[Page 4693]

HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 2026

Sixty-fifth General Assembly

First Session

1:04 P.M.

SPEAKER

Hon. Danielle Barkhouse

DEPUTY SPEAKERS

Marco MacLeod, Tom Taggart, Julie Vanexan

THE SPEAKER » : Please rise, if able, for the singing and playing of "O Canada."

[The national anthem was played.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. Before we start the Daily Routine, the late debate topic was submitted by the honourable member for Dartmouth North. I will read the full statement before we start:

Therefore be it resolved that this government immediately take steps to make sure every Nova Scotian has a home that they can afford.

PRESENTING AND READING PETITIONS

PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS

STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS

GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTIONS

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister responsible for Military Relations.

RESOLUTION NO. 482

HON. BARBARA ADAMS « » : Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:

[Page 4694]

Whereas in 1993 Queen Elizabeth II established the Canadian Victoria Cross. It is the highest award in the Canadian honour system. It shall be awarded for the most conspicuous bravery, a daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of enemy; and

Whereas despite many examples where members of the Canadian Armed Forces have displayed uncommon acts of bravery and valour, to date no Canadian Victoria Crosses have been awarded; and

Whereas retired General Rick Hillier, former chief of the Defence Staff and the non-profit group Valour in the Presence of the Enemy, have been working on an initiative to see deserving members of the Canadian Armed Forces considered for this honour;

Therefore be it resolved that in the opinion of this House the Government of Canada should establish an independent military honours review board to review veterans' cases where evidence suggests that the criteria for the Victoria Cross were met.

I request waiver of notice and passage without debate.

THE SPEAKER « » : There has been a request for waiver.

Is it agreed?

It is agreed.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

The honourable Minister of Public Works.

RESOLUTION NO. 483

HON. FRED TILLEY « » : Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas the winter of 2026 has been an especially difficult winter season; and

Whereas the hard-working men and women of the Department of Public Works have worked around the clock to keep our roads clear, our highways safe, and our communities connected through heavy snowfalls, freezing rain, and dangerous road conditions; and

Whereas their commitment is not just a job, it is a service to every single Nova Scotian who relies on safe travel to get to work, to school, and to their loved ones;

[Page 4695]

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this Legislature extend our sincere gratitude to all Public Works staff for their professionalism, resilience, and unwavering dedication. They are truly the unsung heroes of the winter season.

Speaker, I request waiver of notice and passage without debate.

THE SPEAKER « » : There has been a request for waiver.

Is it agreed?

It is agreed.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

The honourable Minister of Communities, Culture, Tourism and Heritage.

RESOLUTION NO. 484

HON. DAVE RITCEY « » : Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas Nova Scotia's Carly Clarke is a revered basketball coach with extensive university, national, and international competition experience and a focus on player development and defensive play; and

Whereas last week Coach Clarke was named Assistant Coach of the WNBA's Toronto Tempo, making her the first Canadian coach of Canada's first WNBA team; and

Whereas Coach Clarke demonstrates leadership, trust, and respect, bringing her enthusiasm and love of the game of basketball to her team and inspiring athletes to be the best they can be, on and off the court;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House congratulate Halifax, Nova Scotia's Carly Clarke on these remarkable achievements and recognize the pride and inspiration she brings to people across the province.

Speaker, I request waiver of notice and passage without debate.

THE SPEAKER « » : There has been a request for waiver.

Is it agreed?

It is agreed.

[Page 4696]

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill No. 252 - An Act Respecting a Well-being Budget. (Hon. Iain Rankin)

THE SPEAKER « » : Ordered that this bill be read a second time on a future day.

NOTICES OF MOTION

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cole Harbour.

INT'L. DAY OF PINK: STAND AGAINST BULLYING - RECOG.

HON. LEAH MARTIN « » : I rise today to recognize the International Day of Pink, a day dedicated to standing up against bullying, discrimination, and hatred in all its forms, particularly toward members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, while promoting a world rooted in acceptance, inclusion, and respect.

The International Day of Pink was inspired by a powerful act of support when students took a stand against homophobic bullying by wearing pink. What began as a simple gesture has grown into a global movement that continues to remind us of the impact of courage and compassion. Today wearing pink is a reminder that everyone deserves to feel safe, wherever they find themselves, regardless of who they are or who they love.

This day calls on each of us to reflect on our words, our actions, and the role we play in shaping communities. It challenges us to speak out against discrimination and to uplift those whose voices are too often silenced.

May this day serve as a reminder of our shared responsibility to foster a culture of respect and compassion in all we do.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

CRANSTON, TODD: SMU GRADUATE - CONGRATS.

LISA LACHANCE « » : I rise to recognize Todd Cranston, Saint Mary's University's newest graduate. Some may know Todd from his career with Hetek Solutions and also as a dedicated Citadel High hockey coach. He's been battling an aggressive form of brain cancer since the fall of 2025.

One thing left on his to-do list was finishing his Bachelor of Arts degree at Saint Mary's University. In late March, Saint Mary's was able to assess his life experience, career, and contributions made to community over the past four decades and determined that he had indeed completed his final credits. On March 25^th, in full regalia, Todd officially became a graduate of Saint Mary's University. His family thanks Saint Mary's and Hospice Halifax for making this happen quickly and making the ceremony so special.

[Page 4697]

I ask all members to join me in congratulating Todd Alexander Cranston, Bachelor of Arts, Class of 2026. (Applause)

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Yarmouth.

NICK HILTON « » : Before I begin my statement, I beg leave to make an introduction.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

NICK HILTON « » : In your gallery, I'm pleased to introduce two members of Team Stevens curling team, who represented Nova Scotia at the 2026 Scotties Tournament of Hearts. Joining us today are skip Taylour Stevens and third Maria Fitzgerald. With them are Jeff and Colleen Fitzgerald, who are the parents of Maria and her sister and teammate Cate Fitzgerald.

Taylour, Maria, Jeff, and Colleen, would you please rise and receive the warm welcome of the House? (Standing ovation)

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome. We hope you enjoy your time here.

The honourable member for Yarmouth.

TEAM STEVENS: 2026 SCOTTIES TOURN. OF HEARTS CH'SHIP. - CONGRATS.

NICK HILTON « » : It is my great pleasure to welcome members of Team Stevens to the Legislature today. This outstanding team curls out of the Halifax Curling Club and has strong ties across the province, including in Yarmouth. Team Stevens proudly represented Nova Scotia at the 2026 Scotties Tournament of Hearts this past January in Ontario. Curling is a cherished part of my life, as it is for many Canadians, and we were extremely proud to see not one but two teams wearing Nova Scotia colours at the national championship. This a first for our province.

[1:15 p.m.]

The only other time we have seen dual representation at this level was when Nova Scotia legend Colleen Jones wore Team Canada colours on four occasions, a testament to the excellence our province continues to produce in the sport of curling.

We are incredibly proud of the members of this team: skip Taylour Stevens, third Maria Fitzgerald, second Alison Umlah, lead Cate Fitzgerald, and coach Kevin Ouellette. They carried the Nova Scotia banner proudly and delivered exceptional results, finishing the round robin with an impressive 6-2 record. In a dramatic final round robin game, down by one in the 10^th end against Ontario, Team Stevens secured a playoff spot with an incredible in-off takeout for the win. It's a shot already being compared to one of the greatest moments in curling history, when Jennifer Jones made a similar shot to win the 2005 Scotties.

[Page 4698]

They concluded their run in an all-Nova Scotia matchup against Team Black. This was another proud moment for our province and a reflection of the depth of talent we have here at home.

I ask all members of the House and all Nova Scotians to join me in congratulating Team Stevens on their outstanding success and to thank them for representing our province with such pride and excellence on the national stage. We wish you continued success in the future. (Standing ovation)

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Lunenburg West.

KRISTA'S SHEEP: LOCAL BUSINESS - RECOG.

HON. BECKY DRUHAN « » : I rise today to recognize Krista's Sheep, a local business rooted in care, stewardship, and community. Since 2013 Krista Harding has built more than a farm. She's created something that reflects the best of Lunenburg County: thoughtful stewardship of the land, respect for animals, and a deep connection to community. Her approach is simple but powerful: raising her flock, "nurtured naturally, with care . . . from conception to completion."

This is truly a local story. The flock's winter home where rams romance the ewes is in Petite Rivière, and every summer moms and lambs make their way to the rich pastures of Wiles Lake where they grow and thrive on some of the finest land our region has to offer.

Like any good operation there's strong leadership on the ground, including Fiona the donkey, who joined the flock in 2018 and has since made it clear that the sheep are hers to look after, keeping watch and protecting them from wandering coyotes with quiet determination.

Krista's Sheep is the kind of business that reflects who we are: rooted, resourceful, and quietly excellent. It's a reminder that local food is not just about what's on our plates but about the people, the land, the creatures, and the care behind it.

I ask members to join me in thanking Krista and her team for what they've built, their pride in their work, and the example they set for our community.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier.

[Page 4699]

CRUEL CUTS: PROGRAMS AND GRANTS CUT - SHAME

KENDRA COOMBES « » : April continues to be the cruelest month as the PC government's cuts take effect. Cuts to the Department of Natural Resources include Ecological Forestry Implementation, reduced; Biospring/Greenspring grant, which allows for low-carbon economy, reduced; Outreach private woodlot, reduced; and grants to regional services and public education, reduced.

Cuts to the Department of Public Works include the School Bus Campaign Sponsorship, full cut; bicycle safety initiatives, full cut; Dalhousie University concrete bridge research, full cut; and the Nova Scotia Transit Research Incentive Program, cut in full.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cumberland South.

KAYE, MIKE: DEATH OF - TRIBUTE

HON. TORY RUSHTON « » : I rise today to recognize the life of Mike Kaye. Mike was a permanent fixture around the Springhill Fire Department. For decades he sold 50/50 tickets, bagged ice for sale as a fundraiser, and helped around the station while the crews were out.

I got to know Mike in 1998 while I was fighting a fire in Springhill, and we've been great friends ever since. In fact, in 2018, during my by-election, Mike showed up to my office. He was voter number one in my by-election, so he was officially my first voter who ever supported me.

His topics of knowledge were wide and vast, but the fire service was always his top one. He knew every fire truck from every fire station around Cumberland County. He knew the gallonage it would pump, and if that truck left the station, he knew exactly where it went to serve the people in other areas.

In the past few years, Mike's health hasn't allowed him to be around the fire station, but rest assured, Mike was proud of the new fire station that Springhill opened recently. Many friends are going to miss Mike, inside and outside the fire service. I can think of many firefighters who are thinking of Mike right now - his great friend Doug Dobson.

Speaker, I just wanted to stand and let our buddy Mike know. Rest in peace, buddy. The crews have it from here. I hope you enjoyed your last call. A moment of silence, please.

THE SPEAKER « » : We'll stand for a moment of silence.

[A moment of silence was observed.]

THE SPEAKER « » : You may be seated.

[Page 4700]

The honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

ASHBY LEGION BR. 138: 100^TH ANNIV. - CONGRATS.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Speaker, I rise in my place to recognize the Ashby Legion Branch 138. This year it's celebrating its 100^th anniversary. For 100 years, the Legion in Ashby has supported veterans all over the CBRM and supported the greater community in the best of times and in some of the most difficult times. I rise in my place. I look forward to seeing everyone when we get home to celebrate the 100^th anniversary of an important place, an important space for veterans in our community, the Ashby Legion Branch 138.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Argyle.

HON. COLTON LEBLANC « » : Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

COLTON LEBLANC « » : Speaker, it's a long way to the beautiful constituency of Argyle, but I have to remind members it's just as far from Halifax to Argyle as it is Argyle down to Halifax. It's always extra special to get some visitors from home. In your gallery this afternoon, I'm pleased to welcome to the House a good friend Robert Amirault, who is from Lower East Pubnico. I ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming Robert to the House.

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome, welcome. We hope you enjoy your time here.

The honourable member for Bedford South.

C.P. ALLEN CHEETAHS: FOOTBALL DIVISION TITLE - CONGRATS. 

DAMIAN STOILOV « » : Speaker, I rise today to talk about the game of football, something that's near and dear to my heart, and also about a high school team from Bedford - not only Bedford South, but Bedford Basin as well. That's the Charles P. Allen Cheetahs team.

On a hot night on a Friday afternoon in August, I went to watch a practice. You knew this team was going to be special. You could just hear the hits three blocks away. Boy, did they deliver this season. Unbeaten, they outscored the opposition 397 to 37 and played our Number 1 competitor, the high school right up the street, Citadel High School, who we were just waiting to beat for years in a championship game. That's exactly what they did: 22-0 to win their first Division 1 title ever. I just want to say congratulations and all the best next year. They have more than half of the returning players coming back.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

[Page 4701]

PROVINCE HOUSE STAFF: APPRECIATED EFFORTS AND HARD WORK - THANKS

SUZY HANSEN « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize the staff here at Province House: the Pages, the Clerks, the Commissionaires, the librarians, Legislative Television, the cleaners, the security team, and everyone in between. They helped to make our long days and nights bearable with friendly conversations, helpful nature, and great personalities. Our long sittings would not have been possible without the staff and their calm spirit in this House. I would like all members to join me in saying thank you. Thank you, thank you for all of your hard work and helpfulness to us during our time here in this House.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

PROVINCE HOUSE STAFF: CAUCUS APPRECIATION - THANKS

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Speaker, as a caucus we want to rise in our place to recognize everybody who makes this place operate. We have been here for a number of weeks now. This has been one of the longest sittings in a while, with really long hours throughout it. People always coming through the doors - whether we were MLAs or the general public, people were always greeted with professionalism and a smile. To the cleaners, the pages, Legislative Television, Hansard, the caucus office staff of all caucuses, the government staff, and the security, a big thank you from all of us. We couldn't do it without you.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Kings West.

CAMERON-KELLY, MAJOR MARY: MILITARY ACHIEVEMENTS - RECOG. 

CHRIS PALMER « » : Speaker, today, I want to recognize the remarkable achievements of Major Mary Cameron-Kelly, a trailblazer in the Royal Canadian Air Force and a proud Nova Scotian currently stationed at CFB Greenwood.

Mary Cameron-Kelly made history as one of the first women to serve as a military pilot in Canada. The first female captain of the Aurora aircraft, helping to break barriers in the field that was once closed to women.

At a time when opportunities were limited, she demonstrated exceptional skill, determination, and courage, proving once again that talent and leadership know no gender. Throughout her career, she flew challenging missions, contributed to vital operations, and became a role model for future generations of women in aviation and the armed forces.

Major Cameron-Kelly strengthened Canada's military, and her legacy is one of perseverance, excellence, and inspiration. Because of pioneers like her, countless young Canadians can now look to the skies and see possibilities that once seemed out of reach. She's even on a stamp. She had a stamp commemorating all of her accomplishments in the military.

[Page 4702]

I ask all members of this House to join me in thanking Major Mary Cameron-Kelly for her amazing service to our company and congratulate her on her outstanding career.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Fairview-Clayton Park.

HALIFAX HAWKS U15AA: PROV. HOCKEY CHAMPS. - CONGRATS.

LINA HAMID « » : I rise today to congratulate the Halifax Hawks U15AA hockey team on their spectacular performance this past weekend at the Provincial Championships in Dominion, Cape Breton. After a season of hard work and determination, the Hawks emerged as Provincial Champions, bringing the gold medal home to Halifax.

In addition to their victory on the scoreboard, the team was also honoured with the Fair Play Award, a testament to their sportsmanship, discipline and respect for the game. Individual excellence was also on full display with three players earning prestigious tournament awards. Oliver Grinnell-Brown was named All Star Goalie; Joe Rimmer was recognized as an All Star Forward; and Blake Miller was named Top Defence and won the Fastest Skater title in the Skills Championship.

Winning a championship is a significant feat but doing so while being recognized for fair play is a true reflection of the character of these young athletes and their coaching staff.

I ask all members of this House to join me in applauding the Halifax Hawks U15AA team for their provincial title and for representing our community with such pride and integrity.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Queens.

HON. KIM MASLAND « » : I beg leave to make an introduction before my member statement.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

KIM MASLAND « » : Thank you. In the gallery today, we have three special people joining us. We have Antoine Collier, who is working in my constituency office; Sam Scobey, who is my constituency coordinator, who I could not do this job without. She is just absolutely amazing in helping the constituents of Queens. And we have Brandy Cheramie, who is my biggest supporter, encourager and most importantly, a very, very dear friend of mine. Also, we have Gary Russell who is my special advisor. These people are just amazing, so thank you so much for being here with me today. (Applause)

[Page 4703]

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome. We hope you enjoy your time here.

The honourable member for Queens.

COLLIER, ANTOINE: CONSTIT. CO-OP STUDENT - RECOG.

HON. KIM MASLAND « » : I would like to recognize a special guest joining us today in the gallery. Antoine Collier is an 18-year-old exchange student from Belgium, who is currently doing a co-op in my constituency office. He'll be with us until the end of June, before returning home, and is presently a student at Liverpool Regional High School.

From a very young age, Antoine has demonstrated a strong passion for public service and civic engagement. He served as a youth counsellor in his home community, starting at just 11 years old, an impressive commitment that speaks to both his character and his dedication to making a difference.

During his time here in Nova Scotia, Antoine has brought that same enthusiasm and curiosity to his work in our office. It has been a pleasure to have him as part of our team. He hopes to pursue a career in foreign affairs, and I have no doubt he has a bright future ahead.

I ask all members to please join me in welcoming Antoine all the way from Belgium to the People's House. (Applause)

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

MAYWORKS KJIPUKTUK/HALIFAX: 2026 FESTIVAL - RECOG.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : I rise today to recognize Mayworks Kjipuktuk/Halifax, as they announce their incredible lineup for their 2026 festival.

Mayworks Kjipuktuk/Halifax is a multidisciplinary art festival that advances a culture of solidarity at the intersection of labour and art. Particularly the curatorial team fosters the political nature of artistic work, promotes works of art that celebrate a diverse and complex working class, and programs work that draw correlations between struggles that point toward a better future for everyone.

This year's festival runs from April 25^th to May 10^th in venues throughout the city, and will offer pieces in theatre, film, kite flying, music, and dance by artists living in Mi'kma'ki and a few from beyond. It is an eclectic and exciting lineup, and I hope members will get a chance to take in a part of the festival.

I ask all the House to join me in congratulating Sébastien Labelle, Jake Planinc, and the whole Mayworks team for what looks to be an extraordinary festival at a time when we need art more than ever.

[Page 4704]

[1:30 p.m.]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Eastern Passage.

SCISSORS AND SUN: 21 YRS. IN BUS. - CONGRATS.

HON. BARBARA ADAMS « » : Thank you, Speaker. I rise today to recognize and celebrate an incredible milestone for a valued small business in our community of Eastern Passage. Scissors and Sun Hair Esthetics and Tanning Salon is celebrating its 21^st anniversary.

For more than two decades, Scissors and Sun has been more than a salon. It has been a gathering place where neighbours connect, stories are shared, kids and adults hunt to find Lacie's ducks, and community spirit thrives.

Local businesses like this are the backbone of our community, contributing not only to our economy, but also to the sense of belonging that defines our community. They make everyone they serve, including me, feel and look beautiful, both inside and out.

I ask all members of the Nova Scotia Legislature to join me in recognizing Scissors and Sun for reaching 21 years of service. This milestone is no small achievement. It speaks to the hard work, resilience, and commitment of the owners and the incredibly warm and funny staff, as well as the loyalty of the customers who continue to support them.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier.

SYDNEY AIRPORT: CUTS THREATENING SERVICES - REVERSE

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Speaker, I rise today in support of the J.A. Douglas McCurdy Sydney Airport that resides in Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier. Tourism is one of the largest economic drivers in Cape Breton. The tourism sector depends on strong air access through that Sydney Airport, with regard to the government having attacked the tourism industry, that in which threatens the Sydney Airport, and the viability of the airport.

I ask this government to please reconsider their cuts to the tourism industry, the arts sector, and to ensure our airport in CBRM that proudly resides in the constituency of Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier, remains a viable and vital option for air access.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.

JONES, COLLEEN: DEATH OF - TRIBUTE

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : Thank you, Speaker. I want to recognize the late, great Colleen Jones who passed away last November after a battle with cancer. Colleen Jones achieved the highest heights you can achieve in curling, winning six Scotties and two world championships. She is rightfully remembered as one of the top female curlers in the sport's history.

[Page 4705]

Outside of curling, as I am sure all members know, Colleen was a dedicated journalist. After starting her career in local radio and television here in Halifax, she worked for CBC from 1986 until 2013, though I do remember seeing her during Hurricane Fiona up in Antigonish.

During her life, Colleen was honoured with the Order of Canada, an induction into the Canada's Sports Hall of Fame, and many other awards. Colleen's legacy lives on in Nova Scotia and across the world. Yesterday, it was announced Colleen will be inducted into CBC News Hall of Fame, a fitting tribute to this incredible journalist, athlete, and Nova Scotia icon.

To Colleen's husband Scott, her sons Zach and Luke, and all the family - know that everyone in this House will always remember Colleen Jones.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Richmond.

BOUDREAU, GEORGE: RETIREMENT - CONGRATS.

HON. TREVOR BOUDREAU « » : Thank you, Speaker. I stand today to recognize recently retired business owner George Boudreau, of Richmond County.

George was just 17 when he started working at the local service station owned by his future father-in-law. He eventually took over and for 59 years it has been a staple in the community of St. Peters. Although it has gone through a few name changes over the years, it has always been affectionately known as Georgie's Garage. George has been described as a true gentleman, hardworking, and always willing to help those in need.

After nearly six decades, George decided last fall it was time to hang up his overalls and retire.

I ask all members to please join me in wishing Mr. George Boudreau a well-deserved retirement and to thank him for his years of service in Richmond County.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

APRIL FLOWERS: VIBRANT COLOURS - APPRECIATE 

SUZY HANSEN « » : Speaker, April brings a vibrant surge of early spring blooms. There is nothing like watching nature's beautiful canvas take bloom, featuring staples like tulips, daffodils, magnolias, roses, and fragrant lilacs - my favourite; so, so beautiful. They remind me of my childhood.

Popular choices include shrubs like forsythia, azaleas, and dogwoods, alongside perennials like bleeding hearts. These plants provide essential early nectar for pollinators, our friends in the garden. So let us enjoy everything April brings from our gardens and breathe in nature's natural beauty.

[Page 4706]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Queens.

LOCAL FIRE DEPTS.: HARD WORK - THANKS

HON. KIM MASLAND « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding service of the five fire departments that serve Queens County: the Liverpool Fire Department, the Port Medway Fire Department, the Mill Village and District Fire Department, the Greenfield and District Fire Department, and the North Queens Fire Department. Nova Scotia firefighters are brave and selfless people following the calling that puts their lives on the line to save others. In Queens County, that courage is demonstrated each and every day.

These individuals are more than firefighters. They are the backbone of our communities. In many cases, they are volunteers who give their time selflessly, balancing work and family while remaining ready to respond at a moment's notice. Their contributions go far beyond emergency response. They are leaders, they are neighbours, and a constant source of support in times of need, helping to keep our communities safe and connected. Please join me in thanking all members of these departments for their dedication and service to Queens County.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Yarmouth.

NICK HILTON « » : Thank you, Speaker. I beg leave to make an introduction.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

NICK HILTON « » : Speaker, in your gallery today, we have Dryden Perry, a passionate resident of Yarmouth, a local carpenter, father of three, and advocate for community and transparency in politics. He is joining me here this week and we've had some really good conversations. I welcome him to the House. (Applause)

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome. We hope you enjoy your time here.

The honourable member for Annapolis.

LAWRIE, ROB AND JOANNE: COMM. EFFORTS - RECOG.

DAVID BOWLBY « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize Rob and Joanne Lawrie, dedicated entrepreneurs and community leaders, serving southwest Nova Scotia. Rob, together with his wife, Joanne, purchased and assumed leadership of the family hardware store in 1999, a business originally founded in 1982 by his parents, Robin and Beth. Together, they have expanded that proud family enterprise into a network of eight retail home improvement locations, numerous related businesses, and significant residential and commercial property holdings, employing up to 150 people at peak season.

[Page 4707]

Their contributions, however, stand well beyond economic impact. Rob has served our community as a volunteer firefighter for 30 years, including being on the frontlines during the 2025 Long Lake fires in West Dalhousie. He has also served on the national Home Hardware Board for the past decade. Joanne, who is equally dedicated to supporting the retail sector, has recently assumed the Chair role for North American Hardware and Paint Association.

The Lawrie family supports numerous local organizations, events, and community initiatives throughout the Annapolis Valley. Of note, is their support of the charity of choice, the War Amps. Through donations from every key cut at their Home Hardware stores, they have helped provide life-changing prosthetics to members of our community, including one of their own staff. I ask all members of this House to join me in thanking Rob, Joanne, and the Lawrie family for their remarkable service and enduring commitment to Nova Scotia.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Northside-Westmount.

NICHOLSON, EMILY: HEALTH CANADA POSITION - CONGRATS.

HON. FRED TILLEY « » : Speaker, I rise today with great pride to recognize my daughter, Emily Nickelson, on achieving her PRE03 classification as a human resources staffing officer with Health Canada. Emily has always been hardworking, conscientious, and deeply committed to helping others. In her role, she brings a strong sense of professionalism and a genuine dedication to customer service, ensuring that the people she serves are treated with fairness and respect. Her achievement reflects not only her talent and determination but also the values she carries with her every day - integrity, kindness, and willingness to go the extra mile.

While we are incredibly proud of her professional accomplishments, we're even more proud of the person she has become. Emily, congratulations on this well-deserved milestone. Mom and Dad couldn't be prouder.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cape Breton East.

LOCAL GROUPS: ASSISTING FOOD INSECURITY - THANKS

HON. BRIAN COMER « » : I rise today to recognize the organizations across Cape Breton East that are working to ensure residents have access to food and essential supports throughout their communities.

This includes the CAW Louisbourg Food Bank Society, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul - Our Lady of Fatima Conference, Coal Coast Community Garden, the Main-à-Dieu Community Development Association, the Port Morien Development Association, and the Tower Road Community Association.

[Page 4708]

From expanded food delivery and community gardens to food pantries, healthy food programs, and Christmas hampers that help families throughout the holiday season, these groups are meeting real needs in communities across Cape Breton East.

I ask all members to join me in recognizing these groups, their commitment, and their continued service.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

GAHAGAN, DR. JACQUELINE:

POST-SECONDARY ACCESS BARRIERS FOR YOUTH - RECOG.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Education is not a luxury; it's a fundamental human right. Yet for youth with care experience in Canada, access to post-secondary education remains profoundly unequal.

Over the past number of years, Dr. Jacqueline Gahagan from Mount Saint Vincent University has been leading national and provincial research looking at the structural barriers that youths face and how to overcome them. She has also been an advocate for extending tuition waivers to former youth in care and the supports they need across Nova Scotia.

There's another opportunity to hear Dr. Gahagan's research results looking at the impact of tuition waiver programs on post-secondary access for former youth in care. It includes a powerful digital storytelling initiative that, if you haven't seen yet, is fantastic. It shows the challenges and the resilience shaping educational journeys. There's an upcoming webinar on May 4^th, and I encourage folks who are interested to connect with her.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Lunenburg.

DAYSPRING AND DIST. FIRE DEPT.:

GENERATIONAL COMMITMENTS - THANKS

HON. SUSAN CORKUM-GREEK « » : I rise today to honour the Dayspring and District Fire Department, which just celebrated its 60^th anniversary, and incredibly, has two still-active members who have been there since the beginning.

For six decades and counting, Wilfred Feener has been a driver - also known as an engineer - a pump operator, and an active committee member, while his wife Jean is an original and still-active member of the department's auxiliary.

Following his parents' example, the Feeners' son, Mark, also became a firefighter and currently serves as Fire Chief at Dayspring, while they have two grandsons in the junior department.

[Page 4709]

Volunteer firefighting is very much a family commitment. At a minimum, families accept the weekly practices, the weekends of training, and of course, the calls that come at all hours, whether in the middle of the night or the middle of dinner. Often, they follow their family into service and support roles.

This is taken to the extreme at Dayspring, where a number of families were recognized for commitments spanning three generations.

I ask my colleagues to please join me in thanking the Feeners, the Corkums, the Wilkies, the Schmeissers, the Floyd/Nowe family, and all members of Dayspring and District Fire Department, past and present, for their service.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Clayton Park West.

LEADING LEADERS SOC. OF N.S.: BLACK CIVIL VOICES INIT. - RECOG.

ADEGOKE FADARE « » : I rise today to recognize the important work of the Leading Leaders Society of Nova Scotia through Camp Aspire - Black Civic Voices.

This initiative is helping to raise the next generation of young Black leaders by giving them more than inspiration. It's giving them understanding, exposure, and confidence. Through Black Civic Voices, young people are learning how leadership works in real life. They have been introduced to civic engagement, governance, public speaking, identity, and the power of their voice in shaping their communities.

They're learning that leadership is not something in the distance; it's something that they can step into right now. What makes this program so important is that it creates space for young Black voices to be seen, to be heard, and to be strengthened. It reminds them that they belong in rooms where decisions are made and that their future can include service, influence, and impact.

I ask all members of this House to join me in commending the Leading Leaders Society of Nova Scotia for investing in the leaders of tomorrow.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Preston.

HON. TWILA GROSSE « » : Before I proceed with my member statement, I beg leave to make an introduction.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

TWILA GROSSE « » : In the gallery today is Kareem O'Keiffe, Special Advisor for the Public Service Commission and African Nova Scotian Affairs. I ask Kareem to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this House. (Applause)

[Page 4710]

[1:45 p.m.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome, we hope you always enjoy your time here.

The honourable member for Preston.

O'KEIFFE, KAREEM: PSC SPECIAL ADVISOR - RECOG.

HON. TWILA GROSSE « » : Today I rise to recognize Kareem O'Keiffe, an accomplished financial professional and dedicated community leader with more than 15 years of experience in advisory services, compliance, and organizational leadership.

Mr. O'Keiffe currently serves as Special Advisor to the minister with the Province of Nova Scotia. In this role he provides strategic planning, policy analysis, and stakeholder engagement that strengthens informed decision-making across government. A valedictorian graduate of Saint Mary's University, he has held senior roles including Branch Compliance Officer, Officer in Charge, and Seniors Financial Advisor. An Alumnus of the 21inc leadership program, he is widely regarded as a rising leader.

Mr. O'Keiffe's commitment extends deeply into the community through the work with the MacPhee Centre for Creative Learning, Junior Achievement, and Passage Canada. I personally want to thank Mr. O'Keiffe for his ongoing commitment to community impact, youth development, and public service.

I ask all members to join me in acknowledging his contribution. Thank you Kareem.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Hants East.

TREVOR ETTINGER AND JEFF SMITH MEM. HOCKEY TOURN.:

ANNUAL EVENT - RECOG.

HON. JOHN A. MACDONALD: I rise today to acknowledge the Trevor Ettinger and Jeff Smith Memorial Hockey Tournament held at the East Hants Sportsplex. This annual event brings together players, families, and volunteers, not only for competition but to honour the lasting legacy of two outstanding young athletes who represented East Hants with pride, sportsmanship and character.

During this year's tournament, a special presentation honoured their mothers, Edna Ettinger and Mabel Smith, recognizing the dedication and support that helped shape both young men and our local hockey community. The tournament continues to inspire young athletes, while reminding us that although hockey is a game, character is what truly lasts.

I want to thank the organizers, volunteers, coaches and families who ensure that Trevor and Jeff's legacies live on each year. Speaker, please join me in recognizing their impact in East Hants.

[Page 4711]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Dartmouth East.

LOCAL ORGS.: CRITICAL FOOD SUPPORT - THANKS

HON. TIMOTHY HALMAN « » : I rise today to recognize the organizations across Dartmouth East that are providing critical food support to some of our most vulnerable residents. Thanks to our government's Feeding Communities Fund, $55,000 is being invested in Dartmouth East to strengthen local programs that ensure residents have access to nutritious food and essential support.

This includes support for the East Dartmouth Christian Food Bank Association, the Veterans Emergency Transition Services Association, the Garrison, the Greater Halifax Clubs, and the Halifax Transition House Association. From inclusive food programs and a dedicated pantry for veterans, to youth food security initiatives and outreach for women fleeing violence, these organizations are reaching residents who need support the most.

Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing these organizations for their compassion and their continued service to the people of Dartmouth East.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Sackville-Uniacke.

PERRY, CPT. MICHAEL: LOCAL COUNCIL MEMBER - RECOG.

HON. BRAD JOHNS « » : Today I'd like to rise to recognize Captain Michael Perry, a proud Nova Scotian and dedicated member of the Canadian Armed Forces with more than 27 years of service, including as a veteran of the war in Afghanistan.

In 2018, Captain Perry stepped forward to once again serve - this time, his community of Mount Uniacke when he was elected to the Municipality of East Hants Council. He was re-elected in 2020 and 2024, representing District 8 - Mount Uniacke-South Rawdon. Mike has also served twice as Deputy Warden of the municipality, in 2019 as well as in 2022.

Michael exemplifies leadership both in uniform and in public office. His commitment to service, integrity, and community speaks volumes about his character. I ask all the members of this House to join me in congratulating Michael for his continued dedication to making our communities and our province a better place to live, grow, and prosper.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Pictou Centre.

RICHARDSON, TERRY: LOCAL VOLUNTEER - RECOG.

DANNY MACGILLIVRAY « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize a pillar of the Pictou County community, Terry Richardson of New Glasgow. Since 1986, Terry has been dedicated to championing inclusion for all athletes as a tireless volunteer for Special Olympics Nova Scotia, specifically within Pictou County.

[Page 4712]

Whether he is organizing fundraisers, cheering from the sidelines, or ensuring every athlete has the support they need to succeed, his passion for inclusive sport has changed lives. He has brought smiles to many faces through his volunteer work, driven by love of community and the individuals who comprise it.

Terry volunteers for Special Olympics in many capacities - as a coach, a regional coordinator, and a national board member. Terry's leadership was a driving force behind the success of the 2018 Special Olympics Canada Summer Games in Antigonish. In 2019 he was recognized for this success by being presented with the prestigious Harry "Red" Foster Award from Special Olympics Canada.

I ask all members of this House to join me in thanking Terry Richardson, lovingly known in the community as Mr. T, for his four decades of service improving lives and promoting inclusion in Pictou County and beyond. Thank you, Mr. T.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Inverness.

BELLE CÔTE & AREA COMM. CENTRE : LOCAL VENUE - RECOG.

KYLE MACQUARRIE « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Belle Côte and Area Community Centre, a cornerstone of community life in Belle Côte and the greater Margaree Harbour area.

With a strong commitment to fostering connection and engagement, the centre provides a welcoming space where residents can gather, share, and support one another. It plays an essential role in enhancing the quality of life for those it serves, offering opportunities for both social interaction and community involvement.

Throughout the year, the centre hosts a variety of events that celebrate local culture and bring people together, most notably the annual Quilt Show and Marketplace, a cherished tradition that highlights the creativity and talent within the community.

Beyond its events, the centre also serves as a location for meetings, activities, and vital community services, ensuring residents have a place to connect and feel supported. Its continued success is a testament to the dedication of the volunteers and organizers who work tirelessly behind the scenes.

I ask all members of this House to join me in thanking everyone involved with the Belle Côte and Area Community Centre.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Dartmouth.

BIG LEAGUES: LOCAL RESTAURANT - RECOG.

[Page 4713]

BRAD MCGOWAN « » : Speaker, today I rise to recognize Big Leagues sports bar in Cole Harbour for the service that they provide as a small business in our wonderful community.

Since 1987 Big Leagues has been a welcome presence in Cole Harbour and the host of so many viewing parties, such as the one I attended for the gold medal Olympic Men's Hockey game back in February.

My colleague the member for Cole Harbour and I were joined by many hockey fans to watch the game, and while the result wasn't what we had hoped, the atmosphere was great, and it softened the blow.

Thank you to Big Leagues for the great service, food, and entertainment, and it's why members of our community, including my wife and I, continue to go back.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.

SOUTH COLCHESTER ACAD. GRAD AUCTION: APRIL 28^TH - RECOG.

HON. SCOTT ARMSTRONG « » : Speaker, I'm pleased to announce a very special event taking place at South Colchester Academy in Brookfield on April 28^th. Doors open at 6:00 p.m. The event starts at 6:30 p.m. It is the South Colchester Academy grad auction.

All the proceeds from this auction go to support their Safe Grad. As we all know, Safe Grad has probably saved the lives of thousands of Nova Scotians since it was first initiated in the 1980s. This is an evening where events are provided for our Grade 12 graduating students as they finish their high school and public school career.

If anyone can provide items or anyone can attend and support this grad auction, you're doing something for a very, very good cause. I invite everyone to please attend the South Colchester Academy grad auction on April 28^th, Tuesday night. The doors open at 6:00 p.m. The auction starts at 6:30 p.m.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Guysborough-Tracadie.

HOLY TRINITY ANGLICAN CHURCH COUNTRY HARBOUR: LOCAL VOLS. - THANKS

HON. GREG MORROW « » : Speaker, With Volunteer Week just around the corner, I rise to recognize a dedicated group of volunteers with the Holy Trinity Country Harbour Anglican Church.

Through their work at the New to You shop in the church basement, these individuals generously give their time to sort and organize goods while welcoming visitors with warmth and kindness. Their efforts provide affordable clothing and household items, create a space for community connection, and help offset the church's operating costs.

[Page 4714]

Despite challenges, including past water damage, these volunteers recently revitalized the space with new flooring, bringing fresh life to the shop.

What started in 1997 as a simple idea from local resident Edie Porter, a basement flea market has grown into a lasting community staple. Now 98 years old, Edie remains a loyal volunteer and a true testament to the spirit behind this initiative. The New to You shop is a shining example of community at its best, built on generosity, compassion, and service to others.

I ask all members of this House to join me in thanking the volunteers of Holy Trinity Anglican Church for the meaningful difference they continue to make in their community.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

PYE, JERRY: KING CHARLES III CORONATION MEDAL RECIP. - CONGRATS.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : I rise today to celebrate former Dartmouth North MLA Jerry Pye, who received the King Charles III Coronation Medal in recognition of his resilient dedication to his community of Dartmouth and his lifelong demonstration of how those with disabilities meaningfully shape the fabric of our country.

Jerry was stricken with polio before his first birthday. He escaped the worst that polio could offer, but he wasn't left unscathed. He was left with a permanent disability by the disease and has proudly worn a full leg brace ever since.

Polio may have limited Jerry's physical capacity, but it did not diminish his spirit or his commitment to community building. From an early age, he worked to build a better and more equitable community and did so in Dartmouth as a volunteer and as an elected official. He worked on revising the disabilities act, advocated for accessibility for those with disabilities in all levels of government, and served as a role model for many.

When I ran for office, I can't tell you how many people said, "Well, if you're on the same team as Jerry Pye, you have my vote." He's still a much-loved member of the Dartmouth North community, although he's living in Ontario now.

I ask all members of the House to join me in thanking Jerry Pye for his contributions to Nova Scotia and to congratulate him on his much-deserved King Charles III Coronation Medal.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cumberland North.

VIMY RIDGE: NAT'L. DAY OF REMEMBRANCE - RECOG.

[Page 4715]

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Today, I rise to mark Vimy Ridge, fought from April 9 to 12, 1917, a defining moment in Canadian history and one that came at great human cost. Tomorrow, April 9^th, is now recognized as the National Day of Remembrance of the Battle of Vimy Ridge.

For Cumberland County, this history is not distant. It is personal. Men from our communities answered the call to serve, and their courage became part of the proud military tradition carried forward in our region. The lineage of the North Nova Scotia Highlanders begins in Amherst with the old Cumberland battalion and carries the First World War battle honour "Vimy, 1917."

We remember, as well, Horatio Murdock of Amherst, a son of our region who served in the Great War and later became commanding officer of the Cumberland Highlanders, helping shape that local legacy of service.

Today and tomorrow we honour all those from Cumberland County and all Canadians who served from coast to coast to coast, all those who never came home, and all those whose sacrifice helped build this great country.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Waverley-Fall River-Beaver Bank.

HON. BRIAN WONG « » : Speaker, I request permission to make an introduction.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

BRIAN WONG « » : In the East Gallery, I'd like to introduce the hardest-working, most resourceful constituency coordinator in the province: my constituency coordinator, Dani Squires. (Applause)

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome. We hope you enjoy your time here.

The honourable member for Waverley-Fall River-Beaver Bank.

BEAVER BANK-KINSAC VOL. FIRE DEPT. STN. 48: HARD WORK - THANKS

HON. BRIAN WONG « » : I rise today to recognize the incredible generosity and community spirit of the Beaver Bank-Kinsac Volunteer Fire Department, Station 48.

Not only does Station 48 step up in our moments of greatest need to keep our families safe, but they also find ways to support our community even when they are off the clock. Back in March, the members of Station 48 demonstrated this once again by making a significant $5,000 donation to the Cobequid Health Centre Foundation.

This donation will go a long way in supporting the vital health care services that so many of our residents rely on at the Cobequid Community Health Centre. It is important to note that contributions like this are made possible through the Nova Scotia Firefighters 50/50 draw. When our neighbours buy a ticket, they aren't just taking a chance on a win; they are investing directly back into the heart of Nova Scotia and the health of our province. It's a beautiful cycle of local support that Station 48 facilitates with such pride.

[Page 4716]

THE SPEAKER « » : We have five seconds left.

[2:00 p.m.]

Order. The time allotted for Statements by Members has expired. It is 2:00 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS PUT BY MEMBERS TO MINISTERS

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.

DHW: LACK OF MSI MEDICAL SUPPORT - DEFEND

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Yesterday, Heidi Zenker wrote to me about her 29-year-old daughter, Cassidy. When Cassidy first sought help for her intense and life-altering pain, she was told it was normal. She was referred to the IWK Health Centre in 2019 but still has not seen an OB/GYN. Desperate to live a normal life, Cassidy sought help in 2023 in Maine and paid $60,000 out of pocket for an endometriosis diagnosis and surgery. MSI now won't reimburse because, "They treat endo in Nova Scotia." Cassidy is not alone. How is this acceptable?

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON » : We appreciate there are a number of individuals who sometimes choose to seek health care outside of Nova Scotia. We do have a policy we recently reviewed, and the qualifications to seek out-of-province care have been reviewed and updated.

What we would say is, anyone who is considering care outside of Nova Scotia, please contact the Department of Health and Wellness first to better understand the pathway in order to do that. If it's at all possible, of course, we want to support Nova Scotians getting the care they need. We need to do it first within our borders of Nova Scotia, but we're always open to working with people prior to them leaving the province for health care.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : This wasn't the only failure. In 2025, she found out her family members had the BRCA2 gene mutation that increases breast cancer risk to 56 percent for the sufferer. When she was referred to the IWK Health Centre genetic clinic, she was told her wait would be two years for a screening to see if she carried the gene. So again, she had to leave the province and pay for private blood work in Ontario, where she tested positive.

She waited months in Nova Scotia for a follow-up MRI, before making the expensive decision to pay for a private MRI in Moncton. What does the minister expect people to do if they can't get care here and can't afford to pay for it in other provinces?

[Page 4717]

MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : We depend very heavily on our clinicians to assess and triage patients through the system. We do appreciate there are a number of foundational investments that have been made: not only in equipment, but also in staffing. We work with clinicians to understand, number one, what the criteria are. If there is equipment that is required, do we have the folks to operate it? All those different things.

We've made foundational investments. We're now looking at ways in which we can improve the efficiency of these systems. We'll continue to do that work. We're committed to making sure Nova Scotians have timely access to care. We know there's more to do and we're committed to doing that.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : She was high risk; she had a 56 percent chance of carrying the gene and was told she had to wait two years. Cassidy's mom wrote to us because she felt compelled to share what she called, "examples of NS Health's failure and disregard for female Nova Scotians." She writes:

If I was unable to pay for testing and treatment in other provinces and countries, my daughter would still be waiting for diagnosis. … I have provided clear examples of how women … are treated, which I know is just a drop in the bucket. There are so many women in this province that have been disappointed and put at risk because of NS Health.

