[Page 2886]

HALIFAX, TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2026

Sixty-fifth General Assembly

First Session

11:00 A.M.

SPEAKER

Hon. Danielle Barkhouse

DEPUTY SPEAKERS

Marco MacLeod, Tom Taggart, Julie Vanexan

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

[The national anthem was played.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. We will now begin the Daily Routine.

PRESENTING AND READING PETITIONS

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

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : I beg leave to table a petition from Nova Scotians from across the province, the operative clause of which reads:

We, the undersigned residents of Nova Scotia, call upon the Nova Scotia House of Assembly to act in the interests of public health, environmental integrity, and community safety by:

1. Immediately halting the current Request for Proposals open for uranium exploration and extraction in Nova Scotia;

2. Reinstating the moratorium on uranium exploration and extraction without delay;

3. Instituting a permanent legislative ban on uranium exploration and extraction to ensure long-term protection of Nova Scotians, our watersheds, and our environment from the significant and well-documented risks associated with uranium-related industrial activities.

[Page 2887]

Speaker, there are approximately 150 signatures on the petition, and I have affixed my signature to the petition, as required by Rule 63(5).

THE SPEAKER « » : The petition is tabled.

The honourable member for Lunenburg West.

HON. BECKY DRUHAN « » : I beg leave to table a petition on behalf of Nova Scotians to the Nova Scotia House of Assembly. The operative clause reads:

We, the undersigned residents of Nova Scotia, call upon the Nova Scotia House of Assembly to act in the interests of public health, environmental integrity, and community safety by:

1. Immediately halting the current Request for Proposals open for uranium exploration and extraction in Nova Scotia;

2. Reinstating the moratorium on uranium exploration and extraction without delay;

3. Instituting a permanent legislative ban on uranium exploration and extraction to ensure long-term protection of Nova Scotians, our watersheds, and our environment from the significant and well-documented risks associated with uranium-related industrial activities.

Speaker, I have affixed my signature in support and in accordance with the Rules of the House.

THE SPEAKER « » : The petition is tabled.

The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier.

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction prior to introducing my petition.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

KENDRA COOMBES « » : In the East Gallery, we have Kacy De Long, Marian Troyer, Connie Duchesne, Karen Acton-Bond, Colby Sawler, Meagan Dimmell, Marion Moore, Nancy Covington, and Sarah Trask. They are part of the Citizens Against Uranium Exploration and Mining in Nova Scotia group, and today we are about to table 1,600 petitions.

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome to the House. We all hope you enjoy your time here.

The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier.

[Page 2888]

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition on behalf of Nova Scotians with the operative clause reading:

We, the undersigned residents of Nova Scotia, call upon the Nova Scotia House of Assembly to act in the interests of public health, environmental integrity, and community safety by:

1. Immediately halting the current Request for Proposals open for uranium exploration and extraction in Nova Scotia;

2. Reinstating the moratorium on uranium exploration and extraction without delay;

3. Instituting a permanent legislative ban on uranium exploration and extraction to ensure long-term protection of Nova Scotians, our watersheds, and our environment from the significant and well-documented risks associated with uranium-related industrial activities.

I have 838 petitions, which brings us to date to 1,600, and that added to the ones tabled in the fall of 7,000, for a total of 8,600 signatures for Nova Scotians in the past two sittings.

THE SPEAKER « » : The petition is tabled.

PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS

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

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : Speaker, I beg leave to table a report from the United Kingdom Department for Science, Innovation and Technology related to consultations that government is doing about how children use technology, including social media. The document is titled Growing up in the online world: a national consultation.

THE SPEAKER « » : The report is tabled.

STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS

GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of African Nova Scotian Affairs.

RESOLUTION NO. 387

[Page 2889]

HON. TWILA GROSSE « » : I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas African Nova Scotians and people of African descent have raised serious concerns about the impact of recent budget decisions - those concerns are heard and understood, and any changes to programs that support our youth, our culture, and our collective well-being must be approached with care; and

Whereas the Office of African Nova Scotian Affairs will continue to engage and meet with affected organizations to assess the impact of these changes and gather grounded input as we continue working with my colleagues across departments to provide clear advice on what is essential in order to protect progress and equity; and

Whereas as Minister of African Nova Scotian Affairs, my responsibility is to ensure that the voices of our community are at the table and that the decisions reflect our lived realities. It is my commitment and the commitment of our office that we advocate for African Nova Scotians and people of African descent as we support the organizations that uplift our communities, and we ensure that equity guides the work ahead;

Therefore be it resolved that as our community's strength, resilience, and leadership continues to shape this province, so shall the Office of African Nova Scotian Affairs continue to stand, represent, and work with the community as we move forward.

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

THE SPEAKER « » : There is a request for waiver. Is it agreed?

It is agreed.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

[11:15 a.m.]

The honourable Minister responsible for the Office of L'nu Affairs.

RESOLUTION NO. 388

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

Whereas the Province of Nova Scotia is in an incredibly tight fiscal time, and we must prioritize the core services of health care, education, housing, school lunches, and affordability; and

[Page 2890]

Whereas even in these challenging times, we have made it clear that reconciliation and our commitments to Mi'kmaw communities are not optional - they are foundational; and

Whereas we have ensured continued support for Mi'kmaw language revitalization and the Mi'kmaw Cultural Activities Program; we are backing Mi'kmaw History Month through the Department of Communities, Culture, Tourism and Heritage; we are investing in community through the Community Mawio'mi Development Fund; we are proud to support the Indigenous Blacks & Mi'kmaq Initiative at the Dalhousie University Schulich School of Law; and we continue to support school lunch programs, sport, and physical activity for Mi'kmaw students through the Mi'kmaq Services Division of the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development and our partnership with Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey;

Therefore be it resolved that even in tight times, the commitment of our government remains strong, protecting core services while advancing reconciliation in real, tangible ways for Mi'kmaw communities across Nova Scotia.

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

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

Is it agreed?

I hear several Noes.

The notice is tabled.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

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

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Speaker, may I make a few introductions before I table the bill?

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Speaker, in the East Gallery are members of the Nova Scotia Women's Liberal Commission. Over the last year, they've been doing incredible work as a team with women across Nova Scotia and with many advocates, many experts, and many survivors about the misuse of non-disclosure agreements.

