HANSARD
NOVA SCOTIA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Wednesday, February, 18, 2026
Committee Room
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Hon. Danielle Barkhouse (Chair)
Marco MacLeod (Vice-Chair)
Hon. Brendan Maguire
Hon. Scott Armstrong
Adegoke Fadare
Lisa Lachance
Susan Leblanc
Hon. Derek Mombourquette
James Charlton, Chief Clerk of the House of Assembly
(Non-Voting Member)
[Adegoke Fadare was replaced by Hon. Trevor Boudreau.]
In Attendance:
Gordon Hebb
Chief Legislative Counsel
Karen Howard
Acting Director of Operations and Administration
Office of the Speaker
David Hastings
Assistant Clerk of the House of Assembly
HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2026
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
4:00 P.M.
CHAIR
Hon. Danielle Barkhouse
VICE-CHAIR
Marco MacLeod
THE CHAIR: I call this meeting of the House of Assembly Management Commission to order. Let's begin by having the members of the Management Commission introduce themselves. I will start, and then let's move clockwise around the table.
My name is Danielle Barkhouse, Speaker of the House and MLA for Chester-St. Margaret's and Chair of the Management Commission.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
THE CHAIR: I would also like to acknowledge the presence of James Charlton, Chief Clerk of the House; Gordon Hebb, chief legislative counsel; and Karen Howard, director of finance and administration.
The first item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes of the last meeting of the Management Commission, which occurred on January 14, 2026. The draft minutes were circulated in advance of today's meeting. Are there any questions, comments, or changes to the minutes?
Seeing none, would someone move that the draft minutes of the meeting of the Management Commission on January 14, 2026, be adopted?
So moved by MLA Lachance. Can we have a seconder? Seconded by MLA Leblanc.
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried.
The second item on the agenda is the approval of the Annual Report of the Audit Committee for 2025. The report was approved by the Audit Committee on January 21, 2026, and was circulated in advance of today's meeting. Are there any questions or comments on the report?
Would someone move that the Annual Report of the Audit Committee for 2025 be approved?
So moved by Minister Armstrong. Will someone second the motion? Seconded by MLA Lachance.
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried.
The third item on the agenda is the approval of the Annual Report of the Management Commission for 2025. The draft report was circulated in advance of today's meeting. Are there any questions or comments or suggested changes to the report?
Seeing none, would someone move that the Annual Report of the Management Commission for 2025 be approved?
So moved by MLA Lachance. Do we have a seconder? Seconded by MLA MacLeod.
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried.
MLA Leblanc.
SUSAN LEBLANC: I'm sorry - I just noticed in the draft report that it says “Official Opposition representative” - there's a “vacant” and then there's “Susan Leblanc.” So that means that there's just one for the Official Opposition, plus the House Leader? Is that correct?
THE CHAIR: The Chief Clerk.
JAMES CHARLTON: My apologies for not waiting to be recognized. Very poor for a Chief Clerk indeed.
Yes, at the bottom of Page 5, Official Opposition House Leader Lisa Lachance - MLA Lachance was in that position for the whole of the year. As far as “Official Opposition representative,” January 21st was the date I received notice that you'd be the representative. It was technically vacant, so you'll see some of these positions were filled at different times. I think you'll also see that the government caucus rep was also vacant for a similar period as well until we received notice. So that explains the vacancy.
THE CHAIR: The fourth item on the agenda is the consideration of two proposed amendments to the House of Assembly Management Commission Regulations. We will deal with the proposed amendments one at a time. I will ask the Clerk to speak to the first proposed amendment which is to update the Regulations effective April 1st to reflect the automatic CPI increase to take effect on that day.
JAMES CHARLTON: What this does - the CPI increase is law. That's baked into the regulations; it will take place automatically. However, it's not possible for the regulations to self amend to show those changes, so if we want the regulations to still show the correct amounts - the updated amounts - we do have to manually change them anyway. If we don't pass this, it doesn't stop the CPI increase from taking effect. It just means our regulations will be out of sync with what the amounts are by law. I think it's more useful for us to see that a per diem is $51 rather than $50, for example. These just update the amounts to reflect the CPI increase that will happen anyway, and they take effect on April 1st.
