echo my colleague’s gratitude for being here today. I appreciate the opportunity and the highlighting of the amazing work of this sector, the first voices, and lived experience. We know that intimate partner violence is a complex and deeply rooted issue, one that continues to demand many of the supports and services we talked about here today. I want to thank you for the thoughtful questions and ongoing commitment to work collaboratively across the whole of government, as well as with community, first voice, and lived experience on this critically important issue.
THE CHAIR: Ms. Gallant Blackburn.
LYNN GALLANT BLACKBURN: I just want to think MLA Iain Rankin for inviting me here today. I will say that I’m really encouraged by the collaborative work being done by the sector. I’m part of a bigger GBV advocacy group, and the work that they do, to me, is the most selfless work in serving women and girls in our province, and I feel very fortunate to be part of that group and to champion any causes that they see are relevant to helping end men’s violence against women in Nova Scotia.
THE CHAIR: Ms. Bowser.
LUCY BOWSER: Thank you very much for listening today. It doesn’t alleviate the stress and the experiences of my family. However, it does make it more purposeful if things can change and we can help other women and other children.
THE CHAIR: Ms. de Ste Croix.
ANN DE STE CROIX: I want to thank the committee, once again, for the opportunity to speak today and for dedicating time and attention to this issue as a matter of public health. I’m going a little off script. I want to thank MLA Susan Leblanc for the point made earlier. I’ve been doing this for just a few years now, and I am building off the calls to action that have come from those before me. I am saying the same thing that they have been saying for decades. I urge you to have this conversation with survivors, with frontline workers, and organizations like THANS and the others that are represented here today.
As has been shared many times before, we need long-term investment. We need collaboration. We need a shared commitment to transforming the systems that survivors rely on. As I said, the systems as they currently exist place the burden of violence on survivors. They are asked to leave. They are asked to seek support and services. They are made to prove the violence that they’ve experienced. When we support women and families impacted by violence, we strengthen the overall health and well-being of our entire province.
THE CHAIR: Dr. McDavid.
JODI MCDAVID: I want to refer to a few things that were asked today. One thing I want to mention is that policies vary for all the shelters across the province. In ours, certainly, we accept dependent children regardless of gender and age, so a whole family unit could come in if they’re currently living together.
One of the reasons we talked about using birth control is because during pregnancy, women are at higher risk of abuse. That’s why birth control would make such a big difference for the province. The woman can be more easily controlled when she’s pregnant, and she’s more easily confined and other things.
As for mental health and addictions, we definitely need a path for gender-based violence victims to access it. We see a lot of people who have come through trafficking who have now been made dependent on substances. We also see very short stays through mental health and addictions or the inability to go to a longer-stay detox centre anymore, and this is something that would greatly benefit gender-based violence victims. As well, our shelters are communal living. If somebody comes in with a mental health issue that is not medicated or has a severe addiction, it’s very hard to accommodate them. We do our best, but we have many women and children in the shelter, and we have to protect the children.
Also, while everyone is here, I just want to take the opportunity to encourage government to get away from using the term “Desmond Inquiry,” as members of the community have expressed some concerns about that. Perhaps we can all move forward to referring to it by a specific date or the inquiry on a specific date. Using that name continues to traumatize a group of people - a family, a community - and I think we could definitely move past it. We don’t refer to other casualties in the same way, and having the name attached to it is a continuing harmful practice.
THE CHAIR: Dr. Hansford.
MEGHAN HANSFORD: I’m just going to go back to epidemic-level funding and what that means. In Canada, the costs of gender-based violence are alarming and staggering. We’re spending $12.2 billion annually. That’s what it costs. We don’t have the numbers here in Nova Scotia around what we’re spending, but we know that the rates are increasing and therefore the costs are continuing to rise.
We can’t use the same approaches that we have been historically - throwing money at band-aids. We need these concrete solutions that we’ve all talked about today around core funding, collaboration, and diversity between the sectors - who’s at the table - and across government. I think if we look above and beyond the benefits to the individual and society, it makes financial sense to be moving toward a preventive framework as opposed to a responsive one.
I just want to thank the honourable Iain Rankin and MLA Rod Wilson for creating some tangible action points. We are tired of having this conversation for decades. We’ve been doing this work for decades. Now is the time to move forward.
THE CHAIR: Ms. Shepherd.
RACHEL SHEPHERD: Thank you. Often the systems that we’ve discussed today are not survivor-centred. To ask for help can trigger intervention by systems that can feel like punishment. The women we serve need not to be punished but supported.
I want to reiterate that this is no longer a women’s issue. We truly need the commitment of all Nova Scotians.