Those are her words. Will the Minister explain to Heidi, Cassidy and the thousands of women like them, why, five years into their commitment to fix health care, women have been so clearly left behind.

THE SPEAKER « » : Before I move on, please table that.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : I did.

THE SPEAKER « » : Oh, okay. Perfect. Thank you.

The honourable Minister of Health and Wellness.

MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : We have made a number of investments, as I said, not only in equipment, but also in staffing, which is essential. We can have all the equipment we want, but if we don't have a workforce to operate that equipment, then it really is not helpful at all.

There has been a number of investments, and I want women and gender-diverse folks across the province to know that. There are two new speciality clinics for endometriosis and chronic pain care. There are 13 new FTEs who have been recruited to ambulatory gynecological services across this province. We've looked at increasing things like that at the Deanne Reeve Pelvic Health Suite to encourage and make more efficient the care, not only for men, but for women as well.

[Page 4718]

We are looking at all these different ways. The system is stretched; we understand that. We'll continue to work and make sure people have access to the care they require.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Leader of the Liberal Party.

FTB: WELL-BEING APPROACH TO CREATING BUDGETS - CONSIDER 

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : We are six weeks into this sitting and Nova Scotians are still wondering how this government decided to make deep cuts to arts, culture, recreation, research.

In jurisdictions like New Zealand, governments use a well-being approach to budgeting to evaluate decisions based on their impact on people's quality of life, including health, affordability, environmental sustainability, culture, not just the bottom line. If this government had a well-being lens, it would be able to clearly explain how these decisions improve the quality of life for Nova Scotians.

HON. JOHN LOHR » : Look, the reality is that we are facing an almost $1.3 billion deficit with pressing needs in health care, in education, in seniors and long-term care. When we chose to meet those, they became our priority, they are our priority. You can hear on the floor of the Legislature, half the questions remain on health care. Health care remains a huge priority for us. We are putting $738 million into health care this year.

Affordability remains a massive priority for us, with a huge tax break for Nova Scotians of almost $1,400 per family.

We are trying to meet the needs of Nova Scotians as best we can. We realize how profound those needs are. The School Lunch Program, seniors long-term care investments, all of those things.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable Leader of the Liberal Party.

IAIN RANKIN « » : We are going to continue to raise questions about the lack of support for addictions support. The programs that have been removed from marginalized populations, the delayed payments to Bryony House, the cuts to the gender-based violence courts, and the list goes on.

Well-being framework measures how decisions are made on their mental health, affordability, access to community and cultural programs, as well as opportunities for long-term economic participation, yet this budget reduces access to art programs that bring people together, limits support for creative industries that sustain local economies, and scales back investments in research and innovation.

[Page 4719]

How did the government assess the short- and long-term impacts of these cuts on the overall well-being Nova Scotians had before moving forward with the cuts?

JOHN LOHR « » : I could well ask that member why his government invested so little money in health care, so little money in the arts, so little money in all these sectors. When we came into government, there was $51 million a year in arts. We went up to $74 million, we've retracted a bit to $66 million, and that was tough, but why? We faced a situation where we had chronic under-investment in many areas: in housing, in school builds, in seniors and long-term care.

So that member might be able to explain to me why so little was done during his time.

IAIN RANKIN « » : I am talking about outcomes. I am not talking about a race to who could spend the most money. When you grow the size of government from $13 billion to $19 billion, that doesn't mean that you are improving the quality of life for folks.

I am trying to give this government a chance, before they come into the next budget with another $300 million of cuts to those most vulnerable. A well-being approach is setting clear goals, measuring outcomes, and being transparent with Nova Scotians about how decisions are made and how they affect their lives, not just for today, but in the long-term.

Instead we've seen cuts to sectors that underpin community life, support community organizations, and drive more sustainable growth without any clear explanation about what outcomes the government is trying to achieve, or how success will be determined.

Will the government commit to establishing a well-being framework and publicly report . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

JOHN LOHR « » : I am happy to talk about outcomes. We had a net gain of 570 new physicians since 2021; a surgical wait-list had an all-time low since 2015; and 80,000 more primary care appointments a month.

We realize that this budget that we brought forward is also about growing our economy. We are investing in Nova Scotia. This budget has a $3.5 billion capital plan that involves building schools, involves building public housing, involves building hospitals, and I hope the member will support the budget.

[Page 4720]

This budget also includes investment in natural resources, and I've been disappointed this session to hear both Opposition parties speak so disparagingly of the natural resources we have in Nova Scotia . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.

DHW: RECORD ON HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN - ADDRESS

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : After five years this government's record on women's health care continues to lag behind other provinces. They have refused to make birth control free. They have kept women waiting years for endometriosis diagnosis and care. They have refused to provide at-home HPV screening tests and phase out invasive pap smears. They have refused to expand midwifery care, with fewer than 20 midwives practicing and no service at all in Cape Breton. They have refused appropriate cancer screening options for women with dense breasts.

Yesterday the minister said she wasn't going to do a women's health strategy yet. What is she waiting for?

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : As I've said a number of times in the past, we were in a very, very deep hole when we formed government in 2021. We have invested heavily not only in the system itself but in the people who work there.

While there is a particular women's health strategy on the table, we're not in a position right now that we're able to do that. There are a number of things we have accomplished, like there is more primary care in this province; 94 percent of people in this province are attached to a primary care provider. That is essential care that will prevent people from having their conditions worsen and having to seek specialty care outside of their communities.

We have spent incredible amounts of money in the EHS system to make sure that people have timely access to emergency care. There are a number of other opportunities that I'll have to share in the next question.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : What the government is hearing from the Opposition today is that maybe they should plan first and then spend. The IWK Foundation has been calling for a women's health strategy so that experts can determine how to best care for women and gender-diverse Nova Scotians and what resources are required. Then they can put them into practice. This government has spent billions of dollars on health care and yet women's health care needs are still definitively not being met.

Does the minister understand that spending first and planning second might be a backwards approach?

[Page 4721]

MICHELLE THOMPSON; What I understand is that I am the Minister of Health and Wellness for every single Nova Scotian in this province regardless of gender, regardless of race, regardless of any defining characteristic.

When we formed government, we had to ensure there were services across this province for every Nova Scotian. We heard that people wanted access to primary care. We have delivered on that. We heard that surgical wait-lists were out of control. This is the lowest surgical wait-list since 2015.

We heard about the EHS and there were extended wait times. We've improved that We've expanded capacity in the Nova Scotia Health Authority. We've looked at different models of care.

Of course there is more to do. There will always be more to do. Fundamentally the foundations of health care are markedly improved, and we will continue to work across this province to deliver care . . . (inaudible)

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.

PREM.: POWER OVER NSCC PRES. APPOINTMENT - EXPLAIN

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : In this sitting the Premier has given himself the power to appoint the new NSCC president. The Nova Scotia Community College and its students contributed over $2.2 billion to the economy in recent years; 94 percent of these students are satisfied with their education. They are being trained in positions that are vital to our workforce.

Why is controlling the governance of the NSCC a top priority for this government?

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Housing.

HON. JOHN WHITE « » : Speaker, NSCC is a technical institution for Nova Scotia. What they do is incredibly important to the future of this province and to today. It's usually easily accessible to people in their community because the campuses are spread all over Nova Scotia.

When we talk about the budget and what happened with NSCC, they were engaged in the process of finding efficiencies. They were engaged in the whole thing and none of the cuts or decreases in that budget are on the frontline, which is where the technical institution is happening. It's where the training is happening.

Further to that, Speaker, I'd point to the $25 million investment which is to the future of students, to make students know what's going on.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : There is a lot at stake for Nova Scotia. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board cut $9.4 million from the NSCC's operating grant without seemingly an analysis of the impact to jobs or GDP. Student spending and research exports combined contribute roughly $1.5 billion to our province. The budget cut means job losses and changes to programs that help make young people workforce ready. Young Nova Scotians are eager to learn a skilled trade and get to work building a good life in this province, and instead of supporting them, this government is focused on cutting support and centralizing its own power.

[Page 4722]

Why is this government interfering in major economic drivers to our economy?

[2:15 p.m.]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Advanced Education.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : I reject that entire question outright. There's very little substance to that question. The truth is there is a board that is doing a search right now. They are going to find the best possible candidate. I, and almost everybody in this Legislature, believe the future is bright for NSCC. We continue to invest in the trades. We continue to invest in tax breaks like the MOST Program, despite the Opposition continuously trying to vote down these measures. NSCC is in good hands, and I can't wait to see who the new president will be.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cumberland North.

PREM.: COBEQUID PASS TOLL REMOVAL - ADDRESS

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : My question is for the Premier. The Highway 104 Western Alignment Act is clear: Tolls on the Cobequid Pass are to cease when the costs and liabilities relating to that highway are paid. The debts are paid, and in fact, the last few years have been building quite a surplus, currently sitting at around net $90 million in revenue.

If the Premier says he believes in following the laws here in Nova Scotia and also removing interprovincial barriers, which is actually a law he tabled and then passed here in the Legislature, why is he and his government continuing to keep this toll in place?

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Public Works.

HON. FRED TILLEY « » : It looks like the toll party just picked up a new member. What I will say is, are we pleased that there's a new toll in New Brunswick? Absolutely not. The member can't have it both ways. Put the tolls back on the bridges in Halifax. Remove the tolls off the Cobequid Pass. Put tolls here, take tolls there. I'm not sure what the member wants: only no tolls in her area but put tolls in another area. Tolls we've got in place right now are on non-Nova Scotians on the Cobequid Pass.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : The Premier talks a great deal about removing interprovincial barriers, yet his government still keeps a toll in place on Nova Scotia's main land connection with the rest of Canada. Meanwhile, New Brunswick's 2026-27 budget now explicitly plans a toll booth near Aulac for non-New Brunswick vehicles by 2028. This kind of tit for tat hurts both workers, students, families, and trade on both sides of the border.

[Page 4723]

Will the Premier take his own advice, remove the Cobequid Pass toll, and show real leadership in tearing down this interprovincial barrier that he says he stands for?

FRED TILLEY « » : Let me tell you about leadership. The Premier of this province was the first Premier to start breaking down interprovincial trade barriers. The Premier of this province took a Team Canada approach across the whole country, encouraging other jurisdictions to join us, to start building up trade in all of Canada. What's good for Nova Scotia is good for Canada.

Let me give you a couple of examples. If you register a vehicle anywhere in Canada, guess what? You can register that vehicle here in Nova Scotia. Trucks can be purchased now in other jurisdictions where truckers can get good deals and register them in Nova Scotia. I'm proud of this government's move to . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

DHW: ENDOMETRIOSIS HEALTH STRUGGLES LACKING PROPER CARE - ADDRESS

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : Speaker, Jillian Levy spent years struggling to get treatment for debilitating endometriosis symptoms. She didn't think she could get pregnant, but in 2024, she found out that she and her husband were expecting a baby. Sadly, the baby miscarried at 19 weeks, which was a deeply traumatic experience. Her follow-up ultrasound showed issues with her uterus that are linked to miscarriage and endometriosis. She never got a follow-up appointment. She had to process the information on her own after reading it on the health app.

Why are women being left to manage their health care alone?

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : I want to extend condolences to that individual, her partner, and extended family. Miscarriage is a very, very difficult experience in any family's life.

We expect that clinicians will follow up with their patients. We certainly do our very best as government to ensure that we have the things in place that clinicians need. I can't speak to any individual case, but there is a responsibility on all of the clinicians who work in the health care system to provide good care. If the individuals are concerned with the care they received from their individual clinicians, there is an opportunity for them to reach out to the respective colleges to talk about the care they received. Again, I can't speak to this individual case, but certainly there are expectations that clinicians will follow up with their patients.

[Page 4724]

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : Jillian has been waiting almost two years now for a gynecology appointment at the IWK. She has already spent years suffering from serious pain and bleeding. Her bleeding is so bad that she requires regular iron infusions. Her pain is so severe that she has been off work for a year and spends days every month in bed suffering. Women like Jillian are begging for help while being told that they just have to wait.

When will the minister take meaningful action to improve women's health care in this province and help end this suffering?

MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : What I want individuals to know is that we work very closely with the IWK but also with gynecologists across this province. We have recently made sure that all of the regional hospitals in our province have a full complement of OB/GYNs, which is essential in order for people to get care close to home. We have invested in the gynecology clinic at IWK. There are new facilities for women's health at Wyse Road and the Deanne Reeve Pelvic Health Suite.

We have invested in equipment. We have invested in human resources. We continue to work with the IWK - I meet with them on a monthly basis to understand what their requirements are - as well as the Nova Scotia Health Authority. When people put business cases forward and when we understand what the needs are, we do our very best to support our operators.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

DHW: PATIENT WAIT TIMES AFFECTING PROPER CARE - ADDRESS

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : Speaker, Cynthia Vaughan moved to Nova Scotia in 2023, one year after she was diagnosed with breast cancer and had a lumpectomy. That means she needs ongoing care to make sure her cancer hasn't come back. When she arrived here, she was referred to the cancer centre, but they refused to take her on, saying: ". . . due to current patient volumes and wait times . . . we cannot accept patients". I will table that.

Why is the minister allowing patient care to suffer and wait-lists to grow?

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : For our specialized services, a referral is required. An individual who comes to this province should register with the Need a Family Practice Registry so that they can be attached to a primary care provider who can support them in their ongoing treatment and care of their chronic disease or illness or their risk factors associated with a previous diagnosis. There is a health questionnaire that would allow Nova Scotia Health Authority to triage those individuals and ensure that they are attached to a primary care provider. Through that primary care provider, they would be referred to specialty services as required.

[Page 4725]

I can't speak to individual cases, but I trust our clinicians to be able to navigate through the system. We certainly are working to make sure that those processes are more efficient.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : The person I'm talking about was referred by somebody to the cancer centre. They explicitly said, and I tabled it: "… we cannot accept patients for survivorship care / surveillance." Vaughan has been using walk-in clinics to manage her care. This is not how cancer survivors should be treated. They shouldn't have to manage their care themselves. In a media report, Vaughan said, "There's always that anxiety that it's come back, and by the time we figure it out, this time it's going to be too late."

I ask the minister again: When will the minister take meaningful action to improve women's health care in this province so cancer survivors can get the care they need?

MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : As I told the members opposite on probably 100 occasions, what's important is that they do not try and navigate with patients themselves. Sometimes, they don't have the right information. Patients have to register with the Need a Family Practice Registry. This is the way that clinicians make sure that the information they have is most up to date. Those individuals on that list are triaged. They can see someone virtually for episodic complaints, and in the event that they have a situation that needs to be cared for on an ongoing basis, there are primary care clinics that will follow individuals over the course of their care until they are attached to a permanent provider. We need to ensure that those are followed. We cannot have multiple entry points. We have streamlined this for that reason, so patients are not left on their own, which is how we have achieved . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable member for Lunenburg West.

PREM.: PERSONAL CONNECTIONS IN GOV'T. FILES - EXPLAIN

HON. BECKY DRUHAN « » : My question is for the Premier.

His personal and family connections continue to show up in major government files. In the Northern Pulp settlement - a file that the Premier said he was personally pretty involved in - there are multiple overlaps. A senior industry voice supporting the deal now serves as the Premier's communications director, the Premier has family connections to a U.S. law firm representing Northern Pulp's parent company, and the Premier's chief of staff has personal and family ties to McInnes Cooper, the firm representing Northern Pulp. Each piece on its own may be innocuous, but together, they raise real concerns.

My question to the Premier is: When his decisions are being made behind closed doors, how can Nova Scotians be confident that their interests - not his personal networks - are driving those decisions?

[Page 4726]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : The matter of Northern Pulp is before the courts in British Columbia, in creditor protection. We respect that process, and that's under way. There is nothing further to say about that.

BECKY DRUHAN « » : The Premier's chief of staff has personal and family ties to a firm that represents both the Province and private interests in major government files. A McInnes Cooper lawyer represented Northern Pulp in the Supreme Court of Canada proceedings, and that same lawyer also represented the Province in litigation over the Forests Act.

To be clear, this is not an allegation of wrongdoing by the firm, but the chief of staff's personal connections present the appearance of a conflict, something the Premier and public employees are bound by law to avoid.

My question for the Premier is: What safeguards are in place to ensure that government decisions are made in the public interest and not shaped by personal networks in his office?

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

HON. SCOTT ARSTRONG: Once again, these accusations - there's no basis in fact. It's all fiction. There are safeguards. We have conflict of interest procedures in Nova Scotia. We have a Conflict of Interest Commissioner in Nova Scotia. All of these things are vetted through that firewall. There's nothing to see here.

I have to question why this member continues to ask these accusatorial questions. We know they're not based in fact.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member does come awfully close to the line.

The honourable member for Halifax Armdale.

SLTC: LONG-TERM CARE WORKERS STRIKE - ADDRESS

ROD WILSON « » : We are less than a week away from a strike by long-term care workers across Nova Scotia. Long-term care workers have been telling me they don't want to strike, but they can no longer afford to pay their bills. They make $1.50 more than minimum wage, many after 10 to 20 years of service.

[2:30 p.m.]

The minister could prevent a strike today by presenting a fair raise to long-term care workers. We've heard many times today from ministers that they value health care workers. If that's the case, won't the minister avoid the strike by offering a fair deal this week? Or is the minister simply going to let this strike happen?

[Page 4727]

HON. BARBARA ADAMS « » : Speaker, everyone knows that as a health care worker, I highly value everyone who works in long-term care, to the point where we have an entire department dedicated to long-term care, which is the first in the country. The Premier made that decision. He also made the decision to ensure that the staffing level in long-term care was the highest in the country.

What I do want to say to all of those members who are potentially impacted by this is that the offer that was made is the exact same offer that was made to acute care workers who accepted the deal, including CUPE union members. It is the exact same deal that was offered to home care workers who accepted the deal, including CUPE members. It's the exact same deal that was offered, and over 23 other long-term care facilities have already accepted the deal.

ROD WILSON « » : Regardless of the deal, it's not working if they're going to be on a strike next week.

No matter what the minister says, we know that a strike will mean a reduction in staff. This comes from several CEOs I spoke to this morning in nursing homes. There will be no kitchen staff, no housekeeping staff, and no laundry staff. Without them, the risk of infection will go up.

As we learned from COVID-19, infections are a serious threat to seniors. In a nursing home in particular, it can spread quickly and it can be catastrophic. Nursing home staff have told me that they cannot do their own job plus the kitchen, cleaning, et cetera.

Is the minister prepared to prevent a strike that, without question, will put seniors' health at risk in Nova Scotia?

BARBARA ADAMS « » : Speaker, I'm almost speechless that a fellow health professional would suggest that we are putting the health care of seniors at risk. He should know better. It's the first thing you learn in medical school: Above all, do no harm.

Let me reassure all Nova Scotians that our long-term care staff care so much about their clients that they are going to make sure that that care is provided. As a matter of fact, there is a legal requirement called an essential service contract.

What the member just suggested - that there's not going to be any kitchen staff, there's not going to be any of this - it's just factually incorrect. What I want everyone in long-term care to know is that we have offered a fair and competitive deal that acute care workers, home care workers, and every other long-term care . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

[Page 4728]

The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier.

DPW: CHIGNECTO ISTHMUS PROJECT CONFUSION - ADDRESS

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Speaker, the Chignecto Isthmus is one of the most critical pieces of infrastructure in the region. It carries our goods and connects us to the rest of the country. That's why it's so strange that this government doesn't seem to know much about the project to protect it.

Yesterday, the Minister of Public Works told journalists that he doesn't know if the project is still on track. He hasn't even asked his own department if a 10-year timeline is realistic. Why doesn't the minister want to know more about one of the most important projects in his department?

HON. FRED TILLEY « » : Speaker, it's clear to me that the member's listening skills and reading skills are not up to par. (Laughter) That's not what was reported. That's not what I said.

What I said was that the work is happening on the Chignecto Isthmus. We are doing our due diligence to get ready. We're working with our partners. The question was around a specific timeline, and if I put a specific date on that and we missed it by a day, that member would be up screaming blue bloody theatrical murder.

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Speaker, we know that costs change. We know timelines change. But the least Nova Scotians can expect is some level of transparency. The timeline on the New Brunswick website, which was last updated in November, says that the construction phase is due to start next year, but the minister doesn't seem to know that. Meanwhile, communities living near the isthmus are watching the risk of flooding grow every year. Can the minister provide us with an updated timeline of when construction will begin, to the best of his knowledge.

FRED TILLEY « » : I'm not sure if the member has driven past or knows where the Isthmus is, but if she did, she would notice construction has already begun, to the tune of $2 million. Humongous, you can't miss it. There's a berm - it's 12, 13, 15 feet high, Speaker. It's this wide. It's there to protect the resiliency of our dikes that are there now.

We're continuing to do the work we need to do. And the Isthmus will be - I don't know what's shameful about that. I'm just?

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. Order. Come on. You're talking to me. Order. You're talking to me.

The honourable Minister of Public Works with five seconds.

FRED TILLEY « » : Speaker, they talk about behaviour. Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.

[Page 4729]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

AMH: GROWING FRUSTRATIONS IN COMM. - ADDRESS

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Last week I asked the Minister of Addictions and Mental Health about the growing drug crisis in Inverness. Since then, I've heard from people in the community who are frustrated by the government's response. The Minister highlighted Talbot House as a key resource for people seeking addiction treatment. What I've since learned is the facility is facing funding cuts from this year's provincial budget.

If the minister truly believes Talbot House is an essential service, how does he justify its funding at a time when more people than ever are reaching out for help?

HON. BRIAN COMER « » : Thank you to the member for a very important question. We're very proud to support five recovery houses across the province who do incredibly important work.

In regard to Talbot House specifically, they've received a 70 percent increase since 2021. We certainly are happy to support Talbot House and the other recovery homes, who have all received significant increases since 2021 and will continue to do so.

DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : That confirms for me the cuts that we're hearing that are coming to Talbot House. Families and community organizations in Inverness are already working tirelessly to support people struggling with addiction, but they are stretched thin. Local programs like Talbot House are receiving funding cuts, and overnight in-patient detox beds at the Cape Breton Regional Hospital are closed, leaving people with few options beyond travelling to Halifax.

For communities on the frontlines of this crisis, these cuts are deeply concerning. Does the Minister understand why this combination of cuts and service gaps is so frustrating to communities on the frontlines. What concrete steps will he take to restore funding in the local detox capacity, so people can get the help close to home.

BRIAN COMER « » : This is a very important issue the member is raising. We've opened 12 recovery support centres right across the province, a couple of which are open in Cape Breton. I know the Nova Scotia Health Authority is working closely with the community in Inverness to explore options to increase access to in-patient care.

There is access to care in in-patient beds right across the province for folks who need it. Significant increases in this year's budget for addictions and mental health, right across the board. This is an important issue, and we'll continue to work with folks in that community to move forward.

[Page 4730]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.

PREM.: PRIMARY CARE ATTACHMENT NUMBERS MISREPRESENTED - EXPLAIN

PAUL WOZNEY « » : The Premier recently posted on social media, claiming 94 percent of Nova Scotians are attached to primary care. But I don't think the comment section went quite the way he planned. Here's just a few of the hundreds of comments.

Taylor wrote: "I guess every single person I know is part of that 6 percent then?"

Milton said: "Eight years and still waiting. Are you sure about this number?"

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. Who has their phone on? Please make sure it's turned off.

The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.

PAUL WOZNEY « » : Lorena asked: "Does that number include those who were mysteriously removed from the Family Doctor wait-list?"

I'll ask what these folks are wondering: When the Premier says 94 percent of Nova Scotians are attached to primary care, what exactly does he mean?

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Health and Wellness.

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : What I think all of us mean is that we have invested an incredible amount of money and time to ensure that Nova Scotians in this province are attached to a family practice; that we have set a goal for ourselves of 5 percent, to make sure that there is only a 5 percent unattached rate. We are at that, practically. We are just over 6 percent.

There has been an incredible amount of money invested not only in workforce but also in new models of care. There have been new investments in technology to support people not only in attachment but access. I think that everybody in this province knows that we've had our shoulder to the wheel. Not only is this the party of taxes; this is the party of fear and negativity and I am sick of it.

PAUL WOZNEY « » : I encourage the minister to dive into these comments and respond to a few of them and finally clear the air, because Nova Scotians aren't buying what this government is selling.

Lawrence writes, "I literally know of no one that was waiting that now isn't." Adam says, "Seven years and still waiting for my 82-year-old mother." Shelley said that she recently checked her status on the Registry and found that she was removed without her knowledge. These kinds of cases are once a week, hear about regularly. We haven't heard a whole lot about Nova Scotians actually getting a doctor after years on the list.

[Page 4731]

Why is this government more concerned with telling a story than it is with making sure Nova Scotians can access the health care they need?

MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : I won't go into a history lesson of what it was like working as a nurse under that NDP government or that Liberal government, because . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. No pointing.

MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : . . . I'm going to tell you, it was dire, and we have worked very hard. Is it perfect? Nobody is standing here saying it's perfect, but what I can stand in front of is the fact that we have a Premier who sat in an election which beat both of those parties, and again in 2024, that we were going to do everything we could to improve health care in this province. They'll be fine. Don't worry about them.

I swear we have done everything we can and will continue to do it. None of them over there could do any better.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier.

CCTH: CABOT TRAIL WRITERS FEST. DECIMATED BY CUTS - ADDRESS 

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Speaker, the artistic director of the Cabot Trail Writers Festival, Rebecca Silver Slayter, is getting ready to lose her job. That's because of this government's cruel cuts to arts and culture.

Thanks to the government's support, she helped the festival grow and add programming. They didn't even know how much funding they are losing, and they won't know until June, when they should be getting ready to announce their festival lineup.

How does the minister expect festivals like the Cabot Trail Writers Festival, to go ahead, when they don't even know how deep the cuts are?

HON. DAVE RITCEY « » : Speaker, we've said it week over week: We are investing $66 million in the arts and culture. We continue to work with the sector and the organizations and individuals throughout the province, and we are continuing to work with those folks.

We invested over $188 million over the last five years in infrastructure for the arts, sports, culture, and rec. Mulgrave Theatre, $2.3 million; Chester Playhouse, $600,000; and deCoste Centre, $6.6 million.

KENDRA COOMBES « » : A cut is a cut is a cut, Speaker. Rebecca told us that laying herself off is the only way to ensure they have enough money to put on the festival in October. She believes deeply in their mission. She's seen how the festival has built community, drawn people back to Cape Breton, and given children the chance to learn from the writers. Now she is working overtime, training volunteers and a part-time employee to do her work when she is laid off.

[Page 4732]

How can the minister defend his cuts when they kill jobs and tourism in communities that so desperately need it?

[2:45 p.m.]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : We continue to invest in the arts. An all-time amount has been invested in the arts. More money has been invested in the arts this year and last year than at any other time in this province's history. That includes under the NDP government and that includes under the Liberal government.

Speaker, we invested in arts in schools. We invested in arts in our community and we'll continue to invest because we know it's important.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cumberland North.

DHW: RURAL EMERGENCY DEPTS. DECIMATED - EXPLAIN 

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Since the government has taken office in 2021, we have seen really an assault on our emergency departments throughout rural Nova Scotia. We've seen closures of several emergency departments throughout rural Nova Scotia, including Annapolis Community Health Centre, Eastern Kings Memorial Community Health Centre, Eastern Shore Memorial Hospital, Victoria County, Northside General Hospital, Lillian Fraser Memorial, Musquodoboit Valley Memorial, South Cumberland Community Centre.

Now some of these are open with an urgent treatment centre but they lost their 24/7 coverage. My question to the minister is: Are there any plans to reopen these emergency rooms throughout Nova Scotia, if they are able to find the staff?

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : Certainly there are some hospitals across the province where we continue to look for emergency room staff. There are a couple of spots that were mentioned in the list. I can't remember off the top of my head what was included. Also there are a number of places across the province where we have worked with clinicians in the community to deliver services. Urgent treatment centres are always done with clinicians in the community to better understand the needs of their patients. They know them well and we've worked on that model with them.

What's important for individuals to know is we've put a lot of money into the EHS system so that emergency care starts immediately when you call 911. Sometimes, even if these emergency rooms were open or continue to function in an emergency room capacity, they would by-pass for other services.

[Page 4733]

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : The reality is that people who live in rural Nova Scotia want to be able to go to their local hospital if they have an emergency, it's closer.

Many other rural emergency departments are still open 24/7 but are mostly staffed virtually, including All Saints Springhill Hospital, Digby General, Queens General, Roseway Hospital, Soldiers Memorial Hospital, Fishermen's Memorial Hospital, North Cumberland Health Care Centre, as well as Eastern Memorial Hospital.

I'm wondering if the minister can tell us if the plan is to continue to keep them mostly as virtual.

I am also curious about the recent Auditor General's report that shows the contract for virtual care also went through alternative procurement.

MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : It's an important question. It's one of the things that we worked on really hard, Nova Scotia Health Authority in particular, around making sure there's an adequate model of care. Instead of closing emergency departments sometimes there are clinicians who are virtual in order to support the staff.

We also need to remember there are incredible paramedics in the community who can respond to calls and support the incredible nursing staff. There is a particular skill set you need in order to work in emergency rooms. Sometimes we do see that physicians are virtual but are still able to run codes, which is very common in a number of places, not only in Nova Scotia but across the country, as you would look in outpost nursing.

Just as a point of clarity, in terms of that ALTP, I'll take responsibility for some but that one started under the Liberal government.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

OLA: STATEMENT BY ASSEMBLY OF MI'KMAW CHIEFS - ADDRESS 

LISA LACHANCE « » : In March, the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaw Chiefs released a statement that clearly stated the government of Nova Scotia has been refusing to work with Mi'kmaw communities on cannabis laws since 2018. I'll table that. What's the result? A system that does not work for Mi'kmaw communities and growing tensions with the government.

Can the Minister responsible for L'nu Affairs tell us if she has met with the Assembly or its representatives about the cannabis legislation?

[Page 4734]

HON LEAH MARTIN « » : Over the course of the last year I have met with all of the Chiefs, on various occasions . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order, please. The time allotted for Oral Questions Put by Members to Ministers has expired.

The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Public Works in a response used a number of unparliamentary terms that created a reaction and were degrading to the member, and were also degrading to persons with disabilities - talking about "theatrical," "can't see," "can't read," "can't hear." I believe that those were all unparliamentary, and I ask that the member retract them.

THE SPEAKER « » : As Speaker, if someone wants to add to it - it's right in the green book - they can. Is that what you would like to do?

The honourable Minister of Public Works.

HON. FRED TILLEY « » : Speaker, yesterday during Question Period the exact same member referred to my answer as theatre - no different. I didn't say "can't hear."

THE SPEAKER « » : Are you adding to today?

FRED TILLEY « » : I said, "can't see."

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable minister was very, very close to the line today, but a lot of members have been close to the line. I ask that members not get close to the line because maybe I might start moving that line. Right now, it's a disagreement amongst members. Everybody here has worked very hard to get here, so let's all respect each other. If you throw, you're going to get back. It's happening both ways. So don't come close to the line because I'm moving the line as of today.

The honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

THE SPEAKER « » : Absolutely.

DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : In the gallery opposite, I want to recognize a familiar face everybody knows, a former MLA. (Interruption) Everybody boo him while he's here. I do want to recognize my friend. MP Braedon Clark is here with us today. I argue one of the best speakers this Legislature has ever seen - on his feet. He's now in Ottawa, doing his thing for the people of Nova Scotia. I ask everyone to offer Braeden the warm welcome of the House. (Standing Ovation)

[Page 4735]

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome back. I hope your time up there made you realize how much you missed the place. (Laughter)

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : I don't know if this is a point of order or not, but you did say you were moving the line. I just wanted to add a few things to it if that's okay. I have been keeping a running tally during this session, Speaker. The members opposite have - and I have the dates and times - called this government racist on several occasions. They called us dictators. They have said we're using dirty politics. They refused to listen to the Clerk when the Clerk told them to take their seat. During a protest they filmed from the floor while we were in session. The list goes on and on.

I would just like to add that you take that into account where you're drawing the line because there are a lot of things that have happened during this session that in my time in this Legislature I have not seen. I would just ask that we have that added to your list.

THE SPEAKER « » : Can I just deal with one thing at a time here? Not a point of order. It is something I am going to take under consideration going forward for the next session - some of the things.

The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Thank you, Speaker. Actually, I rise on a point of parliamentary privilege.

The member rose and accused random members of this caucus of calling people in this House racist. I believe that is a mischaracterization. I believe that impedes our ability to talk about the implications of legislation. I would invite perhaps the member or yourself to make an investigation of where we actually said that any specific MLA was racist. I get to talk.

THE SPEAKER « » : Every member does get to talk. They rose on a point of order. I let everybody finish. Hold on. I said I was going to take some of those things under consideration, okay?

Honourable member, not a point of privilege. It's a disagreement amongst members once again.

I think I recognize the honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : I don't know if it's a point of order or a point of personal privilege, but all I know is that in 11 years here, you see a lot of stuff and you see a lot of back-and-forth. I disagreed with some of the things that were said today. It's up to members and it's up to the ruling to respect the Speaker.

[Page 4736]

I just rise in my place to say it is heated in here. We've been here six weeks, and a lot of things have been said that people will agree or disagree on. I can tell you, I could write a book on some of the things that have been said in here in the last 11 years that were pretty difficult where the Speakers had to make rulings. What's happening right now, I don't believe, is an order at all. Let's move on.

THE SPEAKER « » : There's a voice of reason.

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Thank you, Speaker. Just for clarification, I did not accuse individuals of being racist. What I said was that they accused the government of being racist, and I will give you the information of dates and times to consider. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER « » : This merry-go-round is ending right now. (Interruption) Stop it, member. (Interruption) No, I don't.

OPPOSITION MEMBERS' BUSINESS

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable House Leader for the Official Opposition.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS FOR SECOND READING

LISA LACHANCE « » : Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 251.

Bill No. 251 - Budget Attendance Act.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Speaker, I move that Bill No. 251 be read a second time.

At its core, this bill is about a very simple principle: accountability. Not abstract accountability, not rhetorical accountability; real, recorded, on-the-record accountability when it matters most, because there is no more important vote that takes place in this House than the vote on the budget. It is simply one of the tenets of why we have a government that collects money to constitute the public purse and then makes decisions about how best to dispense of that funding to meet the needs and the outcomes for Nova Scotians. It's about a relationship of trust.

Public sector accounting and the expectations we have are very high for a good reason. We see the discussions come out through the Appropriations Act and related Estimates debate, the Financial Measures (2026) Act. These are not routine pieces of legislation. These are the decisions that determine three things: what gets funded, what gets cut, and who is asked to bear the consequences.

[Page 4737]

[3:00 p.m.]

Speaker, this year's budget made choices, and those choices have had real impacts on real people and real organizations. There have been cuts to programs supporting seniors, cuts to Nova Scotians with disabilities, cuts that impacted African Nova Scotian communities, cuts to mental health supports, cuts to arts and culture programs that sustain rural jobs, cuts affecting Indigenous relationships and reconciliation efforts, and cuts that remove supports like student bus passes and hearing aids for low income Nova Scotians.

These are not minor adjustments. These are decisions that shape people's lives and quality of life. Nova Scotians responded in droves. They spoke up. They organized. They showed up in large numbers across this province. Five major rallies were held outside this Legislature. Hundreds of people gathered again and again, and people gathered across the province.

At the Public Bills Committee, 131 Nova Scotians came forward to speak directly about the harm this budget would cause. Another 146 took the time to write submissions. Thank goodness they did, because the Financial Measures (2026) Act in particular contained 20 Acts. We have still asked about the rationale for a number of them - about why they're sitting there in the Financial Measures (2026) Act in the first place and what financial implications, what analysis has been done about the pros and cons of different policies.

In fact, it was Nova Scotians who stepped forward and said, what you're proposing in the two changes to the Community Easements Act and Conservation Easements Act is not okay. That actually really threatens initiatives that Nova Scotians are doing to support their communities from tip to tip of this province. So thank goodness Nova Scotians got engaged. Thank goodness Nova Scotians are engaged in their communities. They want to be heard.

THE SPEAKER « » : I'm going to ask to keep our tones down. Maybe talk out back.

The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : I know that all of us have received hundreds of letters. I, myself, have tabled over 500 letters regarding the budget cuts and the FMA in this House. I would encourage others to find those letters, we're certainly hearing the people are not getting responses, but to at least table those. They're part of the public record.

Nova Scotians became engaged because they believed this government might listen. They believed that what they had to say about their communities, and what decisions were being made, mattered to us in this House. It does matter to us here in the Official Opposition. This is what accountability looks like - people engaging, people participating, people demanding to be heard.

What did they receive in return? A budget that moved forward anyway, and critically a budget passed with the votes of the very people who brought it forward. Let's reflect on that for a moment. The most important financial decision of this province on an annual basis, although this one has implications for years and years to come. A budget that included painful and far-reaching cuts, and a deteriorating financial position, was passed without the Premier and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board casting votes on it.

[Page 4738]

This bill exists to make sure that never happens again. Because Nova Scotians deserve to know if the leaders who design the budget stand behind it or not? Bill No. 251 is straightforward. It would require that the Premier and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board vote on the Appropriations Act and the Financial Measures Act every year.

It does not dictate how they'll vote. It simply requires that they do - that their position be clear, that they be accountable on record for Nova Scotians. It's the foundation of our system. We operate under the principles of responsible government, including ministerial accountability - the idea that those who make the decisions, answer for them. The Premier is the first minister among ministers, so really needs to be heard to say: Yes, I stand behind this budget; yes, I understand what's happening with this budget; yes, I stand behind the implications of this budget, positive or negative, or both. Yet, we haven't heard that, we haven't seen that. That's not on the record for Nova Scotians in 2026.

Overall, what we saw with this budget runs counter to the principle of ministerial accountability. Ministers said they didn't know about certain cuts. They tried to blame departmental staff. We saw lots of confusion about who made the decisions, and how, and why. Speaker, this is not how accountability works. Ministers are responsible for their departments, full stop. The Premier is responsible for the government, full stop. They do not get to claim credit for successes, and then distance themselves, quite literally and figuratively from difficult decisions.

When it comes to the budget, the central document of any government policy, there can be no ambiguity, no distance, no silence. If a government is proud of its budget, then it should vote for it. If it believes in its decisions, it should stand behind them. If those decisions are difficult, all the more reason to be transparent and accountable.

We also saw something else with this budget. We saw a government forced to fix some of its own mistakes after public pressure. Eight different departments amended their budgets to restore funding to programs that people rely on. This tells us something very important. It tells us that the concerns raised by Nova Scotians were valid, and that the cuts were harmful and the government knew it. But many cuts remain.

The question remains, who is accountable for these choices? Bill No. 251 would answer that question. It ensures that accountability is not optional for the Premier and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. It ensures that when a budget is put to vote, the people most responsible for that budget - the Premier and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board - must also take a position that is recorded.

To the government members: members have said that these decisions were necessary. They have defended the budget. The Finance and Treasury Board Minister has said that he is proud of it. If that's the case, then why the hesitation to vote on it? Voting is not just a procedural step. It's a statement. It's a declaration for the people of Nova Scotia. It creates laws. In this case, it affected 18 laws and also passed a $19-billion budget. It's a declaration to the people of Nova Scotia, and I don't know what it says when the Premier and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board don't vote on it. What is the message to Nova Scotians?

[Page 4739]

This process has broken the bond of trust that governments need to hold with Nova Scotians. We're not asking for anything unreasonable. We're asking for accountability and transparency and trust - trust in our institutions; trust in this House; trust that when decisions are made, they're made openly and owned fully and are on the basis of the right kind of information and considerations.

When trust is eroded - and we're seeing that - and people feel that decisions are being made without accountability, it weakens confidence in democracy itself.

We saw Nova Scotians engage in good faith. They wrote letters. They analyzed what was happening. They showed up. They spoke to their neighbours. They participated in the process. The very least - the very least, although I would suggest they can expect a whole lot more - they should expect in return is that the people making these decisions stand behind them. Bill No. 251 ensures that they do.

At its heart, this bill asks a simple question. If the Premier and the Finance and Treasury Board Minister are willing to make the decisions, are they willing to take responsibility for them? That's what Nova Scotians expect. That's what they deserve. I urge all members of this House to support Bill No. 251, the Budget Attendance Act.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : I'm rising on my feet to talk in support of this being brought forward by my colleagues in the NDP. It's one of those situations where you shouldn't need to bring this forward. (Interruption) Well, that's it. It's our job. Our job is to stand and be counted. I have had the privilege of having to do that, to stand and be counted, on both sides of the floor.

Governments make decisions on policies and bills all the time, particularly on the budget. In this case, it's the first time in my almost 11 years that I have ever seen that you had people - I don't believe I'm allowed to - I don't want to break the Rules of the House. But ultimately, you're in a situation where everybody should be voting, especially the top leadership of a government.

If that does not happen, that sends a really clear message to not only the caucus in which they are the leader - whether it's the Finance and Treasury Board Minister or the Premier or anybody in a senior role - but to Nova Scotians in general that they don't have confidence in their own budget.

[Page 4740]

I can say in my experience in here that you make decisions. Some of them are easier than others. But in every instance that I had to make those decisions, I had a Premier and a Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and senior leaders within the government stand up for me and stand up for the caucus and show the unity and show the leadership that is necessary when you make those decisions.

As I said, we shouldn't even have to bring this to the floor. But it is a conversation, and it has been a conversation in the media and a conversation in the community that individuals didn't vote on the budget - this budget in particular. I think that sent a terrible message to a caucus that was out in communities and really taking it head on. A lot of cuts to important programs, and a budget where, I've argued in here, I believe the caucus wasn't truly given all of the details of what was in it. Yet, they were here defending it and ultimately had to vote in favour of it.

They voted in favour of a budget that ultimately has, as we've debated in here, impacted a lot of programs across the province, impacted arts and culture, impacted some of our most vulnerable to the point where government ended up walking some of those decisions back and providing the funding. The leadership should have the backs of the caucus. They're the ones who should be really carrying the flag for the budget and leading the charge. We saw that not happen.

It's the first time in, as I've said, almost 11 years for me, that I've seen that. I think that's wrong.

I didn't support the budget. I stood to be counted. I have to defend that decision when I go home, no different than when I was in government and we passed budgets. I had to go home and defend that decision. The government MLAs are going to be into that process - probably already are, in a lot of cases - where organizations are coming forward and asking the questions of why they voted for a budget that made cuts.

We're talking about Bill No. 251, when it comes to making sure that everybody stands to be counted in here to vote (inaudible). Those members over there did, and they're going to really see it now, if the House concludes and we're into this fiscal year. They're going to start to see the closures. They're going to start to see the layoffs. They're going to start hearing more of it. They've been hearing lots of it, I'm sure. We've had people here multiple times, by the thousands, outside expressing their concerns around the budget and how big an impact it has on people.

As I've said, the layoffs and stuff are really going to start ramping up now, because you're into the new budget. You're into the cuts to the departments. These organizations are receiving the funding cuts coming forward, and now they have to start making decisions on whether they're going to hire summer students or not. A lot of them won't be able to. It's going to impact summer employment for students attending post-secondary. You're going to see, as we've been hearing in Question Period and we've been hearing through the debates, some really great organizations, whether they support mental health and addictions, whether they support important festivals that take place across the province - they're going to start getting their funding allotments, and it's going to be less. Then they're going to start making decisions, as we've heard, to lay people off or not offer positions to people who may have been involved with their organizations.

[Page 4741]

I say all of that because Bill No. 251 - the point of it is that everybody should stand to be counted on a budget, because you have to go home and defend whether you supported it, or you didn't. In this case, people didn't vote. It sends the wrong message. It says they're not confident in their own budget, they didn't want to be in the room at the time to cast a ballot.

It is what it is. People can agree or disagree with that statement. We're elected to show up and vote. We're policymakers. We debate policy, yay or nay, yes or no, recorded votes - however it works. Our primary responsibility when we are here is to make policy and ultimately make decisions in the best interests of the people who gave us the privilege to be here to do it. Especially when you are expending the taxpayers' money, you definitely need to stand and be counted.

[3:15 p.m.]