[Page 2891]

I want to recognize who's here today. I'll start with the Honourable Margaret Miller, a former MLA and Cabinet minister and president of the Nova Scotia Liberal Party; Jennifer Graves, who is a survivor and an advocate; Jane Lowe, the vice-chair and policy chair of the Nova Scotia Women's Liberal Commission; Andrea Hilchie-Pye, Nova Scotia Women's Liberal Commission policy committee member; Joanna Mersky Wexler, Nova Scotia Liberal Party member-at-large and Nova Scotia Women's Liberal Commission policy committee member; and former MLA Joyce Treen.

Three people I do want to mention who aren't here today are Liz Healy, the chair of the Nova Scotia Women's Liberal Commission; Kristina Fifield, social worker and advocate; and Liz LeClair, survivor and advocate.

Speaker, I'm so honoured to stand in my place and table their work. It was absolutely amazing to watch the passion and the love go into this. (Applause)

Bill No. 217 - An Act to Stop the Misuse of Non-disclosure Agreements. (Hon. Derek Mombourquette)

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

Before we move on, there has been a request via text message from someone to revert to Government Notices of Motion.

Is it agreed?

It is agreed.

[GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Acadian Affairs and Francophonie.

HON. COLTON LEBLANC « » : Madame la Présidente, avant ma déclaration, j'aimerais souligner la présence des jeunes leaders de la 10^e année à la 12^e année de l'École secondaire de Clare. Ils sont ici pour une visite aujourd'hui à l'Assemblée législative.

Speaker, before my government notice of motion, I'd like to recognize future leaders - or actually, current leaders of this province - from the Grades 10 and 11 class from École secondaire de Clare. (Applause)

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome to the House. We hope you enjoy your time here, including the people here introduced by the member for Sydney-Membertou. We hope you enjoy your time.

[Page 2892]

The honourable Minister of Acadian Affairs and Francophonie.

RESOLUTION NO. 389

HON. COLTON LEBLANC « » : Madame la Présidente, à une date ultérieure je demanderai l'adoption de la résolution suivante :

Attendu que la Société historique acadienne de la Baie Sainte-Marie célèbre fièrement son 50^e anniversaire cette année; et

Attendu que l'histoire, les traditions et l'expression culturelle dynamique de la communauté acadienne enrichissent considérablement le patrimoine et la diversité culturelle de la Nouvelle-Écosse et du Canada; et

Attendu que depuis les débuts de la Société en 1976, ce groupe de bénévoles a accompli un travail incroyable de recherche, de préservation, de création de liens et de promotion de la riche histoire acadienne de la région de Clare, de sa généalogie et de sa culture en aidant les familles à se retrouver en élucidant les mystères qui dataient depuis plusieurs siècles et en renforçant l'importance du français en Nouvelle-Écosse;

Par conséquent, qu'il soit résolu que tous les membres de l'Assemblée législative se joignent à moi pour reconnaître la Société historique acadienne de la Baie Sainte-Marie et son engagement envers notre province.

Je demande l'adoption de cette résolution sans préavis et sans débat.

Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas the Société historique acadienne de la Baie Sainte-Marie proudly celebrates their 50^th anniversary this year; and

Whereas the history, traditions, and vibrant cultural expressions of Acadian communities significantly enrich the heritage and diversity of both Nova Scotia and Canada; and

Whereas since the society began in 1976, this group of volunteers has done incredible work researching, preserving, connecting, and promoting the region of Clare's rich Acadian history, genealogy, and culture, helping families reconnect, solving mysteries that span centuries, and deepening Nova Scotia's connection with the French language;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of the House of Assembly join me in recognizing the Société historique acadienne de la Baie Sainte-Marie on their commitment to our province.

[Page 2893]

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 Emergency Management.

RESOLUTION NO. 390

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

Whereas local responders play a critical role in leading emergency response in their communities, and regional emergency management organizations led by municipalities are crucial in this; and

Whereas this government listens to the needs of our emergency management specialists and will always show up for them the way they show up for our residents, which includes funding for strengthening their regional capacity; and

Whereas we have distributed more than $800,000 to these groups to expand their ability to serve their communities and collaborate with other organizations in the area;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House recognize that investing in strengthening regional and local emergency response capacity is key to making Nova Scotia resilient in the face of emergencies and that this collaboration between all levels of government has positive results for all of us.

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 2894]

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

The honourable Minister of Addictions and Mental Health.

HON. BRIAN COMER « » : Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

BRIAN COMER « » : Speaker, in your gallery today, we have the CEO of the Mental Health Foundation of Nova Scotia, Starr Cunningham, here with us today. They do important work from one end of the province to the other with community groups, with individuals, and with great organizations. We've been fortunate to work with them closely as the government the last couple years. We're happy to support the work they do.

I ask Starr to stand and receive the warm welcome of the House. (Applause)

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

The honourable Minister of Addictions and Mental Health.

RESOLUTION NO. 391

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

Whereas the Mental Health Foundation of Nova Scotia is a pillar in supporting local organizations to move forward important projects that contribute to the well-being of communities across the province; and

Whereas charities, community groups, and local organizations were awarded 158 project grants last year to lead initiatives, improving the mental health of Nova Scotians; and

Whereas these grants support everything from youth outreach, peer support, and school-based programs, to seniors' wellness, culturally grounded supports, arts-based healing, trauma-informed services, and programs for people facing homelessness, violence or justice system involvement;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of the House join me to applaud these organizations that are enriching communities while providing crucial support.

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

[Page 2895]

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 Emergency Management.

RESOLUTION NO. 392

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

Whereas climate change is contributing to increasingly dry and hot conditions that are directly affecting the length and severity of our wildfire seasons, requiring us to continually strengthen and adapt our wildfire response strategies to include all available suppression tools; and

Whereas our helicopter water bombers are a vital asset in wildfire suppression, and also play an important role in other critical operations, including search and rescue, which is why we are upgrading our fleet with two new aircraft already here, and two arriving by summer; and

Whereas Budget 2026 includes $6.5 million to contract four fixed wing aircraft, plus a Bird Dog to operate for the majority of the upcoming wildfire season, stationed in Nova Scotia and ready to serve whenever and wherever they are needed, and another $300,000 for air attack officers who coordinate all the aircraft working a wildfire;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House recognize that while prevention is our first line of defence, the department is continuously adapting its robust wildfire suppression program to make sure we're always prepared to protect our people and our communities.