THE CHAIR: Are there any questions or concerns on this proposed amendment? MLA Maguire.
HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Can I just have a moment, please? Can I see that?
THE CHAIR: MLA MacLeod.
MARCO MACLEOD: Just a clarifying point: This is going through anyway, and this is to update the literature to match what's happening?
THE CHAIR: That is correct, MLA MacLeod.
MARCO MACLEOD: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Would someone move that the proposed amendment to the House of Assembly Management Commission Regulations reflect the April 1, 2026 CPI increase pursuant to Section 52 of the Regulations be approved?
So moved by MLA Lachance. Will someone second the motion? Seconded by MLA Armstrong.
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried.
I will ask the Clerk to speak to the second and last proposed amendments which are to address claims eligibility issues arising from Nova Scotia Power's recent billing practices following last year's cyberattack.
JAMES CHARLTON: Last year, we had dealt with issues arising from this with Nova Scotia Power's billing practices. At the time, the issue was that we were receiving invoices that related to electricity that was consumed in the previous fiscal year after the 90-day year-end cut-off, so we passed amendments to deem those expenses to be occurred at the date of the invoice. This was a billing practice thing. This was effectively preventing MLAs from being able to be reimbursed for the electricity expenses for their constituency offices through no fault of their own where the Nova Scotia Power's billing practices were out of whack.
We thought that was going to be the end of it; however, it isn't. What we've started to see are bills - and there have been more than one received of this nature - where MLAs have paid an estimated bill for two or three billing cycles, and then they've received a bill were they've been credited back everything that they've paid during that time, and for an eight-month period - remembering that you can only submit claims for six months and the electricity is deemed received and consumed at the time, or is deemed to have been purchased at the time it's received and consumed. What they've done is, in that eight-month period, charged for the full eight-month period including the monthly billing fee - eight monthly billings fees plus a brand-new estimate. I've seen one case where it actually worked out to the MLA's favour and they were charged less money and there was a credit, but I've known of at least two other cases where MLAs were charged a much higher estimate.
Under the existing rules, we just don't have a way to cope with this because of the six-month period. What we're doing is we're going to deem that electricity when it's received after the six-month period or where the invoice is received, we're going to deem that electricity to be received and consumed on the date of the invoice. The one for year-end for this fiscal year-end, we're also going to extend it to apply to this fiscal year, so that if we get into a case in the summer with bills being received after the 90-day mark, we'll still be able to expense it. We don't really like making this change, but quite frankly, it seems it's easier for us to change the regulations than it is for Nova Scotia Power to get its billing practices back to normal, unfortunately. So this is a temporary measure to make sure MLAs can be fully reimbursed for their legitimate expenses.
THE CHAIR: Are there any questions or comments on the proposed amendments?
Would someone move that the proposed amendments to the House of Assembly Management Commission Regulations to address the incompatibility of Nova Scotia Power's interim billing practices with the eligibility rules for MLA expense claims be approved?
So moved by MLA Mombourquette. Will someone second the motion? Seconded by MLA Maguire.
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried.
The fifth item on the agenda is a continuation of the discussion from our previous meeting regarding expense claims for tickets relating to the consumption of alcohol. The Chief Clerk has prepared a draft directive based on feedback from our previous discussions. Are there any questions or comments on the proposed directive?
MLA Maguire.
BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Can I review it again, please? Thank you.
THE CHAIR: MLA Lachance.
LISA LACHANCE: The question I was wondering about is - I can't imagine this situation arising, but let's just say that you bought a ticket to the fundraising dinner for LOVE Nova Scotia, for instance - one happened on Friday - and you get there and actually it's a wine-tasting. “Here's your glass, and you can go try all the Nova Scotia wines that are here.” In that case, what should an MLA do?
The other question I have is - that's really my question. What if what's advertised isn't what you show up to?
THE CHAIR: The Chief Clerk.
JAMES CHARLTON: I think part of the thing from our perspective is that we want to make sure MLAs aren't going to an event that is advertised as being something like that. Obviously MLAs can't do a whole lot when they get to a place, if something turns out to be something that it's not.