I'll say this. This argument that the Opposition doesn't support this budget - "It should because of all of these wonderful reasons. Shame on the Opposition." With a lot of those people who have been around as long as me, who have been on this side, who didn't support budgets, the ultimate debate goes back and forth. This is why you should support it, this is why you shouldn't. But I've never had a situation where I can look across the aisle and say, "Well, at least I voted. At least I voted." Stand and be counted. That's the foundation of why we come in here.

A few of us have served in here a long time, so we're going to go at each other back and forth all the time. That's what it is - no different when I was in government. Members over there would come at me when they were in Opposition. I'm in Opposition coming at them because I believe some of the things they're doing are wrong. But I've never been able to look at any of them and say, "Why didn't you vote?" It sends a message. And it's something that can happen over and over again.

As I said, I've never seen that before. So, when someone looks at me from the government side and says, "Well the member for Sydney-Membertou should support this budget because it has all of these important things in it." And I make the decision not to because it has severely impacted families, young families, people's employment, people's ability to support their kids, arts, culture, science, research, the list goes on. All I have to do is get on my feet and say, "At least I stood to be counted. And I voted. And I voted with my conscience, and I voted with my heart, and I voted with the voice of the people who told me at home that this budget has severely impacted a lot of wonderful organizations, and a lot of wonderful people."

So depending on whenever this House ends, that will be my message to the government. If somebody says, "The MLA for Sydney-Membertou should have supported this budget," this is why I'll get on my feet and say, "Well, you should have voted. You should have voted." And that's it. That's as simple as it is.

[Page 4742]

Bill No. 251, the whole premise of it is why we're here in the first place. And that's to make policy, to hold the government to account. If you're on the government side, you make the best decisions for the people of this province. You're given the privilege to serve on that side, and stand and be counted, and be accountable for it.

We're in a situation right now where the top leadership didn't vote on a budget. Didn't vote on it. As I said, it sends a message to the rest of the caucus who are out in their communities and who are hearing it and taking the emails and taking the phone calls and taking really the brunt of a budget that I don't think they were completely advised on from day one.

With that, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I thank my colleagues from the NDP for bringing it forward. Regardless of the position you hold within this House, whatever seat you hold, as my good friend Alfie MacLeod used to say, "There's no such thing as a bad seat."

You've got to vote. You've got to vote. That's why we're here. You don't get to miss a vote - especially on the budget. You don't get to miss a vote. If you're in a leadership position, if you're the Premier or the minister of the department that is presenting that budget, the very least you can do is show up for your people who you know are taking it in their communities over a budget that has severely impacted a lot of people.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Hants West.

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD « » : It's my privilege to rise today to speak to Bill No. 251, the Budget Attendance Act, introduced by the honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island. I want to start by clearly saying one thing, accountability matters to this government. We believe the Premier and Minister of Finance and Treasury Board should be present for budget debates and votes. In practice, they are. That's not the issue.

The issue is whether the right response to that expectation is a law that gives one or two Opposition leaders the ability to block the budget from proceeding - because that is exactly what this bill actually does. When I first looked at it last night to see my thoughts on Opposition Day, and looking for an opportunity to address the House, I was a little bit taken aback. Let me walk through the mechanics of this bill because I think the title makes it sound simpler than it really is.

Bill No. 251 would amend the House of Assembly Act to prevent a vote at second or third reading on any appropriations bill or financial measures bill, unless both the Premier and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board are physically present in this Chamber. At first glance, that sounds a bit reasonable. Who could argue with the Premier being here for a budget vote? But read the exception clause. Subsection (3) of that bill says: "the requirement can only be waived if the Premier or minister notifies the Opposition leaders of an exceptional circumstance." It could be very private in nature. Then: "every leader of a recognized party has to agree to permit that absence."

[Page 4743]

Think about what that actually means. A single Opposition leader could prevent the government's budget from coming to a vote simply by withholding consent; not because there's a legitimate concern, not because the budget hasn't been debated but because they choose to. That's not accountability. That's a veto.

When we speak about the accountability of the members who tabled this piece of legislation in the Opposition, I want to remind the House of who walked out of the Estimates, leaving three hours of debate on the table because they were more interested, quite frankly, in what was happening outside of the building - speaking to the crowd, rather than asking those tough questions to hold government to account. That was three hours on the budget that the Opposition could've used to hold the government to account with this bill.

Let's talk about accountability further because the members opposite seem to think it doesn't already exist - but it does. The accountability for how the Premier handles the budget, including whether they show up for it rests with Nova Scotians. That's how our democracy works. The people of this province get to decide at the ballot box whether they have been well served by this Premier and whether they have been well served by any member in this House. That is the most powerful form of accountability that there possibly is.

We don't need the NDP to appoint themselves as the attendance monitor for the Premier. Nova Scotians are perfectly capable of holding their government to account. They do that at every election. If the Opposition believes that the Premier has failed to show up for the work of governing, they are welcome to make that case to voters. What they should not do is try to legislate themselves a veto over government business and call that accountability. Those are two very different things.

Our parliamentary system has always operated on a simple principle: the House requires a quorum - right, Mr. Whip? - not the attendance of specific office holders. I am not aware of any legislation in this country that requires named individuals to be present for a vote to be valid. If the member opposite knows of one, I'd be welcome to hear it.

Every member in this House was elected by their constituents. Every member has equal standing to vote. A budget vote taken with full quorum and a majority of the members is valid expression of will of this House regardless of which specific members happen to be present in the Chamber. What the member opposite is proposing would create a two-tier system of MLAs, where the votes of the Premier and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board are somehow more essential to democracy than the votes of every other elected member in this Chamber. That is not how our system works. It has never been how our system has worked, and I suggest it would set a dangerous precedent.

[Page 4744]

I have to point out something that I think Nova Scotians will find interesting because the members opposite have been making two arguments that cannot both be true at the same time. On one hand, we've heard from Opposition repeatedly - over and over - that there is too much power concentrated in the Premier's Office, too much centralized control, and too much decision-making in one office. That has been a consistent theme from members opposite this whole session. Now, with this bill, those members are arguing that a budget cannot pass without the Premier physically sitting in his chair and that the entire legislative agenda of the Province should grind to a halt if the Premier steps out of the Chamber.

Which is it? Is the Premier too powerful, or is the Premier so indispensable that the House of Assembly can't function without him?

You cannot argue it both ways. If the Opposition truly believes that the power should be distributed more broadly and that the institution of this Legislature matters more than any one individual, then they should be strengthening the role of every MLA in this Chamber not passing a law that says only two members really matter. This bill does the exact opposite of what the Opposition says it wants; it elevates the Premier's role to the point where the House literally cannot do its most important work without him. That's not reducing the concentration of power; that is enshrining it in law.

Let me turn to some of the practical consequences because they matter. What happens if the Premier is representing Nova Scotia at a First Ministers Meeting during a budget vote? Under this bill, a single Opposition leader could block the vote from proceeding. At a time when Nova Scotia is fighting for its fair share of federal funding, and when we're defending our interests on trade and defense spending, do we really want a law that says the Premier cannot do both?

Where is a family emergency or a medical situation - where does that fall? This bill would require the Premier or the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to disclose those private details of personal circumstances to Opposition leaders and then hope they agree that it meets the undefined standards of exceptional circumstances. How is that fair - how is that just - that a member of this House needs to disclose a personal emergency or personal matters to any other member in this House, besides our Speaker?

There is no definition of exceptional circumstances in this bill. How are we to know what is exceptional and what isn't? It's pretty exceptional that we have a Premier interested in the growth of this province. It's exceptional that he represents us proudly and sells Nova Scotia for what it is: a province rich in its natural resources, a province full of experts, a province that can move forward, if only the Opposition was to join in that flight. There is no mechanism if the Opposition leaders simply say no. Where are there exceptional circumstances defined for saying no? This isn't a gap in the drafting; it is drafted that way by design.

[3:30 p.m.]

[Page 4745]

The bill is designed to give the Opposition the ability to obstruct the proceedings of this House. It gives them vetoes, which are anti-democratic. It's the least of being a democratic process. So, where does this end? If we accept the principle behind this bill, where does it stop?

Should we require the Minister of Health and Wellness to be present for every health care vote? The Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development for every education bill vote? Should we require the Minister of Justice to be seated before we can pass a justice bill?

Once you start legislating which individuals must be present for the House to conduct its business, you undermine the very fundamental principle that every member's vote counts equally. This is bad legislation - bad, bad, bad legislation. Very, very, very bad.

AN HON. MEMBER: How bad is it?

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD « » : It's very bad, as Robert Munsch would say.

It would create an Opposition veto over government business. It would break with parliamentary convention that has been in effect for over 250 years, I believe. It would force the disclosure of personal circumstances of other politicians, and it would set a precedent that no future government of any party would want to live with.

The people of Nova Scotia have sent us here to debate. Tough decisions have to be made. That is what governing is about - working in the best interests of all Nova Scotians, of all our constituencies. To decide to govern, that's up to us as government, and they are the ones who will hold us accountable, not in procedural veto dressed up as what they would like to think is transparency, but dressed up as a control feature that would make members disclose personal, private details of their absences in this House.

Budget 2026-27 invests in health care. It invests in housing. This is what our communities are asking for on the floor today. Members put questions to our minister about the Need a Family Practice list. If we don't invest in our health care in the 2026-27 budget, how are we going to get that number to our mandated goal?

We are investing in our seniors. Many of us have new long-term care facilities getting ready to open this year, mine included at Dykeland Lodge. I voted for that budget because I voted for the things in my community, like my public housing; the first in over three decades. So, in communities across the province, Budget 2026-27 invests in the right things that we've heard from the people of this province that they are interested in us investing in.

The right thing to do is debate this budget, not walk out on Estimates and leave three hours sitting on the table, but to debate it in this Chamber on its merits, on its vote, not to create new procedural tools to prevent votes from happening.

[Page 4746]

We've had Opposition speak here for hours on end that they don't have enough time. They don't have enough time to talk to this budget, but this bill - this bill in its context, is not anything that I or any member of our party is willing to support.

With those few words.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill No. 251, the Budget Attendance Act. I am impressed to hear such a rousing defence of a budget for which the Premier and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board could not be bothered to vote.

I want to begin with a principle that sits at the core of our system of government. Ministers are responsible for their departments - full stop, not sometimes, not when it's convenient, not when things are going well - always. That is the foundation of responsible government. Ministers are given authority. They are entrusted with decisions. They are empowered to shape policy, allocate funding, and set direction. In return, they are expected to answer for those decisions, clearly, directly, and publicly.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : It's a long-standing rule in this House that you can't say if somebody is here for a vote or not. (Interruption) The member said that the Premier and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board were not here to vote for it.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : I said they couldn't be bothered to vote for the budget.

BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : That's important . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. Hold up there.

I dismiss that point of order. You cannot refer to the presence or absence of a member in the House. However, there is no restriction on how members may have voted or not voted, especially on a recorded vote.

The honourable member for Dartmouth South.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Thank you, Speaker.

I was speaking about the principle of responsible government - ministerial responsibility. Before I even get to the budget, when we walked into this House, that principle was called into question. A resolution was tabled that would have allowed ministerial assistants to answer for ministers in this House, presumably because . . . (interruption) Pardon?

[Page 4747]

THE SPEAKER « » : Actually, it's in the green book; a ministerial assistant can answer for a minister. I don't mean to correct, but I - in the question - for Question Period.

The honourable member for Dartmouth South.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : This year's budget and the way that it rolled out made clear that ministerial responsibility and responsible government is in somewhat short supply because when difficult decisions were revealed and harmful cuts came to light, we did not see clear ownership of them. We saw distance. We saw confusion. We saw ministers saying they were unaware of cuts within their own departments. We saw responsibility shifted onto staff and onto the public service members who work hard every day. We saw a government struggling to explain the decisions that had already been made.

That is not accountability. That is avoidance. Ministers don't get to claim credit for successes and distance themselves from difficult decisions. They don't get to stand in front of cameras when things are going well but step back from them when decisions cause harm. It should not work that way if this House is to function.

Not everyone does that. We have some ministers in this House who are willing to stand up and defend their decisions, and I respect that. When it comes to the budget - I think my colleague spoke at some length about how a budget works, how it works to be on the government side, and how it works to be on the Opposition side when it comes to a budget. That budget impacts people's lives. We heard the Premier say that this place is not the most important place for him to be, but we've also heard him say, over and over again, how transformative his investments are, how important his budget is - touting his own record. And yet he won't stand behind it.

Speaker, a budget is not just another piece of legislation. It's the clearest expression of a government's priorities. It tells Nova Scotians what matters, what doesn't matter, what will be funded, and what will be cut. This year's budget certainly made choices - choices that affected seniors, choices that affected Nova Scotians with disabilities, choices that affected African Nova Scotian communities, and choices that affected mental health services, art programs, and supports for Indigenous communities.

None of these were technical adjustments. They were real decisions with real consequences, and Nova Scotians responded. They spoke up and they pushed back and they showed up in the hundreds at rallies day after day, because they understood what was at stake.

Here's where the story becomes more telling. After that, what happened? After that pressure, after that outcry, the government made some changes. Eight different departments amended their budgets to restore some funding. This tells us something important. It tells us that the concerns raised by Nova Scotians were valid, that the cuts were not inevitable, that the decisions could have been different from the start if the work had been done to understand them.

[Page 4748]

That raises a fundamental question. If the initial decisions that were made were wrong, who is accountable for the mistake? Who wears that error? That's why this bill matters. It says that when a budget is brought forward and decisions of this magnitude are made, the core people responsible for those positions must stand and be counted, must take a position. That's why this bill matters.

The government can quibble with the wording of the bill. The spirit of this bill is what is important, which is that in my time in this House, I have never seen a Premier miss a vote on their own budget. I have never seen a Premier miss almost half of the Question Periods in a sitting. He's choosing not to be in the Chamber. That's his choice.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. For everybody - order.

You are getting to the absence of a member. I ask you not to do that. I ask you to stay on the other side of the line.

The honourable member for Dartmouth South.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Thank you. What this bill does is it says that when a budget is brought forward and decisions of this magnitude are made, the people responsible for those decisions must take a position. They must vote. They must stand behind what they have put forward, stand behind the people who they expect to carry those decisions - not because it's politically convenient but because it's democratically necessary.

I agree with my colleague from the Liberal Party when he said we shouldn't have to table legislation like this. But unfortunately, we do. We can't have a system where decisions are made and then the ownership of those decisions is unclear. We should all be worried about a system of governance where ministers get up and say things like, "I don't know." "I wasn't aware." "It wasn't my decision." "Staff decided." If that becomes acceptable, accountability disappears.

I have seen ministers resign in this House, Speaker. It's a sad day when that happens, but it's important. It is a huge responsibility to be a minister of the Crown - one that I have not had the privilege of being able to hold. That responsibility is important, and it comes with a responsibility to Nova Scotians to do the work, to make the decisions, and to stand behind them. This bill is about restoring trust. It's about ensuring that when Nova Scotians look at the decisions made in this House, they know who stands behind them.

[3:45 p.m.]

Government members have defended this budget. They have said it reflects their priorities. They have said these decisions were necessary. If that has been the case, there should be no hesitation to stand behind it. There should be no argument against the idea that every member should stand and be counted - to take ownership of it, to vote on it - because voting isn't just a procedural step, it's also a symbolic step. There's lots of symbolism in this House. In the next couple days, we'll see white gloves, processions to the Chair, and Royal Assent. It seems slightly antiquated - many of the conventions in this Chamber do - but they are important. How the members of this House put their positions on the record for all to see is also important. Nova Scotians deserve clarity, especially when those decisions affect their livelihoods, their communities, and their futures.

[Page 4749]

This bill does not demand perfection. It doesn't prevent governments from making difficult decisions. It doesn't remove the challenges of governing. It ensures that decisions are owned - fully, cleanly, and without ambiguity - by the leadership in charge of making them. It ensures that the people most responsible for this budget need to actually vote on it because leadership isn't just about making decisions. It's about standing behind them even if they're unpopular, even if they're challenged, and even if they have to be revisited and reversed.

If this year's budget has shown us anything, it has shown us that Nova Scotians are paying attention. They are enraged, and they are willing to speak up.

I ask all members to support this simple bill that simply codifies what should never have had to be a codified requirement, which is that the Premier and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board vote on their own budget.

With that, Speaker, I move to adjourn debate.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is to adjourn debate on Bill No. 251.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

The honourable House Leader for the Official Opposition.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 224.

Bill No. 224 - Increasing Grocer Competition Act.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.

KRISTA GALLAGHER « » : I put my glasses on here.

I rise today to move second reading of Bill No. 224, An Act to Amend Chapter 385 of the Revised Statutes, 1989, the Real Property Act, to Eliminate Competitor Property Controls that Restrict Access to Food, also known as the Increasing Grocer Competition Act.

[Page 4750]

Okay, it's a mouthful. It sounds technical, but it addresses something quite simple. It's about whether Nova Scotians can access food in their own communities.

I want to start with a street that we all know. We've all driven through Gottingen Street, a vibrant, growing neighbourhood - families, workers, students, seniors - but it's missing something. For decades, there's been no full-service grocery store. That's not because there hasn't been demand, and it's not because nobody wanted to open one, but it's because they weren't allowed to.

A restrictive covenant put in place generations ago blocks any competitor from selling groceries on that land. A legal clause written decades ago still shapes whether families today can buy fresh food in their own neighbourhood. We need groceries, and to get them, folks need to travel to get them, and that doesn't mean just a walk down the street. For the folks on Gottingen Street, that's usually a drive to a full-service shop. Have you ever tried to carry laundry soap across town? It's not enjoyable.

This could help areas like Gottingen Street. They're known as food deserts. It's not just one street in Halifax, either. Across the province, there are dozens of these restrictions - entire properties sometimes sitting empty, when grocery stores could open but they can't, and communities turned into food deserts not by geography but by legal agreements. That's what this bill targets.

Bill No. 224 would amend the Real Property Act to do two key things. First, it would make an exclusivity clause in commercial leases void where they restrict grocery competition. Competition is good. Second, it would make restricted covenants void where they prevent grocery stores or even the sale of fresh produce from operating. In plain terms, it would stop large grocery chains from using property laws to block competitors from opening nearby.

People need grocery options in their neighbourhood; it's a basic necessity. Families in Nova Scotia are busy, and they're just trying to get by on a good life. They're juggling work, they're juggling kids, they've got soccer practice, they've got dance class, and they're making sure the science project is finished. Accessible places to buy food makes a real difference on busy days. Time, as we all know in this House, is a limited resource. Removing these covenants will save people money and time.

It shouldn't be the case that shopping weekly is a great ordeal: drive across town, lugging a grocery haul on multiple buses to get all of the groceries they need. This is the reality in many Nova Scotian communities. It costs money to fill that tank of gas; don't we know it? A drive across town or idling in traffic - that's the last way anybody wants to spend their precious time in hours outside of work. They want to be able to get healthy, affordable food when their families need it, nearby or in their neighbourhoods. This makes neighbourhoods that people want to live in - neighbourhoods where people can pop by the shop to get the ingredients for dinner or run into their neighbour on the way home.

[Page 4751]

Neighbourhoods are built around what people want, what people need, and what communities need and want right here at home, but these covenants serve big chains, not the community and not independent grocers.

Decisions on how communities look should not be decided by the Galen Westons of the world pushing aside what Nova Scotians really want and need. That leaves people without options and land that sits vacant for decades.

We know this is a real and growing problem because right now the federal Competition Bureau Canada is actively investigating grocery store competition right here in Halifax. They've gone to court to obtain records from major grocery store chains, specifically looking at the use of these property controls. That should tell us something.

While Nova Scotia studies the problem, other provinces are already acting. In Manitoba, the NDP government has already passed legislation to ban these kinds of restricted covenants in the grocery sector. I'm encouraged by this. They recognize that these practices limit competition and reduce access to food, so they changed the law. Bill No. 224 would do the same thing right here in Nova Scotia.

The question becomes: If Manitoba can do it, why can't we? If communities are telling us that they need access to food, why are we still allowing corporations to block it?

What do these property controls actually do? They allow large grocery chains to shape the market before competition even begins. They can prevent landlords from leasing to competitors. They can limit what nearby stores are allowed to sell. They can lock properties out of grocery use for decades, even after the store has already closed and moved on.

The consequences are real. You see them when the building sits empty for years because groceries aren't allowed there. You see them when an independent grocer wants to open but can't find a viable location. That's why Bill No. 224 matters, and it could make a real difference to Nova Scotians because it targets a structural problem, and it doesn't create unnecessary bureaucracy for businesses. It simply removes barriers so that competition can really happen. We know that competition matters. Competition is good. When local businesses can access space, consumers just get more choice. People can get the food that they need for their families without trekking across town to get it.

This issue didn't appear overnight. Governments, previous governments, many governments, had the opportunity to act but didn't. At its core, Bill No. 224, the Increasing Grocer Competition Act, is about fairness. It's about ensuring that no company can use property laws to block access to good food. It's about ensuring communities are not bound by decades-old agreements that no longer serve them. It's about ensuring that when someone wants to open a grocery store, they can.

At the end of the day, this is about people. It's about Nova Scotians. It's about a parent trying to afford groceries. It's about a senior trying to stay in their community. It's about a neighbourhood that's trying to access fresh food. I think Nova Scotians deserve it. They deserve competition. I urge all members of this House to support the bill.

[Page 4752]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : I'm happy to stand today to support Bill No. 224. I think it's in the interest of increasing food availability and accessibility for Nova Scotians.

When we're looking at the restrictive covenants and exclusivity clauses that are established by these large businesses that place limitations on grocery and food options for Nova Scotians, we should look at the evidence. That would show that in Canada, roughly 70 percent, 75 percent of the market share - if you include the Costco Wholesale Canada and the Walmart Canada as groceries, we're looking at 80 percent of the market share - is controlled by those big box retailers. Then if you even zero down even closer in Atlantic Canada, about 70 percent is actually controlled by just two.

My colleague mentioned Sobeys and Loblaws. They control 80 percent of that market share due to these types of legal restrictions that can actually enable food deserts, as was mentioned. Communities can be further away from accessing food - particularly healthy food - in grocery stores, in independent establishments like Luminate Co Wellness Market that are proud of being able to source local, healthy, more sustainable options for food. That often can disproportionately impact low-income communities in our province.

We know that there is precedent for this in Manitoba, which introduced legislation just last year to ensure that there would no longer be restrictive covenants in place. There's interest in Alberta as well; particularly the City of Edmonton is looking at this to ask the province to take action because of these costs.

We're in an affordability context right now where we should be doing everything we can to help our small businesses. We have debated bills that would support small businesses before in this House. Unfortunately, we didn't get support on them, but we know that we can support more corner stores, more markets that tend to offer more locally sourced fresh options, local foods. These options need to be both affordable and diverse. We also know that the government has an interest in supporting local businesses with some of their programming, and they should have interest in promoting healthier eating habits.

If we allow for the continued use of restrictive covenants, then the government is suggesting to Nova Scotians where they have to purchase groceries and spend their money. These limitations also dampen the ability for producers to choose where they sell their products. Competition is therefore stifled for producers, sellers, and consumers.

We also introduced a bill earlier this sitting, Bill No. 241, which is the Grocery Price Study and Food Affordability Act. This would actually help strengthen the business case for passing this bill as well because you could look at the data collected by an independent panel that would provide the evidence needed to eliminate these covenants - which we know should happen - on top of looking at all the other ways that we can bring down food costs for Nova Scotians.

[Page 4753]

There's also the issue of vacant land and vacant retail space that could be unlocked if we had more independent outlets that already face a high barrier cost to enter that type of business just to try to lower the barriers to entrance and unlock some of that space that could be used. If the government is truly committed to increasing grocery affordability for Nova Scotians, they can't be simultaneously committed to protecting these big box stores. Again, we're happy to support this bill, and we hope the government recognizes the benefit as well.

[4:00 p.m.]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Inverness.

KYLE MACQUARRIE « » : I want to begin by saying something clearly and on the record. I support competition. I support consumer choice. I absolutely understand the frustration that Nova Scotians feel when they see high food prices and limited options in their communities.

Bill No. 224 goes far beyond addressing grocery competition. In fact, the word "commercial" is used many times in the bill, and the word "grocery" is only mentioned twice. It reaches deeply into private contracts, property rights, and long-standing legal principles, and it does so without basic safeguards, oversight or recourse.

That's why I rise today with serious concerns about this bill. It discards due process, it endangers property, it empowers registrars to act without consent, appeal, or compensation. Bill No. 224 will have consequences well beyond grocery pricing.

The bill does not simply prevent anti-competitive behaviour by dominant grocery chains. It does not narrowly target bad actors, or abusive practices. Instead, it uses a legislative sledgehammer. It can void all types of exclusivity clauses in commercial leases, past and present. It can void land title covenants, even those with no direct connection to grocery stores. It does so automatically, retroactively, and permanently. Perhaps the most troubling of all, it hands this power to administrative registrars, without a requirement for oversight or accountability, while stripping affected parties of any meaningful recourse.

To understand why this is a problem, we have to leave the abstract and look at real world outcomes. Imagine a community that made a deliberate decision to cluster health services in one area: a medical clinic, a pharmacy, a physiotherapy practice, an imaging lab, and perhaps a counselling service. You might be thinking of one near you. This was not accidental. It was planned.

Years ago, the landowner, developers, lenders and tenants negotiated a land title covenant. That covenant had very specific purposes: to protect patient access, ensure adequate parking, maintain quiet use, and prevent incompatible high traffic retail from overcrowding a sensitive environment. This covenant had nothing to do with grocery stores. Nothing to do with food prices. Nothing to do with retail competition. It was about land compatibility.

[Page 4754]

Doctors invested in their buildings. Pharmacists signed long-term leases. Banks financed construction based on the stability the covenant provided. Now fast forward to today. Under this bill, a nearby parcel - one that has been restricted by that same covenant - is leased to a convenience store operator. The operator does not plan to open a grocery store. They sell fuel, coffee, snacks and a little bit of fresh produce.

Under Bill No. 224, all they need to do is add a refrigerated case and a small rack of fresh fruit. That single decision is enough. At that moment, a registrar, an unelected administrative official, may void the covenant that has protected this medical district for decades. No hearing. No impact assessment. No ministerial approval. And once that covenant is gone, it's gone forever. Parking becomes strained, traffic increases, patients struggle to find access. Medical professionals lose the stability they relied on, yet the covenant that supported that system was never about groceries in the first place. When a rack of bananas can override years of careful planning for health care services, something has gone wrong with their legislative drafting.

Now consider an industrial park: manufacturing, warehouses, maybe some light fabrication - jobs that rely on predictable logistics, controlled traffic flows, and separation from incompatible uses. Years ago, developers would have registered land title covenants restricting retail operations in order to protect truck access, safety standards, and operational efficiency. Those covenants were fundamental to securing investment. They influenced insurance, they affected zoning compliance, and they protected jobs.

Again, none of this was about groceries, but under Bill No. 224 those covenants can still be voided. How? A convenience store or a big box store on an adjacent parcel decides to open up, and suddenly a covenant designed to preserve industrial safety and efficiency can be erased - not because the original purpose no longer matters, but because the bill does not distinguish between meaningful grocery competition and a technical trigger. This invites instability instead of investment.

Speaker, think of a tourist-oriented area: a coastal village, a winery corridor, or a heritage commercial strip. Years ago, landowners would have worked together to establish covenants preserving the specific mix of uses: restaurants, artisan shops, galleries, and accommodations. These covenants were about character, experience, and economic stability. They ensured that a tourist development was cohesive and intentional.

Now imagine a convenience store is proposed nearby. Again, maybe not even a grocery store, not a community market; just a convenience outlet. Add a display of fresh produce at the counter and suddenly the covenant protecting that tourism district is in jeopardy. A registrar or a deputy registrar can strike it from the title. There is no mechanism to weigh public interest, economic impact, or community planning objectives.

Let me bring this closer to home. In many rural communities, a single anchor business keeps a commercial area viable. Years ago, that anchor tenant would have agreed to locate in a town that may have been struggling at the time - not out of charity, but because the lease terms made the risk manageable. An exclusivity clause provided the confidence to invest - renovations, hiring people to work there, and a long-term commitment. Under Bill No. 224, that exclusivity disappears retroactively.

[Page 4755]

Now imagine a second business sets up nearby - not a comparable grocery store, but a small outlet selling basic goods and some produce. The anchor tenant loses the protection they relied on and the community is in danger of losing their grocery store. Their financing may not be approved - not through competition on equal footing but through legislative intervention. We should be encouraging competition, not punishing businesses that invest in smaller communities when they need it in good faith under the rules that existed at that time.

This leads to a broader concern: Retroactivity. Bill No. 224 does not merely change the rules going forward. It rewrites the past. Contracts that were lawful when signed could be rendered void. Covenants that shape long-term investments can be erased. This undermines trust, not just in the grocery sector but across the entire commercial landscape.

Let's talk plainly about the registrars, if you will allow me a moment. The registrars are not judges, and yet under Bill No. 224, they are empowered to cancel registered land title instruments with no oversight and no statutory criteria. This is problematic because it makes the registrar, or the Registrar General, or a deputy registrar, responsible for determining the legal effect and the validity of any covenant, an authority typically exercised by the court, who can order modification or discharge of the covenant.

Another issue is that the powers exercised by this bill are assigned to the Registrar General, but the proposed amendments are not to the Land Registration Act or the Registry Act. They are to the Real Property Act, which the Registrar General is not responsible for and has no authority over.

Speaker, if you didn't think it was bad enough, Clause 3 is where the real damage of this bill becomes impossible to ignore. This is the clause that says there is no appeal, there is no opportunity to be heard, and there is no compensation, no matter how real the loss. Let me tell the House what that actually means in practice.

Imagine a family-run medical clinic that has operated in the same location for over 20 years. The doctors are partners. Some are approaching retirement. Others have recently joined the practice. The covenants were part of the risk calculation made by the bank, by the partners, and by the accountants who advised them.

Now imagine that one morning, without warning, a letter arrives from the Land Registry. The letter says that a covenant affecting the neighbouring property has been voided under Bill No. 224. The decision was made by a registrar. No consultation occurred. No notice was given. No hearing was held. The clinic later discovers why: A convenience store opened nearby and decided to sell fresh produce. Because of that, the registrar concluded the covenant restricting retail use could no longer stand. The doctors now face increased traffic congestion, parking shortages, and operational disruption. The value of their property falls.

[Page 4756]

So they ask the reasonable question: How do we appeal this decision? How do we argue that the covenant had nothing to do with groceries? How do we demonstrate financial harm? The answer, Speaker, is chillingly simple: they cannot. Clause 3 explicitly says that no appeal is available. The decision is final.

Clause 3 does not merely advance competition. It removes the most basic safeguards that Nova Scotians expect when government interferes. Under this clause, decisions with significant economic consequences are insulated from review. Financial losses are imposed entirely on private citizens. The government assumes no responsibility for the harm created.

Bill No. 224 risks destabilizing property law, undermining investor confidence, and eroding due process, creating unintended harm across sectors far removed from groceries. A medical covenant can be erased over bananas. That's bananas. When industrial . . . (Interruption) How bad is it?

When industrial safety protections fall to a produce rack, that's brain-racking. When tourism districts lose planning safeguards without a hearing, that's hard to hear. For those reasons, I submit that Bill No. 224 must wholly be rejected.

[4:15 p.m.]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : I could not sit after hearing that speech. I want to speak to some of the points and debate some of the points that the government MLA shared for why they're not supporting this bill. I emphatically support this bill and applaud the member for tabling this bill. This bill is about trying to improve access to food for people who currently live in food deserts. In a couple of minutes, I'll share. This is actually something that I have personally worked on in one of my communities. I absolutely support this bill, Bill No. 224, Increasing Grocer Competition Act.

The member said one of the reasons they don't support it is because - one of the things he stated is that they want to encourage competition. This bill actually would allow more competition. They may not have read the entirety of the bill. This piece of legislation would improve competition and better access to food.

Some of the examples that he gave - I just want to dispute them. One of them was, if there's a medical clinic, we wouldn't want to disrupt that. Let me just say that people who work in health care understand the value and importance of people having access to food. Absolutely. There's not a doctor or nurse or health care professional I know who would stand in the way of ensuring that people have access to food in their communities. That is a very strange argument against this bill in my opinion.

[Page 4757]

Parking. Seriously, that is a reason to not support this bill - because it might create parking problems? The other thing the member spoke about - one of the arguments was that there's no recourse or no ability to appeal a decision. I invite the member to read some of their own pieces of legislation that were tabled in this session that actually do the exact same thing. One of them was the amendments to the Securities Act in Bill No. 198. If it's not okay in this bill, then why is it okay in their bills? That argument doesn't apply either.

I also want to refer to legislation that Manitoba just passed last year doing pretty similar to what this piece of legislation is doing in allowing for more competition and better access to food for their people in that province. I encourage our province to do something similar. My understanding of the principles and values of the Progressive Conservative Party is that they're open to markets and capitalism, and competition is one of those aspects of business. You don't decrease access to competition; you actually increase it. One of the things that the member, the Leader of the Liberal Party, spoke about was the fact there are two companies here that are controlling 80 percent of these restricted covenants. That is not allowing for fair competition.

I'm going to share an example - I won't go into details because it's private. This exact problem happened in one of the communities that I represent. It's in the town of Amherst. There are a lot of people who live in downtown Amherst. A lot of those people are living in the lower socioeconomic levels. Many of them do not have access to transportation. There used to be a LoFood grocery store in downtown Amherst, and back probably around 10 years ago, Walmart started selling food. At that same time, Sobeys owned LoFood and they made a decision to close the LoFood in downtown Amherst, meaning all those people living in the downtown who do not have access to transportation are now left without a grocery store to access easily within walking distance.

Fast forward to just a couple of years ago. There are people interested in opening a new grocery store in downtown Amherst. The reason they cannot on the land that they have available to them is exactly what this bill is talking about: it's because of a restrictive covenant. The people who control that are shareholders of these large companies.

By the government not supporting this bill, they're not standing up and protecting the average, everyday Nova Scotian who needs access to food but maybe doesn't have access to transportation. They're supporting shareholders of large corporations by allowing them to restrict competition.

I encourage government to take a second look at this bill. I think that it falls in line with the values of their party. Don't be blinded to a good piece of legislation or a good idea because someone from a different party tabled it here in the Legislature. It's a good idea, and it will help improve access to food for people here in this province.

I also want to reference this document from Competition Bureau Canada, from October 21, 2024, where it says:

[Page 4758]

The Competition Bureau is inviting market participants to provide input about the use of property controls in the Canadian grocery industry. We are seeking information on the use of property controls in the industry as a whole, and to inform our ongoing investigations. This call-out for information is independent from the consultation the Bureau recently conducted on its preliminary enforcement approach to competitor property controls.

It references restrictive covenants:

Restrictive Covenants are clauses in private contracts that are often introduced when land is sold from one party to another. While restrictive covenants can take a variety of forms, the Bureau is most interested in restrictive covenants that prevent a food retailer from opening a store on a property. These restrictions can remain in place for long periods of time and, in some instances, forever.

In the case that I am aware of, it was put in place decades ago. The people who are benefiting from that restrictive covenant are wealthy people who are shareholders of large corporations, and it's not fair. It's not fair, and this bill would help to improve access. It would increase competition, which I believe the party would support if they took a second look at it.

I encourage them to do so, and I want to thank the member for tabling this bill. I hope the government will reconsider and support it.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.

PAUL WOZNEY « » : I smile because we on this side of the House so often hear ourselves characterized as doom and gloom and being hyperbolic about how everything is going to go wrong, yet the member for the PC caucus who stood and spoke to Bill No. 224 paints a picture that, if we were to pass this bill, we would destabilize health care in a catastrophic way; that by opening a small shop that sells bananas in a cooler, we would destroy zoning and years of health care planning in one fell swoop, in a dastardly move; that we would destabilize carefully planned tourist districts; and that if somebody were to open a small food shop in connection to a gas station where you could buy fresh bananas or a bag of three oranges, the tourist destination will be wiped out by this move.

I'm being a bit tongue in cheek, but to that I simply say that we looked at this issue of what is wrong with grocery access in Nova Scotia. We did our homework. We looked at jurisdictions where governments are taking a proactive role to break up the near monopoly powers of massive multinational corporations like Loblaws and Sobeys that control a dominant share of the market. Legislation of this sort has been enacted in Manitoba, and I can happily report that, in passing this law, Manitoba does not report a massive destabilization in the delivery of health care, the planning of health care infrastructure, a massive destabilization and erosion of tourism, or any of the other examples that the member opposite provided in his analysis of the bill.

[Page 4759]

We see this legislation at work in another province right now. The doom and the gloom and the sky-is-falling analysis provided has not materialized. It may come as a shock to folks in the PC caucus that despite an NDP government being in power in Manitoba, despite an NDP government passing this legislation, shockingly the sun continues to rise and set in Manitoba. Tourism continues to happen. Health care continues to be delivered. Enhanced competition and access to food is possible in Manitoba as a result of this legislation.

I applaud the showmanship on the part of my counterpart across the way in presenting very dramatic worst-case scenarios.

I want to turn for a moment back to the purpose of this bill. Why are we putting this bill forward to begin with? This bill is about whether Nova Scotians can afford to feed their families. Right now, Nova Scotians in every constituency in this province walk into grocery stores with very limited resources and are walking out with fewer groceries and paying more for them every single day in every community of this province. That's a reality that we all know is happening in communities that we respectively represent.

Nova Scotians are making hard choices as they make their way through the grocery aisles about what they can afford to buy, what they need to put back, and what things they're actually going to take home. They're putting things away that are needed for a balanced, nutritious diet. They're making decisions about how to stretch meals, even if it means that those meals are not nourishing their families in the way that they need.

Nova Scotians are asking a pretty reasonable question. Why is this happening? Nova Scotians aren't asking for much. They're asking for the ability to be able to go to a local grocery store - local in the sense that they don't have to drive ridiculous distances and burn lots of gas just to find some place to buy food - to find some place to buy food close to home and to pay a fair price for the food that they buy there. On this government's watch, that's a project that's getting harder and harder.

Since 2021, grocery prices in Nova Scotia are up 27 percent. Food bank usage is up by 66 percent in that same time span. Food inflation in Nova Scotia is sitting at 9.2 percent, which is higher than the national average. These are not abstract numbers. These are the realities faced by families, by seniors, and by workers. Altogether, Nova Scotians are struggling with not only the cost of food but finding a place to get food that they can afford.

We know that there are larger forces at play. We know that global factors are an issue in food prices. Supply chain issues are factors in food prices. There are factors closer to home that we in this Legislature have sway over that are structural and, frankly, preventable.

[Page 4760]

We have a lack of competition in Nova Scotia. This lack of competition is not accidental. It is a lack of competition that exists by design.

This bill does target restrictive covenants and exclusivity clauses. The question is: Who stands to benefit? Who does the best? Who gains most from the existence of these clauses, these tactics? It's the multi-national families like the Westons who control Loblaws. It's the Sobey family. These are the folks who do best by these aspects of law. What it means, exclusivity clauses mean that landlords are prevented from renting space to competitors that might open and provide sales of affordable food to families in the community.

These clauses limit what nearby stores are allowed to sell. These clauses actually allow existing big box stores to dictate pricing behaviour in neighbouring businesses. There are real examples of this right here in HRM. A Superstore location has an agreement that allows it to influence what a nearby Dollarama store sold. Think about that. A grocery giant decides whether another store can even sell or put on its shelves basics like boxed food or bottled water, based on whether or not they feel the prices that a competitor would sell those goods at are too low. Not because of safety, not because of access, not because of quality, but because they don't want to compete. They can set prices at a comfortable level that ensures that they make money hand over fist.

[4:30 p.m.]

Restrictive covenants go even further. They can prevent a property from ever being used as a grocery store even after an original grocery store in the same location has been closed. My colleague painted this dramatic picture of how this would destabilize entire sectors, but at the same time, this measure makes sure that a grocery store - I'm old enough to remember when there was an IGA in Fairview. It wasn't a very big store but it was an option to a much larger store a 15-minute drive away. Plenty of families were happy to buy their groceries at the Fairview IGA.

Well, it closed up shop and now that it's closed, nobody can operate a grocery store even if there were a business case; even if they were prepared to bear the cost of renovation and all those things; even if they were prepared to operate a business consistent with the purposes of the covenant. Because the original holder of the covenant has closed up shop, that business can no longer operate.

When that happens, a grocery store closes, we say, "Oh, it's a business. It's tragic. There are jobs," and just shrug and move on; but there's an entire community that loses local access to food. Because of a legality, no one else is allowed to step in and fill that gap, even when they're willing, even when they're able, even when they're ready to compete.

We've seen this on Gottingen Street when a Sobeys closed decades ago, and the land was effectively locked from being used for another grocery store. Residents in this area have persistently said that they need affordable groceries and they need access. They shouldn't have to travel across the city just to feed their families, and yet they are denied this very access because of a mechanism that exists in corporate law. I don't want to talk so much about the mechanics, but I want to share an example of how a different jurisdiction has looked at these aspects: exclusivity clauses and restrictive covenants.

[Page 4761]

My first experience living away from home - I moved away from home in 1996 to go to Montréal to pursue my teaching degree at McGill University. I lived off campus; I lived in an apartment. I had participated in grocery shopping with my parents for a good long time before I moved out, but one of the things that made it possible for me to afford to live in Montréal was the immense amount of competition in the grocery sector.

We had big chains like Loblaws. They had big chains that we don't have in Nova Scotia, like Super C and Provigo and Maxi. All of these were previously owned by separate corporations. Then there was a whole middle class of local grocery stores. Grocery stores, chains that were local to Montréal but had seven or eight locations on and off the island of Montréal. There were three or four grocers that fit that bill. Then underneath that there were small local grocers that may have only had one or two locations in various parts of the city.

I had a very lean budget for groceries. The very first semester that I spent away from home, my dad told me, "Keep all your receipts and I'm going to check and see how sharp your pencil is when it comes to food - whether you're living high on the hog, or whether you're being responsible with the money that you saved." I was sweating bullets for that sit-down when I came home at Christmastime. My dad went through the spreadsheet, and I'm happy to report that I was managing to live on $4.20 spent on groceries a day.

That was only possible because I could shop around at the (inaudible). I could go buy the meat that was on special at the big chain and I could go buy dry goods at the medium-sized chain and I could go to the local store where produce was cheapest. All together that made it possible for me, as a university student who worked really hard in summer, to stretch my dollar and not go into debt and have to take another year off and work further.

This is the kind of competition we don't have in any place in Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia if you want to shop you can buy from a Loblaws or you can buy from Sobeys. You can say, well there's more than that. Shoppers Drug Mart is Loblaws, Lawtons Drugs is Sobeys, so even if you want to talk about all these other options, two major corporations accountable to shareholders alone, with no interest, no accountability to provide affordable food to consumers control the vast majority of what we can shop for in Nova Scotia and that's a problem.

The laws we're proposing to change enable that kind of monopolistic kind of behaviour. We can fix this in Nova Scotia, and we can do it in a way that doesn't destabilize covenants for health care, tourism of other sectors. Changes would apply to cases where exclusivity clauses and restrictive covenants are applied to the sales of food, particularly around grocery stores.

[Page 4762]

This bill is not seeking to enable a proliferation of Circle K or bringing a 7-Eleven to the market so we can all get cheaper taquitos, hot dogs, and nachos at 11:00 p.m. We all know that slurpies would be a big hit here in Nova Scotia. That's not what the aim of this legislation is.

We have a real opportunity, as a government, on both sides of this House, to collaborate on legislation that would tangibly create a regulatory environment where we would make it more possible or more feasible for a greater range of businesses to open up shop in Nova Scotia and to sell groceries and food to Nova Scotians at distances closer to their home, where they don't have to drive and spend some of the most expensive gas we've ever seen. We want to make sure people have that opportunity. Right now the regime that's in place makes sure that Nova Scotians don't have those opportunities.

At a time when families are finding it harder to stretch a very a strapped grocery budget, this is a constructive measure we could take together - PC, Liberal, Independents, and NDP to collaborate on a measure which would set in motion changes necessary to enhance competition and make food more accessible and more affordable to Nova Scotians in every part of this province.