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 2896]

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

[INTRODUCTION OF BILLS]

Bill No. 218 - An Act to Build More Model Homes Faster. (Claudia Chender)

Bill No. 219 - An Act to Amend Chapter 246 of the Revised Statutes, 1989, the Labour Standards Code, Respecting a Leave for Victims of Gender-based Violence. (Hon. Iain Rankin)

Bill No. 220 - An Act to Protect Renters from Unfair Practices. (Claudia Chender)

Bill No. 221 - An Act to Provide for a Review of the Victim Services Program. (Hon. Iain Rankin)

Bill No. 222 - An Act Respecting Affordable Housing Accountability. (Claudia Chender)

Bill No. 223 - An Act Respecting a Provincial Student Housing Strategy. (Claudia Chender)

THE SPEAKER « » : Order that these bills be read a second time on a future day.

[11:30 a.m.]

NOTICES OF MOTION

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

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

HON. JOHN A. MACDONALD: Thank you, Speaker. May I make an introduction?

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

JOHN A. MACDONALD: It's unusual that somebody would show up on their birthday, but I just want to mention that Anne Balser, the sister of the member for Digby-Annapolis. It's her birthday today. (Applause)

THE SPEAKER « » : Happy Birthday, honourable member. We won't embarrass you by saying your age. You are very young.

[Page 2897]

The honourable member for Fairview-Clayton Park.

LINA HAMID « » : Thank you, Speaker. I beg leave to make an introduction relative to my member's statement.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

LINA HAMID « » : In the gallery, we have family of the late Johanna Marie Sutcliffe. If you are able to stand as I call your name: her father John, her mother Dorice, and her sister Liz. They are joined by a community advocate and former MLA, Bob Levy. (Applause)

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome to the House. We hope you enjoy your time here. The House does not allow props most of the time, but today is a special day.

The honourable member for Fairview-Clayton Park.

SUTCLIFFE, JOHANNA MARIE: DEATH OF - TRIBUTE

LINA HAMID « » : Thank you very much for that, Speaker. I rise today to honour the life and lasting memory of Johanna Marie Sutcliffe, a beloved daughter, sister, and friend to many. She passed away suddenly on May 2, 2025, at her Eden House home in Wolfville. She was 43 years old.

She is remembered as being full of joy, celebrating many aspects of her busy life. Upon graduating high school, she went on to spend the next two decades at the Flower Cart in New Minas, a highly-regarded human services organization.

Johanna was an accomplished artist. She never forgot an anniversary or a birthday. Her many sketch books reflect lovely interpretations of her life experiences. She was the designated designer of cards for all events taking place at Eden House.

A dedicated Special Olympian, Johanna attended provincial games, both summer and winter, for over 25 years. In 2020 she and her fellow Kings curling team members represented the province of Nova Scotia in the Special Olympics National Winter Games held in Thunder Bay, Ontario.

Johanna was a bright star in her family's life. She is forever and deeply loved, and forever remembered by them. Please join me in taking a moment to commemorate Johanna Sutcliffe's life alongside her loving and devoted family in the gallery.

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

[Page 2898]

N.S. WOMEN'S LIB. COMMISSION: NDA RESEARCH - RECOG.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedicated members of the Nova Scotia Women's Liberal Commission and advocates joining us today in the gallery.

For more than a year the Commission has been doing important work examining the misuse of non-disclosure agreements, particularly in cases involving harassment, discrimination, and abuse.

NDAs were never meant to silence survivors or protect bad actors, yet too often they have been used in ways to prevent people from telling their stories and seeking justice. This work matters. It's about fairness, it's about accountability, and it's about ensuring that no one is pressured into silence when they have experienced harm. While we continue to address issues like gender-based violence in our province, we must also confront the systems that allow misconduct to be hidden.

To the members and advocates here today, thank you for your leadership, your courage, and your commitment to meaningful change. We are proud to stand with you and advocate alongside you.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Yarmouth.

EPILEPSY AWARENESS MO.: PURPLE SHIRT DAY - RECOG.

NICK HILTON « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize Epilepsy Awareness Day and to acknowledge the resilience of those living with epilepsy as well as the dedicated professionals who support them.

Thousands of Nova Scotians live with epilepsy and their strength and determination deserve our recognition and our action. As part of Epilepsy Awareness Month, we celebrate Purple Day on March 26^th, which was created in 2008 by Nova Scotia's Cassidy Megan and is now recognized around the world. The colour purple represents strength, courage, and unity. It serves as a reminder of our collective responsibility to promote, educate, and give compassion and inclusivity for those affected by the condition.

Here in Nova Scotia, the Epilepsy Association of the Maritimes plays a valuable role in our community. As a non-profit organization, they provide support to individuals and families affected by epilepsy. They raise awareness and advocate tirelessly for the needs of the epilepsy community across the province and the Maritimes. Together, let us continue to champion a world where those living with epilepsy feel understood, supported, and included.

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

[Page 2899]

NDA: END USE - RECOG.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Speaker, I rise today for what me the dozenth time in this House to call for the end of the use of non-disclosure agreements.

Many of the people in the gallery today have been advocating for this for close to a decade. The first conversations that I had on this topic were between former MLA Karla McFarlane and me. This extended to many other members of many other parties, including independents, and it seems that everyone but this government can agree that non-disclosure agreements are harmful and damaging. They allow perpetrators to continue to perpetrate violence, harm, and harassment against survivors - most of whom are women - and they need to be stopped. These agreements have been legislated out of existence in jurisdictions around the world and it's time for Nova Scotia to act.

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

NDA: END MISUSE - RECOG.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Thank you, Speaker, and I am going to my member statement because this is a very emotional topic for me.

I echo my colleagues in talking about the importance of ending the misuse of NDAs. Every day we turn on the news, we hear story after story of harassment, exploitation, and abuse followed by one familiar pattern: survivors being silenced while those in positions of power are being protected. Too often the tool that is used is a non-disclosure agreement. NDAs do have a legitimate purpose in business, but they should never be used to silence victims, to hide wrongdoing, and protect predators from accountability.