I think the critical thing is what the ticket purports to say and what the advertising proports to say. An event like that, it might not really be - and something like that, it's likely not to be that wine is actually the dominant theme. There may be a wine-tasting, but that may be an aspect of it. If you get to an event and it's nothing but a wine-tasting, that might be a case to ask for your money back, or you may not simply be able to expense it, if that's really the case. I mean, that's a case where something would be really out of whack if there's no other aspect to it.
We're trying to take a contextual approach here. We got some great feedback from MLA Mombourquette and MLA Maguire last time. I feel like it's one of those things where everyone kind of knows what it means, but it's really to put into words. We know we can't go to a beer fest. We know we can't go to a wine fest. But there's always the question of “what about these events?” in the middle.
I would say to take a look at the situation and see what's going on. Are there other aspects to it? Something like that, if it's a wine-tasting but it's fundamentally a fundraiser and they're showing works of art or something like that, then it's probably not going to be the dominant theme. It's just one small aspect of it there. If it's nothing more than a wine-tasting, that's probably a case where you may have to either swallow the cost - would have to literally swallow the cost, no pun intended - or ask for your money back in that situation. That would almost be - I don't want to say a case of false advertising, but there should be enough on the advertising on the ticket to go on. If there's enough there and that looks good, we should be fine.
[4:15 p.m.]
BRENDAN MAGUIRE: I just want to be clear. If we're going to an event - I go to the local community play and it includes dinner and they have a glass of wine with the dinner, that's fine. I don't think it's appropriate for us to be expensing alcohol or going to an event that is predominantly based around alcohol. I know the public service can't do that, so I don't think it is fair for us to act as if we're above them or we can do things that they can't. I just want to be very clear.
They have the annual beer tasting or beer fest or whatever it is every year here in Halifax. They have the wine tasting, the scotch tasting, all those things - those are not expense-able. If it's a fundraiser where they're like, “Okay, come taste the wines of the world while you watch this,” that, to me, should not be expensed either. Because when you think about it, if the shoe was on the other foot and it was one of the public servants, they would not be able to expense it. Also, if we're at a table and there's a bottle of wine and they ask you if you want to buy a bottle of wine, that's not expense-able. I just want to be very clear. It's an event where you show up and it's a dinner and at most of these dinners, they give you a complimentary glass of wine, or you show up to an event and there's whatever. Are we good with that?
JAMES CHARLTON: I'll just say that if it's an event and they say, “Do you want to buy a bottle of wine,” you can do that on your own dime. If you go to an event and it's a community dinner, and there's a bottle of wine at every table or everyone gets a complimentary glass, then obviously it's not the predominant aspect of it. Use your own judgment.
My suggestion would actually be if there's an event and you feel like there's any ambiguity in the advertising or the tickets, come and speak to me, or speak to Karen or someone in Karen's office. We can take a look at it and we can say, “No, it's okay to get this ticket. Everything that we see says this event meets with our approval,” or “This is problematic. We don't think you'll be able to expense it.” If you run it by us first, we can basically - hopefully - be in a position to more or less pre-approve, screen that for you, and let you know what the decision on the claim is going to be.
THE CHAIR: Any other comments, concerns, questions?
Would someone move that the House of Assembly directive respecting expense claims for tickets be approved? So moved by MLA Maguire, seconded by MLA Lachance.
All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.
The motion is carried.
The sixth item on the agenda is a review of the financials from the third quarter of the 2025-2026 fiscal year. I will ask the Director of Finance and Administration to speak to this matter. Ms. Howard.
KAREN HOWARD: There's really not much to speak on other than our forecast is pretty much where we'd expect at this point. Everything has been accounted for up to the third quarter, which is the end of December 31, 2025. Also, you'll note that the ministers' salaries and expenses, where there was an error when I last reported on the financials, that has been fixed in the new S/4 system and has been cleaned up on this report. It's no longer doubled or it is now actually what it's supposed to be.
THE CHAIR: The seventh and final item on the agenda is an in camera discussion on a human resources matter. This marks the end of the public portion of this meeting. We will adjourn immediately following the in camera discussion.
I will now ask everyone except for members and House of Assembly staff to leave the room.
[The public meeting adjourned at 4:19 p.m.]