For those reasons I support the bill. With that, Speaker, I move to adjourn debate on Bill No 224.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is to adjourn debate on Bill No. 224.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

The honourable Official Opposition House Leader.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 226.

Bill No. 226 - Strengthening Consumer Protection Act.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : I am happy to rise and speak to this bill, which I think is a really important one. I will say that when I introduced this bill earlier in the sitting, I did have a quick conversation with the minister who would be responsible for some of these changes. I was very pleased that she was interested in the bill and I hope this debate will stir more interest and see if we can get some of these changes across Nova Scotia. Maybe not today but this is a start.

Bill No. 226 is An Act to Strengthen Consumer Protection with Respect to Rewards Points, Surveillance-based Price Discrimination and Warranties, also known as the Strengthening Consumer Protection Act. Like many of the most important pieces of legislation we debate in this House, this one is about keeping up - keeping up with the times, keeping up with how people shop, keeping up with how companies operate and, most importantly, keeping up with how Nova Scotians are treated in today's economy.

[Page 4763]

The truth is that the rules we have right now were built for a different time, a time before artificial intelligence could reset prices in seconds, a time before companies could track your behaviour down to the minute, a time before digital reward systems quietly took money out of people's pockets, and a time before families were being squeezed from every side at once.

Speaker, I want to talk about the three things this bill does, three practical, concrete changes that would make a real difference in people's lives: banning surveillance-based pricing, protecting rewards points that people have earned, and strengthening product warranties.

Let me start with the first thing that I think every person in this province should be concerned about; that is surveillance-based pricing. That sounds like a technical term and it's actually kind of difficult to say but this is what it means.

It means that companies are using our personal data - things like location, browsing history, past purchases - to figure out exactly how much we are willing to pay for a product online and then charging us more, not because the product costs more and not because the supply of the product changed but simply because an algorithm decided that we would tolerate a higher price. This is not a hypothetical - something happening in the future - thing. This is a real thing. A recent investigation into the grocery delivery app Instacart found that people were being shown different prices for the exact same item at the same store at the same time. In some cases, those differences were as high as 23 percent - same product, same place, different price - and the reason was because of who the customer was.

This issue was serious enough that, in December 2025, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission opened an investigation into Instacart and their pricing policies and practices. Regulators are stepping in because they recognize what's happening. It's not innovation. It's discrimination, all driven by data.

Speaker, I want you to think about - or the House to think about - what that means for Nova Scotians. It means that two neighbours could be buying the exact same groceries from the exact same place, and one of them is paying quite a bit more without even realizing it.

I've been thinking about this lately because I've been doing some shopping for my daughter online, and I'm thinking, "Well, I thought that that said $35 for that pair of shorts, but today it's $50." I don't know. Maybe it's happening in many more places, or maybe I'm missing sales. Either way, it's not good.

[Page 4764]

It means a family could be spending hundreds of dollars or maybe over $1,000 more per year without even knowing why, and it means that the basic idea of a fair price - the same price for the same product - is being eroded.

This bill would make that practice illegal. It would ban surveillance-based price discrimination outright because fairness in the marketplace should not depend on how much data a company has on you. Prices should be allowed to adjust based on supply and demand, but prices should never be allowed to be set based on who you are. This bill draws a bright red line, saying that kind of price gouging is not allowed.

Importantly, we are not the only - we're not alone in recognizing that this is a problem. In Manitoba the government has already moved to crack down on predatory pricing processes as part of a broader effort to bring grocery prices down. In the United States, lawmakers are introducing legislation requiring companies to disclose when algorithmic pricing is being used.

That's the thing. In Nova Scotia, it's happening, and we don't know when it's happening. The first step is knowing when it's happening. The second step is banning it outright. We should be banning it outright, but at least in the United States, they're looking at informing people. The momentum is clear around this practice, and the question is whether Nova Scotia will lead or whether we'll fall behind.

The second part of the bill is something that many people have probably experienced but didn't even know it was happening to them - again, I did not know that this was a thing - rewards points. People collect rewards points. Almost every place we shop now, there's some kind of rewards system. People collect the points in good faith. There is an exchange of information. When I sign up for a rewards program at a store, I know that I'm going to be getting emails or texts from that store, even though you can cancel at any time. People collect the points in good faith. They scan their card; they use the app; and they build up value over time. They make choices about where to shop based on rewards programs. They treat these points like money because that's exactly what they are.

Then, quietly in some cases, the rewards points can disappear - expire. If you don't use them after a certain amount of time, they're gone - no one ever tells you that when you sign up for the rewards program - sometimes after six months, sometimes after a year, and sometimes because the person didn't use the app in just the right way. It's not fair, and it's not transparent.

We've already taken action on this before. When the NDP was in government before, we banned the expiry of gift cards because we recognized that if someone pays for a gift card, it's like a cash value, and it shouldn't expire. We don't expire our money, or our money doesn't expire after a certain amount of time, so neither should gift cards.

[4:45 p.m.]

[Page 4765]

The NDP made that change when we were in government, and Bill No. 226 - this bill that we're talking about - builds on that. It says that rewards points should be treated the same way. They shouldn't expire and they should be automatically credited. They should belong to the consumer, not the company. That's really about something quite simple. The points have value and the people should be allowed to keep the value. You're spending money to get points, so really, you're buying those reward points and you should be able keep them.

The third part of this bill is about something that every household understands if you buy anything for a home or a household, and that's about when you buy something expensive and it breaks too soon - a fridge, a stove, a washing machine, a phone, a laptop. These are not luxury purchases at this point. These are essentials, and they are expensive. Yet, what happens too often? The warranty expires and the product fails. The consumer is left holding the bag.

Other jurisdictions have recognized this as a problem. In Quebec, particularly, there's new legislation that has established mandatory minimum warranties for common household goods. Three, four, five, even six years for different things. They cover parts, labour, repairs, because the principle is simple: If a product is expected to last, it should be guaranteed to last. Bill No. 226 brings that same principle to Nova Scotia. It sets clear, enforceable warranty standards for everyday products, shifting the risk away from families and back onto the manufacturers where it belongs.

You go to Walmart now and you buy a pair of $35 headphones, and you can purchase extra: Do you want the two-year coverage on your $35 headphones? Sometimes it depends on the purchase, but sometimes I say yes to that, sometimes I don't. Really, we shouldn't have to do that. The product should last us a couple of years, and we should be guaranteed that. The companies should be held accountable. Think about what this means for people. It means fewer surprise repair bills. It means more confidence when making big purchases. It means real savings at a time when every dollar matters.

When we step back and look at this bill, it's about fairness in a modern economy. The reality is the marketplace has changed. Technology has changed, corporate practices have changed, but our laws haven't kept up. Right now, companies can use your data to charge you more, design systems where your rewards quietly disappear, and sell products that fail, leaving you to pay the price. Technically, all of it is legal.

Bill No. 226 says it needs to change. The government members have said affordability is a priority for them, but affordability isn't just about headlines; it's about actually changing the nitty-gritty rules that will make a difference in people's lives. It's about changing the rules that shape everyday transactions, and it's about whether people are treated fairly when they shop, when they save, and when they invest in their homes. This bill gives us a chance to do all of those things. Other jurisdictions are already moving. Manitoba is taking on predatory pricing, Quebec is strengthening warranties, and regulators in the United States are investigating algorithmic pricing. The world is changing. The question is whether Nova Scotia will keep up with it.

[Page 4766]

Nova Scotians work hard. They try to do things right, they budget, they plan, they try to get ahead, and they deserve a government that respects that effort. They deserve to know that the price that they see is fair, that the points they earn are not going to disappear, and when they buy something, it will last. This bill moves us in that direction. It modernizes our laws, it protects consumers - everyday Nova Scotians - and it ensures that fairness is not left behind in the digital age.

With those words, I look forward to the debate on this bill. I can't see a negative to this bill, so I'm looking forward to the discussion, and I urge everyone in this House to support it.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order for a second. We just checked Hansard, and you didn't move second reading.

The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : Thank you, Speaker. I'm not going to say all of that again, but just insert where I began and say that I move second reading of Bill No. 226.

THE SPEAKER « » : Excellent.

The honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Speaker, I'm pleased to rise to speak in support of the NDP's Bill No. 226, which aims to protect consumers who participate in rewards programs, prohibit surveillance-based price discrimination from sellers, and outlines specific consumer warranties.

Nova Scotians are happy to engage in rewards programs, especially if it helps local businesses and business owners incentivize Nova Scotians who spend their hard-earned money at a particular seller and do so because they believe rewards programs will offer a return on investment. Most of us use some type of rewards programs at grocery stores, gas stations, and other stores.

The government knows this so well that in the 2021 campaign they built their entire economic platform around it. They called it Nova Scotia Loyal. We called it PC Points.

When the government rolled this program out in 2024, this government decided to award Sobeys an untendered contract worth nearly $1 million to offer additional Scene points as part of the Nova Scotia Loyal program. The government's collaboration with Sobeys and the NSLC ended in 2025. We have yet to receive the data on the impact of the points system and whether it boosted sales for Nova Scotia businesses.

Should we see a rewards program through Nova Scotia Loyal in the future, the parameters of this bill would protect consumers from losing their benefits if the program were to abruptly end. This is just one example of how consumers would feel more secure in their hard-earned reward points or benefits.

[Page 4767]

Consumers should not be at risk of having loyalty incentives taken away by way of expired points or cancelled short-term programs. Upon the death of a buyer, unredeemed rewards points in the buyers' account should be transferrable to a spouse, family member, or another person determined in advance by the consumer.

In talking about surveillance-based price discrimination, we also support the prohibition of surveillance-based price discrimination, which is the practice of altering the price of products or services based on a buyer's personal information, including buyer habits and patterns. Nova Scotians should be free to choose what they purchase without the threat of businesses altering prices based on spending history. When you see the price sticker at the store, you should know that you're seeing the price of the product. If someone else comes into the store, the price shouldn't change.

This is a no-brainer. The government should be able to investigate sellers if there are grounds to believe individuals are being targeted based on their personal purchasing decisions. Designating an inspector position within the Department of Service Nova Scotia would be a reasonable step to managing any surveillance-based price discrimination behaviours.

When we talk about warranties, the Consumer Protection Act and the Sale of Goods Act don't provide a comprehensive list of goods covered under their definitions of "warranty." While we support this section of the bill, we would be interested in learning why these specific items were selected and what mechanisms would exist to expand the list if need be.

We support the requirement of a seller to indicate the duration of the warranty and other criteria in a clear prominent manner upon purchase. Nova Scotians should find comfort in being protected when making large but necessary purchases like home appliances. They should also feel confident that they are free from seller surveillance. At the same time, consumers should be rewarded for shopping where they so choose and avoid any risk of rewards expiration or cancellation.

Speaker, we will be supporting this bill. I hope Nova Scotians can benefit from it.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Growth and Development.

HON. COLTON LEBLANC « » : Speaker, I'm pleased to speak briefly on this bill. I figured with reference to points that there would be a reference or some discussion around Nova Scotia Loyal and its success. It was referenced by the member opposite despite clarification multiple times - the member for Sydney-Membertou, I'll clarify - despite multiple clarifications, despite my department appearing before the Public Accounts Committee and further clarifying the points part of Nova Scotia Loyal - that was a moment in time - that the money invested in the points program did not go to Sobeys. It went directly to purchase points that benefited Nova Scotians.

[Page 4768]

In fact, when the Opposition finally realized the intention of the points program - my department very clearly articulated how it had benefited Nova Scotia businesses and helped drive sales, increasing sales 10 percent, 20 percent for a number of businesses. Actually, in many instances, it helped hundreds of businesses get their amazing products on store shelves, whether it be Sobeys, Loblaws, or others, even the smaller outlets in community stores that otherwise would not have had the financial means to do so.

It's a pay-to-play environment, so I hope I've been very clear in my statement there. Again, I go back to my staff who were at the Public Accounts Committee. There was even a change afoot by the Opposition that said whoa, wait, there's some success here, why did you discontinue the points system? That's after months and months of chastising and criticizing this investment that directly benefited Nova Scotia businesses.

Speaker, I want to be on the record to again very clearly articulate that the money that was invested did not go to Sobeys. It went to supporting and purchasing points. Those points went directly to consumers and therefore directly benefited Nova Scotians.

Again, the point in time of having a point system was part of the evolution of Nova Scotia Loyal - part of building the brand awareness of Nova Scotia Loyal. Now we're seeing Nova Scotia Loyal logos directly on the packaging of products. That's something that is enabled through the Nova Scotia Loyal labelling program. That is enabled through the merchandising teams that are going across this province monthly, ensuring that Nova Scotia Loyal products are well advertised in this province.

With those few remarks, Speaker, I just want to be clear on the record. I'm losing track of how many times we have to say it but it's very important that facts are stated on the floor of this Legislature because they matter.

THE SPEAKER « » : Someone stated that this wasn't about the actual bill and it was. It is stated right in the bill about loyalty points.

The honourable member for Bedford South.

DAMIAN STOILOV « » : It's a privilege to be up to speak on this because it's what I've done for the last 25 years. I have worked with numerous products - local products, Canadian products - and have worked on a lot of programs very similar to this, so I have a broad understanding.

Everyday Nova Scotians make decisions as consumers. They buy groceries, sign phone contracts, finance vehicles, purchase appliances, purchase lots of goods in Nova Scotia and beyond our borders. In each of these transactions, the expectation is that the marketplace is fair, transparent and trustworthy. Consumer protection is all about safeguarding that trust. At its core, consumer protection ensures, or we should ensure, that individuals are not being taken advantage of by unfair practices and misleading information.

[Page 4769]

Strong consumer protection laws ensure that Nova Scotians make informed decisions, that contracts are clear and enforceable, and that businesses can be held accountable when they fail to meet these standards.

That is why in the last session we introduced the Social Insurance Number Protection Act, which prohibits the collection of retaining social insurance numbers for commercial purposes and imposes significant fines for that. That's one thing we have done that will make a difference.

Relative to what I've already mentioned, the one thing you have to remember is that a lot of suppliers that sell products are small businesses and middle-size businesses. Anything we do cannot be an impediment to them doing business and to raising prices. I've worked on coupon programs and other programs that have failed. The reason they've failed is because there are too many legalistic restrictions that increase prices.

[5:00 p.m.]

As we all know in this Chamber, the number one factor - I just got a stat yesterday from an old colleague - 80 percent of Canadians today buy a product because of price. Price is at the top of the list. Five years ago, that was about 41 percent. The market has changed.

We can all agree about the importance of consumer protection, but this bill is written with some risk of creating more harm than good, in my opinion, for small- and medium-sized businesses. Ultimately, for Nova Scotian consumers whom we seek to protect, sometimes too many roadblocks and too many regulations are going to cause price increases on the shelf. That will hinder consumers' purchasing power. I know that the group of folks I work with are all about making things affordable for Nova Scotians, and that is what we will do.

To begin with, provisions on rewards points propose that these points can never under any circumstances be related to time. In this practice, this could impose undue liability on small- and medium-sized businesses. Rewards programs are systems designed to encourage loyalty while remaining financially sustainable. That's always the key. Forcing businesses to carry these obligations indefinitely will lead - I've been there, I've done it - to more programs that are less generous for consumers.

Many suppliers now like to have programs that expire in due course, and then they have new programs come in, because we live in a world where someone purchases a product like this iPhone, they're sick of it in nine months, and they want to buy a new one. That's the reality of the marketplace. We want programs that are continually fluctuating. Having a program that's indefinite for three years will hurt suppliers. I've been there. I've seen it. I have failed in doing that. If we do that again, small- and medium-sized businesses will not like it, and they will not be as profitable.

[Page 4770]

The provisions on surveillance-based pricing are too broad, in my view, and could exclude Nova Scotian consumers from discounts that respond to local demand. By imposing these prohibitions, we also risk small- and medium-sized businesses, put them at a competitive disadvantage, and force them out of the market. That has happened with some brands that I have worked with, where having this system in place has not worked for them financially.

Remember one thing in mind. I know we're all - in our brains, everybody's talking about Loblaws, Sobeys, and Walmart. You have to remember it's not all about those - it's about the many brands in the stores. Three-quarters of the new brands on the shelf are small, local companies that couldn't sustain any new programs like that.

Last, extending mandatory warrantees for certain products may sound like a win. It sounds good in a boardroom or on a piece of paper for consumers. If done only at the provincial level, it could lead to Nova Scotians paying higher prices for essential appliances and electronics, as manufacturers and sellers invariably will factor this into the price. Anything we do, these national brands will put it in the price. It's inherent. I've done it. I've launched new products, and we've raised the price because of things exactly like this.

The bill has to clarify whether a manufacturer or a seller bears the primary responsibility for repair and for any consumer disputes that could happen. Currently, the Consumer Protection Act requires goods be durable for a reasonable period of time, and any known defects be disclosed. Legislation must always strike a balance. It must protect consumers but not undermine the availability and affordability of these products and services we believe we are helping.

It must address real harms, without creating new harms, and the one thing I have heard from suppliers and manufacturers I've worked with, particularly in the last ten years, government needs to be there to oversee things. There is room, but having a bill with too many regulations and too many prohibitions in there will increase the price.

It's no different when people wondered why prices were going up. Well, we had a thing called a carbon tax. Someone has to pay for it. I've been there and I've done Excel spreadsheets on new products. You factor in a column for every cost you have, and if the regulations increase and something costs $49.99 and the Government of Nova Scotia has more regulations in there, the price will go up. Believe me, it will happen. That can't happen, and we need to strike a balance as to how we work with those regulations.

This bill does not, in my view, achieve that balance. It introduces sweeping rules that could impose significant burdens on small- and medium-sized businesses, and risks - and have unintended consequences that could leave Nova Scotians at a disadvantage. I don't believe we want to do anything to have that price ticket on the shelf go up in price. That is something I will never support.

The price needs to be stable on the shelf. In fact, the price needs to go lower, and we should be searching for solutions to drive a lower retail, because people can't afford to live. Medium and small suppliers - for every 10 new businesses, 8 of them are going to go under in the first year on the shelf, and big players like Sobeys and Walmart and Loblaws all know and understand that. To them, they will bring in a new product, and if we inhibit the sales of that product, those small suppliers will go under.

[Page 4771]

I believe we are looking, as with Nova Scotia Loyal, to drive small companies, and I don't think this does that. So, for that reason, I recommend not supporting this bill in its present form.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill No. 226, tabled here by my colleagues in the NDP. I love this bill. This is a bill for the people, and when I read this bill and read some of the things it addresses, these are the things that people talk about when they are at the coffee shop.

People get frustrated when they may go to a business, specifically because of their rewards program, and then something happens and all of a sudden, those reward points disappear. Some would say it's a little deceptive on a business's part, if they offer a reward program and then suddenly there's an expiry date the consumer didn't know about.

I do really like the first part of this bill that is about the rewards points. In Clause 3, it says: "No seller shall cause or permit rewards points issued to a buyer to expire solely because of the passage of time." Then the bill later goes on to say: "Upon the death of a buyer, all accrued and unredeemed rewards points in the buyer's account are transferable to a surviving spouse, common-law partner, or family member designated by the buyer or by operation of a rewards program's terms, unless such terms are inconsistent with this Act."

My dear colleague who just spoke to the bill, he has a lot of business experience and I respect that. I will disagree with the point and debate the point the member shared that this could possibly increase the prices. The reason that I disagree with that point is that a business that manages their rewards program well actually benefits from it. That's why you see companies do them. It drives customers to them. If I'm a customer and know that that reward points program is going to follow through and my points aren't going to expire, I'm probably more likely to support that business and do my shopping there.

I will say - full disclosure - I'm not a shopper. My husband is the shopper in the family, and has been, and he loves his points. I want to just put that on the record. If he's listening, he will be laughing right now. He watches his points. He loves - I know we probably shouldn't be supporting any, but there's one specifically Canadian hardware store. He's got a points card, and he watches that, and when he gets like $50 built up on that, he's there, and he comes home so proud that he got this for free because he collected these points.

That business - he goes to specific gas stations. He will actually not pay at the pump and go into the store and take an extra five minutes, knowing he's going to get a certain number of points. I think it's hilarious, because he's a very busy person.

[Page 4772]

There are consumers - probably a lot - like my husband who love their points and watch them very closely. What I love about this bill is that it's basically saying to a business, "Honour them." That's all. That's all they're saying. It is, I would say, comparable to when the laws came in place saying that businesses have to honour their gift cards.

As a former businesswoman, I can say that while I absolutely supported that law, it can cause a lot of headaches for companies. You can literally have someone come in with a 10-year-old gift card and you've got to honour that, but it makes it difficult when you're doing your finances, like when you're looking at especially your assets and liabilities if you're selling your business. What's the true value of those gift cards?

It is similar and in the same spirit. That's one of the reasons that I support this.

The other part of the bill that I also really like and support is the section on warranties. Now, while I am not the shopper in the family, I will say that when it comes to the bigger purchases, like a new washing machine, I am involved in that. We built a house in 1998 - how many years ago was that? Twenty-eight years ago - and most of the appliances that I still have in my house are from 1998, but our washing machine did break down about three years ago. We bought a new washing machine, and it lasted 13 months. There was no warranty.

I couldn't believe it. I was really shocked. Anyway, it went out the door and we had to get another one. I think a lot of consumers will probably have similar experiences, that when it comes to your big purchases right now, they're not lasting like they used to. I think that businesses should be making sure that big purchases like that have better warranties. I do support this bill for this.

This bill is a really good bill that supports Nova Scotians - the average, everyday Nova Scotian. This bill will benefit them.

Those were the main points that I wanted to share, Speaker. I hope that the government will reconsider, because this bill is all about supporting the consumers and the people of Nova Scotia.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier.

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Bill No. 226, the Strengthening Consumer Protection Act. I do want to address one comment made by my colleague across the way with regard to rising prices, just to say that there are parts of this bill, including the regulation of Instacart - that is what it's intended to do, is to stop prices from rising.

[Page 4773]

I take one point from my colleague for Cumberland North on the idea of points and rewards. I too love my points and rewards from, I think, the same place. (Laughs) I think her husband and I are on the same wavelength.

I know many people who are obsessed with their points cards. In fact, some of them know their points numbers off by heart. I used to be amazed by them at the grocery store.

[5:15 p.m.]

I want to begin my remarks with a simple idea - one that most of us grew up believing was common sense. If two people buy the same product at the same time in the same place, they should pay the same price. That's what fairness looks like. That's what trust in a marketplace depends on.

Increasingly, that is no longer the case. Today, prices are no longer based on supply and demand; they're based on you - us - the consumer. When I say you, I mean the consumer. Your browsing history, your location . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. It's rather noisy in here. I've said it before. I'll keep saying it. You can probably find it a thousand times in Hansard. Respect the person who's speaking. Thank you.

The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier.

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Your browsing history, your location, your last purchase, even the devices you're using - all of this gives big companies clues that their algorithm tells them which consumers should pay more, so they charge more. That's what's known as surveillance pricing.

It's already happening in Canada. Recent reporting shows companies can now use artificial intelligence - AI - to adjust prices, not just based on market conditions but on your personal behaviour. The system is already trying to predict how much you personally are willing to pay and then charging you exactly that. We see it even if you have your phone on you. You're talking about an item, and the next thing you know, that's all you're seeing. That is part of that.

Let's call it what this is; it's personalized price discrimination. It raises a fundamental question: Is the price you see a fair price or the highest price an algorithm thinks you'll tolerate?

Here's what we're learning. These systems don't just respond to demand; they respond to loyalty. In fact, experts are now calling this the loyalty tax. Customers who are less likely to shop around - the ones who are most predictable - can be charged more. Think about that. The more loyal you are, the more you might be paying. That flips the entire idea of the consumer relationship on its head. Loyalty should be rewarded not exploited. Trust should be built not manipulated.

[Page 4774]

This isn't just about fairness; it's about trust in the economy itself. When people realize that prices are being secretly tailored to them - that the person next to them might be paying less, and that the system is watching and adjusting in real time - consumers lose confidence. They start to question every transaction and every interaction. Once that trust is gone, it's hard to rebuild. It's also something that, if you told me 10 or 15 years ago was a possibility, I would have thought you were not well or that you were a conspiracy theorist, but watching this happening in real time, I have now no doubts.

Even Canada's Competition Bureau has heard this directly from Canadians. When asked about algorithmic pricing, the top concerns raised were unfairness, discrimination, exploitation, and affordability. That is what consumers are worried about, and Nova Scotians are right to be worried.

Bill No. 226 responds to this reality. It would ban surveillance-based price discrimination, full stop, because in Nova Scotia, fairness should not depend on how much data a company has about you.

The second part of this bill deals with something quieter but just as important: rewards points. While companies are getting more sophisticated in how they charge us, they're also getting more sophisticated in how they take value away.

Think about loyalty programs. People collect points over time; they scan their card; they use the app; and they build up the rewards. As someone who has never missed a clearance rack or a red tag, I understand that. They maybe make purchases counting on those rewards points. Families save them up for big purchases or for Christmas presents. They think, and reasonably so, that those points belong to them, but then they expire. They simply disappear quietly, automatically, sometimes after months of inactivity, and sometimes because of rules that are buried deep in the fine print. That is not what I would call reward; I'd call it a nicely fined trap.

Bill No. 226 fixes that. It says that if points have value, they belong to the customer or the consumer. They should not expire, they should not disappear, and they should not require complicated steps to preserve them. This builds on a principle we already recognize. The Nova Scotia NDP banned the expiry of gift cards because we understood that when someone had paid for value, it should not simply vanish. This bill extends that same fairness to rewards points.

The third part of this bill addresses something every household has experienced: buying something expensive and having it break far too soon - a refrigerator that fails after three years or a washing machine after 18 months - and stops working just outside warranty. A phone becomes unusable far earlier than expected, and what happens? The consumer pays, but that risk is backwards because manufacturers know how long their products are designed to last. Consumers do not.

Other jurisdictions have already acted on this. In Quebec, new legislation has established mandatory minimum warranties for common household goods, including up to six years for major appliances - covering parts, covering labour, covering repairs - because the principle is simple; if you sell it, then you stand behind it.

[Page 4775]

Bill No. 226 brings the same fairness to Nova Scotia. It creates clear, enforceable warranty standards, and it shifts the burden away from the families and back onto the companies making the products.

When you put all three parts of this bill together, a clear picture emerges. Right now, the modern marketplace is evolving rapidly before our eyes. Prices are becoming personalized, value is becoming less transparent, risk is being shifted onto consumers, and our laws continue to fall behind.

Bill No. 226 is about catching up. It's about ensuring that as technology advances, consumer protection follows along with it. Without action, the trend is clear: more data collection, more price manipulation, more hidden costs, and less fairness.

To the government members - they have said that affordability is a priority. But affordability is not just about wages or taxes. It's about the rules that govern everyday transactions. It's about whether people are being treated fairly when they buy groceries, appliances, or basic goods. This bill gives the government a chance to act on that.

A reference to all members of this House - other jurisdictions are moving. Experts are raising alarms. Consumers are noticing. The question is no longer whether this is happening. The question is whether we are going to go anything about it.

Speaker, I don't have to tell you that Nova Scotians work hard. They deserve to know that the price they see is the price that anyone would see. They deserve to know that the value they earn will still be there tomorrow. They deserve to know that when they make a major purchase, the manufacturer stands behind that product with a warranty.

Bill No. 226 delivers on those principles - on the principles of fair prices, fair value, and fair protection. I urge all members of this House to support this bill.

Thank you, Speaker. With that, I adjourn debate on Bill No. 226.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is to adjourn debate on Bill No. 226.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

Is there any more Opposition business? No? Thank you.

Do I have unanimous consent to move to the moment of interruption? Thank you.

[Page 4776]

We have now reached the moment of interruption. The topic for the adjournment debate was submitted by the honourable member for Dartmouth North:

Whereas there are 1,800 individuals and families experiencing homelessness across Halifax, which is more than triple the number of individuals who were homeless when this government got elected; and

Whereas homelessness is not just a Halifax issue - the number of Nova Scotians experiencing homelessness has increased by 72% in the Eastern region and 191% in the Western region since this government got elected; and

Whereas the fact that there are thousands more Nova Scotians today with no place to call home than there were in 2021 is a testament to this government's complete failure to address the ongoing housing crisis;

Therefore be it resolved that this government immediately take steps to make sure every Nova Scotian has a home that they can afford.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION UNDER RULE 5(5)

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

GOV'T. (N.S.): WORSENING HOUSING CRISIS - RECTIFY

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : Speaker, I am pleased to stand up on this important debate.

Before we came into the Legislature this sitting, I had a number of meetings with folks in Dartmouth - in my constituency and Dartmouth South - and people who work with vulnerable people in preparation for the sitting. I also had received a number of messages over the last several months from people who work with vulnerable populations about terrible incidents where folks couldn't find a shelter space or whatever for the evening on a particularly cold night - that kind of thing.

[5:30 p.m.]

Basically, this resolution is in response to the dire situation that we're finding ourselves in yet again. Of course on a day like today, when it's seven degrees and sunny, we think, "Oh, it's getting a little bit better. It's not such a dire night. It's not a snowstorm night." We're not thinking of the people living in tents right now across the bridge or down by Barrington Street or in many places across the province. On really cold days and stormy days, our minds turn there, but on a day like today, we forget sometimes that there is a terrible housing situation going on.

[Page 4777]

There are a number of issues at play in this conversation. One is the people who are living without roofs - in tents, living rough under trees, living in lean-tos. Those folks, some of them, that's a choice that they make. There have always been people living in the woods in Dartmouth as far as I have heard. There have always been people living in the woods probably all over the province.

But then there are a number of people living in tent encampments right now who don't want to be there, who want permanent housing. There are lots of people living in shelter situations, like for instance the Bridge, where they are, for lack of a better word, unhoused, because they don't have permanent stable housing, but they do have a roof over their head and a door that they can close. They're living in a shelter, with a little bit of autonomy. I wouldn't call that housing, per se.

Then there are people living in Pallet shelters - again, very small spaces, safe from the elements. They're not going to freeze to death like people living in tents, but maybe not in the place that they want to call home forever.

Speaker, we have record amounts of homeless people in Nova Scotia - again, all over the place - right now. When people are living in a shelter, a communal shelter, they should not be counted as housed. I don't know what this government's definition of a housed person or an unhoused person is at this point, because things keep changing. But when someone is in a communal shelter, living in a cot with a little divider, that is not permanent housing or stable housing.

I also want to bring up in this debate the things that are contributing to people losing stable housing. We have in Nova Scotia a lot of rental units. I'm going to talk about rental units for a minute first. We know that there are things happening in the residential tenancies arena, shall we say, and in the broader rental market that are contributing to people losing stable housing.

The first thing is the lack of a permanent rent control. I know that landlords - many landlords - will say that rent control will kill the rental market, but the fact is that we have never actually really tried it. Since the Liberal government in 2020 brought in a rent cap, it has been a temporary rent cap, which has no basis, no reflection, of the realities of inflation or basically in anything. It's a slapshot rent cap, which is helping people stay housed, but it is 5 percent right now. Most places, if their rents are increasing, are increasing by much less than 5 percent. It's like an overcorrection in favour of what landlords needed when prices went up because of COVID‑19. We don't have a permanent rent control.

We have a fixed-term lease rule in residential tenancies that is being misused by many landlords to get around the 5-percent rent cap. I have said it before, and I'll say it again: We need a rent control that is tied to a unit and not a person. Housing experts all around the province have said that this will help the homelessness problem. The fact is that people are getting pushed out of their apartments, pushed into new places with fixed-term leases, getting pushed out at the end because their fixed-term lease - all very legal, all very legal. No one is breaking the law, but the person or the people who are benefiting the least are the renters, and they are often then going into unsafe situations.

[Page 4778]

We have people who are living with abusers because they don't have anywhere else to go. They'd rather live with an abuser than live in a tent. We also have an increase in mental health and addictions issues because people are living rough. There is scientific evidence that after a certain amount of time of living in a precarious situation, one's mental health begins to deteriorate. We could be stopping this ballooning and this snowballing of affect and of costs to the Province, not to mention the human costs. But even the regular costs of the Province, we could be stopping them by addressing some of these issues at the root cause.

Nova Scotians work hard and we look out for each other. We try to help each other through hard times, and we don't ask for much - just a fair shot to build a life here. But since this government has come into power, homelessness has tripled. The cost of rent in Nova Scotia has increased by more than $5,700 per year. That's more than $477 per month. Five years in, the difference people were promised isn't here. We have power bills that keep rising, rents that keep climbing, and there is no housing that people can afford.

In my last two minutes, I want to say that I would love it if this debate could be less about the things we are doing and more about the things we need to do. So I stand here in my place and I acknowledge there is money in this budget for housing. That is great. Some of that housing - a lot of that housing - is going to be in my constituency, and it couldn't come soon enough. But we need to do way more.

I question whether building housing without addressing the other pathways to homelessness is a smart investment because we need to do both. We need to house people in beautiful, new, passive homes where they are not going to have high power bills. There are people being housed in Dartmouth North right now on True North Crescent, in beautiful townhouses that have been built by Affordable Housing Nova Scotia, but we are going to have to keep building those if we don't address some of the pathways to homelessness. That is keeping costs under control. That is fixing the issues with Residential Tenancies. That is holding Nova Scotia Power to account, reining in Nova Scotia Power, and getting people's power bills and heating bills under control.

It is about economic development, absolutely, and it is about the social safety net. It's all those things. Rent supplements - extremely important, but we shouldn't be bragging about how much money we are investing in rent supplements because really, rent supplements are the thing that people need just to stay in their homes. The fact people need a rent supplement means we are not doing well in this province.

Wouldn't it be better if we could say that no one needs a rent supplement anymore? It's like eliminating food banks. Wouldn't it be better if we didn't need food banks anymore?

[Page 4779]

Speaker, I am going to end my comments there. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues in the other parties and the Independent members. Thank you very much for your time.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : Thank you, Speaker. I am glad to rise on this really important issue and commend the member who has been consistently speaking out on behalf of folks who are living homeless, living rough, those most vulnerable, and the impacts they are having on her constituents and those across the province.

We have been talking a lot about this issue, I think since 2021, but I get the sense there is a bit of fatigue from folks that we continue to bring up this issue. It's really interruption of homelessness that is happening - those are the words that experts use - that is happening in Halifax and across the province. They're tripling. We see in this resolution 1,800 individuals - and I do like data. I remember, because I was, at one point, the lead of the government and I watched these numbers.

I paid special attention to these numbers, regardless of what the policy was - whether it was income assistance rates that were far too low that they needed an increase; whether it was ensuring that those who didn't have a home weren't even eligible to receive income assistance because they didn't have an address, and I needed to make sure that that was rectified; whether that was the issue around ensuring that those folks had an opportunity to receive the COVID-19 shot. Those things were prioritized and those are the things that a good government does.

But statistics really do matter. Obviously, there's a massive human element to this and my colleague touched on that, but I do want to point out these troubling statistics. Nearly 200 people are living in encampments and other unsheltered locations across Halifax, but close to five times that amount are experiencing homelessness in transition homes, hospitals, and shelter programs - and that is just an annual point in time count. I want to table that.

Equally as concerning is the year-over-year statistics - the data showing the notable increases in the use of shelters. This is new - before the government comes up and says, well, it was bad in 2021. This is 2025, October, less than a year ago where increases in the use of shelters was 23.5 percent; domestic violence transition houses, 128 percent; and people identifying as homeless in the hospital system, 320 percent - the report reads.

There are also significant increases in the individuals in encampments, 61.3 percent; and the number of individuals staying in their vehicles, 467 percent - significant. I'll table that. I know that the defence to that will be - I'll anticipate it - we're spending this much, we're spending that much, we've grown the budget by this much, we've grown the budget by that much. I'll continue to say . . . (Interruption) And they just said, yes, that's what they're going to do. They're going to get up and read the budget.

[Page 4780]

Well, I think it's important to talk about outcomes and I keep talking about this and I'll continue to talk about the return on investment that helps especially those most vulnerable. I know that the data is important, but the whole impact to systems is not just captured in data, certainly not in the short term. I'll table this again, but I think folks should know that the risk factors of homelessness are massive to our systems - obviously to families. It rips families apart, but mental illness, addictions, and overall poor health are disproportionately calling for people who are chronically unhoused, not to mention frequent run-ins with the criminal justice system.

Just imagine the impact to the long-term costs in our health system, in our corrections facilities. You wonder why there's disproportionate people from marginalized communities - African Nova Scotia communities, Indigenous communities - that are both in our corrections but also on the street. I know the members see it. I know they see it when they drive home. I know they see the proliferation of tent cities that weren't there - not the scale that we're at now. They weren't there in the previous government times, up until that time, right before COVID-19. COVID-19 started it and this government didn't address the issue head on.

Instead of supporting Nova Scotians experiencing homelessness, the government is reducing support and cutting funding to the organizations that support Nova Scotians. Some of these cuts were rolled back, but we're still hearing lots from organizations that are impacted. We still hear from those organizations that support the groundwork - the groundwork for African Nova Scotians to make sure that they get their fair shot at economic prosperity, and places like the Mi'kmaw Native Friendship Centre, specific programs where folks go. That's one or two programs out of 10 cut out of that department, and we know this is exacerbated by the cost of living pressures that are going up across the board.

The government is doing less to support Nova Scotians by evidence of the reduction of things like the HARP. We know the number quoted often is when they reduce the eligibility. There are some 40,000 folks that are no longer eligible to reach that, but also I had an important question that was asked to the department during Estimates of how many people actually asked and were denied. So people right around that threshold that really needed that modest support to pay their power bill - 9,000 people. They had that number readily available; 9,000 people were denied. Just a little bit of support to make it, for their power bill, that would keep them in their home, potentially. It's exacerbating this issue. That's across the board.

[5:45 p.m.]

This is a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report, looking at a service-based count across the western region of Nova Scotia to highlight that this isn't just a Halifax issue:

In November 2024, our research team conducted a community support and service-based count across the western region of Nova Scotia. This count collected data from forty-seven organizations in the counties of Lunenburg, Queens, Shelburne, Yarmouth, Digby, Annapolis, and Kings and the West Hants part of Hants County. We found 672 individuals, including 506 adults experiencing homelessness and 166 children under the age of 16.

[Page 4781]

Children. This is something we need to address.

We need to look at the way this government looks at budgeting overall. That's why I brought forward, I think it's a quintessential time to bring up why we can look at a different model of how we budget. I brought this up before as an idea in 2021. I thought it was appropriate, given the sitting is winding down, the budget has been voted on, it doesn't have to be this way, and I really implore the government to look at a different model when they bring forward their plan, $300 million in further cuts into the next budget.

Homelessness should be a priority. It's not just about housing - obviously it's a main part. It's about health care. It's about mental health and addictions. Tt's about income security. It's about whether a child can go to school on time. It's about whether a person can hold up a job. It's about how a senior can age with dignity. It's basically about well-being. I'll continue to talk about that and how we need to think about things differently because it is about return on investment.

It is about treating those with dignity. It is about ensuring we prevent the sharp increases that I guarantee - I say it in this House because I know it's on the record, the relentless increase to homelessness that you are seeing in this province will show up on the bottom line. It will show up on the bottom line of the ERs across the province, the bottom line in our justice system, the bottom line of social services.

We need an approach that measures outcome and the government won't do it. All they have to do is ask themselves, are there fewer Nova Scotians who don't need a home? Are there fewer Nova Scotians who are not needing to live rough? They can do this, but they don't want to because they know that year after year it's getting worse.

It takes intentional policy to rectify what's happening here. In 2021 there were 400 to 600 people, on average. It's now three times that number - three times the number of people living on the streets, but this government can do nothing more but brag they are spending three or four or five or six or ten times more. It's not good enough.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Lunenburg.

HON. SUSAN CORKUM-GREEK « » : Thank you, Speaker, for this opportunity to speak in late debate. It's extraordinary when we look back and think of the election campaign of 2021 and realize that the issue of housing, much less homelessness, was barely mentioned. It's true. Yet, within months of forming government, housing became an issue across Canada. I have no doubt we will be many years unpacking the many ramifications of the pandemic period. It became immediately a priority for our government, as did homelessness.

[Page 4782]

These two issues are related but they are not the same so I will speak to them separately. As regards housing, we are making incredible strides, and we won't slow down until all Nova Scotians in need of housing have a place to call home.

We know the key to improving housing affordability is to grow housing stock, to build, and in so doing, to create options for ages and stages of life.

I've got to tell you, Speaker, what a revelation it was to tour a new modular-home building enterprise in my constituency, Cubit, with the Minister of Housing recently, whose personal knowledge from years in the building trades is only matched by his determination to deliver on our five-year housing plan - and by gosh, we're going to do it.

At the end of Year 2, we've already met or exceeded nearly every goal. Housing starts are up 36 percent. We've made generational investments, including the first public housing in decades in this province. We've reduced red tape, created or preserved thousands of affordable units, and taken strong action to speed up development. The vacancy rate here in HRM has doubled. Working with our partners, we have cleared the path for an additional 68,000 housing units, with more to come.

Because of that work, thousands of people and families from one end of this province to the other will have a home faster, whether that's a new build or a split-level in New Town, Lunenburg, that can suddenly go on the market and become the new-to-us home of a young family because the retired couple who happily raised their family there can now access a new one-storey unit build that accommodates them and their independence as they age. It is about options.

Under our plan, the Province has invested over $288 million to preserve or create over 3,000 affordable units. I hope the members opposite are listening to the outcomes and not just the dollar values - 3,000 affordable units over the last three years, and we are just getting started. As part of Budget 2026-27, we'll continue to make significant investments to increase the supply of all types of housing - preserving existing affordable housing; building student housing; many, many more long-term care beds; assisting first-time homebuyers in achieving their ownership dreams; and more. This includes $58.4 million in new housing investments for a total housing budget of $330.6 million.

Specific examples include a $15-million increase for a post-secondary student housing program. This is the final year of this three-year $45-million initiative, and I can say that on the South Shore, where we had no housing previously for our community college students, this makes a big difference. A $15.9-million total increase for rent supplements, including $10.9 million for 310 additional survivors of gender-based violence benefits and continuing the benefits that were issued in the previous fiscal year, plus $5 million for 937 additional rent supplements.

[Page 4783]

I would note that we are not banging a gong over this. We are simply there for the people who are fleeing those situations to help stabilize them to get on with their lives.

An $18.5-million increase for the affordable housing development program, for a total budget of $33.4 million for this fiscal - it's anticipated that that increase could support 140 additional affordable housing units. This is on top of those 3,000 already completed.

We want all Nova Scotians to know that there are affordable options for them now and that there are more coming. Whether it's those new student housing residences, rent supplements, or more affordable housing units, we are exploring and acting on every option so that we can get as much housing as possible for Nova Scotians.

As regards homelessness, this is a very complex issue. Nonetheless, I believe - I certainly hope - that everyone in this House can agree on one thing, which is that every Nova Scotian should have a safe place to call home, including people experiencing homelessness. That's why we are working across government and with incredible community partners to create innovative solutions that meet the unique and often complex needs of individuals experiencing homelessness.

The budget for programs to address and support persons experiencing homelessness has increased exponentially - 1,600 percent. But I'm not going to give you the figure; I agree that it's not the dollar amount, and I know people are hanging on that. It's not the dollar amount that I wish to flag, but the very real initiatives, the programs, the infrastructure, and the personal outcomes that have been and are being achieved.

For instance, the more than 750 new supportive housing units created across the province - places like the 70-person tiny homes community in Lower Sackville, or the Rose, which can accommodate up to 18 families with children. Supportive housing, it's worth noting, includes wraparound supports, whether employment or mental health support, to help people to settle into those homes.

There are also transitional shelters like the Bridge, which was mentioned earlier. The Bridge has integrated health care supports. To date, 113 people have moved from that transitional environment to permanent housing. That is, my honourable colleagues, 113 people with faces and names and unique stories celebrating a personal achievement.

It's important to understand that there is a continuum of housing supports designed to support and meet individuals where they are on their home journey. It begins with initiatives to help people stay housed to prevent homelessness, because as has been referenced, homelessness very quickly makes people become survivalists. It can become increasingly difficult to live in more traditional environments.