THE CHAIR: I would like to thank all you folks who came here. I’m going to excuse you from this, because we’re done with your part.
I’m going to take a quick two-minute break to allow them to get out before we do it so we can finish up our business. We’re in recess for two minutes.
[2:52 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[2:55 p.m. The committee resumed.]
THE CHAIR: I’m calling the meeting back to order. The clerk’s not here because she’s letting the librarians know that they’re not going to be coming in as part of the agenda because we’ve run out of time. The librarians will be here at the next meeting, and we’ll adjust the schedule to make sure.
There’s correspondence from Diabetes Canada. Everybody has it. I expect that they’ll look at it for topic selection.
MLA Rankin.
HON. IAIN RANKIN: We’ve got a little bit more time than a member statement. My motion is:
Whereas since October 2024, there have been no less than eight femicides in Nova Scotia and countless cases of violence against women;
Whereas gender-based violence has been recognized as an epidemic in Nova Scotia;
Whereas Recommendation 14 of the Mass Casualty Commission calls on Canadians to mobilize a society-wide response to this epidemic;
Therefore be it resolved that the Standing Committee on Health writes to the Premier's Office to request the formation of a round table group focused on the epidemic of gender-based violence. This group should include individuals from throughout Nova Scotia who will bring a diverse range of experience and perspectives, including representatives from the following groups: survivors of gender-based violence; non-profit organizations working to reduce gender-based violence; law enforcement organizations; the provincial departments of Health, Justice, Opportunities and Social Development, and the Advisory Council on the Status of Women; MLAs and government ministers.
This is a pretty straightforward motion that I provided in advance to the committee today, and I’d like support from the members - as was also supported, I will note, by some of our witnesses today; organizations that support women especially. I think it’s something that we can constructively put forward as the Health Committee. It’s not something that we could task ourselves, but the Premier’s Office is certainly the appropriate lead. If I can get the endorsement of the committee on that motion, I’d be very thankful, please. I’ll record that vote too.
THE CHAIR: Thank you for submitting it. MLA Leblanc.
SUSAN LEBLANC: Thank you very much to my colleague for putting this motion on the table. I will just say that in principle, we support this idea. Absolutely we need to have something happening, but I just want to reiterate what we heard today from our witnesses which is that they are tired. There are answers that have already been determined. Like I said, we support the intention behind this, and I think a round table is important, but I also think that we need to remember that answers are available and we need action more than we need to continue discussing and asking the questions.
Yes, we will support this motion.
THE CHAIR: MLA Corkum-Greek.
HON. SUSAN CORKUM-GREEK: Much in that same vein - and I do greatly appreciate that the motion was circulated before the meeting. I deeply appreciate having the time to think about these things - because we have heard from witnesses today, because we saw a conflict even with the Community Services Committee looking to have and then realizing the overlap - if we could defer a decision on this until our next meeting. My ask is to check in with the Executive Council Office because think, again, we’d be looking at largely the same people who are already perhaps represented on the Progress Monitoring Committee for the Mass Casualty Commission. If we can have that time to check in, that would be our ask.
IAIN RANKIN: Given that advocates have been waiting so long, I don’t think another week - or, I guess it’s another month . . .
THE CHAIR: One month.
IAIN RANKIN: One month, I don’t think that’s unreasonable to get an affirmative vote from the government members. I think that we can do that.
THE CHAIR: MLA Corkum-Greek, please either put a motion or talk for the next 30 seconds to have it deferred to the next meeting.
SUSAN CORKUM-GREEK: Thank you, Chair. I move that we defer a decision on this matter until the next meeting.
THE CHAIR: Okay. There is a motion on the floor.
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried.
This will be on the agenda. The next meeting we have is June 10, 2025, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Barrier-Free Access to Contraception and Sexual Health Services, including PrEP, for Nova Scotians. Witnesses are the Department of Health and Wellness, Dr. Robert Strang, Chief Medical Officer of Health - awaiting confirmation; Access Now Nova Scotia; the North End Community Health Centre; Wellness Within; the Dalhousie University College of Pharmacy, Professor Kyle Wilby; ROSE Clinic; and the Halifax Sexual Health Centre.
[3:00 p.m.]
Does anybody have any questions on this? MLA Wilson.
ROD WILSON: Do we have witnesses confirmed, and are there any pending?
THE CHAIR: The only one pending, as per the document, is Dr. Strang. I expect he’ll be here, but we’re just waiting.
We’ve passed the moment. I should have already adjourned us. We’re adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 3:00 p.m.]