This is not a problem somewhere else. It happens in our communities - my communities, your communities. It happens in our workplaces, in our institutions, universities, political organizations. Survivors are not strangers. They are our sisters, our daughters, our friends, our colleagues, and our staff. I implore this government to find the courage to be their voice and end the use of NDAs in the Province of Nova Scotia.

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

JULIE VANEXAN « » : Speaker, I beg leave to make a brief introduction relevant to my member's statement.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

JULIE VANEXAN « » : Speaker, in your Gallery, the Speaker's Gallery, we have Holly Thompson and her daughter, Jenna. I would ask them to stand and receive a warm welcome and thank them both for travelling, to join us in the House today.

[Page 2900]

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome to the House, we hope you enjoy your time here.

The honourable member for Kings South.

THOMPSON, HOLLY: DIST. ROTARIAN OF THE YR. AWARD RECIP. - CONGRATS

JULIE VANEXAN « » : I rise today to recognize Holly Thompson, an outstanding Rotarian and community leader who last year was named District Rotarian of the Year. Holly has served our region with extraordinary dedication as a longtime volunteer with Girl Guides of Canada, the treasurer of the Flower Cart and through her leadership at Landmark East school.

She has also organized major community events, including the Atlantic Region's largest soccer tournament and the annual Parade of Lights held in New Minas.

At the Rotary Club of New Minas Sunrise, Holly is now in her fifth year as President. She has guided the club through its strategic plan and led initiatives that strengthen food security in our community, including the Little Pantry program.

For 15 years she has also been part of the team delivering the annual golf tournament, while chairing many other successful events, including the Food for Thought breakfast program.

Holly also chairs the Rotary Global Grant Committee, which is addressing needs at Landmark East School by supporting upgraded technology, specialized equipment, and new programming for students.

Speaker, I ask the members of this House to please join me in congratulating Holly Thompson on these remarkable achievements and thanking her for her commitment to not just our community but to our province.

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

HON. BECKY DRUHAN « » : I beg leave to make an introduction.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

BECKY DRUHAN « » : Joining us in the West Gallery are Karen Penney and Jillian Aucoin. I hope they accept the warm welcome of the House. They are here as the subjects of my member's statement. (Applause)

[Page 2901]

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

The honourable member for Lunenburg West.

PENNY, KAREN/AUCOIN, GILLIAN: ADHD IN WOMEN AWARENESS - RECOG.

HON. BECKY DRUHAN « » : I rise today to recognize two Nova Scotians, Karen Penney and Jillian Aucoin, for their leadership in raising awareness and building support for Canadian women living with ADHD. Inspired by their own journeys to diagnosis, Karen and Jillian turned personal challenge into purpose. Just over a month ago they created a Facebook support page for Canadian women who are late diagnosed, newly diagnosed, self-diagnosed, or questioning.

In a short time that community has grown to almost 900 members, fostering both virtual and in-person connections in a safe, supportive space. Their work brings attention to the realities many women face - frequent misdiagnosis, long wait times for assessment and treatment, gaps in after care and the critical need for peer support. It also provides hope and health by creating a place for community by connecting and amplifying these voices, Karan and Jillian are helping women feel seen, understood and less alone.

Speaker, I ask members to join me in thanking Karen Penney and Jillian Aucoin for their compassion, their advocacy and meaningful contribution to women's health and well-being across Canada.

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

PAUL WOZNEY « » : Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

PAUL WOZNEY « » : With us today in the gallery we have Mike Strang, President of the Lakeshore Curling Club, based in Lower Sackville. He is here today to be recognized for the 50^th anniversary of the Lakeshore Curling Club. I invite the House to extend him the warmest of greetings. (Applause)

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

The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.

LAKESHORE CURLING CLUB: 50^TH ANNIV. - CONGRATS.

[Page 2902]

PAUL WOZNEY « » : It's a pleasure to stand today in recognition of an organization which for over two decades has helped make Sackville a hub of sport and recreation for all. The Lakeshore Curling Club, established in 2003 at the Sackville Sports Stadium, maintains a six-sheet facility and a membership list of over 500.

The club routinely hosts all echelons of curling, from Fun Spiels to provincial and national championships. More than an accomplished host, Lakeshore is a training ground for greatness felt across the country. Lakeshore players have been fixtures about the Canadian Under-18 Curling Championships and Canadian Wheelchair Championships in recent years and the club counts numerous current brier players amongst its alumni.

Speaker, I ask that all members join me in thanking the Lakeshore Curling Club for creating a community meant for curlers of all stripes advance from every end of Canada.

[11:45 a.m.]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Clare.

RYAN ROBICHEAU « » : Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

RYAN ROBICHEAU « » : As the minister mentioned earlier, we have students from École secondaire de Clare, accompanied by their teacher, Mme Natalie Comeau, and her daughter Adèle Comeau. Also with them is Monique Comeau from La Société acadienne de Clare. Thanks for being here. (Applause)

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome to the House. Thank you for coming here today. We hope you enjoy your time here.

The honourable member for Clare.

J & R COMEAU GREENHOUSES: LOCAL BUSINESS - RECOG.

RYAN ROBICHEAU « » : Today I'm proud to recognize a shining example of dedication, entrepreneurship, and community spirit, J & R Comeau Greenhouses, which is celebrating 64 years in business as a family-owned and operated business.

Since opening their doors in 1962, this greenhouse has become a cornerstone in our community. What began as a small family operation has grown into a trusted source of high-quality plants, flowers, and customer service. Today, under the leadership of Julien and Nathalie Comeau, the tradition continues with the same passion and integrity that built the business more than six decades ago.

[Page 2903]

J & R Comeau Greenhouses is more than a business; it's a legacy. Congratulations to the Comeau family on this incredible milestone and thank you for your continued contributions to our community.

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

C.B. COMM.: BUDGET CUTS - DENOUNCE

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Over the past several days, I've had many residents reach out to me regarding the budget cuts that this government is making. It came down to a few things.

Education: equity is not optional. They talked about how programs like the Afrocentric summer scholar programs were built through decades of advocacy and partnership, and they must be protected. They were telling me everything they worked for that gave their children a head start - now it is all being deleted.

In Cape Breton, we have a few historic Black communities, including in Whitney Pier. These cuts affect members of my community, and I stand with my community to denounce them.

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

KIDNEY HEALTH MO.: RESEARCH AND SUPPORT - RECOG.