This is where diversion supports play a critical role. Acting early matters. This year alone, diversion funding has helped more than 1,400 Nova Scotians maintain their housing by assisting them in one of those bad moments of life. Maybe you've lost a job or maybe your car's engine goes on you, and suddenly, how are you going to make your rent? How are you going to pay your utility bill? That funding was topped up by a million dollars early this calendar year.

[Page 4784]

We recognize that when someone does become unhoused, they need more than just a bed for the night. That's why we have these different housing options.

I wanted to mention places like Ozanam Place, which provides 24/7 care and services for seniors here in Halifax, or the master lease program, which partners with service providers to secure units from landlords and sublease them with supports in place. It's helping people to get into permanent housing. It's working. We've reduced the number of people in provincially funded hotels from 251 to 36 - an 86-percent decrease. The number of hotel rooms is now down to 18 from 111.

Finally, I want to address those who are still living rough. We cannot force anyone to come inside, but we can work with partners to provide outreach support and make sure there are safe options for those people when they are ready. This reflects not a "government complete failure" but a success.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. I wish to thank all members who participated in the adjournment debate this evening.

The honourable Government House Leader.

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Thank you, Speaker. Great debate here tonight.

Speaker, would you please call the order of business Public Bills and Orders.

PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, would you please call the order of business Public Bills for Third Reading.

PUBLIC BILLS FOR THIRD READING

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 201.

Bill No. 201 - Justice and Social Services Act.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Opportunities and Social Development.

[Page 4785]

[6:00 p.m.]

HON. BARBARA ADAMS « » : Speaker, I move that Bill No. 201, An Act Respecting Justice and Social Services, be now read a third time. I'll reserve my comments until after I listen to the members opposite.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Fairview-Clayton Park.

LINA HAMID « » : I rise today at third reading of the Justice and Social Services Act, and I do so thinking of the real consequences for Nova Scotians across the province who will be impacted by what is decided here in this Chamber using this Act.

Most of all, I am thinking of the ones who are not able to speak for themselves, children in provincial care. They need stability as they move through and eventually out of the system - and social workers who carry the responsibility of protecting them.

This legislation that we're speaking to raises some serious concerns about how transparent, accountable, and responsive our child welfare system truly is. These are not hypothetical concerns. There are concerns being raised by frontline workers, advocates, and professionals who have no choice but to see the gaps in the system up close.

I'll do my best to go through the questions being raised about this legislation in the order that they appear in the bill for those who care to follow along. I'll start off with the changes to the Children and Family Services Act, the part that talks about youth aging out of care.

While this is new legislation, in practice youth over 19 years of age who were in the care of the province have been provided some supports as they age out of the system. This has been at the discretion of whoever is supporting them, their caseworker, or the department. It is a great step to see that this is being backed by actual legislation rather than by unspoken rules or discretion.

However, this legislation lacks teeth. The wording in the legislation is that the minister may provide services as prescribed by regulations. This continues to leave things vague and continues to leave space for things to happen for some and not for others. It does not specify what services will be provided. This is an issue that I know the minister is aware of, as we have had a conversation about this. However, there does not seem to be any interest from this government to make this legislation any stronger. We have brought forward amendments that would specify a floor or a basic minimum of what services should be provided and are owed to the youth who are aging out of care. That amendment was voted down, and further conversations did not really lead to anything.

The Senate report, Nothing to Celebrate: The Crisis of Youth Aging Out of Care, which I have previously tabled, highlights several systemic missing links that the current provincial legislation simply does not address. This government should welcome this feedback to help ground this legislation in solid studied data and recommendations released by the Senate.

[Page 4786]

The main difference here between what was released by the Senate and this bill is the shift from discretionary services, which is what services the minister may provide, to entitlement-based rights, what youth are owed. Youth who have gone through the system have faced a lot. It's not something I can say that I myself am familiar with personally, but we know through the systemic gaps that we have heard from advocates and from workers that this is a serious issue. They absolutely should have the right to access basic services. In the amendment that we introduced, we talked about housing, mental health supports, support with furthering their education and a few other things. Again, it laid a solid minimum of what should be provided to those youth.

The Senate report actually goes a step further. It talks about systemic changes as well as direct supports. The amendment that we brought forward talked about direct supports, wraparound supports for youth aging out of care. It goes, again, a step further. Children and youth who are - I'll just read it directly from here.

That the Government of Canada increase understanding, resources, and support for the unique experiences of 2SLGBTQI+ children and youth in care who are at increased risk and overrepresented within child welfare and protection systems.

It specifies that there are children and youth who face additional barriers, who should have these additional supports to help them as they go out into the world. That's not in this bill.

It talks about citizenship support and, again, that's not something that's in this bill. Support for families: that's not in this bill. It talks about systemic changes, and I will go through those in a little bit more detail. The report calls for the federal government to establish national standards of youth aging out of care. What we can do provincially is for this government to stand up and say, yes, we support this, and we are taking the first step, at the very least we are taking the first step and that is by providing the wraparound services.

It doesn't have to be like, okay, we're going to make sure we commit to this entire Senate report. At the very least, let's commit to saying that this is the first step of us committing to this report, and we take these recommendations seriously. So, again, the report calls for the federal government to establish national standards for youth aging out of care. This would ensure that regardless of which province or territory a child is in, they receive a consistent level of support.

So while Bill No. 201 amends the Children and Family Services Act to allow ministers to provide services to youth aged 19 to 25, it remains largely permissive. It's at the minister's wishes, who gets what. It grants the government the authority to help, but it does not create a legally binding guarantee, or like I mentioned before, floor of service that every youth is entitled to by right.

[Page 4787]

The report demands a national database to track the outcomes of youth after they leave care. Once again, I'm not saying that this government has to commit to all of this now, but they could say, here's the floor, here's the minimum, and we are going to work towards furthering the recommendations of this report to make sure that kids aging out of care in Nova Scotia do not fall behind kids aging out of care in other provinces and territories.

It points out that Canada currently loses track of these young adults, making it impossible to measure the success of each individual province's or territory's program. Again, Bill No. 201 does no such thing, and when it came to some of the cuts that we saw in this budget, we've heard a lot about usage, so it wasn't used as much. Without anything objective to measure the outcomes, I'm concerned that at some point there is going to be a cut to these services provided to youth because somebody somewhere decided there wasn't enough usage to keep the funding going through. Where are going to be the objective reporting and measures in place to show that to us, as other members in the House and as Nova Scotians? It does not mandate any kind of long-term outcome tracking or outcome frameworks suggested by advocates and the Senate committee.

Again, as I mentioned, there are several other things mentioned in the report which I have previously tabled, but one thing I have not mentioned yet is a national summit and action plan.

That the Government of Canada convene a national summit with Indigenous governments, rights holders and organizations, the provinces and territories, and stakeholders with lived experience to develop a national action plan on supporting the transition to adulthood for youth in care. Guided by the Equitable Standards for Transitions to Adulthood for Youth in Care, and taking into account the unique vulnerabilities of certain youth based on factors such as age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, disability, geographic location, race, ethnic and national origin and socioeconomic background, the action plan should:

·       work toward a uniform readiness-based approach to aging out of care;

·       extend Jordan's Principle past the age of majority;

·       address the child-welfare-to-prison pipeline; and

·       set priorities, targets and respective responsibilities, respecting the jurisdiction of Indigenous Peoples, the provinces and territories over child and family services, including their authority to choose differing program models based on unique contexts and needs.

[Page 4788]

I believe I have mentioned everything else regarding systemic changes in this report here, so we'll move on. I urge all members, particularly the Minister of Opportunities and Social Development, to review this report, which is tabled, but you can also find it online.

I'm going to talk briefly about something we've been talking about for a little while now, and that's the need for a child and youth advocate. If we have a fully established and properly funded office of the child and youth advocate, with an independent advocate appointed, I imagine that would make the job of the minister quite a bit easier. They would be able to make recommendations and put forward ideas for legislation, rather than adding additional responsibilities to the minister, who would have to decide who gets what.

If there is an advocate in place, it would most definitely make the minister's job easier. Again, they would be able to come up with suggestions, recommendations, and reports that legislation can be based on. That would be somebody whose sole focus is the issues, concerns, and well-being of children and youth in our province. They wouldn't have other portfolios or things that they need to manage. They'd be fully focused on children and youth. That would take a whole lot off the minister's plate, I imagine.

We know from experience that the systems responsible for protecting our children must be subject to independent oversight. Without this oversight, there's a real risk that problems remain hidden and that warning signs are missed, and most concerning, that children's experiences are never fully brought forward. That's why so many voices across the province have been calling for this independent child and youth advocate. These voices include social workers, advocates, and organizations that see how this system works up close every single day.

Right now, that level of independent oversight does not exist in a meaningful way in Nova Scotia, and Nova Scotia is the only province that does not currently have this meaningful oversight. When a child in care doesn't feel safe or doesn't feel heard, there's no dedicated office to make sure they are safe and they are heard. The people who call for a child and youth advocate know that all too well. They understand how critical this position is. Across Canada, child and youth advocates play an essential role. They review cases, they review concerns publicly, and they ensure that governments are held accountable when systems fall short. Right now in Nova Scotia, this office continues to be delayed. This delay is leaving a huge gap in protection and oversight.

We were relieved to see that some funding was put forward in this budget for this office. However, I've asked this in the House before and have not received an answer. What will $300,000 actually cover? A lease to an office, plus some office supplies, maybe? Does it go towards appointing an actual advocate? Again, this is a question I've asked and I have not heard the answer for. I hope the minister in her comments is able to address this.

Legislation was passed and promises were made, and yet here we are, still asking for this to come to fruition. We know that more than 40,000 children in Nova Scotia are living in poverty. While the minister may dismiss this due to the numbers being a couple of years old, I would like to bring the House's attention to the fact that that is the same report the minister has quoted as saying that poverty rates have dropped.

[Page 4789]

[6:15 p.m.]

To be specific, the report states, "After two years of record increases, the most recent decline is modest at best, and for many communities, the situation worsened." Again, the report that we've mentioned several times, about how child poverty is increasing in Nova Scotia, is the same one that the minister refers to when she talks about poverty going down. Those numbers are from the same year - can't use them to argue one another.

The same report quoted by the minister on several occasions states, "This government promised a child poverty reduction strategy when it was elected in 2021. The same party formed super majority government is November of 2024. Such a strategy has yet to be tabled." Again, it's the exact same report that we're both reading from. This report makes one thing clear - that child poverty in Nova Scotia is policy created.

Now, to what is one of the more controversial parts of this bill, which is the publication ban. Under the same section, the bill extends public bans into a blanket prohibition on the publication or broadcasting of any information that could identify a child or family involved in a child-protection proceeding. This extends past the passing of a child. Children in care deserve privacy, and we all do want to make sure that our children are safe, but I'm struggling to see how limiting public information about children's interactions with this government after things go terribly wrong will do this.

Media outlets have raised alarms about the chilling effects of these changes. Journalists have argued that the definition of "identifying information" is too broad. They worry that reporting on systemic failures within the Department of Opportunities and Social Development could lead to criminal charges if any details, even a vague location, could be deemed as identifying. This ban can, rightfully so, be viewed as a shield for this government. If journalists cannot tell specific stories of families, children, and youth in the system, it becomes much harder to hold this government, this minister, and this department accountable for poor outcomes or a lack of resources.

I'll go briefly back to the children aging out of youth portion. There's been no indication that there's going to be additional funding or staffing confirmed to ensure that these additional services are provided to children and youth aging out of care. That's, again, an amendment that we brought forward but was voted down.

I'd like to briefly - very briefly - take us on a bit of a history lesson. This is one that I think all of us are familiar with. We are at a point where we're discussing a bill that talks about publication bans, limiting the media's ability and journalists' ability to report on these issues, where Joseph Howe defended the freedom of the press in this very House, in the room next door. The ban is a direct confrontation of the very foundation of Nova Scotian democracy and the history of this House, and the irony is striking.

[Page 4790]

The publication ban and the use of omnibus bills are being debated in the same legislative building where, in 1835, Joseph Howe delivered a six-hour speech that established the intellectual foundation for free press in Canada. Joseph Howe famously said, "Leave an unshackled press as a legacy to your children." Joseph believed that the press was the only thing standing between the public and government overreach. Lawyers and journalists argue that if we cannot report on the details of how a child was failed by this department, we cannot hold the government accountable, and we therefore cannot do better. When we know better, we do better.

Joseph Howe also said, "if we cannot stand against [the press's] assaults, we deserve to fall."

Opponents of this bill argue that by anonymizing the entire child welfare system, the government is removing the impact or, in his words, "the assault" of public scrutiny that ensures that they are doing their jobs correctly.

Lawyers and journalists have argued that judge-ordered bans on a case-by-case basis are preferred to blanket bans. Some lawyers have even noted that these bans can actually silence victims and their families. Imagine losing a child who was in the care of the Province. While grieving, you need to go to the minister to get permission to talk about your loss. That is demeaning.

Interestingly, the Senate report actually also has an opinion on this. The report's approach to privacy is that it should not prevent youth from owning their own narrative. While this government is claiming that this is protection to a child's identity, the reality is that these publications are an essential tool for exposing systemic cracks. These concerns are being raised nationally. This bill has now hit the national news. A recent article in the Globe and Mail warned that Nova Scotia risks creating what it called a grotesque cloak of silence around the child welfare system. These are strong words.

Transparency is not the enemy of child protection; it is quite the opposite. Transparency is what ensures that when a system fails, we learn from those failures to prevent them from happening again. This is all happening again with the backdrop of not having an independent child and youth advocate in place in this province. This should concern every member of this House.

As the submission from the Canadian Media Lawyers Association stated, and I quote:

Persons accused of crimes can be identified by name. This is a cornerstone of our open court system. The proposed publication ban over the identity of a deceased child would effectively place a ban over the identities of any parents or foster parents accused of involvement in the child's death.

[Page 4791]

…

In Nova Scotia, under the proposed [bill], the publication ban would not only prevent the public from knowing the identities of those [accused], but also prevent the biological parents from speaking out.

The child's life would, in effect, be erased.

The proposed extension muzzles grieving parents.

…

What is the actual result of this ban? Such an extension of the existing ban structure accomplishes very little of public value and serves to shield both the systems and those responsible for a death, among others, from accountability.

That's the end of that quote. Again, I ask all members to think about this for just a moment. Imagine losing a child who was in the care of the Province and not being able to talk about it without getting explicit permission from the minister.

In a CBC article on April Surette's case, the impact of this bill in real life is made clear. That article states, and I quote:

The death of Isaiha Surette has shone a rare and needed spotlight on the child welfare system, according to those who work in the field.

The case sparked concern about … the caseloads of social workers and the support parents receive while they are involved with the child welfare system.

CBC News was only able to report on the Surette case, identifying both Surette and her son Isaiha because the boy died. Normally, media outlets cannot identify children who are in the care of the province or part of the foster care system.

But a new bill tabled in the Nova Scotia Legislature will extend that publication ban, keeping it in place even if a child dies in care.

Some observers are worried the bill will limit scrutiny on the child protection system and could prevent parents from speaking publicly about their children if they die in care.

Again, what is the purpose of this? It's not protection. What is the purpose?

[Page 4792]

This government needs to be transparent with Nova Scotians, particularly when a child in their care dies. A child and youth advocate office that is independent of government could address these concerns around transparency and the question of whether government will learn from and do better after tragedies occur.

Again, this should concern every member of this Legislature. Whether you have your own kids or not, I'm sure you have little loved ones in your family. This should be of concern.

Before moving on to the next point I have, this is a letter that we all received, sent to all MLAs from the Citizens' Alliance of Nova Scotia - earlier today, I believe it was. It's from Tara Ibrahim, Board Member of Citizens' Alliance of Nova Scotia, talking about Bill No. 201: "Constitutional Invalidity Under Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and Violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

It talks about how this bill is unconstitutional, pursuant to Section 52 of the Constitution Act:

[and] is of no force or effect to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution of Canada. The Bill violates the separation of powers, the rule of law, democratic accountability, and multiple Charter rights. These defects cannot be saved by section 1 of the Charter.

Then it goes into detail of which sections of the Charter this bill is basically against. It talks about unconstitutional interference with judicial function:

Clauses 8 and 9 remove from the superior courts their historic and constitutionally protected authority to determine when a publication ban relating to a child in the child-protection system should be lifted, even after the child's death and even when lifting the ban would serve the child's best interests or the administration of justice.

Instead, the Bill vests that discretion exclusively in the Minister who oversees the very system under scrutiny.

Then it talks about the violation of the rule of law and democratic accountability:

Clauses 8-9 - Granting the Minister sole authority to lift publication bans create an inherent conflict of interest (the Minister is responsible for the system subject to scrutiny). This insulates the executive from judicial and public accountability, violating the rule of law principle that no one may be a judge in their own cause.

[Page 4793]

… Registering individuals who receive an absolute conditional discharge on the . . .

That does not relate to the point I'm trying to make, so I'm going to move on.

It also talks about repealing the independent Social Workers Act and subordinating the profession to a health regulation model, even in non-clinical roles, which is going to be the next point I'm going to talk about, so I'll mention it now as I'm going through this letter. It "chills professional advocacy," they say in the letter:

As the Nova Scotia College of Social Workers has stated, the new framework gives the Minister authority to intervene in the college's operations whenever the government considers it "in the public interest," effectively converting an independent regulator into a department of government. This erodes the independent oversight essential to democratic accountability.

It talks about the violation of Charter rights:

Clauses 8-9 impose a blanket, perpetual restriction on public discourse, media reporting, and families' ability to speak about their experiences - even in non-identifying accounts - concerning the child-protection system. The ban continues indefinitely after a child's death without any judicial assessment. This violates Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994].

So, there is precedent that this bill violates:

Right to Life, Liberty and Security of the Person

By preventing scrutiny of systemic failures, the Bill directly interferes with the security of the person of children in care and their families. The ability to identify and publicize systemic problems is essential to prevent future harms.

[6:30 p.m.]

It, again, talks about judicial precedent that this goes against.

There are several other things mentioned here, but I will table it. I know it was forwarded to all members of the Legislature, so you should be able to find this in your inboxes.

Finally, but certainly equally concerning, is again the repeal of the Social Workers Act - a foundational piece of legislation governing the social work profession of Nova Scotia. The Nova Scotia College of Social Workers is the body responsible for regulating the profession, but this government didn't even give them the courtesy of a phone call or an email before this change was introduced.

[Page 4794]

We are talking about legislation that reshapes how an entire profession is governed - a profession that is central to child protection, family support, and crisis response in our communities. All things this government claims to care about, and yet this organization was not brought into the conversation beforehand.

This is not how thoughtful, responsible policy should be developed, and it is very indicative of how this whole session and budget has been. It is deeply concerning that this government has even dismissed the college as a vital stakeholder. The Minister of Opportunities and Social Development oversees a huge department with so much responsibility towards the well-being of Nova Scotians. So it brings great concern when the minister is explicitly telling the House - saying in The People's House - that she is carrying out her ministerial responsibility and duties in a partisan manner.

She has indicated on the floor of this very House, more than once, that the party affiliation of the college's executive director is the reason why she does not keep regular contact with the college. The minister appears to have confused her role as a servant of the public under oath of her ministerial duties with her role as a member of the PC Party. Not only is this not consultation or collaboration, but this is irresponsible and inappropriate, and is very revealing of how this government runs as a whole.

Additionally, I've also just learned today that this goes against the Members and Public Employee Disclosure Act. Ministers are explicitly required to make every effort to ensure their departments are not used for partisan political purposes. So when we ask about why the Nova Scotia College of Social Workers was not consulted, and the minister talks about that person's party affiliation, it is of huge concern.

THE SPEAKER « » : I ask that you table that after. You can just take a picture of it. Thank you.

The honourable member for Fairview-Clayton Park.

LINA HAMID « » : Yes. We can also check Hansard. I have no problem mentioning that because I am positive of what I heard, and it is in Hansard.

It also talks about the duty of impartiality. Ministers must perform their official duties with the highest standards of impartiality. The two times the minister has talked about the executive director of the Nova Scotia College of Social Workers, it was just to say this person was an NDP candidate previously. So again, this is not consultation or collaboration with the people who are most impacted by the changes in this legislation.

This is irresponsible and inappropriate, and not to mention that it brings to question, again, how the minister reconciles her duties as a minister, and that as a member of the PC Party.

[Page 4795]

The concerns raised by the Nova Scotia College of Social Workers are serious and should never be dismissed just because the minister doesn't like how they vote. This is a government elected to serve all Nova Scotians, not just the ones who agree with them. The college has warned that moving forward with this legislation without consultation weakens the relationship between government and the people responsible for protecting vulnerable Nova Scotians. The same was said by NSGEU, the Dalhousie School of Social Work, by the advocates for care of the elderly, by several social workers who came to Public Bills Committee, by the Dalhousie University social work student group, by the Maritime Area of the Christian Churches Society, and several more. Again, it brings the question: Why was this brought forward without any type of consultation, not even a heads-up that this was going to happen?

Social workers are the people who step in when situations are the most difficult, when children are at risk, when families are in crisis. Yet when changes that directly affect their work were introduced, they did not even get a heads-up. This might appear administrative on the surface, but for those working in the field, it represents a deeper shift.

Social work is grounded in advocacy and equity and in challenging systems when they are not working for people. That role matters because social workers are often the ones who see where the system is failing and who speak up about it. Social workers are the people who show up when a child is in danger. They are the people who intervene when families are in crisis. They're the people who navigate some of the most difficult and heartbreaking situations in our society. Yet when legislation directly affecting their profession was introduced, their voices were absent from the process.

There are real concerns that these changes would make it harder for them to do their jobs independently. All of this again is happening without a fully established and properly funded independent child and youth advocate in Nova Scotia. This is not a good combination.

The government must take the time to listen; to work with those on the front lines; to ensure that transparency and accountability are strengthened, not weakened; and to finally put an independent child and youth advocate into place so Nova Scotia's children can have somewhere to turn when they need help. Our younger people are at the centre of this conversation, and they deserve to be a part of it.

With that, Speaker, I'll take my seat.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : I'm going to be quick. I do want to say that I think I'm a little shocked that the NDP and that member would quote the Citizens Alliance of Nova Scotia as evidence. I don't think the member fully understands who they are.

[Page 4796]

Let's talk about that: "Nova Scotia confirms it funds and performs genital surgeries for teens" They are anti-transgender. It is right on their site. That's who you're quoting. That's who . . . (Interruption)

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. I'm sitting here neutral. I'm sure there are some things that you might have spoken that upset them. They never chirped. It's this member's turn to talk.

The honourable Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : I can't believe the member just said, "I quoted other things." Here is the group she quoted:

Exclusive documents reveal that doctors in Nova Scotia greenlit five surgeries to create artificial vaginas for patients listed as under 19 years old. Citing privacy laws, the provincial health authority refused to reveal whether any of the patients were minors but acknowledged that Nova Scotia Health funds transgender surgeries …

It goes on to talk about - I'm not going to get into it because it actually turns my stomach - the mental health, that this is all basically because of mental health issues. This is who the member just quoted. This is who they just quoted as evidence for how to protect children.

Let's go to the second article I found on there - Is Your Child Being Socially Transitioned at School Without your Knowledge? - another article on that site. It's right on the front page. Let's talk about that article:

If your child is in Grade 7 or above, they may have socially transitioned at school without you ever being informed. The Nova Scotia Department of Education has no idea how many children this affects. Even more alarming, they have no process, training, or oversight for determining whether a child has the mental capacity to make these life-altering decisions.

That's who the member just quoted, and that is shameful. It's one thing to stand in your place and try to prove a point, but to quote this kind of organization is absolutely appalling.

Who is qualified to make that decision? How many children have been deemed to have capacity of consent and therefore have been socially transitioned without parental knowledge? It's fearmongering. That entire site is fearmongering. I'm not even going to get into the COVID-19 stuff on here - that COVID-19 was some government plant.

When you stand in your place, and you talk about children in care, do a little research. Okay?

[Page 4797]

The last thing I will leave on - because I wasn't going to speak - but to continue to say, "losing a child" as if it was, "Oops, the government took my child away." I'm only talking from personal experience, but I don't have a memory before six years old. I don't have a single memory before six years old - none - and there is a whole host of reasons why, but I can tell that member that my parents didn't lose me. They didn't deserve me, and they didn't deserve my brothers and sisters.

My dad would come home drunk every night and beat the living hell out of us and my mother, and when he wasn't home, she was doing the same thing to us. Government stepped in time and time again and gave them chance after chance because that's what the Department of Community Services does. They don't want to separate children from their parents.

For a member to act as if, "Oh, they lost a child" - does the member understand what it takes for the Department of Community Services to step in and remove a child from their family? If the member did, they wouldn't make flippant statements like that. Quite frankly, they wouldn't.

I guarantee you I know more kids in care than that member will ever know - from my experience in foster homes, from my experience living on the street, from my experience living in group homes - and not one of them ever said to me, "Oh my God, my parents lost me." You know what? The vast majority of the ones I know, and me personally, couldn't care less about our parents and don't believe they have rights to us. They lost the rights to us the moment they gave us up and the moment they stopped being parents. That's when they lost their rights, and I'll be damned if I'm going to stand here and listen to someone say the parents deserve rights over a child. No, they don't. They absolutely don't.

I have three children. My main goal in life is to protect them. I will die for my children. You would have to kill me to take my children from me. I will do everything in my power to make sure they're good citizens, that they're inclusive, that they're accepting of people, and that they turn out to be good people. They can be whatever the heck they want in life.

I am tired of this argument because I've heard it throughout my life. What about the parents' rights? It's almost like the foster kids and the kids in care did something wrong and that we have to allow our biological - and they're not parents, in my - this is my own. I'm not speaking for every foster child. I'm speaking for myself, but my parents were a sperm donor and an egg donor. That's it. They gave me some genes and walked the heck away.

When we were taken away, they didn't just leave; they left the country. They went back to Ireland. You come to Canada with five children, you leave and go back with none, and nobody said anything to them. I found out I have a ton of uncles, aunts, and family - a huge family. No one said a word. No one reached out and said, "Hey, let's find those children?" So, why would they have more rights than I do?

[Page 4798]

[6:45 p.m.]

They don't, and if any member wants to stand in their place and act like they've been through the system and they know what it's like, go for it. I'm not going to stand here and pretend like I know. Anybody on any side of this Legislature - I'm not going to pretend I have any experiences in their lived experience.

But when I hear people talk about what the system does and what the system doesn't - the system isn't perfect. Absolutely not. But again, I have a right to privacy. Maybe I don't want the media knowing my name, even if I passed away. Maybe I don't. But it doesn't protect the parents and it doesn't protect the abusers. That's the thing here that's being kind of talked about, which isn't true. It doesn't protect the abuser. It doesn't protect the parents. Nor should it ever.

Again, I just say that first of all, if you're going to quote someone and table someone, make sure it's not filled with hate speech towards the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. Make sure it's not filled with hate speech towards the Nova Scotia Health Authority. Make sure it's not filled with hate speech for the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.

It really is disgusting. Go though it. It is gross. I went through it quickly, and if I saw a name - I instantly recognized the name. I was like, "Oh, not good," because I've read some of the posts from some of these people. Maybe someone passed it to the member. I don't know. It is what it is.

I would just say, and I'll leave it at this - I'm only going to speak a few minutes. Don't stand here in your place and ever say that a parent has more rights than a child. The child didn't make the decision to be abused. The child didn't make the decision to be neglected. The child didn't make the decision. The adult did. For the adult to have their children taken from them - Speaker, I will repeat it - it's not like they say, "Oh, you missed dinner. Time to take your child," or "You spanked your child. We're going to take your child."

Listen, I was the Minister of Community Services and I was darn proud to be the Minister of Community Services. Their goal is to keep parents and kids together. The amount of work and resources that go into it - I'll leave it at this. If you are going to quote someone, rather Gandhi than Hitler. I'm not saying that these people are either. Just know who you're quoting.

Second of all, you don't speak for children. I don't speak for children. In my own personal opinion, the parents who gave me up will never - I mean, they're both gone, thank God - neither one of them will ever speak for me and neither one of them ever will. I will tell you, the vast majority of foster kids and kids in care who I speak to feel the exact same way. (Applause)

[Page 4799]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : This is a big one. It is. There is some real lived experience in the House. There has been a lot of conversation around this topic. I will keep my comments to our caucus and our opinion on what we think is in the best interests of Nova Scotians.

I'll start off by being pleased to rise today to speak on third reading of Bill No. 201. Since this bill was introduced, there have been significant concerns raised over its potential. I think those concerns are raised in good faith. Nobody wants to see the government pass a law that has unintended consequences, yet because of the way the government has operated, there have been no amendments to this bill, and we expect it to be passed with full government support.

On the surface, it appears that the bill would improve the protection of vulnerable Nova Scotians. The reality is that it creates an environment where children in care of the province are at the risk of being unseen and unknown, especially in the case of death.

It's widely accepted why the identities of victimized children or those taken from an unsafe situation at home are protected from the public. This protection is critical to ensuring continued safety. This is why publication bans are an important legal tool.

However, amendments to the Children and Family Services Act would prevent parents from speaking out on their child's death. Without the minister's permission, the restrictions would continue. The media would also be prevented from publishing a full story on the death of a child under government care as identifying a parent could theoretically identify the child.

The Globe and Mail called these amendments grotesque. We echo the sentiment and are concerned that these legislative changes give inappropriate and unethical power to the government.

The public and families have a right to scrutinize the government if a child dies under its care. Under these changes, this right would be stripped from Nova Scotians. In the last year, Nova Scotians have followed the devastating story of Jack and Lilly Sullivan's disappearance and through existing laws the media was able to report on the involvement of Child Protection social workers in the case.

If changes to the Act move ahead, the public would be prevented from knowing the identities of Jack and Lilly and the adults involved. Under proposed legislation, the disappearance and search efforts would become meaningless to the public. Removing this transparency risks public safety. We've heard from legal and social workers at the Public Bills Committee and they have emphasized that these changes are democratically unjustified, remove parental agency, and are not the legal norm in Canada. Speaker, I don't understand how despite the professional opinion of these people the government feels that they can continue with these changes.

[Page 4800]

The bill also moves to repeal the Social Workers Act, the change to the professional regulations, yet another situation where the government failed to consult with industry professionals. It was startling to find out that the Nova Scotia College of Social Workers was told rather than consulted about bringing the profession under the Regulated Health Professions Act. We've heard concerns at the Public Bills Committee and elsewhere that bringing the college under the reign of the minister will prevent independent advocacy and give the minister the unjustified authority to intervene in cases. We hope that as this bill is implemented, the government will address these concerns.

Speaker, this bill highlights the government's unwillingness to consult with the professionals on matters that directly impact Nova Scotians. Public policy and the legal system are strongest when government consults stakeholders, industry professionals, and regulators. Unfortunately, consultation if absent in this case and the consequence, the secrecy in weak legislation - and, for all those reasons, we cannot support this bill. As I said, there's been a lot of conversation. I will table the document from the Globe and Mail that was cited but that outlines why we can't support the bill. We had some serious concerns around it.

We look forward to hearing the comments from the government side when the time comes but this is one that I predicted - that this is an emotional one. It really is. It's one that has impacted a lot of families. We want to make sure - as I said in my statements our job is to bring the best foot forward in Opposition to make sure the government gets it right especially when we're dealing with our kids. I do really appreciate the conversation. I will say this to the member for Halifax Atlantic: I've heard that story before, and he says it on the floor, and I give him the credit he deserves because that is a tough story to tell.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Thank you very much, Speaker. I rise to speak on third reading of Bill No. 201, An Act Respecting Justice and Social Services, and as my colleague just said this is a bill that touches the most vulnerable in our province: children and youth in care.

There are some good things in this bill and there are some things in this bill that we talked about that we believe, I believe, and others here as well believe could be improved. I did table five different amendments during the Committee of the Whole House on Bills. Unfortunately, they were not accepted by the government. All of the amendments were recommendations from the Auditor General's report. I am hoping that even though the amendments were not accepted, they are all recommendations the department is working on and will make sure the Auditor General's concerns and recommendations are put in place.

I would say, looking at this bill, it's another omnibus bill, and we've seen that here - I believe there are four of them here in this sitting. We've had a total of nine government bills tabled, and in those nine government bills, there are 38 pieces of legislation that they were trying to get through very quickly. The biggest concern in this bill has already been expressed. There's been quite a bit about it in the media as well. It is with regards to the minister having the power to do a publication ban on if a child passes, and if it's a child who's been in the care of the department under the minister.

[Page 4801]

I will table a couple of the media articles and some of the information that was tabled at Public Bills Committee. I won't read them all again - they've been discussed - but I do want to make sure that here in third reading, it is on the record. Some of the concerns are that it is giving too much power to the minister. Of course, the minister is the one who is responsible for the care. The people who have spoken out against this portion of the bill have said it's really a conflict of interest, that the minister should not - and it's nothing personal against the minister who's currently in place. I think it would apply to whomever would be in that position.

I do also want to make a comment that I do think the minister who's head of this department is a very capable person and does a very good job. I know from working with her in the caucus before, she's very hard-working and cares very deeply about the people in this province. I completely believe in the minister and the minister's ability to do a wonderful job.

I do have concerns, and I don't understand why the Premier would have this minister have so many responsibilities, however. I do think that is something important to mention, because this minister is responsible for two different departments. The Premier has a lot of backbenchers. The Premier has a lot of people who would be available to take this department on. I don't understand why he would put so much on one person. It is a lot. I can only imagine the demands of this department. Each and every child and youth who is in care is really under the responsibility of the minister. It's a lot.

I wanted to make that statement in fairness to whomever is in that position. I will table these documents in relation to the publication ban and the concerns raised. I do believe that is the biggest overarching challenge, or problem, this bill before us does have. At Public Bills Committee, we did have a presentation from a lawyer, and it was David Hutt. I will table his letter. In his letter, he does discuss if this is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - the privacy bans.

One of my colleagues who spoke first about this bill in third reading referenced Joseph Howe and his incredible speech about the importance of media. The reality is, they are often referred to as the guardian of democracy. They are a very important part of ensuring we have true democracy here in Nova Scotia and in all democratic countries. I think we should always have concerns whenever we're looking at taking away the freedom of information, which is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will give this document here.

Of course, Lindsay Jones also wrote an article in the Globe and Mail also sharing the concerns that were expressed. We have a CBC article that shared these concerns, as well. I hope the minister does take that into consideration. I was looking at the bill to see when it comes into force, and the entire bill doesn't state it. Perhaps this is something that maybe this portion of the bill will not come into force. Maybe it's something the government can reconsider.

[Page 4802]

[7:00 p.m.]

As I mentioned, there was a CBC article that did express concerns, as well, about the privacy: "N.S. bill cloaks identity of children who die in care from public." I did find this very difficult to talk about in Committee of the Whole. The topic that we are discussing is very sensitive. I don't want to downplay that.

We also had some other articles in the media on this bill, identifying one of the positives. Let's go to that. One of the positives that was highlighted in this bill was the extension of support for youth in foster care who age out of the system. A lot of people have spoken of how positive and happy they are to see that.

In this CBC article here, we have some comments from a senator. I'm going to read those into Hansard as well.

Independent Senator Mary Coyle of Antigonish, N.S., said it is shocking there are so many people in the criminal justice system who have come through foster care or other forms of youth care.

"When young people age out of care, where do they go? How do they feed themselves? How do they house themselves? Who do they associate with?" Coyle said.

"If there isn't a wraparound, healthy support system for that person they're going to seek out a system somewhere to get by."

The proposed change to Nova Scotia law [this bill we're debating here] aligns with changes other provinces like New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have already made.

The only concern that I will share, which has arisen with this extension of the supports, is that we're not entirely sure what those supports will look like. I believe those are going to be identified in regulations. But I think all of us are hoping that they will be true wraparound supports to help to empower our youth as they become adults, learn how to support themselves, and become independent here in this world.

I'll table those two articles. I also want to table this article. It's a CBC article. It's from last December. I want to table it because I believe it ties in with this bill, An Act Respecting Justice and Social Services.

It's a difficult article to read. It is referring to a child who did die at the hands of its mother. The child had been in foster care. The article goes on to share some of the challenges within the system. It does have a lawyer providing some concerns that it was a result of systemic failure.

[Page 4803]

That's one of the reasons I put forth the amendments that I had. There have been a lot of recommendations made of how to try to improve the system. I'll table those articles there. I won't table the Auditor General's report because I have tabled that previously, and I'm not going to reference it directly today.

My main concern with this bill is the publication ban, and I hope that the government will reconsider that. I do believe that it does violate the Canadian Charter - I'm not a lawyer - based on what I've read.

I know the current minister for this department often - rightly so - honours our military. I want the minister and all the government to consider: Can you honour the military on one hand and then put in a publication ban on the other, removing freedom of the press and removing freedom of information here in the province? Personally, I don't think you can do both. I don't think you can honour the sacrifices of the men and women who have died and served our country for the freedoms and liberties that we have here and that allow us to have our Canadian Constitution and then take away some of those liberties. I don't believe that they can coexist. You either support one or the other.

This bill affects four pieces of legislation. It amends the Beneficiary Designation Act, it amends the Children and Family Services Act, it amends the Domestic Violence Intervention Act, and it amends the Regulated Health Professions Act. Again, an omnibus bill. A lot of us would have preferred to see each one of those pieces of legislation tabled individually so they could have had more scrutiny and proper oversight.

I know that sometimes it is difficult - I say that based on the response that we sometimes get - for different ministers to hear the feedback that we are providing. But I think it's always important to remind the government that it's not personal. The information that we're sharing back is based on what we're hearing from the people of Nova Scotia, some experts, some lay people, our constituents. That is part of responsible government - the debate back and forth, sharing the pros and the cons of pieces of legislation before they come into law.

None of the comments that I'm sharing today are meant to be personal. They're all meant to help maybe create a better piece of legislation for our province moving forward. When we create and amend laws here in the province, they affect now and going into the future.

The last comment that I'll make on this bill in third reading, I think, is an important one to make. It is also part of a theme that we have seen with the government, and that is making pretty significant changes to legislation that affect professionals in the province without any consultation.

[Page 4804]

The social workers are going to be put now under the Regulated Health Professions Act. Based on what we're hearing from social workers, they're not happy about that. If the work had been done on the front end with consultation with them as professionals, then perhaps we wouldn't have this outpouring of frustration from them as professionals. A lot of social workers will say that they don't feel that they necessarily should be under that piece of legislation. They don't see themselves as a medical professional per se because they do have a very unique profession and the work that they do is unique.

That is something that I hope the government can amend and go back, and mend fences with that social work organization and with those professionals to try to build trust that maybe has been broken the way that this piece of legislation was brought forward.

We did see the same thing happen when the Regulated Health Professions Act was tabled here in the Legislature. I forget how many pieces of legislation were impacted, but I think it was around 21 or 22, if I recall. People were really upset. We had a lot of people show up at - it was called Law Amendments Committee at that time - and share their concerns of how there was no consultation with them, and that this was affecting their profession.

We have heard the Minister of Health and Wellness share here in the House that it has been a very positive experience, which is great to hear. It's just that, out of respect, if you are changing the laws that regulate your profession, the organization should be consulted first, and there should be proper collaboration. It's kind of the difference between a collaborative team approach versus authoritarian top-down. I think all of us - at least many of us - would agree here in this Chamber for the long run, we can have a stronger province if we have a more collaborative approach, one that's respectful and builds trust now and moving forward.

With those comments, Speaker, I'll end my comments on Bill No. 201, An Act Respecting Justice and Social Services. I look forward to hearing the minister's comments and my other colleagues' as well.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Speaker, I hope you will indulge a bit of a preamble before I get to my comments on the bill. First of all, I really wanted to apologize on behalf of the caucus that a not-credible source was brought forward. I know we all receive lots of emails. This is from a Nova Scotia civil society organization. Unfortunately, we didn't take the time that we needed before it was included in our comments.

I don't think anyone in this House or any Nova Scotians would be able to doubt our commitment to trans and queer rights. That is evident in everything we do and everything we stand for. In particular, I know it's a deeply held value that the MLA for Fairview-Clayton Park demonstrates and activates and declares all the time. We get a lot of information, and sometimes it's hard to filter through it. I would just say that.

[Page 4805]

I'm going to get through a little bit of other wrapping up from the last little bit of debate before I get to something that we're really all going to agree on, which is talking about the Liberals' record on children and youth. Just wait for it. (Laughs)

I do want to say - I mean, we work fast. Things are coming at us. You have to integrate a lot of information. I did have a chance to look at Hansard, and I do have the quote from the member for Eastern Passage, which I'm going to bring forward in this House just so we can discuss it a little bit. I think the member who just spoke was referencing the head of the Nova Scotia College of Social Workers, who is, in fact, a former NDP candidate in the last election. When you consider the source of the data you are hearing, you want to be sure you are listening to all social workers across the province.

I would just say again that we are all moving fast. We are all integrating a lot of information. I do think it is important, particularly when we're discussing this bill that fundamentally changes the governance of the Nova Scotia College of Social Workers, to be very clear that actually there is no room for partisan politics in the non-partisan decision-making and regulation of health professions and other organizations. None at all.

We can be many things, right? We could have been Liberals who become Progressive Conservatives. We could have been NDP candidates who became PC MLAs. I mean all these things happen. But seriously, we hold a lot of roles in our lives throughout our lives, and I really think by somehow calling into question the source of the data - the executive director's professional background - also calls into question the governance structure of the college and the decision-making around that.

I do think it's unfortunate. Whether you are a candidate for this, that, or the other, when you have other professional roles in public life, they need to be both respected but not brought into decision-making. I will table that unfortunate Hansard quote.

Now, folks, let's get back to a little bit about - let's talk about the Liberals' record on children and youth when they were in government. As I said in second reading, I was pleased to see that this government did commit to a full review of the Children and Family Services Act, as provided for in the Act.

When this Act was brought into place by the previous Liberal government, in fact, it was subjected to a lot of criticism in terms of how it was constructed and the burden of proof in terms of identifying situations of neglect and abuse for children and youth. It was resoundingly criticized by stakeholders.

Then when it came time for the first review of the Children and Family Services Act, in fact, the Liberal minister at the time decided that she didn't want to do a whole review, so she sort of cherry-picked a couple of easy provisions and did a not-very-inclusive, not-very-engaged review.

All of that to say that I tabled the review that was done in 2024. It had a list of stakeholders who were engaged. It's a much more powerful review. I do think it's a starting point for some of the things that we could be considering in this discussion.

[Page 4806]

I am concerned about children and youth in our province right now. I'm concerned about access to FASD assessment. I am concerned about access to ASD assessments. I'm concerned about child and youth mental health. Again, the Liberals abandoned the child and youth strategy that had started under the NDP, which was a really important piece of work and came out of a really public Nova Scotia tragedy. The Liberals abandoned it. They decimated the mental health division in the DHW.

Just to say that I've seen this, so the DNR decimation of wildlife services we've seen this time around with this government - I've seen it before under Addictions and Mental Health, and it slowed down this province's ability to develop and implement the types of services that were happening across the country by years.

[7:15 p.m.]

Just to say, I am concerned about youth unemployment and it's more important than ever to get it right for children and youth in Nova Scotia. It is more important than ever to get it right for children and youth who are in care of the state. This is truly the ultimate responsibility that I think the state takes on, aside from taking away people's liberty and right to movement. But this is a big deal.

I appreciate that we have someone who can speak to their experience. I, as you know, have been a foster parent in the time that I've been an MLA, for a teenager. I am currently supporting a young person transitioning out of care, and folks, it is tough. It is really tough. There is a lot. If you think about not just - contemplate trauma or experiences or something like 46 placements in the child welfare system, these things - this is what happens - to contemplate, then how do you support young people to move successfully into adulthood - and success is defined by them - but with well-being and good health.

We did bring forward a number of amendments really to nail down what the extension of services to former youth in care, aged 19 to 25 would look like. I'm going to come at it from a bit of a deficit approach, which I am hoping to swing around to a more resilient, positive approach. The statistics are sobering for looking at the outcomes of former youth in care, and this means young people who at any time have been in care for maybe a really short period of time, maybe as a young child, as a teenager. Basically the effect can be quite challenging if you don't get the right support along the way and that sort of thing.

Only about 50 percent of children who have been in care finish high school. That is really challenging when you think about outcomes - employment opportunities people have. Less than 10 percent have access to post-secondary education or successfully complete post-secondary education of any type, like training, trades, academic pursuits.

There is a higher rate of interaction with the justice system, and I have a whole bunch of stuff to table that I can do in a couple of minutes. Housing: We were just talking about the housing challenges. We've known, from the Halifax Point-in-Time survey over a few years - and I've tabled the full 2025 report and so I was going to just table the title page at this point - but basically, across Canada, about 20 percent of Canada's homeless population are youth aged 13 to 24.

[Page 4807]

It is generally found that 57.8 percent of homeless youth had previous involvement with child welfare systems. In Nova Scotia, in the last Point-in-Time survey - and I'm just going to find this.

In fact, we are doing better than the national average, I guess, but 134 respondents - 23 percent identified that they were in foster care or a group home as a child and youth. There are lots of reported gaps in terms of employment, income levels, and that sort of thing. We've got to get this right, and that was why - and the thing is, actually there will be no (inaudible) about what's happening for a former youth in care.

There is actually quite a bit of research being done. It is hard to track individuals, of course, but there are a number of research projects, including one happening here in Nova Scotia, as I understand it, through the Department of Opportunities and Social Development, looking at what the successful factors are and what supports young people coming out of care to transition well into adulthood. We know lots, so we can do lots. We can do better. I'll table some of these things.

That was the intent behind some of the things we've talked about - to make sure that young people have what they need.

Finally, the voices that we haven't heard through this are, in fact, children and youth in care or former children and youth in care. The Department of Community Services used to fund a number of programs where young people in care were provided the types of opportunities that maybe other kids - kids in their family, homes of their family of origin - had access to in terms of camps, leadership development, and ability to get together as a community.

You can imagine if you're - I see this - I think I can say this on the floor of the House. We'll see if my child decides that I shouldn't have said it. My own children, who both were adopted from the child welfare system, have experiences that their peers could never understand, so the ability to have a community to support one another was important.

Youth engagement, youth voice, and youth determination should be underpinning all of this work. The other thing is, sometimes if you're a person, a young person, perhaps, or a person in general, who has had a lot of systems let you down, systems that were supposed to be there - big ones, like family, schools, or whatever - systems that have let you down, it's hard to trust. Sometimes it's hard to engage young people who have that particular experience.

I can tell you that one of the best ways to get young people engaged is to make them able to direct what services and programs they have access to. Engage them. Listen to their voices. If we had a child and youth advocate, we would have likely - a child and youth advocate, in terms of best practices, would have a strong commitment to youth engagement, would have strong youth councils who would be engaged in talking about what they and their peers need.

[Page 4808]

We wanted to make sure that we're doing the best for young people. I know we all want to do the best for young people. I have no doubt. There are educators in this room. There are lots of parents and lots of aunts and uncles. I get it all. We all have that role. We all want the best for young people.

Unfortunately, sometimes the best for young people doesn't appear, doesn't manifest. That's when the state has to step in. That's when the government has to step in. We should be doing the absolute best we can when we have to be in that role.

As my colleague from Cumberland North was talking about, this would be a challenging position as minister. You are, in fact, the person responsible for children in care. I'd like to see ministers in that role - I think we're on our fifth under this government, but don't go anywhere, current minister - who have all the supports that they need. That's the legislative frameworks. That's the programs and supports - all of the supports they need to do the best job possible. I wanted to put that out there.

I talked about this at Committee of the Whole House on Bills. Again, we receive bills in this House that are omnibus bills that take into account a broad range of issues, and bluntly, we don't always, by second reading, have any real sense of goals and what analysis has been done behind certain provisions in bills.

When this bill was first considered, I didn't know what to make of the child identity ban. I'm not a lawyer. I didn't start to think it through and so I was really surprised to start to hear from folks who were concerned about - and then to see the editorial that I did read into the record that I tabled before my colleague from Sydney-Membertou just quoted from it again. But talking about a grotesque code of silence in Nova Scotia. I think it is really important that we, because of this critical role, because of the fact that we are the parents - like our government, this government becomes the parent for young people and undertakes that traumatic move out of families of origin, we better be making sure we understand the good and the challenging.

I don't think we'd ever want to limit any reports around abuse or neglect within the child welfare system and, yet unfortunately, deaths of children in the child welfare system do occur. They occur often enough that provinces usually have laws around how those are investigated by the coroner for instance and what reports should look like coming out of those.

I thought maybe this was just an oversight. I was surprised, on doing further research, to learn the Ford government, in February 2026, also stopped reports summarizing child welfare network deaths. In Ontario - obviously, a larger population - there are basically over 100 young people actively in care, who die each year. This is a significant public health issue and it's a significant rights issue and those could be from accidental, medical, suspicious, suicide but people who die in care. I would say that having had young people in my life, having children who should have received certain medical services when they were in care and did not, I can tell you that is an issue of neglect. It is a real issue we need to be looking at and now, in Ontario, they're not going to be reporting that information and I am curious if we were inspired here in Nova Scotia by that action. I still, for all the reasons that have been said tonight on the floor, feel it's really important to be transparent.

[Page 4809]

We need to make sure we're doing the best we can. That means everything from making sure we've got the best services, the best access to play therapy and assessments and medical care and when it doesn't go well, we need to understand why. I would encourage, even at this late minute, the government to reconsider this change. I don't think it's positive for young people in care. I think it removes an accountability that's pretty important, especially for young people for whom we are both carer and advocate, et cetera. In Committee of the Whole House on Bills I had the chance to read into the record a number of the letters we've received expressing concern about the changes with the Nova Scotia College of Social Workers. Again, it's both process and content. I don't understand why government wouldn't consult with a professional body about changes coming forward in their name on the floor of this House. I don't understand why you wouldn't do it. I don't understand why we didn't do it in the regulated health professions. I just don't understand why this government doesn't want to talk to Nova Scotians.

Perhaps all social workers under the college were also special interests. I mean that's not what I think but, if you don't want to listen to people's voices, I think it's disrespectful. It's particularly ironic for a profession that seeks to build people's agency and capacity that in fact that same approach was not extended to them as professionals. As I said, I was located with the School of Social Work for a number of years at Dalhousie University and it's true that advocacy and analysis is at the heart of social work practice.

We want people to look at the systemic issues and work with clients and to be able to come forward and say how both individual and system-level changes are needed and how they can be approached. I shared, I think at second reading, some of the attrition data from the Department of Opportunities and Social Development about social workers. It's quite a high rate of attrition. I'll just pause. (Interruption)

[7:30 p.m.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Thank you, Speaker. I would invite lots of folks on the sidelines, and that sort of thing, to think about if they have questions about this bill, and if they fully understand the bill that's before them that they're going to be asked to vote on.

[Page 4810]

What I would say, unfortunately, both because of the comments of the minister about the head of the College of Social Work, and the way in which this was done, that I am very concerned that this is not done in good faith. Social workers provide essential services and an essential reflection of the systems that support all of us, and in particular our most vulnerable citizens. They should be accorded the respect and agency and right space approach that we expect them to have in their own practice. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Lunenburg West.

HON. BECKY DRUHAN « » : I rise today at third reading on Bill No. 201, the Justice and Social Services Act. I just have a few remarks. We've spoken in this House at length about this bill - about some of the promises of this bill and the opportunities this bill presents, but also some of the issues and challenges with it. So I want to do a bit of a recap and cover a little bit of ground that I haven't put into the record before.

This is an omnibus bill. It makes changes across several areas of Justice and Social Services. It touches on child protection, domestic violence, and regulation of social work. Some of these changes absolutely respond to real gaps, particularly for young people leaving care, and also for victims of domestic violence. But a number of concerns have been raised, including the lack of consultation and the impact of implementation.

I want to talk specifically about some elements of this bill. Before I dive into that though, I think from an overview perspective, I would say that I do support some of the changes that are included in this bill, particularly the expansion of services for youth between the ages of 19 and 25, and also the extension of the availability of emergency protection orders.

But there is a significant amount of problem associated with other elements of the bill. Whether there's an equal amount of problems to solutions, or whether the problems outweigh the solutions presented by this bill, there are just too many concerns, for me, with the content of this bill for me to be able to support it. I want to be clear about that.

I say I don't want to be faced in the future with the accusation that I didn't support the good in the bill. The reality is that when things are bundled into an omnibus bill, we're not given an option to choose - to say yes to some of the things and no to others. So I want to be very clear on the record that while I do not support this bill, there are elements that I do support.

So when I vote against this bill at third reading, it should not be taken by anyone, and I certainly - given that I'm being very clear about this - hope that I never hear anyone accuse me of being against everything that's in it. Because I'm not - and I'm putting that on the record. I'm not going to hold my breath, no. But it's clear, and I've made the point.

Having said that, I do want to go through and just point out - candidly, I'll focus on the concerns, because that's most of what I'm hearing from people who reach out. I think that is my function. That's my role.

[Page 4811]

I am going to go through sequentially, in the order that these items appear in the bill.

The first item that I want to mention is Clause 5. This is the clause that extends services to children and youth in care. It will extend services to persons between the age of 19 and 25 years of age. On its face, this is something that I support and that I've heard others support as well. The concept behind this is a good one. The reality is that we are not fully formed at the age of 19. Our need for support continues beyond that stage. Ensuring that youth in care have that support as they continue to age, develop, and mature is important, so I am in support of that.

My concerns around that, though, are the concerns that have been expressed to me, and that I share around that. We haven't seen details yet about what will be available for youth in that age range. We also haven't seen a commitment to new funding or resources to support these extended services. In the face of the cuts that the government has imposed during this budget season and the projection of continued cuts as we move into the future, there is a significant risk that, although in theory supports and services will be available as a result of this provision, in reality the funding may not be there, and the resources may not be there to support that.

The lack of clarification around how those responsibilities will be resourced and what resources will be provided to enable the government to fulfil what will now become an obligation as a result of Clause 5 - to provide services to people between the ages of 19 and 25 years - it's uncertain, and it concerns me for that reason. The clause itself, and the goal behind the clause, I am very much in support of, and most folks I've heard from are as well.

The next provision that I want to talk about is Clause 8, and this is the publication ban that will be imposed. I've done this before, and this is, I think, a different letter. I've read into the record on prior occasions letters that have been received from constituents or other Nova Scotians. I don't want to reinvent the wheel, but when someone else has articulated something well, I'm more than happy to share that and give credit for that. With respect to this particular provision, that's exactly what I want to do.

I haven't shared this previously, but it did go to the Standing Committee on Public Bills, so others have talked about it. I do want to read portions of this letter into the record as part of my submissions because the issues with Clause 8 are articulated well in this letter.

This is a letter that, as I said, went to the Standing Committee on Public Bills. It is from David Hutt with Burchell Wickwire Bryson and has been retained by CBC and the Canadian Media Lawyers Association to make submissions. I am going to read a few passages from this because he does an excellent job of summarizing what the current state of the law is and what the problems are with the provisions the government is advancing under the Justice and Social Services Act.

[Page 4812]

The first bit of context that is provided is the current landscape. He writes:

Section 94 of the Children and Family Services Act articulates an automatic publication ban over information identifying a child who is a witness or participant in a hearing under the Act. It also gives the courts discretion to issue a publication ban over any reports of such proceedings if the publication would cause emotional harm to a child who is a participant or witness. These bans are the current status quo.

He is referencing the existence already of bans that protect children in these circumstances.

He summarizes - he quotes Clause 8 of the Justice and Social Services Act and its proposal to extend the bans. The too broad extensions are that the bans will apply after the death of a child, and the other component, both of these components are problematic. The other component is that it is under the discretion of the minister. He goes on and says:

We object to these further restrictions on openness. They are unjustified limitations on the freedom of the press and the freedom of information; would decrease accountability; restrict public scrutiny of provincial agencies; permit the possibility of future harms to children, and limit a family's ability to speak out publicly about a child who has died while in contact with Children and Family Services.

I think that's abundantly clear. There are a number of harms identified there and problems with Clause 8 as it's contained in the Justice and Social Services Act.

Continuing on, this is now from Page 3 of his letter:

Persons accused of crimes can be identified by name. This is a cornerstone of our open court system. The proposed publication ban over the identity of a deceased child would effectively place a publication ban over the identities of any parents or foster parents accused of involvement in the child's death.

The implications of Clause 8 of this Act are a significant restriction on one of the cornerstones of our open court system. He goes on to say:

In Nova Scotia, under the proposed amendments, the publication ban would not only prevent the public from knowing the identities of those two accused foster parents, but also prevent the biological parents from speaking out.

He characterizes this as effectively erasing the life of a child because of how severely the people in the child's life would be impacted and restricted from being able to comment.

[Page 4813]

The proposed extension muzzles grieving parents. Imagine, for a moment, that you are the parent of a child who died at the hands of a foster care provider. Would you want the justice system to protect the identity of that foster parent? Would you want to be prevented from keeping your child's memory alive by naming him or her in public? Would you want to be stifled from talking about your child's manner of death, because it would identify that they had been a child in care?

I think most people would answer no to all of those things.

A publication ban that continues after a child's death will diminish accountability for those possibly responsible for that death and prevent loved ones from speaking about their loved one. It makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the public to understand what might have happened in these cases. Reporters will be faced with a decision: either identify the accused but not report on the relationship of the accused to the child who dies or protect the identity of the accused and report on the relationship. This is not a real option.

This demonstrates two of the significant issues with this proposal. The first is the negative impacts and consequences on the families who are involved in terms of their ability to speak publicly about their experiences and the life of their child. It also speaks to the challenges - not even challenges. It's a false option in terms of what the media will be able to report on. The reporting of the media in circumstances like this is a pillar of our justice system. Removing that possibility is an unacceptable restriction on that.

The letter goes on:

Since the child will no longer be subject to stigmatization and emotional harm (and therefore the ban will do nothing to help the young person), the proposed ban would instead protect the identities of those people who have a relationship with the deceased child and who may be accountable for what happened. It will stifle the expression of those who loved the child.

These are not results that we should be supporting.

I just have three or four more paragraphs I want to read from this.

The focus of that was really about the publication ban as a whole and the implications. It goes on, though, to address the challenges and concerns with the minister being the decision‑maker on this. David writes:

[Page 4814]

[W]e are concerned that any decision to allow the publication of the identity of a child will reside within the power of the Minister rather than with the legal guardians of the children, with the court, or with an administrative body of competent jurisdiction.

First, placing this discretion in the Minister is inconsistent with the existing section 94(2), which properly places the discretion for extending a ban over publication of records in the courts, not the Minister. A court process allows people - parents, the media - to object or challenge what the Minister or agency wants to do, and requires the Minister or agency to justify the request.

That is the process we have now.

[7:45 p.m.]

Second, requiring parties to request consent from the Minister is demeaning. It removes any agency from parents and disempowers them from discussing what has happened to their children.

[There is] no guidance on how the Minister will make these important decisions, that have a direct impact on the open courts and the rule of law in our democratic society.

There is nothing to suggest a Minister's decision will not be influenced by outside factors, rather than being based on impartial and objective criteria. For instance, how will the Minister exercise this discretion to permit or restrict openness if the Minister's own agency may be implicated?

That's where I'll stop reading. I think he did an excellent job of summarizing the problems associated with this. I ended on a piece that really comes down to the question of conflict of interest. Why would you put this kind of power in the hands of someone who is conflicted between two worlds, conflicted between protecting the department and representing the interests of the child? It is an untenable decision. As a minister, I would want no part of that dual obligation. I don't know how a minister would reconcile those duties. I think for all the reasons that David Hutt set out and for the others we've heard as debate has progressed and so many people have provided additional submissions to Public Bills Committee, I think Section 8 is very problematic. On the face of it alone, I personally would be compelled to vote against this bill.

The next provision I want to talk about relates to the extension of emergency protection orders other than the Domestic Violence Intervention Act. This is an extension of orders from 30 days to up to one year. I must acknowledge this could very well improve safety and stability for survivors, but it does raise questions about access to legal supports and enforcement over those longer periods.

[Page 4815]

There's also no explanation on how these extended domestic violence orders will be implemented or monitored. While I think on its face this provision is probably a good provision, and I think from feedback we've received that's a position that's shared by others, I am left still with more questions than answers on that. This is an example, as we'll see as I continue on with this, particularly in relation to the last clause I'm going to talk about - last substantive clause, not the coming into force - this is just another example of a missed opportunity at engagement.

I want to point to the Ministers' Table on Gender Based Violence as the exact group of people who could have been able to provide more details and input on this particular clause. That table, which I was so pleased to be involved in the setting up of, meets on a regular basis. Its objectives are to:

·     advance and drive action to prevent gender-based violence and provide better support for victims and survivors;

·     connect Government with survivors, families, community organizations, and front-line service providers to coordinate action and ensure a united, whole-of-society response;

·     address sector needs in a manner that is transparent and accountable.

There are a number of engaged, dedicated, experienced, knowledgeable people who sit on this table and who could have provided input in advance of this provision being tabled that would have helped inform not only the provision but also our understanding of how the provision will be implemented and the impacts of the provision. I've raised this before, and I don't believe that I've heard government say that that happened. I feel like it would have been front row centre had it happened, because that would be such an excellent way of proceeding.

I point to this clause because, to me, it represents such a missed opportunity for engagement and collaboration and connection and government to make informed decisions with the help and support of community members who signed up, put themselves forward to do exactly that.

The final clause I want to talk about before I wrap up my comments here at third reading is the set of clauses that bring social workers under the Regulated Health Professions Act, ostensibly to align with broader health system regulations but it has been made abundantly clear by multiple people over the course of weeks now, through multiple engagements, that this is not something - there has been no meaningful engagement on this. So many concerns have been raised, not only as a result of that lack of engagement in the course of the process but also the implications for social work.

Once again in this case I want to read into the record a submission made to the Premier and I think it was copied to many, if not all of us. This is a letter dated March 27th. The undersigned is Stephanie Gill with the Avalon Centre but it is actually signed by around 100 different social workers.

[Page 4816]

I am going to quote this one. I know we've received and have read into the record and made comments on multiple submissions by other social workers, by the college, by the university, and other groups and individual social workers as well. Their submissions have been incredibly valuable, and I have read some of them into the record. This one I have not read in before. Again, I think it does a very good job of outlining the concerns with this provision. I have just a couple of paragraphs here that I do want to read into the record because as I said, they do a really good job of articulating the problems and concerns with these clauses, Clauses 12 to 15.

I'll start with the second paragraph:

The transition was carried out without meaningful consultation with the Nova Scotia College of Social Workers or the broader public. Instead, these changes were embedded within an omnibus bill - Bill No. 201, the Justice and Social Services Act - and rapidly advanced through first and second readings, as well as public committee stage, effectively eliminating scrutiny, meaningful debate, and democratic participation. This is not merely an oversight, it reflects a deliberate sidelining of the very communities and professionals most affected.

Bringing social work under the Regulated Health Professions Act shifts the profession from the self-regulated, independent model to one shaped by government oversight, standardized processes and medicalized priorities, eroding social work's independence, ethical voice and commitment to social justice.

I think those are really important points. Social work absolutely contributes to health care; there is no question of that but it is not the same as health care. To group it in together without respect for the ways in which social work differs and the importance of that is certainly not appropriate.

It goes on:

The governance structure under the RHPA further amplifies our concerns. Regulatory boards will be appointed by the Governor in Council while social workers and employees of the NSCSW will be explicitly excluded from serving on the board that governs their own profession.

That's a really important point. Self-governed professions need to have the input of professionals who are part of those professions. This is a significant structural change for social workers. It is more than just bringing them under an umbrella.

[Page 4817]

This is not just a disconnect; it is a structural removal of professional voice and expertise from our decision-making.

There's a lot of really good information in here. I am just going to read a couple more paragraphs - one more paragraph. I will table it so it's available for everyone. The solution these social workers are seeking:

We call on the government to immediately amend Bill No. 201, the Justice and Social Services Act, by removing Part IV, Clauses 12 to 15, and pausing implementation of these changes. We further call for meaningful, good-faith consultation with the NSCSW, practising social workers, and the communities most impacted.

I think that is a most reasonable request on the part of these social workers.

I appreciate the time and effort that they and all of the others who have made submissions and written letters and spoken out have put in. It takes courage, it takes work, effort, and time, and it is disappointing that government has not been receptive to that work, effort, and time and those opinions because they should matter. That's a full stop. They should matter. They should have an impact on this process.

Those are the substantive clauses that I wanted to speak to. I will, before I wrap up, mention the coming-into-force provisions. I am sorry to report to Nova Scotians who have been following along on the reporting of the coming-into-force provisions, but in this case, the bill is silent on the coming into force of most of these provisions, which will mean that coming into force for most of these provisions will likely happen on Royal Assent when we wrap up the sitting. That significantly limits opportunities for making changes, but there is always action to be taken.

Some of these provisions require engagement with people as the process proceeds. In that regard, I encourage social workers and organizations working on their behalf to continue with their advocacy because we're down a path, but government always has the ability to make changes to that path.

I applaud their efforts thus far, and I encourage them to keep it up. Certainly, I speak for myself, and I suspect I speak for many if not all of the other members of the opposition. We will continue to be receptive to the input that social workers and others have in relation to government action, and we will continue to advocate on their behalf and work on their behalf.

There are a couple clauses that do have to wait for a proclamation by Governor-in-Council - Executive Council, Cabinet - to make an order. Those are the clauses that relate to the extension of services to youth between the ages of 19 and 25 years of age. There will be more to come from Cabinet on those provisions before they take the effect of law.

[Page 4818]

I'm shocked every time I have to raise this, but it is what it is. We've heard from lawyers on some of the provisions in these bills and some concerns around constitutionality and legality. As with the other cases where I've identified or where others have identified that these are concerns - where I've identified and where community members have identified - that there are questions of legality around the legislation that's being passed, we may very well expect to see court cases relating to these provisions.

I will say the thing that I say every time I raise that, which is that this would be a great opportunity to get us off that path. This would be a fantastic opportunity to not put Nova Scotians through the frustration, expense, and difficulty of challenging legislation in court. This would be a great opportunity to avoid the expense and cost of defending that, from the government side of things, because that's public money, and then being in the embarrassing position of potentially having a law struck down.

This is that moment, so I have to say it, whether I have optimism around it or not: I would love to see government come in with a last-minute amendment that takes some of these problematic provisions out of this bill. That would allow me and maybe some of the other members of opposition to support the pieces of it that are beneficial. I'm not holding my breath on that, but I have to say it because it's a path that could be available to us if government were interested in taking it.

That brings me to the end of my third reading remarks. Once again, there are provisions of this bill that I could support if they stood on their own, but there is too much in here that is problematic. For those reasons, I am unable to support it, unfortunately. I appreciate the debate that's happened and the input that Nova Scotians have given. I will take my seat and hope that perhaps there's a last minute save on government's part.

[8:00 p.m.]

With those few optimistic words, thank you, Speaker.

THE SPEAKER « » : If I am to recognize the minister, it will be to close the debate.

The honourable Minister of Opportunities and Social Development.

HON. BARBARA ADAMS « » : I am very pleased to rise today to say some final words on Bill No. 201, An Act Respecting Justice and Social Services.

The entire purpose of the Department of Opportunities and Social Development is to protect vulnerable Nova Scotians, particularly our children. I've listened very intently to all of the comments during this reading as well as the previous readings, and what was said at Public Bills as well.

The department is massive. It is made up of hundreds of social workers and lawyers, who've all been very dedicated in bringing this legislation to the House with a great deal of work and foresight. I want to take a few moments to respond to some of the things that were said tonight.

[Page 4819]

I have no doubt in my mind that everyone in this House cares about children. I know they care about the vulnerable. But how we represent the facts also matters. As everyone knows, I'm a health professional, and the first thing you are taught is that your words either help or heal. When you say something in this House that I know is factually incorrect, it makes my blood boil.

Ironically in this House, people are watching and they're saying, "Well, if it's not true, say so." Then the Speaker will tell me it's a disagreement of facts among members, and then it drives me a little bonkers. I'm going to try my best to clarify some of the things that were said tonight, because some people are watching and they're taking it to heart. They're being fed some things that are just, in fact, not accurate, and it gives a misleading impression of the safety of children in care, of the role of foster parents, of the role of the department, of the tremendous work of the social workers.

The comments were a bit all over the place, so I'm going to try to keep them all straight. I think I'll start with the most obvious one. One of the members mentioned us referencing the fact that the head of the College of Social Workers was a former NDP candidate. They found that it was outrageous that we would bring that up.

If you go to something on the website called Nova Scotia Legislature Hansard and Google "Karen Oldfield", the very first thing I opened up - and I'll table it. April 1, 2026, the Leader of the Opposition:

One of the first things the Premier did after being sworn in in 2021 was to fire the CEO and the board of the Nova Scotia Health Authority. He then hand-picked his friend and former Tory chief of staff Karen Oldfield …

Speaker, I could go through, if I'd had the time. There were probably hundreds of references from the NDP in particular referencing friends of the PC Party. Pot and kettle. It is relevant where we get our information from.

Something else that is important - the members opposite have all talked about consultation. When we introduced the legislation in the past to bring all the other Allied Health Professionals under the Regulated Health Professions Act, the Opposition said the sky was falling. "Oh, you didn't consult." The exact same language. You could almost Google it and find the exact same words out of Hansard from back then to now.

The College of Social Workers knew then what was happening to all of the other allied health professionals. They are also aware that there was interest in having all of the allied health professionals brought under the same umbrella. The consultation that went on with all of the other allied health professional groups took place as soon as the Regulated Health Professions Act was implemented and passed. Extensive consultation with every allied health professional group, including my own - physiotherapy. I'm still a registered and licensed physiotherapist - extensive consultation.

[Page 4820]

To quote the leader of the NDP, when she turned and looked at one of her members and said, "And how is that going?" and she said, "Pretty well, I hear." Another member just referenced it. It has gone extremely well. So well, in fact, that at Public Bills on this particular bill, I believe three or four people showed up.

I do find it surprising. I know when I was an Opposition MLA, I heard from people were both in favour of a bill and against it. I don't know about the Opposition's email accounts, but they must filter out all of those who are in support of some of the work of government. I've spoken to a lot of social workers who understand the difference between a college and an association.

It is interesting to me that two of the Opposition members who are members of their own college didn't speak in favour of keeping it together. For the public, I'm going to explain it again, because it's really important. This is about safety for the public, safety for children. I heard several of the NDP stand up and say that the role of the college is to advocate. The exact language of the college is protect the public. The role of the association is to be the advocate.

We've already had this discussion. It disturbs me to hear at this late date that members opposite still don't understand and respect that the role of the college is to protect the public. This government understands that. It also boggles my mind that the College of Social Workers here in Nova Scotia is the only one in the country that doesn't understand that. Every other province does. Every other province has a college and an association. When I graduated 42 years ago, I had a college and I had an association. This is not new. To talk about collaboration and consultation - everyone understands that this was a necessary next step. To vote against this is to suggest that you are not interested in protecting the public.

We have heard other comments by members, and I'm going to reference those. We do have differences of opinion, and I respect those who bring forth thoughtful ideas and represent the truth accurately.

The member for Fairview-Clayton Park at one point called the extension of the emergency protection orders a win. That's a good thing. The Leader of the Official Opposition described the publication ban protections and supports for youth transitioning from care as really positive. The member for Sydney-Membertou spoke about the importance of protecting vulnerable Nova Scotians and recognized the importance of including social media in modern legislation. Those are things that were said, and on that, I believe the House is united.

For clarity for those who are listening perhaps for the first time, this social justice bill extends emergency protection orders from 30 days to up to one year, giving survivors and their children greater stability and protection. For anyone who's ever been in danger, 30 days is not enough. I have been there. Thirty days is not enough. This legislation brings greater safety to those most in need, and I would hope members would support that.

[Page 4821]

Bill No. 201 strengthens privacy protections so that identifying information about children involved in court proceedings cannot be shared, including on social media. It makes clear that these protections remain in place even after proceedings end. There were already protections in place. This legislation involves the addition of social media.

I know that there have been some questions about how these protections would apply in difficult circumstances, including when a child has passed away. Let me be clear. This is about protecting the identity and dignity of children and their families. It is disturbing to me that there is anyone who would not want that. The legislation allows the minister to publish or consent to publication of information that would identify a child who is or has been subject to a proceeding under the CFSA, and recognizes that there are circumstances where this may be necessary.

I want to be absolutely clear that there are no restrictions on reporting events, including horrific events. There is only restriction on identifying a child in my care as the Minister of OSD. Media can continue to cover issues of child safety and well-being, but they will not be able to identify the child in the middle of it.

It is important that we protect children, and that's what this bill is about. It ensures, as well, that anyone found guilty of an offence involving a child is added to the child abuse register, even when a discharge is granted, and it formally enshrines our responsibility to support youth as they transition from care, recognizing that turning 19 does not mean a young person no longer needs support.

These are meaningful changes, they are practical changes, and they will make a difference in the lives of so many Nova Scotians. Many of these changes have been going on already in the department.

Members referenced wanting more details about it. When I was up at Estimates, we had all sorts of opportunity to talk about all of those investments, but I wasn't asked a single question then about those investments, but I can assure you that they are there.

In terms of the debate on repealing the Social Workers Act and the transition to regulation of the Regulated Health Professions Act - or RHPA, as we call it - I want to speak clearly to all of the social workers, both in OSD and other departments, including the Department of Seniors and Long-term Care and the Department of Health and Wellness. The language repeal has understandably caused concern. It sounds like an ending, but that is not the end of the process. In fact, it is just the beginning of a new future for social workers in Nova Scotia.

This step enables social workers to transition under the Regulated Health Professions Act, proclaimed in 2023, which provides a modern and consistent regulatory framework of self-regulated health professions in Nova Scotia.

[Page 4822]

There are a lot of people who don't understand what a self-regulated profession is. As the Minister of Health and Wellness has said many times and as I know, it is a privilege to be in a self-regulated profession. That means physiotherapists are regulating their own profession. Social workers will regulate their own profession. This is the same framework that applies to all in regulated health professions. To colleagues from other regulated health professions today, this ensures consistent standards and public protection across all of our professions in Nova Scotia.

This transition in the other allied health professionals has brought greater clarity to their roles within their own strong professions. It will do the same thing for social workers. I have heard from many social workers who are eager for this change and who understand the difference between a college and an association.

As we have noted, a regulator's primary responsibility is to protect the public. They do that through licensing, they set standards, and most importantly, they deal with complaints and discipline. When you have a college and an association that are one and the same, there is a conflict of interest.

Advocacy is an important role for social workers, and we respect that. That will continue under the role of an association, for clients, communities, and the profession itself, because it does remain a core and essential part of all social workers' work. It is a foundational piece that advocacy is a part of what social workers do. It is embedded in the code of ethics, it is embedded in the standard of practice, and it is embedded in the practice framework that our department developed together - with who? - with social workers over the past many years.

Advocating on behalf of children, youth, families, and communities is not optional in social work. It is required. It is the job. Social workers have always done this work, and they have done it beautifully. They will continue to be supported in doing so. By ensuring regulatory oversight that is offered in every other province in Canada, it's focused squarely on public protection. Why anyone would argue against that or not vote in favour of it, I frankly don't understand.

[8:15 p.m.]

We create space for advocacy to continue to clearly, confidentially, and confidently advocate on one side and have regulated oversight on the other side. This protects both the public and promotes the profession itself. Nothing in this legislation removes that obligation and nothing in this bill silences or inhibits that responsibility. In fact, by modernizing the regulatory structure and separating regulatory functions from broader professional advocacy, as is common practice across all regulated professions in Nova Scotia and across Canada, we reinforce a structure where both public protection and professional voice remain strong.

Speaker, this legislation was long overdue. It reflects something very important. It reflects our responsibility to modernize when systems have not kept pace. It reflects our responsibility to strengthen protections when gaps existed, and it reflects our responsibility to ensure that when children and families are at their most vulnerable, the law stands firm on their side.

[Page 4823]

Legislation is rarely the final word. It is often the first step. It sets the direction and it establishes the intent. Bill No. 201 is that first step towards stronger privacy protections, stronger safeguards, clear accountability, and it begins a careful process to modernize regulation for a profession that does some of the hardest and most meaningful work in our province.

I want to thank members of this House for their contributions to the debate. I also want to acknowledge all of the social workers who reached out to me in support of this bill, and to those who had concerns. I want to acknowledge the community members who joined us to share their feedback, their support, and most importantly, their concerns.

With that, Speaker, I move that Bill No. 201 be read a third time. I close reading on Bill No. 201.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is for third reading of Bill No. 201.

There has been a request for a recorded vote.

We will take a short recess until the Whips are satisfied.

Ring the bells. Call in the members.

[8:18 p.m.]

[The Division bells were rung.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Are the Whips satisfied?

The Clerk will conduct a recorded vote.

[8:27 p.m.]

[The Clerk called the roll.]

YEAS	NAYS
Hon. Brian Comer	Claudia Chender
Hon. Nolan Young	Lisa Lachance
Hon. Kim Masland	Susan Leblanc
Hon. John Lohr	Hon. Iain Rankin
Hon. Brendan Maguire	Hon. Derek Mombourquette
Hon. Barbara Adams	Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin
Hon. Michelle Thompson	Paul Wozney
Hon. Fred Tilley	Suzy Hansen
Hon. Dave Ritcey	Kendra Coombes
Hon. Twila Grosse	Hon. Becky Druhan
Tom Taggart	Rod Wilson
Hon. Brad Johns	Lina Hamid
Adegoke Fadare
Hon. Susan Corkum-Greek
Hon. Leah Martin
Chris Palmer
Melissa Sheehy-Richard
Hon. John A. MacDonald
Hon. Brian Wong
Hon. Trevor Boudreau
Brad McGowan
Kyle MacQuarrie
Tim Outhit
Rick Burns
Julie Vanexan
Dianne Timmins
David Bowlby
Nick Hilton
Hon. John White
Hon. Timothy Halman
Hon. Scott Armstrong
Hon. Jill Balser
Hon. Colton LeBlanc
Hon. Kent Smith
Hon. Greg Morrow
Hon. Tory Rushton
Ryan Robichaud
Damian Stoilov
Danny MacGillivray

[Page 4824]

THE CLERK » : For, 39. Against, 12

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is carried.

Bill No. 201 - An Act Respecting Justice and Social Services.

THE SPEAKER « » : Ordered that this bill do pass. Ordered that the title be as read by the Clerk. Ordered that the bill be engrossed.

The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.

[Page 4825]

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD « » : Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 193.

Bill No. 193 - Powering the Economy Act.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, I move that Bill No. 193 be now read a third time.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : I'm going to say a few words on Bill No. 193 in third reading.

This bill has had quite a lot of time in Committee of the Whole House on Bills. Unfortunately, the many amendments that were proposed by several members of the House were rejected by the government, which is unfortunate because this is a big bill. It's an omnibus bill once again - surprise, surprise - and it deals with a lot of different things. Some of it is good and fine, and again, some of it is deeply troubling.

First, it's unfortunate that this government feels the need to make sweeping changes to our province in general through the use of omnibus bills. It's not a good way to govern, not a good way to legislate - and this bill is a prime example of that.

The first thing I want to do is read a submission that came from the Standing Committee on Public Bills from - I believe it's Amanda Dunfield. Amanda presented to Public Bills and then also emailed this submission. The submission reads as follows:

I am writing to you in your capacity as a paid representative of the people of Nova Scotia to urge you to vote no on Bill 193, Powering the Economy Act - An Act Respecting Energy. This request is made specifically on the basis of inclusion of Part IV: Subservice Energy Resource Extraction Act, and Schedule B: An Act Respecting the Extraction of Subservice Energy Resources.

The priorities outlined with this legislation do not reflect the values or interests of Nova Scotians. During the recent election, Nova Scotians were promised transparency and accountability. We deserve to know how our money is being spent, why these decisions are being made, and what tangible, deliverable results we can expect.

A supermajority government carries significant responsibility - and with that comes an even greater obligation to be open and accountable to the public.

[Page 4826]

It is irresponsible governance to bundle legislation respecting renewable energy with legislation respecting subsurface energy resource extraction. It is equally irresponsible to table an Act respecting subsurface energy resource extraction without introducing corresponding legislation to strengthen and strictly regulate protections for water - both in quality and quantity.

One cannot credibly claim support for public health, improved health care outcomes, fisheries, or agriculture without also supporting stronger regulations and enforcement measures to prevent water pollution and safeguard this essential resource.

Many members of this government are fully aware of the long-term consequences these decisions may have. The impact on Nova Scotians today - and for future generations - should not be overshadowed by speculative investments that offer no guaranteed return.

Governments do not remain in power forever. When that time comes, each of us will be judged by the choices we made. I ask you to consider carefully what side of history you wish to stand on.

In Peace and Friendship,

Amanda Dunfield

I'll table.

That speech is - that letter encompasses quite a lot of my feelings around this bill. We should not be putting a bill that enacts or puts into action things around wind power and Wind West with a bill that also gives the Premier and the Minister of Energy the powers to basically go on to people's land and use their land for energy or resource extraction without their consent. It's deeply problematic to put those two things into one bill.

I want to concentrate on three main parts of the bill, but I want to begin with a simple observation. Nova Scotians are waiting for this government to ensure they have affordable, reliable, clean energy. They're waiting for leadership and they are waiting for accountability. They are waiting for a government that will stand up for ratepayers.

Unfortunately, when we look at this bill closely, we see something different. We see a bill that lets Nova Scotia Power off the hook. We see a bill that gives away massive potential revenue from offshore wind - a bill that concentrates enormous power in the hands of Cabinet and in the Premier.

Let us begin with Clause 2 of the legislation because this clause fundamentally changes who is responsible for meeting Nova Scotia's renewable energy targets. Currently, Nova Scotia Power is responsible for meeting those targets. The utility must ensure a specific percentage of electricity comes from renewable sources. If those targets are not met, there are consequences. In fact, Nova Scotia Power is currently fighting a $10 million fine for failing to meet the 40 percent renewable target established for 2020.

[Page 4827]

Those penalties exist for a reason - because history has shown that Nova Scotia Power does not always meet its renewable obligations voluntarily. In fact, the Department of Energy itself acknowledged this. Officials stated the minister could not trust Nova Scotia Power to meet its future renewable obligations unless penalties were enforced. That's the Department of Energy saying that.

What does this bill do? Instead of strengthening accountability measures, this bill removes them. Clause 2 shifts responsibility from meeting renewable energy targets away from Nova Scotia Power, and moves the responsibility to the IESO, the system operator. That might sound technical, but the implications are enormous. If Nova Scotia Power fails to meet the 2030 renewable targets under this bill, there will be no fines, no penalties and no consequences.

Let us consider that in light of Nova Scotia Power's recent record. In 2025, the utility increased coal burning by more than 1000 gigawatt hours. That represents an increase of more than 30 percent compared to the previous year. At the same time, the use of natural gas declined by roughly 40 percent and renewable energy increased by only 4 percent. That is not the trajectory Nova Scotians were promised. It's not what we need in this province. Instead of strengthening accountability for that performance, this bill removes it.

I want to move on to another major issue in the bill that appears in Schedule A, Clause 4. We heard a lot about this last night and the night before in Committee of the Whole House on Bills. The independent member for Cumberland North and the member for Timberlea-Prospect both introduced amendments about this. Neither were accepted and that's really unfortunate.

They were slightly different amendments, but they basically said the same thing, which is that the way this bill stands right now, or the way that Wind West is set up right now, Nova Scotians are not going to benefit in the ways we could, from the royalties and the framework set up for the project.

This section in Schedule A, Clause 4, establishes the royalty framework for the offshore wind development. Offshore wind represents an enormous opportunity for Nova Scotians. We, in the NDP, are excited about the prospect of wind development in Nova Scotia. I'll say it again. We love the prospect of wind power in Nova Scotia. Our province has some of the best wind resources in the world, and the government has set a target of licensing 5 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity, which is a massive amount of electricity.

Estimates suggest that selling that amount of electricity could roughly generate $2.5 billion in revenue per year. That is the scale of this opportunity. But how much of that revenue does this bill propose to retain for Nova Scotians? Thirty-five million dollars. As I said, there were a lot of amendments. There were several amendments about this. Under this bill, offshore developers would pay $7,000 per megawatt for the first 10 years of operation. Only after that would the royalties shift to 4 percent of revenue. The result is that the Province's expected revenue drops dramatically from roughly $100 million per year under the previous royalty proposal to just $35 million a year.

[Page 4828]

We just passed a budget that's a deficit budget. We're in a deficit situation. Many programs in this province that are important, critical programs have been cut because this government has found themselves, after four, five years of out-of-control and unmonitored spending, in a serious deficit position. We're looking for ways to generate revenue. Why would we set up a framework where we would have a 65 percent reduction in potential revenue from wind projects? While companies could generate billions in revenue from Nova Scotia's offshore winds, the public share will be minimal. Guess what else this reminds me of? Nova Scotia Power.

Our rate of return of 9-point-something - the ratepayers are paying their power bills, and meanwhile, the investors in Nova Scotia Power are getting a huge rate of return. We need to look at the ownership of Nova Scotia Power. We've said that many times because we do need to examine what the benefit of these large utilities are and what they should be to the Province. This government claims that the only way they plan to fix the deficit they created is through natural resource revenue. If this is the case, why are they cutting it before a single project gets off the ground? It makes no sense.

The third issue I want to spotlight in this legislation is perhaps the most troubling of all, and that is what I talked about last night for a bit: Schedule B, Clause 5. Schedule B, Clause 5 grants the Governor in Council extraordinary powers - powers that some might even refer to as a Henry VIII clause. A Henry VIII clause allows the executive branch of government to effectively rewrite legislation through regulation without returning to the Legislature. It allows the executive branch to selectively exempt essentially whatever they want from the Act or the regulations under the Act. It's one of the broadest forms of executive power that can exist in legislation.

Clause 5 allows the Governor in Council to withdraw any land or any subsurface resource from the application of this Act - the Act that is supposed to be regulating and creating the framework for resource extraction. Let me repeat that: Cabinet may withdraw any area of Nova Scotia lands from the Act. Cabinet may withdraw any subsurface energy resource from the Act. That is extraordinary power, because this bill is supposed to regulate all subsurface energy resources, everything from petroleum to geothermal to carbon capture and storage to hydrogen and potentially many other substances, yet this clause allows Cabinet to decide that certain projects or certain resources or certain lands do not have to follow the rules.

Our colleague for Cumberland North very eloquently laid out what that actually means in real terms and how important it is that Nova Scotians are able to have their land and determine and say what can be done and what can't be done on that land. We've heard from people who are deeply concerned about this. Imagine that you have a piece of land that you want to keep for whatever reason - it shouldn't even matter what you want to do with your land, but you have land. Say you want to build on it, say you want to hand it down to your children, and it happens to be a piece of land that underneath the surface has a bit of natural gas. If you don't want to develop that land or allow a company to come in and drill, the government can make you do it. That is deeply problematic.

[Page 4829]

[8:45 p.m.]

Consider the implications. Cabinet could exempt a project from requiring landowner consent before drilling or fracking. Cabinet could exempt a project from requiring permits for exploration or drilling. Cabinet could exempt a project from paying royalties or fees. Cabinet could exempt a project from cleanup obligations for abandoned wells.

This is an extraordinary level of discretionary power. It means that the rules written into this legislation - which we are debating hotly on the floor of this Legislature, which is our job - may not apply equally to everyone.

When we combine these issues together, a troubling picture emerges. On the one hand, the government is giving companies a 10-year royalty break on offshore wind. On the other hand, it's granting Cabinet sweeping powers to exempt projects from regulation. At the same time, the government is removing penalties for Nova Scotia Power if renewable targets are missed.

This is not accountability. This is deregulation, and Nova Scotians are the losers.

The government often speaks about this project called Wind West. I said before and I will say again that we are excited by the potential of this project. It's a great project. It's a project that hopefully will happen. But if it happens, and/or when it happens, it's not going to happen in the next couple of years. It's going to take a while to get online.

That is true and makes sense. Obviously big projects of this magnitude are going to take a while. But while we are waiting for such a project to come online, Nova Scotians are still opening their power bills every month and seeing that those bills are rising. The government has not taken meaningful action to lower people's power bills. It has not conducted a review of Nova Scotia Power. It has not implemented measures to protect ratepayers.