HON. KENT SMITH « » : I rise today to recognize Kidney Health Month, observed each March to remind us how vital these organs are to our overall health.

The kidneys work tirelessly to keep us healthy, yet kidney health can be one of the most overlooked aspects of our well-being. Approximately 1 in 10 Canadians is affected by kidney disease, and many more are affected with other kidney health issues, like PKD and renal cancer.

I want to acknowledge those who work in kidney health research, health care workers, and organizations like the Kidney Foundation of Canada and the PKD Foundation of Canada for their dedication to supporting Nova Scotians living with various kidney diseases and for advancing vital research.

I encourage all Nova Scotians to learn about kidney health and risk factors and to speak with their health care provider about their kidney health. With the right knowledge, healthy living, and early detection, we can keep our kidneys healthy for years to come.

Please join me in recognizing Kidney Health Month and standing with those affected across our province.

[Page 2904]

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

HUSBAND, MURRAY: BIRTHDAY - BEST WISHES

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : I have the pleasure of doing a little lighter member statement now. I want to wish my incredible husband a happy birthday today. He's home watching - he's here watching. He is an incredible husband, father, grandfather - or Papa, as he's called - son, son-in-law, and uncle. He's an amazing man. He's an answered prayer in my life.

Many of the members here have gotten to know him. In fact, he's been known to even do a consult or two in the clinic here, otherwise known as the Legislative Library. I'm pleased to say we're in a new chapter in our lives as empty-nesters and grandparents. I look forward to the next, hopefully, few decades with him and wish him a beautiful, happy, special birthday today. I love you, Murray.

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

INT'L. DAY OF ELIM. OF RACISM: MARCH 21^ST - RECOG.

SUZY HANSEN « » : I rise today to recognize March 21^st, the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Racism remains an ongoing barrier to equitable access and participation within our society and education system. In order from us all to be free from racism, we need strong leadership to drive anti-racism initiatives, and as legislators, we have a role to play to prevent and counter it.

These targeted budget cuts to our African Nova Scotian and Indigenous community programs and services will have huge impacts. I want to be very clear: Ministers are responsible for these decisions.

Let us be leaders for our community through our votes in this House to show that we stand up against racism through our actions.

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

DAUGHTER, EMILIE: STUDENT OF THE MO. - CONGRATS.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : As we all know, we spend a lot of time away from home, especially when we're in the Legislature, and you get those text messages that come in. I got a text message yesterday that Emilie is Student of the Month at Malcolm Munroe Memorial Middle School, so I wanted to rise in my place and recognize her for that.

[Page 2905]

She's a great kid. She's got a big heart, and she puts it out there for everybody every day. You always want to celebrate your kids when you're in here. So I rise in my place to recognize Emilie. I love you so much. I'm so proud of you. Congratulations on being named Student of the Month at Malcolm Munroe.

THE SPEAKER « » : Congratulations, Emilie.

The honourable member for Pictou West.

MUSIC THERAPY AWARENESS MO.: IMPORTANT WORK - RECOG.

MARCO MACLEOD « » : Speaker, it is Music Therapy Awareness Month, a month dedicated to celebrating the impact of music on health and healing.

Music therapy uses the power of music to support the physical, emotional, and cognitive well-being of individuals across all ages and walks of life. From helping children with developmental challenges to bringing comfort to seniors living with dementia, music therapists across Nova Scotia are making a difference every day. I want to acknowledge the skilled and compassionate music therapists working in our hospitals, schools, and care homes, and the Atlantic Association for Music Therapy for their continued advocacy and leadership.

Please join me in recognizing Music Therapy Awareness Month and the healers who harness the power of music to improve lives across our provinces.

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

KRISTA GALLAGHER « » : Speaker, I beg leave to make a very brief introduction.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

KRISTA GALLAGHER « » : Thank you very much. Behind me in the gallery is a friend of mine, a former ombudsman for the City of Toronto, Fiona Crean. Welcome, Fiona.

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

The honourable member for Halifax Armdale.

EPILEPSY AWARENESS MO.: EPILEPSY ASSOC. OF THE MARITIMES - RECOG.

ROD WILSON « » : I rise today to mark Epilepsy Awareness Month in Nova Scotia. March is recognized as Epilepsy Awareness Month, also known as Purple Month, and International Purple Day for epilepsy is on March 26^th.

[Page 2906]

Across our province, 4,000 to 9,000 people are living with epilepsy. People with epilepsy often face challenges with work, school, and stigma. For that reason, I also want to recognize the important work of the Epilepsy Association of the Maritimes, which provides vital support to those living with epilepsy and their families. Thank you for your ongoing dedication, advocacy, and most importantly, judgement-free support.

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

MACCORMACK, CHIEF PAUL: RETIREMENT - CONGRATS.

HON. FRED TILLEY « » : Today I rise to recognize the remarkable career and retirement of Fire Chief Paul MacCormick.

For decades, Chief MacCormick has stood on the front lines of public safety, answering the call at all hours and in all conditions, with courage, professionalism, and steady leadership. Behind every siren and every emergency response was a commitment not only to the job but to the people he served.

Fire Chief Paul was more than a leader, he was a mentor to young firefighters, a trusted voice in times of crisis, and a steady hand guiding his department through growth. His leadership strengthened not only emergency response services but the very fabric of our community. Fire service is not simply a career; it's a calling. It demands sacrifice from family members. Today, we also thank Paul's family for sharing him with the community for so many years.

Chief MacCormack leaves behind a legacy of integrity, service, and dedication that will continue to inspire those who follow in his footsteps. On behalf of this House and the people we serve, I thank Fire Chief Paul MacCormick for his outstanding service.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. Before we move on - and this has happened quite often - there is to be no walking. There are rules. My job is to keep the rules in this House. There's to be no walking between me and the staff - mace. Please don't do it again.

The honourable member for Fairview-Clayton Park.

LINA HAMID « » : Speaker, I beg leave to make a quick introduction prior to my colleague's member statement.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

LINA HAMID « » : In the gallery today, I believe behind me, is Dalhousie's Introduction to Public Policy class, taught by PhD candidate Mohamed Ibrahim. He is with his students: Sheza Athar, Avery Sullivan, Liam Manser, Luke Smith, and Maria Nhema. (Applause)

[Page 2907]

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

The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

SHOULDER TO SHOULDER RALLY: DEFENDING N.S. - SUPPORT

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : Speaker, today democracy is in action. People are beginning to gather outside of this building, and it is nice that the road is open again so people can have a real rally out there. They are here to defend Nova Scotia.