We know, because of the rate hike application report, that the regulator can't do those things - but government can, on the floor of this Legislature. It is the government's responsibility. It's refusing. The Minister of Energy, the Premier of this province is refusing to change laws to allow for mechanisms that would create lower power bills, but it has found the time, and he has found the time, to introduce legislation that lowers royalties for energy companies, removes penalties for Nova Scotia Power, and grants sweeping powers to the minister, the Premier, and the Cabinet. This does not sound responsible. This is not responsible.

[Page 4830]

Speaker, every jurisdiction that has successfully developed offshore wind has ensured that the public receives real benefits. For example, Denmark requires that the public retain at least 20-percent ownership of wind projects. That ensures that the revenues flow back to citizens. But this government has no such plan - no public ownership, no revenue-sharing strategy, no plan to reduce electricity bills using offshore wind.

When we back up and examine this legislation, three themes stand out. First, the bill removes accountability for renewable energy targets. Second, it dramatically reduces public revenue from offshore wind. Third, it grants sweeping powers to Cabinet to exempt projects from regulation.

Nova Scotians deserve better than this. They deserve affordable, clean, reliable power. They deserve transparency. They deserve legislation that protects the public interest. At the end of the day, Nova Scotia's natural resources belong to the people of this province, and the benefits of developing those resources should flow back to them - not just to corporations, not just to investors, but to the families and communities who call Nova Scotia home.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : Speaker, I brought up a number of points around this during Committee of the Whole House and some of the amendments that were brought forward, especially the amendment that we were really adamant should be entertained. Of course, it doesn't require legislative change to ensure public ownership, so I would ask the government to consider, when there are negotiations with the federal government to make this project and future projects viable, they find a way to ensure there is public equity, especially with the transmission. Especially with the backbone of what we need to connect our Atlantic grid into Quebec and then finally into the New England markets - which we know, public is the most preferred pathway for the government, for the Minister of Energy, which we talked about in Estimates.

That transmission ownership should have the ability to leverage what we could achieve through investment through the Canada Infrastructure Bank. That fund has been available for energy for some time. We've seen it used with the intertie, which is part of what was the Atlantic Loop vision. This vision the government has to exploit the resource of offshore wind is contingent upon basically the Atlantic Loop and more.

They walked away from over $4 billion. This was reported publicly. It is not inside information, there was at least $4 billion on the table to leverage from the previous federal Liberal government to make sure we had an ability to move electrons in and out of our province. We hope that with the bigger appetite now that this government has to collaborate with this current federal government, they will actually accept money that is on the table to allow a significant investment, but not only that, they leverage it in a way that benefits the ratepayers.

[Page 4831]

We have unprecedented increases year over year and now is yet another opportunity to have an ability to protect ratepayers, to actually use something and charge tariffs to would-be developers that are going to want to make a profit moving the energy through for export. That's the intention for this project. The least we can do is find a way to maximize that opportunity and charge a tariff or a toll or whatever you want to call it, to use our transmission, our infrastructure that goes through. We can have the opportunity, as my colleague mentioned, to potentially have equity stakes on the bidders, whether that's 20 percent - what other countries do, but entertain that.

I think number one is to find a way that we have a piece in that high-voltage direct current line that will probably include subsea. I think it's an opportunity also to de-risk projects as they come through. I think it's important we all come together to recognize the opportunity here. The cost of transmission is enormous. It is more than 20 percent of the total project costs. If you don't include the actual cables that go through interprovincial, we are talking about an energy source that is double and triple what onshore wind is now. So, over $100 per megawatt hour, and that's the fixed.

In these bids we are talking about floating, as well, which is $200 or $300 a megawatt hour. That's not going to be easily subsidized, and we need the federal government to be there to support it in the private sector. One part - I don't want to repeat all the points I've made, but I don't think I made this point - in the Act it does provide that Nova Scotia Power must purchase all the electricity outlined in the agreement. Again, I will reference - the members can look up what the market price is themselves on offshore wind across the country, across where it is actually viable.

We are going to see it off the coast of West Virginia soon. There are enormous benefits, obviously, in infrastructure and jobs and all that stuff, but when the government is mandating that Nova Scotia Power buys it, that means ratepayers are buying it. That means there is a mandate that ratepayers will buy energy that is now triple the cost of the lowest form of energy in the province right now: onshore wind.

What's going to happen to the rates? They're not going to go down, and I will reiterate the point that the grid infrastructure needs to be updated onshore - the online grid updates. That is going to have a required investment, so ratepayers will be paying for those grid upgrades to allow for those moving the energy in and out.

It's an opportunity, but it's something we need to be careful of. We need to make sure we're learning from projects that took place across Germany, across the U.K., places where they didn't have bids, places where they had bids and they pulled out. You need a balance. Ask for too much, too much risk on behalf of the developers, how you can limit that risk by having a universal plug-in station where the public actually has ownership of that grid. It's a win-win when we can work together to provide that investment. If we're leveraging public funds, we had better get the public benefits.

Those transmission corridors that will bring power in and out of our province are the key. I want to reiterate that I do think that we're behind on upgrading those corridors that are needed for this project. But also tapping into affordable base load renewable energy and using our battery storage which will be more and more useful as we move forward.

[Page 4832]

We are concerned when we see tenders go out from this government that have affordable energy and onshore and green choice, and the majority of them, when they granted their approval, four out of the six withdrew. What is going to happen if you extrapolate that out to multi-billion-dollar contracts if offshore wind companies bid and then they see the economics and it's not going to work out?

We're cautiously optimistic on how these projects could move forward. I hope that the government is really paying attention to what's happening globally and that we maximize the benefit for the public.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : I rise to speak to Bill No. 193 in third reading. Of course, it is entitled An Act Respecting Energy.

I have a lot of concerns with this bill, and that is why I tabled so many amendments. I want to acknowledge several amendments were tabled by several of my colleagues as well. All of the amendments were voted down by this government. I think that's a real shame. There was a real opportunity to strengthen this bill, and everything was ignored.

This bill is very important to Nova Scotians, and we have heard from Nova Scotians that they did not like the way that this government approached energy development. They had an election where it was never discussed and then tabled a bill, Bill No. 6, here in this Legislature. Nova Scotians deserve consultation. Nova Scotians deserve respect.

In that light, I want to mention that we have heard very little from the minister who is actually responsible for the Department of Energy. I think on such an important topic for the people of Nova Scotia, we should have been hearing debate on this bill, the reasons for the contents of this bill from the minister who is responsible for this bill. I hope that we will hear from the minister moving forward.

I also have concerns about who is the minister of this department. With such a large caucus, I find it hard to believe that there's no one who is not currently a Cabinet minister that the leader of the party can find to do the work for this Department of Energy. We all know of course, there are many skilled and knowledgeable people in the government caucus who would be very capable, yes, very capable of taking on this role.

Then we have to ask, why would the Premier appoint himself to this department? Why not have faith in someone on his own team? Why has he had meetings, and I tabled documents in Committee of the Whole House on Bills. I will not retable them again, but articles from the Halifax Examiner. Why has he appointed himself Minister of Energy, and why has he had meetings with energy leaders in the United States and not disclosed the contents of those meetings in his expense reporting?

[Page 4833]

They are questions that Nova Scotians deserve to have answers to. My suggestion - and I think the people of Nova Scotia should be requesting the Premier to appoint a Minister of Energy, somebody who can dedicate the time that this department needs and somebody who would be debating this bill here in the House on behalf of the government.

This is another omnibus bill. Of course we're seeing amendments to the Electricity Act. We're seeing amendments to the More Access to Energy Act, amendments to the Offshore Renewable Energy Revenue Act, and amendments to the Subsurface Energy Resource Extraction Act, and then new pieces of legislation, an Act Respecting Renewable Energy Revenues in the Offshore, as well as an Act Respecting the Extraction of Subsurface Energy Resources.

[9:00 p.m.]

It's a fairly extensive piece of legislation. I did table 15 different amendments to this bill in hopes to strengthen the bill. There were some common themes and there were some amendments to help improve transparency for this piece of legislation. There were amendments to ensure property rights for citizens - for landowners here in this province, as well as defining informed consent.

There were amendments around ensuring that there are local and community benefits for any development that may happen by changing the word "may" to "shall." Right now, as it currently stands, in the bill it says that the minister may hire local people. It says the minister may hire or do local procurement. The minister "may." I don't think that should be in the bill. I think the bill should say "shall."

We hear a lot from this government about local. Well, why is "local" not included in this very important piece of legislation before this House? That was an amendment that I brought to the House to make sure everyone saw what the bill said, and the government voted it down. That sends quite a message to the people of Nova Scotia.

Some of the amendments also focused on annual reporting and legislative oversight. Again, especially since we have the Premier in the role of Minister of Energy for this province, I believe we need to be able to ensure even better scrutiny and legislative oversight for this work.

There was financial protection. One of the things that was included in the amendments for that was ensuring that there are sufficient bonds posted or sufficient financial security to protect Nova Scotians and to ensure that if a company was doing work here and had some financial difficulty, Nova Scotians - the taxpayers - are not left to clean up the mess.

We've seen that happen. Boat Harbour is a perfect example of that, but there are other examples too. We need to make sure that taxpayers here in Nova Scotia are protected.

[Page 4834]

We heard a lot of conversation on public ownership throughout the discussion of this bill in second reading and in Committee of the Whole House on Bills. I really liked the amendments that my colleagues for Lunenburg West and Timberlea-Prospect tabled, requesting the government to ensure putting into this bill that taxpayers will have either partial or up to 51-percent majority ownership of this project. Nova Scotians should be the ones that get the biggest benefit.

I thought that was a very rich debate and very important information that was brought forth as ideas here to the government. It's not too late to ensure that happens. We didn't need it to be in the bill for the government to take that idea on, so I hope that they will.

Then the last thing I want to state very clearly in third reading of this bill, which I do not support in this piece of legislation, is the authority that the Premier has given himself when it comes to taking over people's land and using people's land in this province. I spoke very clearly about that when we debated this in Committee of the Whole House on Bills.

Land is sacred. Land is sacred to the people of this province, and other areas too. It's not unique to Nova Scotia. I give the example of the land that I grew up on. That land was my father's. It is still my father's. It was his father's before that. My uncle farmed that land with my father and now my younger sister farms that land. That land is sacred.

I think I can speak for most Nova Scotians. I can definitely speak for the people of Cumberland North. If the Premier thinks he's going to come on somebody's land peacefully and just take it because he wants to develop it with no consent - because that's exactly what the bill says, that if no consent is obtained, the minister has the authority to provide consent for the owner - that's going to be a major problem. Nova Scotians need to know what is in this bill. The Premier has given himself authority over their land. I voted down that clause. It's in the bill in two different areas, and it's not right.

There are many pieces of legislation where there is centralization of power with ministers. There's also legislation where there's centralization of power with Governor-in-Council, so it's Cabinet that decides. In this bill, the power's with one person: the Premier. It's not just with the minister and then the Premier would oversee. It's with one person: the Premier.

I can't emphasize that enough. I do not believe that is democratic. I do not believe that this is something the people of Nova Scotia would support, and for those reasons, I will not be supporting this bill. I do support development and I do support growing our economy, but we should ensure that there is proper governance in place to protect Nova Scotians. As this bill currently sits, there is not. For those reasons, I will not be supporting this bill.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Lunenburg West.

[Page 4835]

HON. BECKY DRUHAN « » : I rise at third reading to talk about an Act Respecting Energy, which the short title - oddly enough, is longer than the long title - is cited as the Powering the Economy Act. A few of the things that I'm going to say will be repetitive. A few of the things I'm going to say I said at second reading.

Here's the thing. We have this process that takes us through first reading, second reading, an opportunity for public input at Public Bills, Committee of the Whole House on Bills where we debate clause by clause and provide amendments, and come now to third reading. The whole point of having these steps in the process is that they provide opportunities to make changes. That's the reason we have these steps in this process.

Alas, there are no changes to this bill, so necessarily, my comments are going to be a bit repetitive because, despite the fact that there has been informed, well-researched debate, despite the fact that we have heard from Nova Scotians from one end of the province to another in a variety of ways about their concerns with what's in this bill, and despite the fact that we've done our level best in the Opposition to articulate all of that, we haven't seen any changes. This bill hasn't changed.

I apologize that my remarks are repetitive, but the reality is that the problems that were identified at the beginning are still here now. There will be fewer repetitive things that I say because, as we've gone through the process, more problems have come to light. It's important to lay those down at third reading. I appreciate what members of the Opposition who stood up to speak to this have already done. I won't repeat what they said, but there are some things that bear saying once again given the seriousness of this bill and the consequences of it.

Here's a piece that's repetitive. With a name like the Powering the Economy Act, one would expect a clear plan to deliver reliable, affordable power and strengthen Nova Scotia's economy. When I first said that, I gave a spoiler alert. The reality is that we all now know that is not at all what this bill does. Rather, it sets up large-scale energy development, primarily for export, without a clear plan to deliver real benefits to Nova Scotians, relatively limited returns to the Province, and significant risks to key industries that already exist, like the fisheries, and to the environment and, as we've explored through debate, risks to property owners within the province. This framework does enable fracking. I've heard from lots of people with concerns about that.

This bill does not lower power costs for Nova Scotia ratepayers. It does not provide new energy to be used here at home, because primarily these projects are export-focused. It does not provide clear long-term job commitments for Nova Scotians. It does not guarantee any strong financial returns for the province. It does not address industry and environmental risks, including to our fisheries. It does not set clear limits on ministerial discretion - quite the opposite, in fact. It introduces incredibly extraordinary powers.

What I want to do before I make a few specific comments on some of those issues, is go through some of the correspondence that I've received when I've reached out to community, or when people have reached out to me unsolicited. These are just some of the recent ones. We've covered, I think, many of them already in the course of prior readings and at Public Bills. These are just comments that, when I reshared my summary of the bill, and asked community members for input, these are some examples of the comments that I got back.

[Page 4836]

The first one: "My main concerns are as follows: fracking. The ban needs to be put back in place. Where it's been done, it causes harm. We know this. It's short-term potential gain for long term damage."

The second:

Nova Scotia does not have appropriate rock for uranium mining. It will put us at high risk for contamination.

Offshore wind. While a renewable source of energy is promising, Nova Scotians must reap the benefits. We need clean green affordable power, and a wind farm that primarily sells its energy abroad, is not serving our needs. Environmental assessment must be thorough and transparent.

Accountability. This is far too much power in one man's hands. The Premier has crowned himself the Minister of Energy, so all decisions in this portfolio rest upon him, and this is not healthy democracy.

There's another comment here that goes into significant detail about exploration that is already under way, which appears to have jumped the gun on the passing of this bill. There are some really specific concerns about how that came to be and what protections are in place. Because this person frames it as hydrogen exploration, which was permitted back in February, but is being done without the benefit of any sort of rigour or regulatory structure for hydrogen exploration. So he poses very realistic questions:

Will local well water be tested within a set radius as baseline existing data on well water? Will there be a long-term well water monitoring plan to ensure there are no concerns as a result of exploration for uranium or hydrogen or natural gas? Will Nova Scotia ensure a potable water supply to all impacted areas? Will Nova Scotia ensure compensation to land values should any dreams of drilling be enticed by the Premier with the Dalhousie funding.

This is a person who supports wind and solar and recognizes the potential for energy expansion and energy development, but is very concerned about the specific ways that Nova Scotia is currently going about it, and that this bill heralds.

Continuing on - another comment from a community member: "Subsurface energy development is just a slick way to say resource extractions, including fracking and uranium exploration and mining, with no oversight and no accountability."

[Page 4837]

Another comment: "This appears to be another instance where the Province's resources are being leveraged for corporate advantage at the expense of the environment and to the detriment of Nova Scotians. It seems to primarily benefit affluent investors who stand to gain significantly, while solidifying the minister's position of influence in dual roles."

They consider that "This legislation is a regrettable and unethical maneuver for political power, rather than a genuine effort to address electricity needs of Nova Scotians."

Continuing on:

Too often companies come to Nova Scotia and use our resources. They leave a huge mess for future governments to pay with our tax dollars to clean-up. The clean-up takes years, and often never returns the environment to its former state. This is one more fly-by-night project that the Minister, for some reason, is determined to approve. And after a summer of forest fires and droughts, the industrial use of our water all over our province is unacceptable.

The next person goes on to express concerns about the impact that this bill and development under this bill will have on our marine life and our fisheries.

The next person goes on to say that the people of Nova Scotia, when consulted years ago, said "no" clearly to fracking and do not appreciate an about-face on that. Finally, this is a person who identifies the pattern of government's giving away resources and jobs to corporate and non-Canadian interests and not securing those for the best interests of citizens. That's just a smattering of the input that I've received from community that stands clearly in opposition to many of the things that this bill will do.

[9:15 p.m.]

I want to go on and talk about a few specific things that many of those community members already identified. As we've discussed, this bill amends existing energy laws and creates two new ones: the Offshore Renewable Energy Revenue Act and the Subsurface Energy Resource Extraction Act. I'm going to pause there again. I know I said this in Committee of the Whole, but to embed two brand-new pieces of legislation that should be centrepiece pieces of legislation - if we are going to be an energy superpower, those should stand on their own. Those pieces of legislation should have been tabled independently to have the opportunity to go through this legislative process on their own.

The fact that they're bundled into this omnibus bill just goes to show the disconnect between what we hear the Premier and Minister of Energy talk about when he talks about his optimism around this and the reality that they're being jammed through in an omnibus bill, just as appendices, no less, or schedules. What are they? Appendices or schedules? They're afterthoughts. They're tag-ons. They are not standing on their own. I think that in and of itself speaks volumes.

[Page 4838]

I'm going to go through a few of the clauses that are of concern, and this is just a few of them. The first is Clause 2, which allows the minister to set renewable energy targets by directive, centralizing decision-making and moving targets and the responsibility of those targets to the independent operator, which does raise questions about the ability to then hold Nova Scotia Power to account for those targets. We've heard others talk about that, so I won't belabour that point.

Clause 3 allows the minister to require utilities to purchase power from specific projects. Let me pause there, because this is a funny situation. We heard during the course of this sitting the minister and other government members celebrate the fact that they have broken the monopoly. They've broken the monopoly on energy power but forget any free market, because this piece of legislation allows the minister to require utilities to purchase power from specific projects. It sets him up as the sole arbiter of market success. That celebration of breaking the monopoly I think is a short-lived one if this bill does as it says it's going to do and passes and then creates a circumstance where the minister gets to define who's a successful contender in that market. That celebration, I think, is a hollow one for Nova Scotians, given this clause.

Clause 6 extends the timeline for creating a new independent system operator, delaying changes tied to grid reliability and cost control. Nova Scotians need better grid reliability now. This provision extends those timelines and has negative implications for Nova Scotians who are suffering through extended power outages tied to the current state of our grid. This does the opposite of what Nova Scotians are looking for on that front.

Then we move on to the two schedules, the two what-should-be centrepiece bills if the Premier and Minister of Energy truly believed that we were going to be the natural resources and energy superpower that he likes to portray. The first one, Schedule A, creates a revenue system for offshore wind that we have been told is estimated at a maximum of $35 million a year in the first 10 years and possibly $100 million a year following that. These are the government's own numbers. We've raised these numbers repeatedly, but this is what government told us.

When the bill was introduced, when Opposition asked the questions, when media asked the questions, we were told very clearly that the best we can hope for 10 years down the road, is maybe $100 million per year for this. As we have explored through the course of debate, the concerning part of this bill is not just in the numbers that we are talking about because these bills - the ones in Schedule A and Schedule B - also confer on the minister extraordinary powers.

They confer on the minister extraordinary powers over individuals' land. They do not provide protections for Nova Scotians, they do not allow Nova Scotians to have confidence that any of these projects will proceed, and they are deeply concerning.

[Page 4839]

I am going to start - I want to go now to another piece of correspondence I received from a constituent who has written specifically about an issue that I tabled an amendment on and other members of the Opposition tabled amendments on. This is about what sort of revenue Nova Scotia should expect to receive and what sort of relationship Nova Scotia should have in the development of offshore wind farms. He writes to say that considering we are the poorest jurisdiction in North America, offshore wind represents a terrific opportunity to build wealth.

I realize I didn't say at the beginning of this - and I should have because I know sometimes I'm painted as an opponent of development - I want to be clear that that is not the case. I would love for us to see successful development of a number of these projects that government is touting.

I want to see the development of green energy. I would love to see us be an energy superpower. I'm not against development. What I want to see is successful, sustainable development. That is what my arguments are about, and that is what this constituent - that's the framework he's coming from, as well.

He goes on to say that we are looking at the exploitation of wind energy from the wrong perspective. He indicates and believes that Nova Scotians should own wind farms 100 percent, and they should receive 100 percent of the benefits and the energy produced.

He recognizes and acknowledges that allowing privatization of this extremely valuable resource is effectively removing the potential of being a well-funded province and having the resources necessary to meet our future financial obligations. He considers the approach the government is taking now, which only reflects a small levy in terms of compensation for giving away this potential resource, to be shortsighted, and he identifies that we will regret it.

He points out that government is preaching fiscal responsibility but demonstrating the opposite when showcasing their business acumen. He encourages government to consider and move forward with an ownership role in the wind sector, in the offshore wind sector specifically.

A number of amendments were put forward to do that. A number of amendments were brought forward in line with other jurisdictions that have done this.

To put it on the record now at third reading, because I believe that most of the conversation about this happened in Committee of the Whole, we are at a place that other jurisdictions were in many years ago. So we have the opportunity now to learn from the success of some jurisdictions and the failures or the mistakes that other jurisdictions have made. I'll briefly give the two examples for that.

The first is Denmark. Denmark started with an ownership role. When they developed their wind sector - their offshore wind sector - they started with an ownership role, and they have found themselves now in a financial success story. They learned lessons along the way, but they have a multi-billion-dollar industry that they now have an ownership relationship - an ownership share of. That means two things. It means that they get significant profits every single year from their offshore wind sector, but it also means that they have had the ability to impact and control the development of that sector. That means they were not left at the mercy of a developer who may decide they don't want to proceed for whatever reason.

[Page 4840]

The alternative to that is the U.K. alternative. The U.K. did not do that. The U.K. did what we are proposing to do now - what the government wants us to do now - which is to give away the ownership stakes, to allow other private organizations - and in some cases, foreign interests - to take the ownership, take the profits, and take the control.

Where do they find themselves now? Now they're trying to fix that. They are trying to buy back in. With great expense and great effort, they are purchasing an ownership stake now in their own wind sector. They're not at a 51-percent share yet. They may never get there. The reality is, once you give it away, you can't get it back.

Right now, this bill is us giving it away. This bill is Nova Scotia giving it away. This is such a pivotal moment for us. The path that the Powering the Economy Act puts us on is not the successful path that Denmark has demonstrated, and not even the correction path that the U.K. is demonstrating. This is a path where we give it away. That's not what Nova Scotians are looking for, and it's not what Nova Scotians deserve.

I'll go on to continue to talk about a couple of the other issues, but there are many. I talked about Schedule A, which is about the offshore wind. Schedule B creates a regime for subsurface energy, including petroleum, hydrogen, geothermal, and carbon storage, with broad ministerial authority and provisions for land access to enable these activities, including expropriation and ministerial authority over individuals' land.

I want to just reference another piece of correspondence from one of my constituents who wrote in to formally lodge her outrage at the proposed energy bill. She identifies a number of specific concerns, particularly with powers that the Minister of Energy will be giving himself with this bill. Those concerns are the powers to exempt projects from requiring landowner consent before drilling; the power to exempt projects from permit requirements; the power to exempt projects from reporting requirements; the power to exempt projects from royalty payments; and the power to exempt projects from cleanup obligations for abandoned wells.

She indicates this bill is so counter to the governance that our province and country have always enjoyed and considers it to be autocratic rule. She goes on to say that it's not too late to be on the right side of history, and observes that Nova Scotians have long memories.

Those are just a few of the significant, significant concerns that exist with this schedule, which is a bill in and of itself. I could go on and on.

[Page 4841]

You know what? I'm going to go on now and just outline a few things that this doesn't do that people are concerned about before I wrap up.

The bill raises a fundamental question, and I think this is the key question. That is, who benefits here? Based on the legislation and debate to date, the risk-to-reward balance doesn't seem to favour Nova Scotians. There's no clear path to lower electricity costs. The energy being developed is largely for export, not to improve affordability or access here at home. Nova Scotians needing reliable power see no benefit from this because the bill delays key system changes while offering no immediate fixes for outages, grid reliability, or affordability. The projected revenues are small compared to the scale of development and risk - estimated only in the tens of millions annually in the first years, potentially rising but still a modest amount in the context of our provincial budget - and the risks to our existing industries and environment.

On that point, there are real and unresolved concerns about the impacts that offshore wind in particular will have to our fishery, which is a $2.5-billion or $2.6-billion industry that supports 12,000 to maybe 20,000 jobs in Nova Scotia, and will have ecosystem impacts and loss of access to fishing grounds.

There is no clear evidence of significant long-term stable employment. Similar projects to these in other areas and even in Nova Scotia regularly create short-term construction jobs but not long-term careers.

The structure appears to rely heavily on private development with limited public return, raising questions about whether Nova Scotia is capturing the long-term value of its resources. It puts us in the role of passive recipient, vulnerable to projects not proceeding at all.

Not only are we risking all of the things we have talked about, but we're also risking these projects not going anywhere and the loss of opportunity that will pose to Nova Scotians.

[9:30 p.m.]

I spent, I think, an hour going through a variety of projects - many of which were in Nova Scotia, but others were in other provinces. Over the last 10 years, the estimate is that Canada has seen $670 billion in cancelled resource projects. The risk of any of these projects moving forward and then stalling, the risk of this representing a loss of opportunity to Nova Scotians is significant. That constitutes a risk we need to be mindful of. There is risk with these projects proceeding, but there's risk if they stall and then don't end up moving forward.

I'm going to go back to what I did at the very beginning and I'm just going to tally up the costs and the benefits. The costs we see associated with the entirety of this bill before us, we are estimating and the fishery is estimating - fishers have expressed this concern - damage to our $2.5 billion or $2.6 billion industry, both with a loss of grounds and also with a loss of habitat and potential destruction.

[Page 4842]

I haven't talked yet tonight about the tax credits, grants, exploration funding. We know there's a couple million dollars in the budget to support some of these projects moving forward. There's also $30 million flowing through Dalhousie for exploration. There are costs associated with all these things that are unfactored into and unremarked upon by government.

I haven't yet talked about the costs of infrastructure, although other members of the Opposition, in prior submissions, have done that. The reality is that if any of this comes into the grid, or even if it travels through, there will be costs to the grid - improvements that will be necessary to manage these projects. We haven't even talked about the costs of potentially having to upgrade roads for the construction of any of these projects. We know many of these projects will require fresh water, which will drive costs and potentially have implications for access to water, as we've seen through many drought years now.

There are costs associated with the impact to environment, costs associated and risks associated with the loss of property ownership rights, which the minister has extraordinary powers over in these bills. Then the costs associated with loss of opportunity if these projects don't move forward because there are no protections as these bills currently stand, as the clauses currently stand. There are no protections or guarantees that any of these projects will move forward.

How do we compare that against the benefits? Well, the only quantified benefits we've heard so far are that $35 million in the first 10 years and $100 million beyond that. There may be benefits - financial benefits - associated with uranium, petroleum, and other exploration, but those have been unquantified. Government hasn't told us what they estimate Nova Scotians will benefit from that. We expect there may be some jobs created, but again, those are unquantified. Then, in the question of actual energy for Nova Scotians, there is no benefit to Nova Scotians in the energy that's being produced here because this is all for export.

The bill doesn't realize the optimism the minister is so fond of asserting. I will say again that if the government truly believes in the promise they are making to Nova Scotians around natural resource development and being an energy superpower, why would they be selling us out for a fraction of its value, as this bill does? I'm still at a loss because the reality is that Nova Scotians don't benefit by the terms of this bill. I am still left asking the question: Who does?

There's nothing in here that I can support. I'll just be candid that there's nothing in here that I can support. This is all concerning. For those reasons, I will most definitely be voting against this bill. Thank you for your time. With those remarks, I'll take my seat.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Pictou West.

[Page 4843]

MARCO MACLEOD « » : Good evening, Speaker. I rise today to speak on Bill No. 193, legislation that positions Nova Scotia to seize the enormous economic, environmental, and community benefits of a modern energy system.

The world is transitioning to cleaner, more secure sources of energy. Jurisdictions that prepare for this transition, that modernize their regulatory frameworks, who invest in innovation, can ensure that the benefits of these new industries flow directly to their people. Those jurisdictions are the ones that will prosper. With Bill No. 193, Nova Scotia has the opportunity to be one of them.

This legislation focuses on four major areas, which are: establishing a revenue framework for offshore wind; updating our regulatory system for emerging subsurface energy resources; modernizing the electricity system and strengthening the role of the independent energy systems operator; and providing the necessary time and structure for the transfer of responsibilities from Nova Scotia Power to the independent energy systems operator. Taken together, these measures ensure that Nova Scotia is not only keeping pace with global change, but we are positioning ourselves to lead.

The first pillar of the Powering the Economy Act establishes a clear, responsible and attractive revenue framework for offshore wind. Under these regulations, offshore wind applications will include a $250,000 refundable fee. Successful bidders will pay a $750,000 non-refundable licence fee.

Then once projects become operational, developers will pay an annual levy of $7,000 per megawatt for the first 10 years. After those first 10 years, the province will have the flexibility to either continue with that fixed levy, or to apply a percentage-based levy tied to gross revenues, ensuring Nova Scotia always receives fair value as the industry grows and matures.

We've heard from members opposite that these numbers aren't right - that they're too low and don't reflect our province's income needs. First, I want to note that we're building an entirely new revenue stream for this province. Actually, we're building a brand-new industry here for us. This revenue is going to support health care, education, infrastructure, and the many public services that Nova Scotians rely on. It will strengthen our communities while helping us reach our clean energy goals.

This levy meets an industry standard around the world. Our revenue was determined using advice from industry experts, striking a balance between building a brand-new sector, and ensuring that Nova Scotians see the benefit from it. We're talking to businesses, and we need to create the right framework - the right runway to see these businesses develop and succeed in our offshore.

We're doing an important piece of that work here today. Offshore wind is more than an energy project. It is a jobs and investment strategy. It will support skilled trades, engineering, marine services, manufacturing and innovation across our province. This legislation ensures that Nova Scotians will share directly in the long-term financial benefits of this new industry.

[Page 4844]

During debate on this bill, there were questions with respect to fishers. Fishers and all the traditional industries, they've been the backbone of the economy of this province for generations. We respect them tremendously. We have been working with all ocean users, including fishers, to determine the best path forward for this offshore wind opportunity. We continue to work with them to determine a compensation framework and ensure that all economic drivers can prosper into the future.

The second major component of this legislation is the creation of the Subsurface Energy Resource Extraction Act. The Petroleum Resources Act simply does not reflect the world we live in today. The energy landscape has changed dramatically. Our regulatory system needs to evolve with it.

The new bill allows the Province to responsibly regulate emerging opportunities, such as geothermal energy, natural hydrogen, helium, and carbon capture - or carbon storage. These are resources with tremendous potential and resources that global investors are actively pursuing.

This modernized framework allows government to administer licences, agreements, and fees in a clear and transparent way. It gives industry the certainty that they need while ensuring Nova Scotians receive the protections and benefits that they deserve. By updating our laws, we are signalling to the world and to the business community that Nova Scotia is open for investment, open for exploration, and committed to safe and responsible resource development.

There were some concerns that were brought up during debate here about some property rights. I want to be clear here and say that there have been no changes in this regard from the Petroleum Resources Act. This has simply been expanded to include the emerging industries that I previously mentioned.

The third pillar of the Powering the Economy Act is one of the most transformative. We're continuing the modernization of Nova Scotia's electricity system. This legislation updates the Electricity Act to allow renewable electricity targets to be set for Nova Scotia's new Independent Energy System Operator. I'm going to call them IESO from here on out.

IESO is assuming responsibility for planning, procuring, and determining how electricity generation is deployed to the grid. This is a major shift in how our electricity system operates. Previously, Nova Scotia Power would be responsible for these decisions. They had the ability to make choices and make investments at the cost of the ratepayer, and you know what? Sometimes it was to purely pad their revenue stream.

That's not going to happen any longer. By transferring renewable targets away from NSP and into the hands of an independent operator, we're ensuring that the decisions are made based on what is in the best interest of the ratepayers, what's in the best interest for our grid, and what's in the best interest for the future of our energy system in the long term.

[Page 4845]

Finally, the fourth part of this bill provides the additional time needed for the safe and effective transfer of responsibilities from Nova Scotia Power to IESO. A strong, independent electricity system operator will provide greater certainty for communities and businesses, it will foster innovation, it will support electrification, and it will help Nova Scotia move confidently toward its climate and energy targets.

This is a once-in-a-lifetime restructuring of one of our province's most important systems. It requires careful planning and thoughtful execution. It's important that we take the time to get this right.

Bill No. 193 is a forward-looking piece of legislation that responds directly to the changing realities of the global energy landscape. It positions Nova Scotia to benefit from offshore wind. It encourages responsible development of new emerging energy resources. It modernizes our electricity system and strengthens independent oversight. This is not simply an energy bill. It's an economic strategy, it is a competitive strategy, and it is an opportunity strategy.

Bill No. 193 ensures - or it will - yes, it ensures our province is ready: ready for investment, ready for innovation, and ready for prosperity that comes with being a leader in the clean energy economy. It is an important step on our path to a stronger, more prosperous Nova Scotia.

[9:45 p.m.]

I appreciate everyone for tolerating my voice here tonight. Thank you, Speaker.

THE SPEAKER « » : If I recognize the minister, it will be to close the debate.

The honourable Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : I want to thank everybody for the great debate tonight.

Speaker, would you please close debate on Bill No. 193.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is for third reading of Bill No. 193.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

Ordered that the bill do pass. Ordered that the title be as read by the Clerk. Ordered that the bill be engrossed.

The honourable House Leader of the Official Opposition. (Interruptions) Oh, sorry. Sorry.

[Page 4846]

The honourable Government House Leader.

I'm sorry - got a little tongue-tied there.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : There, you had me.

Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 212.

Bill No. 212 - An Act Respecting Administrative Measures for Housing.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Housing.

HON. JOHN WHITE « » : Speaker, I move that Bill No. 212 now be read a third time. I look forward to what the members have to say about it.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Dartmouth South.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Speaker, you're tired. I'm tired. We're all tired, but here we are debating a very comprehensive housing bill, Bill No. 212 - An Act Respecting Administrative Measures for Housing - only it isn't just. It's another piece of omnibus legislation. I'm going to spend a few minutes reviewing some of the comments we've made on this and some of the challenges we have with this, and I will hope that it doesn't fall on deaf ears.

I'm going to start with an email that I received today. I think it sort of encapsulates a lot of the feedback that we have heard on this bill.

Actually, I'm not going to start with that. I'm going to start with looking at the bill specifically. I'm going to say that, as I said, this is called An Act Respecting Administrative Measures for Housing, but this bill - I mean, I suppose we can say about the legislation this session that it's nothing if not consistent, because this bill does what many of the other pieces of legislation do. It concentrates power, it eliminates boards, and it lumps a number of provisions together that frankly ought to be considered separately.

It also risks costly urban sprawl and increased taxes. I have to say that I think that one of the obvious outcomes of this bill, if these provisions are used - so maybe they won't be, and we'll get into those provisions in a moment - those provisions, the most controversial of which is allowing the minister to unilaterally change the urban service boundary. That means an incredibly costly extension of infrastructure that the municipality is forced to pay for. Municipalities can't carry debt. Guess who pays? Everybody. Taxpayers.

I feel like it's really important to say this right at the beginning. It's sort of a tricky tax increase, because they're not provincial taxes. They're municipal taxes. But there's only one taxpayer. We've heard a lot about tax cuts. We know that people are facing challenges in affordability. We know that utilities are facing their own challenges. I mean, this bill will pass tonight, but I would urge the members and I would urge the minister to be very careful with how he uses these powers.

[Page 4847]

As with many of the other pieces of legislation, we are going to come out of this session with the Premier being able to appoint the president of the NSCC, and the Minister of Housing being able to unilaterally expand urban boundaries, and a lot more, which I will get into. I don't know why we want this. It bears repeating: Nobody is in government forever. I don't think folks are going to be happy when another government gets to exercise these powers.

There are checks and balances on purpose, and what we have seen is a repeated peeling away of those checks and balances in all of this legislation. This is, hopefully, the last of it that we will debate tonight, but I want to just take a second and actually get into the provision that I think is the most problematic, that's at the heart of this legislation, which allows the Minister of Housing, as I said, to order the Halifax Regional Municipality to expand its urban boundary.

We talked about this in second reading, and we've talked about this in Committee of the Whole House on Bills, but there are a couple of really problematic provisions. I want to draw the members' attention to it because it is so important. The Section 3 - it's amending another bill and it defines urban service area: A geographical area specified in planning documents. Again, as many members who have been municipal councillors would know, those planning documents come about after a lot of engagement, debate, staff reports, and efforts at understanding what makes sense from a community point of view, from a fiscal point of view.

It delimits or defines an urban service area that can be developed with municipal water, wastewater, or stormwater services. Here's where it gets tricky: Where the minister determines it is in the provincial interest to do so, the minister may amend the documents in the municipality - I'm paraphrasing - to extend or alter the urban service area for the purpose of growth-enabling infrastructure.

We talked about this a little bit at second reading, but I'm going to say it again: This presents a potential big conflict of interest. If I'm a developer and I want that boundary changed, and I know that we have very weak conflict of interest laws and lobbying laws, what am I going to do? I'm going to go knock on the minister's door and I'm going to tell him that's what I want. That's a problem, Speaker. We should have more controls than that.

There is a reason that ministers don't have that kind of unilateral power that they can exercise. But it actually gets worse. It goes on to say that when the minister determines it's in the provincial interest to do so, he can request information from the municipality or utilities that the minister considers relevant. Essentially, the minister can say to HRM: "Open the books. I want to see everything. I want to see all of your information." That's okay. In technical terms, the municipality is a creature of the Province, so the Province can ask that of the municipality. We also know that when it comes to municipal agencies and municipal utilities, as we know all too well, if we look at our - well, it's not a provincial utility, but Nova Scotia Power, things like that - there's private information that these utilities have.

[Page 4848]

It says: "The municipality and any utility owned by the municipality shall provide the minister" - "shall". The member for Cumberland North has made many references to the meaning of the word "shall". They have to give the minister that information within the timeframe suggested or provided. But here's the kicker, guys. As if that weren't enough, it goes on to say: "For the purpose of this section, the minister has all the powers, privileges and immunities of a commissioner appointed pursuant to the Public Inquiries Act." He doesn't just get to decide where the urban boundary goes to make unliteral orders; he's a judge. He can subpoena. This is wild, folks.

We have a bureaucracy for a reason. We have an entire Department of Municipal Affairs. We have lots of public servants who engage with other orders of government in a respectful way. Why would we give the minister this weird power? I hope the minister can answer that question, because I don't know the answer. I think it should be concerning, frankly. I think folks should be aware of it.

To get back to what we're talking about, which is urban boundaries, these boundaries are established for a reason: They're a planning tool. They allow municipalities to focus development where infrastructure exists, where water and sewer systems are in place, where roads and transit exist, schools, hospitals, community services. It's good planning, and we have excellent planners at HRM, but it's also good fiscal management. Again, the councillors in the room will know that when you extend infrastructure, you spend lots of money. That is why there has been a focus - and you can see it all around this building, and you can see it in other municipalities across the province - on densification. The Province has done that themselves.

I think when the Province has looked at using land for housing and things like that, we look at serviced land. The reason is because it's the most cost effective. When development occurs in existing urban areas, the cost per household of providing infrastructure is dramatically lower. When development spreads outward into lower density areas, those costs rise sharply. Listen, sometimes that has to happen. There are lots of communities on the margins. They're all represented by someone in this room who, for one reason or another, want that extension. I understand that. I think the word Costco comes up around this bill sometimes.

It's expensive and it really needs to be considered. That's why we have a veritable army of planners at the municipal level who look at this stuff when they create these boundaries. It would be one thing if this bill said something like, "with reference to planning and engagement with the municipality." There is a little bit of that. They have to have a conversation. When we extend the urban boundary, we extend roads, we extend water, we extend sewage, and these cost money. Municipalities cannot carry debt.

[Page 4849]

The grid program the Province had that funded that infrastructure is done. Where does the money come from? Our pockets. Mine is sewn shut, I just realized. (Laughter) It's not good for a dramatic reference, but the point remains. Those taxes come from Nova Scotians. That money doesn't fall out of the sky. We can order a boundary extended, but the cost of extending that water infrastructure, the cost of extending the sewage infrastructure, that is borne by the residents.

Families in HRM are already seeing these pressures. No doubt, anyone who represents any part of HRM has heard about the increase in Halifax Water rates. That residential water bill has increased by more than 12 percent this year. It's going to increase again by another 6 percent, and the average family is going to be paying an extra $170 a year for water services. That's because maintaining and expanding water and sewage infrastructure is extremely expensive. If we are already seeing rising water rates because of infrastructure costs, what do we think will happen when that expands further?

I want to touch on a couple of other sections of this bill before I wrap up, because it is important this is all on the record. Again, I hope that this will act as a caution against using these powers. Just because you have them, doesn't mean you have to use them.

[10:00 p.m.]

Here is some more of what this bill actually does. It also gives the minister sweeping authority to order municipalities and utilities to build, reconfigure, or remove infrastructure - water systems, wastewater, stormwater, all of it - and as we said, he can order them to do it unilaterally.

Municipal governments exist because local communities deserve a voice in how their communities develop. That is the bread and butter of municipal representatives. Councillors understand the realities on the ground, they understand infrastructure capacity, and they understand community needs, but Bill No. 212 shifts power dramatically away from these elected municipal officials and governments and toward the provincial government.

Collaboration between provincial and municipal governments is essential, but collaboration doesn't mean overriding local governments; it means working together. I haven't seen an effort to bring local councillors onboard. One HRM councillor was unable to attend Public Bills Committee - she got her name on the list too late - but she shared with us similar concerns to the ones that I have been outlining, basically, and in particular focused on the property tax and also raised the issue of conflict of interest. She says Bill No. 212 may also give the impression to the public that the Houston government is giving special deals to certain private companies. That's a concern.

There's another serious concern which is connected to this, that is raised by this bill, and that is land speculation. Urban boundaries affect land values. It's one thing that the minister may hear from people who say, "I want to extend this boundary because I want to build," but land outside the boundary is worth far less than land inside. If someone knows that that boundary may be extended, and they purchase land, they stand to make a lot of money if that urban boundary is extended. The value can increase overnight, and that means enormous financial gains for those who own properties in the area.

[Page 4850]

Even the appearance of that possibility of conflict should concern us. Planning decisions of this magnitude and every function of government, wherever possible, should be transparent and community-driven and not concentrated in the hands of a single minister.

I want to come back to the Growth and Renewal for Infrastructure Development Program, which I mentioned earlier, because this is the most puzzling part of both the timing and the content of this bill. This budget eliminated the Growth and Renewal for Infrastructure Development Program. This was the one tool the government had that could have come to the aid of municipalities in the event that the minister did exercise this power. They could at least have said, "Well, we'll apply to this provincial fund, and it will help us offset the cost of the infrastructure we're being forced to build," but no, the program that provided funding to support critical infrastructure projects - water systems, wastewater, stormwater, accessibility, climate adaptation infrastructure - all of this funding has been cut from this budget.

That's what municipalities needed to develop responsibly. The program provided $15 million per year, and demand for that program was so strong that funding had increased to more than $26 million last year because municipalities needed it. Communities relied on it, and it worked, but instead of strengthening the program, the government eliminated it entirely.

This program wasn't invented in a vacuum; it was part of the renewed Service Exchange Agreement between the Province and municipalities. That agreement was the result of hundreds of hours of consultation over 18 months. Municipal leaders worked with the Province to build a framework that would support infrastructure and investment across Nova Scotia. Now, with the budget and the cut, that commitment has been broken, and this bill is salt in the wound. The funding is gone. Municipalities have lost a critical source of infrastructure support. At the same time, this legislation stands to force municipalities to build more infrastructure than ever. This contradiction deserves an explanation.

The GRID Program funded more than just water and sewer. It supported accessibility. It funded improvements to public buildings, parks, and community spaces, projects like accessible entrances and accessible pathways, infrastructure that allowed Nova Scotians with disabilities to participate fully in their communities at a time when we know that our commitment to accessibility is lagging behind deadlines that have been imposed. One week before the budget, the Minister of Natural Resources announced on social media that a library in her constituency received more than $1 million from this program to create year-round accessible pathways, and now that program is gone. The question practically asks itself: Why should accessibility improvements only happen in one community but not in others? Why should programs that help municipalities build accessible infrastructure disappear? Why now?

[Page 4851]

The government has argued that this legislation is about increasing housing supply but supply alone is not enough. We must consider affordability, load, and accessibility, for that matter. Low-density sprawl development often produces some of the most expensive housing on the market. Large homes on large lots far from services, far from transit, far from employment centres: that type of development does not do much to address the housing affordability crisis facing Nova Scotians today. If we're serious about affordability, we should focus on building housing where infrastructure exists, where transit operates, where services are available. We can't do that in every case. We can't do that in every constituency, but where possible, that should absolutely be our focus. It's more cost effective, it's more sustainable, and importantly, it is more affordable for the end user.

Nova Scotians aren't asking for grand gestures. They want solutions. They want housing they can afford. They want governments that respect local communities. This bill moves us in the opposite direction. It encourages costly urban sprawl. It eliminates infrastructure funding. It risks raising costs for taxpayers and ratepayers. Housing affordability is one of the most important challenges facing Nova Scotians.

I heard a member on the government side say earlier today that in the 2021 election, housing wasn't even an issue. I beg to differ. Our caucus has been raising the issue of housing affordability for years because it's a slow burn, but we felt it first. It's been coming for a long time, and it needs to be addressed. It deserves thoughtful policy. It deserves collaboration between municipalities, and it deserves investments in infrastructure that make communities liveable. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't move us in that direction. It concentrates power, it shifts cost to municipalities and taxpayers, and it undermines the planning tools communities rely on.

Nova Scotians deserve better. They deserve housing solutions that are sustainable, affordable, and grounded in good planning, and they deserve a government that can work with communities and work with other orders of government without giving them extraordinary powers to override them. For those reasons, we won't be supporting this bill.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : Once again, in this bill the government shows they're willing to overreach into municipal planning decisions. The government simply has a mistrust for local decision-making, especially when it comes to councillors, and especially when it comes to HRM, I have to say. Although there are some parts of the bill that are okay, the majority of its clauses suggest that the government will continue to control development decisions within HRM and other municipalities too.

This is a fundamental disagreement, I think, that we have as a party versus that party over there that wants to control more and more decisions. The government has called this bill An Act Respecting Administrative Measures for Housing. Of course, we want to see more housing in HRM, and I think most members in the House want to see that, but the government has not shown in any meaningful way how this will deliver on more housing and pay for the adequate services that are needed to make sure that happens.

[Page 4852]

People used to talk about growth pace for more growth. That has gone completely by the wayside now. We're actually arbitrarily pinpointing where growth is going to happen and figuring out who's going to pay for it later which ultimately is always taxpayers/ratepayers. In this case, we are already seeing higher bills for Halifax Water customers, and we're going to see more of it with the provincial government arbitrarily deciding to expand the service boundary. Existing customers will have to pay for that expansion. The Minister of Housing has admitted as much when he has spoken on this bill to media.

At a time when Nova Scotians are facing significantly increased power costs, our caucus cannot support a bill that would raise water costs even more, without a business case to provide for that kind of growth, on top of the property taxes that just went up. I'll remind members and the public that roughly 30 percent of that property tax increase is an increase to the provincial coffers. That's provincial tax revenue.

This government continues to ask for more from HRM residents. Ratepayers cannot bear increased bills, which may result in this government taking control of Halifax Water and sewage infrastructure. Nova Scotians want and deserve transparency about the costs of their infrastructure. How can the minister expect ratepayers to foot these costs, when so many are struggling to cover their current bills? What the government is doing adds unjust financial strain on Nova Scotians.

This government has shown this sitting that they will not take action to reduce utility costs. They voted against our motion to reduce Nova Scotia Power's profit margin, and today they're going to pass a bill to raise Halifax Water bills. It's clear this government is not concerned about ensuring our province is affordable.

Through this bill the Province will be able to overstep HRM's decisions. We continue to hear concerns and public outcry about the decision the government is making on designating special planning areas. The exertion of power around SPAs is most concerning because the government has ignored residents' views around environmental protection and infrastructure that's required.

People have also received very limited opportunities or platforms to provide consultation for their feedback. I certainly hear that in Timberlea-Prospect, especially around the Prospect area and the Halifax Exhibition Centre potential development, and the already over-burdened road and infrastructure there. The Province must explain how it plans to support tens of thousands of additional residents without establishing infrastructure. Where are the plans for the new roads, for new schools, for new municipal services? Transportation is a top concern for many, yet the Province has not demonstrated how they're going to start to move more and more people around this growing municipality.

[Page 4853]

The centralized planning that the government moves towards could de-legitimize different orders of government in our province. Government MLAs are not city councillors. Local decision-making must be left to those elected at the municipal level. It's quite ironic, I must say, to see this legislation coming from a government that includes a number of former councillors in that caucus, and that they stand by that. If these MLAs were councillors, they would be sounding the alarm. But because this bill oversteps the Province's authority, they are going to stand by their government.

Ratepayers should not have to pay for the government's expansion of power, especially when it involves plans with unproven results like special planning areas. Nova Scotians need to know why this government wants to hold decision-making power over municipalities, and how it will impact their personal finances. The government has not addressed any of these significant concerns, and therefore our caucus will not support the bill.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : I look forward to sharing some comments on third reading of Bill No. 212, An Act Respecting Administrative Measures for Housing.

I want to begin by saying this: We all know Nova Scotians need more housing. We need more affordable housing, I will add, as well. They need housing in communities where people can actually live, work, raise children, and age with dignity. There is no question that we have a housing crisis here in Nova Scotia. There's no question that governments have a responsibility to act.

In my role as MLA, my staff and I assist people every week, several people every week, trying to find housing. There are all kinds of different scenarios, from people of all ages and all socioeconomic levels.

However, I want to point out a few things abut Bill No. 212. It is not a housing bill. In my opinion, it is a bill that is about centralization of power. It is also another omnibus bill. Yesterday morning when I was reading my online media, this article - I'm going to table it, Speaker - really struck my attention. The title of the article - I think it was from the Hill Times - said "Senate committee calls for leadership presence in cabinet as part of recs aimed at curbing omnibus budget bills." I won't go on to read the article, but it's a really good article.

[10:15 p.m.]

It talks about how there is a trend - it's not just here in Nova Scotia - to tabling more and more omnibus bills. That is not a good path for democracy. I think that it's important to point that out again. This is what this bill is doing as well. It is packing a whole bunch of pieces of legislation into one bill. What it does is it provides less opportunity for strong legislative oversight.

[Page 4854]

I will say that the thing about this omnibus bill - at least most of the pieces of legislation did have a common theme, which a lot of the omnibus bills in this sitting didn't. However, I do want to point out that I do not like this trend. I think that it's a trend that should be reversed.

Speaker, this bill amends the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter; it amends the Housing in the Halifax Regional Municipality Act; it amends the Housing Supply and Services Act; it amends the Municipal Government Act; and it amends the Short-term Rentals Registration Act. It also affects other pieces of legislation, including the one that the Leader of the Official Opposition referenced, the Public Inquiries Act. I'll just reference that directly.

When I spoke to this bill previously, it was one of my most concerning aspects of the bill. Again, similar to other bills that this government tables, I believe too much power is being centralized. In this bill, we see the Minister of Housing being given the same power as what is seen in the Public Inquiries Act. I'll just read this for people so they know.

The minister will have the same power as "The commissioner or commissioners shall have the same power to enforce the attendance of persons as witnesses and to compel them to give evidence and produce documents and things as is vested in the Supreme Court or a judge thereof in civil cases, and the same privileges and immunities as a judge of the Supreme Court."

I don't know. Think about that. Should that really be happening in a housing bill? The Minister of Housing is going to be given the same authorities and power? I don't think so.

Speaker, I would prefer bills to be cleaner. One of the things that I really found in this sitting - I think it was more with regard to the Financial Measures (2026) Act, but when I was trying to do my research and reading in preparation to speak and do the debate on the bills, when you try to find the corresponding pieces of legislation, it's so messy. I don't know if it's just the way that my brain likes to be organized, but if a piece of legislation is being amended, it would be nice for Nova Scotians as well, not just us as legislators, for the original bill to be the one that is amended.

There was one bill I had to look back - I think actually it was the Highway 104 Western Alignment Act, with regard to the Cobequid Pass. There were four different pieces of legislation, and the most recent one was part of a financial measures Act. It's literally a maze when you're trying to find all the pieces of legislation. It's going to be the same for somebody down the road when they're trying to find the amendments for any of these pieces of legislation.

It's just messy. I'm sure people who work in the departments would prefer legislation to be cleaner as well. Those are just my thoughts.

[Page 4855]

I think with every piece of legislation, we have to always ask what the problem is that the bill is fixing. What is the problem that it's solving? I believe this piece of legislation is creating more problems. I do not support this bill in its current form.

The questions we could ask are: Does this bill create housing that is truly affordable? Does it strengthen accountability? Does it protect municipalities and utility users from unfair cost downloading? Does it improve transparency? The answer is no, no, no, and no.

Does it preserve democratic oversight? No, because when we look closely at this bill, what we see is not a housing bill, as I have said. It's really a power bill. It's about power.

What we see is a bill that centralizes authority in the hands of government. This bill gives the minister more power, the minister more discretion, more ability to act by order, more ability to act by regulation, more ability to override local planning and local infrastructure decisions. We do not see mandatory, independent oversight. We do not see the kind of accountability that should come with this kind of power.

If governments want to centralize power in the name of housing, then the government must also be able to balance that with accountability.

Speaker, let's also talk about the core policy shift of Bill No. 212. It's the heart of this bill. It's not just about encouraging housing; it's about shifting the governance away from municipal-led planning and towards centralized provincial authority, and that's the real shift that we're seeing here.

In a democracy, in this Legislature, in a province where local taxpayers, utility users and municipal governments will live with the consequences of these decisions, we do not legislate on trust alone. We legislate on safeguards. There should be clarity and there should be transparency. This bill is weak where it should be the strongest, because of the changes.

The most consequential element of Bill No. 212 is the new authority allowing the minister to order the HRM or an HRM-owned utility, most notably Halifax Water, to take actions that the minister considers necessary to accelerate housing supply. This is not a small, administrative housekeeping change, this is direct command authority over infrastructure - infrastructure that includes waste water, stormwater - and anybody who has ever dealt with infrastructure knows that this is where the real money is.

Long-term planning is very important and it's also where there's a great deal of risk. It's where capital planning, debt, maintenance, sequency, and service pressure all come into play. It includes pipes, capacity, treatment, upgrades, debt, taxes, rates. They represent long-term obligations. When the Province gives itself the power to order that infrastructure to be built, modified, removed, it is not merely accelerating housing, it is impacting one of the most expensive and consequential areas of municipal governance.

[Page 4856]

Who pays for the infrastructure? Who bears the risk if the plan goes wrong?

Speaker, Bill No. 212 says the Province and municipality or utility may agree on the costs, which sounds good on the surface. Agreement is always nice language but when it comes to the real clause, what the bill actually says is if no agreement is reached, then the minister has the power to decide the cost split.

Reality in any fair partnership, if two bodies cannot agree on a cost-sharing mechanism, then there should be a neutral mechanism put in place. There should be a transparent process, an appeals process, or an independent review. There should be criteria in the statute and public rationale and that is not what the bill does. The bill says that if the parties do not agree, the minister decides, the same minister who issued the order, the same government that wants the project advanced and the same Province that is exercising their power. That is not an independent dispute resolution and it's not balanced governance.

The Province is acting as an initiator, judge, and allocator all at once and that should concern everyone involved. I'm sure it concerns the municipality of HRM.

The financial consequences of provincially directed growth can be imposed on municipalities and utilities without meaningful, independent recourse. Then the next question becomes even more serious; what happens if the HRM or the utility does not comply? Under this bill the Province may carry out the work itself and the costs become the debt owed to the Province, recoverable through the courts.

The Province can order the work, the Province can decide the split if there is no agreement, and if the municipality or the utility does not comply, the Province can do the work and then send them the bill. Really, all I can say is wow. That is authoritarian, that is top-down, fear-based leadership.

Speaker, people often hear the title of a bill and assume the contents of the bill reflect that title. If that were the case, the title of this bill should be: "Municipal Autonomy Reduction Act," or "Top-down Planning Act," or "Local Control Takeaway Act," or "Power Grab Bill."

The realities are that the costs will land on municipal taxpayers, the costs will land on utilities to ratepayers, and the costs will likely land on families who are already struggling to pay rising bills.

Where is the independent review? If the municipality believes the cost, what is unfair? It doesn't exist. Where is the public reporting that would let the people see the order, the rationale, the estimated cost, the affordability impact, and the long-term liability? It's not there. More housing is important, but if the government is going to use extraordinary centralized authority - top down - and people end up with infrastructure costs shifted onto ratepayers while the actual housing produced is not truly affordable to working families, seniors, young people, or those on fixed incomes, then what exactly has this bill achieved? It may accelerate approvals, accelerate construction, accelerate provincial power, but it will not have solved the affordability housing crisis. The government cannot simply wrap every power grab into the language of a crisis and expect scrutiny to disappear. If affordability is the justification of this bill that is before us tonight, then affordability should be able to be measured.

[Page 4857]

There is another major power in this bill that deserves very serious attention. Bill No. 212 gives the minister the power to amend HRM planning documents, including urban service area boundaries by an order. Let's slow down and consider what that actually means. Urban service boundaries are not just trivial maps. They determine where infrastructure and expansion can occur. They determine shape patterns of growth. They affect servicing decisions. They influence land value. They affect municipal capital planning. They affect how regions grow and at what cost.

These are long-term planning decisions with lasting impacts, and this bill says the Province can alter them by order. Planning should involve evidence, consultation, and democratic input. It should reflect community infrastructure realities and long-term financial sustainability. When the government gives itself the power to change those planning documents by order rather than through collaboration and working together with municipal colleagues, it bypasses much of the transparency and local democratic processes that normally accompany decisions of that magnitude.

The bill makes this even more troubling. These powers may be temporary in duration, but the consequences are permanent. The analysis of the bill makes things very clear: these authorities may expire in 2028 or by regulation, but any planning changes made under them remain in force afterward. We're seeing, possibly, temporary power but a permanent effect, temporary authority but a lasting consequence.

The bill also has another concern. It expands the role of the Executive Panel on Housing in the Halifax Regional Municipality. It broadens the panel's scope to consider municipal infrastructure constraints, allows it to compel information from HRM-owned utilities, and expands the panel to 2028. You cannot build meaningful housing without water, waste water, stormwater, roads, transit considerations, schools, and services, that's obvious, but the issue is not whether infrastructure matters. The issue is how decisions are being made and who holds the power and what accountability attaches to the exercises of that power that we are seeing the minister being given.

Another deeply concerning part of Bill No. 212 - you can see there are a few concerns here - is regarding governance. This is a pattern we have seen in many pieces of legislation this government has tabled, and I'll reference a couple of them now before I continue to explain why I have concerns with governance with this bill. Under the power of the Premier, we have seen changes in governance to Bill No. 196. We have seen a centralization of power, changes, a reduction in good governance in Bill No. 214, Invest Nova Scotia Act; also Bill No. 216, Build Nova Scotia Act; also Bill No. 222, Housing Supply and Services Act; also Bill No. 223, Municipal Finance Corporation Dissolution Act; also Bill No. 279, Financial Measures Act from 2023; Bill No. 329, Halifax Regional Municipality Charter (amended); and Housing in Halifax Regional Municipality Act. Those are just a few.

[Page 4858]

[10:30pm]

There have been several times during this session where I have been able to show quotes or references from the Premier before he became Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition or an MLA in the Opposition. The reason that people elected him as leader and then as Premier - he has fallen away from a lot of those principles. One of the examples is transparency and good governance.

I'll table this article. It's from back in 2020, and everyone here in the House who was elected that time would remember this - when the Premier actually took the government to court because he felt the government of the day was not transparent enough in providing information about Bay Ferries and their management fee. In this article, it says - I won't bother going on to read it, but everyone remembers that. My point is that what he stood for before he became Premier is very different from what we see reflected in the bills before us. I will table that article.

As part of Bill No. 212, what we are seeing again is dilution of strong governance. This bill removes the interim board and makes the advisory board optional under the Housing Supply and Services Act. This is a common theme, as I've mentioned, of this government: removing governance structures and giving the Premier's Office more power, more authority, more top-down authoritarian leadership. When the stakes are high, governance should be stronger, not weaker.

When public money, public land, public infrastructure, and public authority are being marshalled more aggressively, oversight should become more robust, not optional like we are seeing in this bill. When government asks for more power or takes more power, it should also accept more scrutiny. Instead, this bill moves in the opposite direction, and it concentrates decision-making while loosening mandatory governance structures.

Bill No. 212 also makes changes to municipal governance more broadly through amendments to the Municipal Government Act and Halifax Regional Municipality Charter. These include mandatory orientation for newly elected councillors, and clarified powers around chief administrative officer oversight, participation, and delegation.

Now, let me be fair. I think this is a good and reasonable piece of the legislation. Orientation for councillors is a good idea, and clear government processes can be useful, so I like this part of the bill. Clarifying roles in municipal administration definitely has merit, and those points deserve an honest acknowledgement.

I do not want the government to dismiss this criticism as being anti-housing. It is not. I want housing built. I want affordable housing built. I want to give kudos to the many people back home in Cumberland North who have worked tirelessly over the last number of years - in particular I would say the last eight years - trying to improve affordable housing for our area.

[Page 4859]

Right now, the Cumberland YMCA has a project before town council and I'm really hopeful that it will move forward: a 36-unit building that will have affordable housing for families, three- and four-bedroom homes or apartments for families. I am really hopeful that will move forward, but it's only happened because of the leadership of Trina Clark and her team at our Cumberland YMCA. This will be their third affordable housing project if this one goes through.

I want to be clear that I support more housing to be built. I want more affordable housing. I want infrastructure constraints to be addressed. But there is a major difference between being anti-delay and being anti-accountability, and there is a major difference between wanting faster housing and accepting weaker safeguards. There is a major difference between urgent action and unchecked power.

Speaker, a well-crafted housing bill would have answered the following questions directly in legislation: What is affordability? How is it defined? What test must be met before extraordinary powers are used by the minister? What public reporting is required? What independent review is available for cost disputes? What prevents costs from being downloaded onto utility users? What defines provincial interests? What accountability exists for temporary powers that have permanent planning consequences? Why are oversight bodies being weakened during a housing crisis instead of strengthened?

Those are governance questions, and those are public interest questions. Those are questions any responsible legislator would ask. Many of us on this side have asked those questions, and I ask them again tonight. Scrutiny is our job on behalf of the people of Nova Scotia. As legislators, it's our duty not to applaud every bill that arrives with the word "housing" in the title. Our duty is to read the fine print and ask the hard questions.

There is also a broader pattern here that should concern the House. We are seeing more and more legislation that shifts important decisions out of a fully transparent legislative framework and into regulations, orders, optional structures, and proclamation-based timing. That pattern reduces public visibility, it reduces debate, it reduces certainty, and it increases executive discretion.

I will close with this. The housing crisis is real, the pressure on communities is real, and the need for infrastructure planning is real, in collaboration with our municipalities. The need for action is real. But good intentions do not excuse poor legislative design. As Bill No. 212 is written, it asks this House to accept a profound expansion of provincial power without providing equivalent protections for affordability, transparency, oversight, municipal autonomy, or financial fairness. It's not good governance. This bill centralizes power, and it does not centralize accountability. For that reason, I cannot support Bill No. 212 as it is written.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Lunenburg West.

[Page 4860]

HON. BECKY DRUHAN « » : I rise tonight to speak briefly about Bill No. 212, an Act Respecting Administrative Measures for Housing at third reading.

I share the concerns that each of the members of the Opposition just laid out relating to the administrative overreach that is inherent in this bill. They each did a great job of providing details on the problems associated with that overreach and the concerns associated with that overreach. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on that.

I'm going to mention a couple of things that my community members have said about that, but then I'm largely going to leave that to the record that has already been laid down by my colleagues. Then I want to talk about this bill from a local perspective - from a Lunenburg West perspective.

If I start on the overreach question, I've received comments from my community members, some who are community members and others who have experience representing at a municipal level. Without fail, the concerns that my community members raise around this bill are relating to that overreach.

One person identifies exactly that and the fact that this reaches into planning, which is a municipal function, and identifies that municipal planners have on-the-ground expertise in this area that the Province does not. She considers it to be reflective of the Premier's disdain for municipalities, with the habit or practice of downloading costs while overreaching into jurisdiction. It shows a disconnect between the goal - more housing faster - and their understanding of infrastructure needed to support that goal.

I have other comments from other constituents who, again, identify that it looks like provincial overreach and increasing centralization away from grassroots democracy. This person characterizes it as a power grab at the same time as downloading costs, resulting in the need for increased property taxes. That concern from my community goes on and on.

In large part, this bill is not about my community. In large part, these measures are focused on HRM, but there is an awareness in my community that it may not stop at those borders. For two reasons: one, because we care about what happens across the province, and we care about what happens in neighbouring municipalities. My community members have reached out for that reason, but also because there's a concern and an awareness that this kind of overreach might make its way into our communities as well.

That's all I will say about that. I'm not going to go into details because I appreciate that my colleagues did that and did a very good job of outlining the specific concerns.

I want to talk, like I said, about what this bill promises based on its title and what it fails to deliver. As the member for Cumberland North just referenced, this is presented as a housing bill. It's called An Act Respecting Administrative Measures for Housing, but it's largely an administrative and power-shifting bill. It does very little to actually move housing forward. Instead, it focuses on expanding the minister's powers. Those provisions - let me be clear: Those provisions don't restrict the minister's new powers to actions relating to housing. They are broad powers that may be used for - I don't know what other purposes, but the bill doesn't restrict them to housing. It does that. It includes some provisions that relate to municipal functioning like training of councillors and CAO authority and participation in meetings.

[Page 4861]

When I first saw the heading, An Act Respecting Administrative Measures for Housing, the lens that I was looking at this bill through was the lens that was local to my area. What are the issues that my area, Lunenburg West, is experiencing relating to housing? Does this bill do anything for those? There were four specific things I was looking for because they are issues that arise regularly in Lunenburg West. Here's another spoiler alert: They are not addressed in this bill at all.

The first was the progress that I was hoping to see, and that my community members were hoping to see2, on public housing. Public housing has been announced across the province, including in Bridgewater. That happened back in 2024, but no progress has been seen in our area. I do believe that some progress has been made in other areas, but there are other areas that have stalled as well. I was hoping to see something in this piece of legislation that would help move that forward, and there is nothing here for that. That's really important to my community, so that was disappointing.

The second issue that we encounter, and that I know is an issue across Nova Scotia, is the preservation or lack of preservation for what I'm calling naturally occurring affordable housing. These are housing units often with landlords who have small holdings - maybe one property or a few properties - who have kept their rents well below market rate, sometimes significantly below market rates because they have had a good tenant relationship and are more focused on building long-term equity than immediate profits. The rent cap has applied to those low rents, and that, paired with the reality of inflation, has meant that those landlords' costs are now well above what they recover in rent because insurance, maintenance, mortgage, those things have all continued escalating.

What's happening is that many of those folks are being forced to sell. They're in a financial position where they will take a loss if they continue to maintain their property, and try to recover on it because they are subject to the rent cap. They sell these homes, and regularly what happens is the tenants are renovicted, the units are updated, they go back on the market, and they're no longer affordable. This has happened over and over in our area, and it is happening across the province.

There are ways to address that. A targeted exemption or a revised cap mechanism for the units that are in these positions would cost government nothing and would alleviate this issue. This would be far cheaper for government than the construction of new affordable units. It costs a lot of money to build new units. There was an opportunity here that I had hoped to see in this Administrative Measures for Housing bill - some solution to that problem, which has been a problem for as long as we have had the rent cap, and which has been raised repeatedly. There is nothing in this bill to address that issue.

[Page 4862]

The third issue that our community is interested in seeing is the construction and availability of new affordable housing units. We know that's needed. It's needed across the province. As I just mentioned, it's more expensive than preserving existing units but the reality is we need a variety of options for housing but, once again, there's nothing in this bill that creates affordable housing units in Bridgewater or anywhere outside the HRM. As I've just said, the provisions in here that are presumptively, I guess, about housing that expand ministerial power - they're not even limited to housing. So there's no guarantee that those will be used in a way that expands housing.

Then, the fourth thing that I was looking for was a resolution to the challenge of the rental supplement calculation and the way that that manifests in our community and I believe in other communities as well - although it may be unique based on CMHC's average market rental estimates - is that rental supplements are calculated based on those CMHC market rental estimates. But the reality is the estimates don't reflect actual current rents in Bridgewater and across Lunenburg West. Our rents are now comparable to Halifax but CMHC averages lag far behind that and, as a result, the supplement falls short for people who need it and doesn't cover the cost of actual rent. Once again, there is nothing in the bill that addresses this.

Those are really our four biggest housing concerns that come to my office in Lunenburg West and not one of them is remotely addressed in a bill that is supposed to be respecting administrative housing. It was a great disappointment to me for those reasons.

I've already mentioned my concerns with the ministerial overreach and the powers that this bill confers on the minister. So I think really I will end once again by referencing the coming-into-force provisions because the question that remains for us is a question that any Nova Scotians have who are concerned about the provisions of the bill and wondering when it takes effect.

When will this law actually come into force? This one is mixed based on the clause, and a few of the clauses, a number of the clauses will come into force on Royal Assent. So at the end of this sitting, a number of the clauses of this bill will come into force. But there are a few that will not come into force until Cabinet takes action, until Cabinet orders and declares by proclamation that they will come into force. Those include the provisions relating to training of newly-elected municipal councillors - give me a moment - and they include the provisions on the ministerial order-making authority relating to utilities and that order-making power. There's hope there around that issue because that doesn't become law at the end of this sitting. Cabinet will have to make it so. Any Nova Scotians who are concerned about that, still have the ability to influence. This doesn't have to be proclaimed into force.

Then, the final provision that will require an additional action by Cabinet or additional actions by Cabinet is Clause 15 which is the replication of the orientation training. For any Nova Scotians who have concerns about any of those provisions, I think it is helpful for them to know that there will still be required action on the part of Cabinet and, so there's hope. There's hope to have change made on that front.

[Page 4863]

I appreciate the debate that we've had. I appreciate my colleagues in opposition detailing the variety of concerns around ministerial authority and I'm disappointed not to be able to support this piece of legislation because housing is an issue. Housing is an issue across the province and it's most definitely an issue in Lunenburg West and I would have loved to see some help for that in this bill, but sadly that is not what the government has tabled.

So, with those remarks, Speaker, I will take my seat.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. JOHN A. MACDONALD: I'm pleased to rise today to speak on Bill No. 212, An Act Respecting Administrative Measures for Housing.

This is an important piece of legislation, one that reflects both the challenges and the opportunities facing communities across Nova Scotia. As we continue working together to address housing needs, support growth, and strengthen municipal governance, this bill represents another meaningful step forward.

I want to begin by recognizing the strong partnership we have with municipalities. We value their collaboration deeply, and I cannot emphasize enough how essential these relationships are to the work we do every day. Since becoming minister, I've made it a priority to visit communities across the province to sit down with local leaders to hear first-hand what's working well, and where the challenges continue to exist.

Today, I've met with officials in roughly 20 municipalities, and those conversations have been constructive, candid and overwhelmingly positive. Conversations like these help shape our priorities, and frankly, they help strengthen our understanding of the real issues being experienced at the local level. I'm proud to say that the department staff are always in continuous contact with municipal leaders, the NSFM, AMANS. This isn't occasional sporadic engagement; it's ongoing, meaningful and informs our decision-making.

These partnerships matter, because municipalities are the heart of building the safe, resilient, thriving communities Nova Scotians depend on. Municipalities carry the day-to-day responsibilities for turning shared goals into real-world outcomes, ensuring the growth is well planned, services are reliable, and communities have what they need to thrive. And for that reason, this legislation aims not only to address our need for housing and growth, but to support stronger, clearer and more consistent municipal governance going forward.

I'd like to speak about some of the amendments included in the bill, and share how they'll make municipal governance clearer, more consistent, and modern. I know there are some questions about why mandatory training for elected council members was included in the legislation. We've heard a recurring message from municipalities, including councillors, saying that onboarding for new councillors should be required, and there should be a greater consistency in the level of training across the province.

[Page 4864]

Now it's true that the province already offers excellent orientation and training opportunities. As well, municipalities provide their own training. But the reality is, participation varies, content is inconsistent, and there's currently no legal requirement for municipalities to delivery training, or councillors to take it. Let's be honest. Councillors today are expected to understand and act on a range of complex responsibilities: land use planning, budgets, ethics, conflict of interest, municipal legislation, infrastructure, asset management, housing and growth, emergency management, accessibility requirements and more.

These amendments ensure every councillor, no matter where they serve, starts with the essential knowledge they will need to govern effectively. At the same time, municipalities will continue to have the flexibility to adapt training to their local needs and priorities. Strong governance begins with strong understanding, and this change supports exactly that.

Another longstanding piece of feedback we heard from municipalities relates to the chief administrative officer oversight, a critical part of municipal governance. Clauses 2 and 16 of the bill respond directly to that feedback. Right now, the broad language in existing legislation may be interpreted in a way that restricts council's ability to effectively manage a CAO's participation in discussions about their own job performance.

These amendments address this issue. They make it clear that councillors do have the authority and discretion in matters of a CAO's job performance, without the CAO present, when that is appropriate and necessary. These amendments also allow councillors to delegate HR oversight of the CAO to a committee, when the approach is more effective and appropriate. Further, if a CAO is away for more than 30 days, it makes it clear that council has the authority to temporarily delegate CAO responsibilities to someone else. This ensures continuity and prevents administrative delays.

Councillors may limit a CAO's involvement on external boards or committees, including municipal corporations and joint service boards. Again, this creates clarity, not new responsibilities, not new restrictions - just clear authority and governance expectations. These changes do not alter the core relationship between council and CAO. They simply provide clarity, greater consistency, and alignment on what municipalities have been asking for.

It's important to note that many municipalities are already operating with these expectations in practice. These amendments were shaped by the voices of our municipal partners who wanted clarity on these matters to ensure they could carry out their responsibilities with confidence and consistency. They respond to real challenges and ensure local leaders have the tools they need to provide strong, effective local leadership.

Some in the House have questioned why these amendments are in a housing administrative bill, and my answer is, "Why not?" Strong governance supports better decision-making on matters of regional importance like housing and growth, and the amendments involve the same municipal Acts. It makes sense to include them in the same bill.

[Page 4865]

I'd like to address Clauses 3 and 4 which were a subject of interest during the debate. These clauses provide the Minister of Municipal Affairs with the authority to amend the HRM planning documents to extend or alter the urban service boundary when necessary to support priority growth such as housing. Let me be clear: This is not about bypassing local planning. It's about enabling boundary adjustments so the critical long-term planning and technical work needed to support priority growth can take place. The Executive Panel on Housing has accelerated development approvals in areas where the need for housing is urgent, but one of the biggest challenges remains: making sure that the urban service area boundary keeps pace with growth.

Water, waste water, transit, roads: Communities can't grow without them. That takes planning. To plan our resources effectively, the urban service boundary needs to align with and support future growth plans and opportunities. It doesn't mean the infrastructure has to be built but allows for the long-term planning needed to support future growth to get under way. This is critical because the urban service area is an important long-term planning tool. Having the ability to extend the boundary allows the planning and technical work, engineering, service studies, and coordinated planning to occur so infrastructure needs can be identified, and planning can take place so the communities can grow responsibly.

We don't envision this authority to be permanent. This authority is meant as a backstop. The focus is on better coordination and earlier alignment, not on taking over municipal operations. This temporary authority is intended to support the work of the Executive Panel on Housing, so it makes sense that it, too, will expire on November 25, 2028, when the panel sunsets.

Some of the members opposite raised questions about infrastructure costs associated with extending those critical services. That's fair. That's why coordination and planning is key to supporting growth. Let's also acknowledge the scale of the investment this government has already made. Over the past four years, we've committed nearly half-a-billion dollars to critical infrastructure projects: drinking water, waste water, disaster mitigation, accessibility, and transit, and we will continue to invest.

We're leveraging our relationships and maximizing the funding opportunities available through provincial-federal cost-sharing programs like the Canada Community-Building Fund. It's a 10-year agreement providing about $63 million a year for municipal projects. The Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund which is $154 million left of federal and $132 million of provincial over the next year, and, of course, the new Build Communities Strong Fund which will bring new funding opportunities forward when the details are finalized.

When everyone is working together at the same table, we can plan, build, and grow responsibly, effectively, and in a coordinated manner.

[Page 4866]

[11:00 p.m.]

The members opposite are correct that municipalities must balance their annual budgets, but I point out that they're also permitted to take on debt for capital projects. This is an important and practical distinction because capital infrastructure - roads, drinking water and wastewater systems, transit fleets - these long-term assets do require significant up-front investments to support healthy, sustainable growth. Because this infrastructure serves communities for decades, it is both reasonable and responsible for municipalities to use their ability to finance these projects over time.

Having the ability to build repayment for capital borrowing into future balanced municipal budgets gives us flexibility they need to invest in critical infrastructure while continuing to meet their legislative obligations for balanced operating budgets. I want to make that point clear.

I also want to clarify something raised during the earlier debates on the bill. It's about development fees. Development fees are and continue to be paid by developers directly to HRM, and that includes within special planning areas. I acknowledge the fees have been frozen to accelerate much-needed housing development, but they are still paid.

In conclusion, Bill No. 212 provides targeted, practical, and necessary improvements to municipal governments and to long-term planning. The temporary authority to update HRM's planning documents to extend or adjust the urban service area boundary, where appropriate, is essential for making sure infrastructure planning is done in a coordinated, responsible way. That supports a critical need, ensuring we can build the homes Nova Scotians need. Thank you, Speaker.

THE SPEAKER « » : If I recognize the minister, it will be to close the debate.

The honourable Minister of Housing.

HON. JOHN WHITE « » : First, before I start, I'd like to thank all the members for their input. I did listen to everything that was being said over the last couple weeks on this bill.

Over the past four years, we have made generational investments in the province when it comes to housing, infrastructure, and supporting our communities and municipalities. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on sewer, water, and other infrastructure projects from one end of the province to the other. Miles of red tape have been reduced when it comes to speeding up housing projects in our communities, from Yarmouth to Cape Breton. At the same time, we brought forward a $1.7 billion housing plan that has already created a path for 68,000 units, with hundreds more to come this year.

The work we've done with our partners, including municipalities, has helped thousands of Nova Scotians and their families find housing. In January, I made an announcement with my colleagues at the Groves at Hillsdale in Amherst: 47 homes in Cumberland County. This build builds on that foundation that's been laid over the last four years.

[Page 4867]

The Opposition says that new market rates for apartments do nothing for affordability and that building new homes doesn't help Nova Scotians who are struggling. The Groves at Hillsdale has 28 homes that are for sale under a shared equity model to families with an income of $50,000 to $80,000. I won't go too far in my notes because I'll be here all day, but home ownership is the key to breaking generational poverty, and anybody in this House should be aware of that.

Research says otherwise. It says that we're doing the right thing, and other levels of government also say we're doing the right thing. When it comes to the Groves, it's exciting to see the project come together, knowing what a positive, real-world impact it's going to have on the community. It's the blossoming efforts of a lot of hard work and collaboration - key word, collaboration.

Our government is proud to be working together with partners that make it happen. You know who that was? That's Alana Hirtle, Member of Parliament for Cumberland-Colchester. She obviously saw the value in our project. It's good to work with people who agree.

When a new apartment is built and a higher-income tenant moves in, they leave behind a unit that is somewhere else in the housing stock. That unit becomes available and someone moves into it. They leave behind another unit. This is called vacancy chain. It is what we've been missing in the Halifax area.

It works everywhere else. It works by moving the vacancy down through the housing continuum. It relieves pressure at all levels. That's what happened in places like Auckland, New Zealand, and that's what's happening here in Nova Scotia. The evidence is clear that increasing supply at any point improves affordability across the continuum. You help people at the bottom percentile by building at the top point or at any other point in the continuum, because movement across the continuum is essential and it moves down through the continuum.

We are starting to see it work here in Nova Scotia already. Halifax's vacancy rate, which sat near zero just a few years ago, has now moved to more than double at 2.6 percent. That is what record housing starts look like when you start to complete, and we are just getting started on our completions. The homes that started in 2023 are finishing now. The homes that started in 2024 are finishing next year, and the record 7,000 starts from last year - those completions are coming yet. The numbers of homes under construction have never been higher.

The truth is that conditions are going to keep getting better - not because of luck, but because of the foundation this government has built, and the trust and collaboration we've built with all levels of government. This bill continues on that work.

[Page 4868]

Some have said that this bill is about clearing the path for a new Costco. Others have said that bringing Halifax Water to the Executive Panel on Housing in the HRM will increase water rates. Some have called this an overreach. We heard it here tonight. I want to be clear that none of those are true. The Municipal Government Act is a provincial Act. The Halifax Charter is a provincial Act. The Public Utilities Act is a provincial Act. The Halifax Regional Water Commission Act is a provincial Act.

Municipalities exist within rules and laws that the Province created, and when something isn't working, the Province has the responsibility to act. Like I said before, we've made generational investments in thousands of affordable housing units and have unlocked conditions for tens of thousands of market units across the province, but housing units need running water. That is why Halifax Water belongs at the executive panel. They are essential. We need them there - not to override anyone. It's not an overreach. It is to work together to turn tens of thousands of approved units into tens of thousands of actual homes.

Speaker, let me assure you that we are going to do everything we can to make sure this is done affordably. The Canada Infrastructure Bank offers low-cost financing designed exactly for this kind of investment. The Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund has significant dollars available, and yes, there are provincial dollars to match. We intend to see every tool available to make sure that we are unlocking housing, and we are going to do it in a way that Nova Scotians can afford it.

This is not an overreach. This is responsibility, and we are not stepping back from our responsibility.

The Opposition wants us to wait - perhaps as they did in 2013 when they sat on their research - but Nova Scotians can't afford for us to wait. That's why we are in the mess we are in with housing.

From the beginning of 2021 to the end of 2025, construction costs in this country rose by nearly 50 percent. That is 10 percent for every year of delay. Every year of delay adds 10 percent to the cost of every home. Every year of delay makes new apartments 10 percent more expensive to build and that means they're 10 percent more expensive to rent. That is why rents are high and that is why homes in Nova Scotia cost what they cost today - because this province waited too long to build. That ends today.

Nova Scotians cannot afford another 50-percent increase. It cannot afford us standing here debating while the crane operators wait and shovels sit on the ground. The time to act is now because of the work this government has put in place over the last three years of our housing plan. This bill lets us act on this now and we intend to do exactly that.

Members opposite have told us to build where infrastructure already exists to densify, to build apartments. We agreed. So I've been doing that, and more than that, it's already happening.

[Page 4869]

When we came into power in 2021, the HRM saw 4,082 housing starts; 65 percent of those were apartments. In 2023, that number grew to 4,805 starts; 80 percent of those were apartments. Last year, a record 7,000 housing starts; 5,643 of those were apartments. That's 81 percent. I believe we tabled documents here a couple of weeks ago, telling us that the rental is a circle and people need a way out of it, and ground-level homes is what was articulated in that article.

If you look across our city today, you will see dozens of cranes in the air. Our HST exemption on purpose-built rental construction helped to make that possible, reducing costly parking mandates that drive up the price of every unit through our minimum planning requirements, helped to make that possible. Our special planning areas at places like Penhorn Mall and Mount Hope put tenancy exactly where the Opposition say they want it - close to transit and existing infrastructure like Highway No. 111.

We heard the people. We acted. The numbers speak for themselves. But densification alone will not house every Nova Scotian. Some families need homes with spaces to raise children, backyards, and room to grow. Even our colleagues opposite have acknowledged that. That is why this bill matters. Nova Scotians need both. They need apartments going up today and we are clearing a path to build family homes for tomorrow.

These homes need roads. Link Nova Scotia and a regional transportation plan are dealing with that, but they also need water. They need to be able to run their dishwasher, wash their clothes, and flush the toilet. That is why Halifax Water belongs at the table and that is what this bill does. This bill allows the urban service area boundary to grow in a way that reflects real housing demand.

Like many other provinces, infrastructure is emerging as a key barrier to housing development. This bill allows us to take a more active role and consider servicing growth in a way that continues to build on this government's housing success. It gives planners and engineers the ability to map out infrastructure ahead of development so we can bring more homes online and build communities that meet the needs of all Nova Scotians. This bill is about collaboration. It's about preparation and making sure we have the right people with the right skills at the right table, to deliver on our vast housing infrastructure goals.

This bill allows us to continue our work with a strong focus on strengthening our relationship with all our key partners. The bill responds directly to feedback that we received from stakeholders and municipal leaders.

[11:15 p.m.]

In the second reading, I went through each of the bill's extensive parts, so I won't do that again today, but collectively, these changes help us act faster, work better with partners, and reduce the barriers that slow down housing projects.

Speaker, with that, I move to close third reading of Bill No. 212.

[Page 4870]

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is for third reading of Bill No. 212.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

Ordered that this bill do pass. Ordered that the title be as read by the Clerk. Ordered that the bill be engrossed.

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, would you please call - just joking. I saw the looks.

Speaker, that concludes government business for today. I move that the House now rise to meet again on April 9^th, between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 11:59 p.m.

Following the Daily Routine, we will do some more Third Reading.

With that, Speaker, everybody have a fantastic night.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is that the House do now rise to meet again tomorrow, April 9^th, between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 11:59 pm.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

The House stands adjourned until tomorrow, April 9^th, at 11:00 a.m.

[The House rose at 11:17 p.m.]

NOTICES OF MOTION UNDER RULE 32(3)

RESOLUTION NO. 485

By: Julie Vanexan (Kings South)

I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas it is a sincere pleasure to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Gwen Mosher on the remarkable milestone of 50 years of service in Scouting, a significant achievement that reflects a lifetime of commitment to youth development and community leadership; and

Whereas over the course of five decades, she has demonstrated steady leadership, quiet dedication, and an unwavering commitment to guiding and mentoring young people, helping to shape their confidence, character, and values in ways that endure far beyond their years in Scouting; and

Whereas the impact of Gwen's work lives on in the confidence, character, and values of those she has guided, strengthening the fabric of our community and inspiring others to give back;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House of Assembly join me in celebrating her extraordinary legacy and extend our deepest gratitude and warmest congratulations on this significant achievement.

RESOLUTION NO. 486

By: Julie Vanexan (Kings South)

I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas I recognize an outstanding community leader and instructor, Shawna Hachey, whose impact at the Louis Millett Community Complex cannot be overstated; and

Whereas for the past five years, Shawna has been a dedicated and inspiring presence, teaching six classes each week. Two of these are specially designed for seniors -Senior Strength and Stretch, offered as both chair and mat classes - along with four yoga classes that support overall wellness and mobility; and

Whereas Shawna is a hands-on, positive, and deeply caring instructor who understands that staying active is about more than physical movement. She creates a welcoming, safe, and engaging space where seniors can build strength, confidence, and - just as importantly - meaningful social connections. Many participants have shared how much they value the opportunity to get out of the house, stay connected, and spend time together in a supportive environment;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House of Assembly join me in thanking Shawna Hachey for her incredible support for our community and especially our seniors.

[Page 4871]