They are defending against uranium exploration and fracking without consulting the people it will affect the most. They are here to defend against offshore oil exploration. They are here to defend Mi'kmaq Treaty Rights, and defend programs that create equity for Black and Indigenous students.

It's important what they are doing out there, and I hope that all the members will go out and have a listen to what they have to say. I hope the Ministers of Environment and Climate Change, Natural Resources, L'nu Affairs, and the Premier will all go outside and address the crowds, and really listen to what they have to say today.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Hammonds Plains-Lucasville.

FOGARTY'S GARDEN CENTRE AND FARMER'S MARKET:

LOCAL BUSINESS - RECOG.

RICK BURNS « » : Speaker, today I rise to recognize Fogarty's Garden Market, a family-run edible garden centre and farmers' market located in Kingswood, Hammonds Plains. Fogarty's grows a wide range of produce on their 5.5-acre urban farm using sustainable, organic practices. With more than 80 fruit trees, greenhouse space, and a permaculture-inspirated design, they are also home to Shirley, a solar-powered bus that operates as Canada's first mobile garden centre and farmers' market.

From May to June, their edible garden centre offers seedlings and plants, while July through November their mobile market provides fresh produce three days a week at the Cornerstone Wesleyan Church in Hammonds Plains. Fogarty's Garden Market is also a proud member of the Nova Scotia Loyal Program, helping residents identify authentic, locally-grown products.

I ask all members in the House to join me in congratulating Fogarty's Garden Market for their innovative sustainability and dedication to strengthening our local food system.

[Page 2908]

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

SHOULDER TO SHOULDER RALLY: N.S. SOLIDARITY - SUPPORT

LISA LACHANCE « » : Speaker, I rise today to honour the folks gathering outside this Legislature at this moment, as well as around the province. They are Nova Scotians. They work to strengthen their communities. They build up their communities. They are - and this is surely not an exhaustive list - youth and seniors, parents and grandparents, workers and professionals from all sectors, environmental advocates, citizen scientists, land defenders, Mi'kmaq community members, and so much more.

From tip to tip in Nova Scotia, we are so blessed to have community members who love this province so much that they work together to address common challenges, propose solutions, and protect our natural world. I join them in their passion and commitment to right relations and building a stronger Nova Scotia.

In times of uncertainty and polarization, we need to come together more than ever. We are stronger together.

On behalf of all members of this House, I thank the Nova Scotians who are standing shoulder to shoulder today.

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

MARCHI, JLENIA: ROCKINGHAM ELEM. SUPPORT - RECOG.

ADEGOKE FADARE « » : Thank you, Speaker. Let me see if I can do it in a few seconds.

I rise today to celebrate Jlenia Marchi from Clayton Park West. She is an outstanding community member whose dedication and initiative has made a remarkable impact in our community.

She is a member of the Rockingham Elementary Parent School Association where she has been instrumental in raising over $10,000 annually for the school. She is also a member of the Birdland Creation Group, on their leadership as coordinator of the annual community egg hunt. The event has doubled in attendance and has become a highlight for many communities.

I would ask all members of this House to join me in applauding Jlenia for her commitment to community service, her leadership in local events, and her unwavering support for Rockingham Elementary School.

[Page 2909]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order, please. The time for Statements by Members has elapsed.

[12:00 p.m.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS PUT BY MEMBERS TO MINISTERS

THE SPEAKER « » : The time is now 12:00 p.m. We will finish at 12:50 p.m.

The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.

DHW: ADEQUATE WOMEN'S HEALTH - ADDRESS

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Yesterday, New Democrats stood with women's health advocates and women who have had truly horrific experiences getting care in this province: a breast cancer patient who wasn't diagnosed until Stage 3 because we have virtually no access to dense-breast screening; a new mom who didn't have a family doctor and couldn't get the midwifery care she needed; and two women with life-altering endometriosis symptoms that were ignored for years.

Does the minister really think that women in this province are getting adequate care?

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON » : I want to thank the member for continuing to raise this on the floor of the Legislature.

I know that there are individuals - women and gender-diverse individuals - who have had trouble accessing care. We've been committed to increasing the capacity within the province in order to support people, not only in the Central Zone but across the province.

We have invested heavily in workforce. There are a number of gynecologists across this province - 45, in fact - all of whom are able to do straightforward surgeries. We have several surgeons in Halifax who can support people with more complex and complicated surgical excision for endometriosis. We have a thorough breast-screening program in Nova Scotia. There's lots to be proud of.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : We hear about investments, but the results tell a different story. A recent IWK survey of 30,000 women in Atlantic Canada was damning: 70 percent of women don't feel their health care needs are being met, and 86 percent want improvements to women's health care.

[Page 2910]

We have heard from women across this province on every issue, from mental health support to menopause to midwifery to endometriosis care and cancer screening, but when asked yesterday, the minister said her government was not considering a provincial women's health strategy. Leading medical professionals in our province and across the country are calling for this because women deserve a holistic, comprehensive approach to care and are being ignored.

How can the minister expect women to trust this government to fix their health care when they are cutting research?

MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : We've made a number of investments in health care, specifically for access, for women's health. I also want to acknowledge that across government, we're committed to supporting women in this province.

I want to talk about the things like the school lunch program, which is going to be $100 million this year in the budget to support families in our province. The work and the approach that's been taken to prevent gender-based violence in this province is also an important step for us in supporting women. We've looked at housing and rent supplements to support women who are fleeing intimate partner violence.

There are a number of things that are happening. We're investing in the health care system in people, we're investing in equipment, and we will continue.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : This government got elected to fix health care, and women are waiting for results. We do not have enough screening for dense breasts. That is what we heard from the patient who was diagnosed at Stage 3 because she could not get access to the further screening that she needed. Yesterday, we heard from a woman who lost an ovary because she didn't have proper endometriosis care.

This government's approach is not working, and women are paying with their health. Early interventions, early detections, and reliable, predictable care save lives.

What possible reason can the minister give for refusing to initiate a comprehensive women's health strategy based on expert advice?

MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : We do continue to work with experts on a regular basis. Dr. Iles is a thought leader and a clinical leader across this country - the Nova Scotia Breast Screening Program - we continue to meet with her on a regular basis. Nova Scotia is one of only two provinces that has a high-risk breast screening program, and Dr. Iles has led that.

We work with clinical experts at IWK. We work with clinical experts across this province. We may eventually come to a women's strategy. Right now, we're building capacity. We appreciate deeply the work of the IWK Foundation. Several of us have had an opportunity to meet with them.

[Page 2911]

We will continue to invest in women's health. We will continue to make improvements to access to care, and I look forward to having a positive working relationship with the . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable Leader of the Liberal Party.

OEAR: MARSHALL INQUIRY RECOMMENDATIONS VS. CUTS - ADDRESS

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : After the wrongful conviction of Donald Marshall Jr., the Marshall Inquiry exposed systemic racism inside our justice institutions and called for real structural reform, including better representation and fair systems. That wasn't very long ago, and these recommendations still matter. The Office of Equity and Anti-Racism was created with a mandate to dismantle systemic racism across public institutions. That includes working with all departments during the budget process.

How do these program cuts reflect the mandate of the Office of Equity and Anti-Racism and the unfinished work identified by the Marshall Inquiry?

HON. SCOTT ARMSTRONG » : The office is doing tremendous work. They've issued community network grants of almost $400,000. We're working and consulting with different groups around the province to get ideas on how to eliminate racism. There is no place in Nova Scotia for racism, and the office will continue to work and consult with groups around the province so we can develop a Nova Scotia trend to eliminate racism in the short term.

IAIN RANKIN « » : Ideas are great, but we need action, and action takes resources. Nova Scotia has recently been recognized as having among the highest rates of overrepresentation of Indigenous and Black people in our correctional facilities. Given that reality, decisions can't be casual. We've asked what criteria was used to choose these programs to cut, who was consulted, and whether there was an equity impact assessment done. We're not getting a clear answer. We're actually hearing that there will be an assessment done after the budget, after the fact.

Can the minister explain how these programs were selected for cuts - 82 equity programs - and whether an equity lens was actually applied before the decision was made?

SCOTT ARMSTRONG « » : Of course staff who are experts in this area review the budgets. They make recommendations, but as the minister responsible for the office, the buck stops here. We have to make sure that we put forward a program that supports each and every organization across this province. That is why we take a long and hard look at any reductions that are made. We believe that we have a good profile of grants and supports to eliminate racism in this province. I stand behind it. It's a goal of mine, it's a goal of our department, it's a goal of the office, and it's a goal of this government.

[Page 2912]

IAIN RANKIN « » : I'm glad to hear some accountability. One of the measurable improvements we've seen in recent years is in judicial diversity. The number of Black judges in Nova Scotia has grown, and that progress came from intentional mentorship, recruitment, and supports, programs like the IB&M that were created to help students from marginalized communities pursue careers in law and build a large and more representative pool of lawyers and future judges. At the same time, overrepresentation in Corrections remains so stark that cutting a program that helps people from those same communities enter the legal profession sends the wrong message.

Given the history, the data on overrepresentation, and modest but real gains in representation, why would the government cut the IB&M program and risk reversing the progress?

SCOTT ARMSTRONG « » : When you're in government, you have to make tough decisions, as the member well knows as a former Premier. We took a look at all programs, and we're making sure that the programs that are necessary like the very one he mentioned - that's an important program. It provides equity and it provides the ability for people from underserved communities to progress through the justice system to become lawyers, to become justices someday.

We still have a very strong budget for that. We continue to work with them. They do excellent work, and we are sure that they have the budget they need to continue those great efforts.

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

OLA: PROGRAM CUT FRUSTRATIONS - EXPLAIN

LISA LACHANCE « » : People are upset and frustrated about these cuts and the harm they will cause to communities across the province. Programs that support Mi'kmaw and Indigenous cultural services have been cut by $2.2 million. This includes eight grants in the Office of L'nu Affairs that have been completely eliminated.

Why has the Minister of L'nu Affairs cut so much support from Mi'kmaw and Indigenous cultural and community programs?

HON. LEAH MARTIN « » : There's no mystery that we're in a tight fiscal time and these cuts are hard. We feel them. Everybody feels them. It's an honest reality that we're in.

[Page 2913]

I got into government because I care about people. I got into government because I care about marginalized communities, housing. I care about all Nova Scotians.

Nobody finds these decisions easy but there are a couple of points that are really important to clarify. The first one that I'll say is that, of course, we are focusing on our core needs - housing, health care, education, but also just in the last year, since the 2024-25 budget, versus 2021-22, we have an increase of over $17.8 million in support for Mi'kmaw and Indigenous communities across government.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Speaker, this government has spent us into this deficit. These cuts aren't necessary. As well, most insultingly, these cuts don't actually touch the larger problem. The Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaw Chiefs has said the cuts to Mi'kmaq-specific programs were targeted. I will table that.

Eskasoni Mi'kmaw Nation Chief Leroy Denny said the cuts to programs the province and Mi'kmaq have been partners on for years is incredibly disappointing. This government's track record with Mi'kmaw communities includes many missteps and a lack of consultation. I'll table that.

My question to the minister is: Why has the minister allowed these cuts, taking away funding from key programs, such as the Mi'kmaw Native Friendship Centre, Treaty Day ceremonial awards and the Mi'kmaw History Month?

LEAH MARTIN « » : We invested in Nova Scotians, and this is why we have the deficit that we have, and I do stand behind that. These aren't easy decisions to make. When I first got into non-profit work in housing and homelessness these problems were coming from 30 years of inactivity and 30 years of underinvesting.

Of course, these cuts currently do hurt but we still have a lot of good and that's the clarity that I'd like to provide. The Mi'kmaw Cultural Activities Program, the Mi'kmaw History Month, Community Mawio'mi Development Fund, Indigenous Blacks & Mi'kmaq Initiative at the Dalhousie University Schulich School of Law, language revitalization - the list goes on and on.

We continue to invest in communities as much as we possibly can.

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

DOJ: NDA TALKING POINTS VS. ACTION - EXPLAIN

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Most of the programs that the minister just rattled off have been cut and those cuts don't make up a percent of the deficit. Actions speak louder than talking points from this government. They promised to ban in days when they were campaigning; they changed their minds in office. NDAs are often used to silence survivors of harassment and abuse. They take away people's right to speak about their experience. When there are used, survivors can't warn others about dangerous perpetrators who are able to continue abuse.

[Page 2914]

This government has been in power for five years and three justice ministers have failed to act. It is time for them to decide who they are defending.

My question to the minister is: Will this government stop making excuses and listen to survivors and ban NDAs?

HON. SCOTT ARMSTRONG « » : Supporting survivors with sensitivity and respect remains a priority of this government. Non-disclosure agreements, NDAs, should never be used to silence victims. The Uniform Law Conference of Canada is considering this issue of NDAs. They are now developing model legislation expected later this year.

We will continue to work with our provincial partners and hopefully bring forward legislation that will eliminate the use of NDAs for this purpose in the future.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : If the minister believes that NDAs should never be used to silence victims, he should not allow that to happen and that is what he is doing.

[12:15 p.m.]

There is an epidemic of intimate partner violence in this province and this government's first response - well their former Justice Minister downplayed the seriousness that violence against women poses and had to leave his role. It seems like this government is still missing the mark when it comes to taking action. In this budget they have cut funding for domestic violence courts in Halifax and Sydney. They have cut funding for programs related to the Mass Casualty Commission, all when we know that women need more resources, not fewer. If this government takes intimate partner violence seriously, why are they cutting it?

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable member Attorney General and Minister of Justice.

SCOTT ARMSTRONG « » : This is an epidemic, and we do take this very seriously. The domestic violence courts in both Sydney and Halifax are fully funded operationally. There was a reduction made to two grants, which were for legal aid from $75,000 to $60,000. Now, we believe that would be enough money to fully fund the program that's needed. If not, we will look internally and make sure those programs are fully funded.

[Page 2915]

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

DPW: BRIDGE TOLL ELIMINATION - ADDRESS

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : For the past week, we have been hearing from Nova Scotians who are upset about the choices in this budget. They're raising concerns about cuts to arts and culture, tourism, Mi'kmaw and African Nova Scotian supports, just to name a few. In my office, one of the choices I hear the most about is the one to eliminate bridge tolls. The decision came with a real cost, roughly the same cost that was cut from the Heating Assistance Rebate Program.

At home in Cape Breton, I'm not hearing from people celebrating free tolls. I'm hearing from seniors and working families worried about how they're going to pay their heating bills.

My question is to the Minister of Public of Public Works: Why were free bridge tolls in Halifax more important than helping low- and middle-income Nova Scotians heat their homes?

HON. FRED TILLEY « » : I thank the honourable member for the question. I would ask the member: When we have 4,109 or more bridges in Nova Scotia, why would only two have a toll? Would he suggest that a toll go on the Seal Island Bridge in Cape Breton? In their own platform, they talked about reducing the HST by 2 percent, which would have put this government in a much deeper situation.

I would like to talk about what we're doing for seniors: the Seniors Care Grant - $750. We help hundreds if not thousands of seniors in our office on a daily basis, filling out forms . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. Order.

The honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Speaker, they gave up significant revenue. The bridge tolls didn't exist just for the sake of it. They were a dedicated revenue stream for bridge operations and maintenance. By eliminating them, the government hasn't eliminated the cost of maintaining those bridges; it has simply shifted that cost onto taxpayers across the province. So, now, Nova Scotians are paying twice: once through law supports like the heating rebate and again through general revenues that will have to cover the bridge upkeep.

Did the Minister of Public Works account for the long-term loss of that revenue stream, and does he believe shifting those maintenance costs onto all taxpayers is a fair trade-off for eliminating tolls?

[Page 2916]

FRED TILLEY « » : Again, I would ask the honourable member for Sydney-Membertou what he would do with the rest of the bridges in Nova Scotia. Should Nova Scotians pay for every bridge? Should we pay for only two bridges? It's a question of fairness, and the capital plan for those bridges is well in hand.

I want to go back, and I want to talk about what we're doing. We are raising the Seniors Care Grant. We've doubled the HARP grant from when that government was in office. We're helping Nova Scotians. We're making things affordable. And we are committed to the senior population in Nova Scotia. We're committed to all Nova Scotians.

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

EECD: STUDENT TRANSIT PASS PROG. CUTS - EXPLAIN

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Real talk: There are so many small, cruel, impactful cuts in this budget that Nova Scotians are having a hard time keeping track of which services, programs, and resources have been slashed. Even Cabinet ministers don't seem to know what's happening in their own communities.

Among the many items this government is slashing is funding for the Student Transit Pass Pilot Program, which allows students in HRM to ride the bus. If these kids don't have passes, they'll get a ride, which puts more cars on the road. Considering that Halifax traffic is an absolute disaster, how did the minister come

Considering that Halifax traffic is an absolute disaster, how did the minister come up with the idea of cutting bus passes and putting more cars on the road?

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Obviously, when you make choices like this, people are going to be impacted. I've said before, and I'll say it again, we don't do this easily.

The program was not cut. The money - $600,000 of it was transferred over to the OSD, so the most vulnerable Nova Scotians have access to the bus pass. Anyone within the catchment area of their school still has access to a school bus. No one will go without.

One of the things we found out is that we weren't getting numbers back from HRM. We were giving them the money. We didn't know how many students were using that bus pass.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : It's a lot of them. The idea that only the most vulnerable Nova Scotians need to ride the bus is one of the reasons that our traffic is so bad. We need transportation for everyone.

[Page 2917]

We've all received countless emails and letters from concerned constituents about this. These free bus passes let students get to school, to part-time jobs, and to activities independently and for free, with fewer cars on the road. By the way, the school buses are terrible, and half the time, they don't show up. This is the kind of initiative we need to support young Nova Scotians and . . . (Interruption)

THE SPEAKER « » : Order, please. I yelled order, so that means everybody relax a bit. You have 11 seconds left.

The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : This cut saves $600,000 on a $1.2 billion deficit and puts more cars on the road. Please, will the minister listen to Nova Scotians who are fed up with waiting in traffic and reverse the cut?

THE SPEAKER « » : Order again. Yes. Oh, really? Okay, good.

I ask that members speak through me to the ministers and in reverse.

The honourable Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : What little information we do know about how many kids were using that bus pass was some information that we received, where 30 percent of students responded. Of that 30 percent, only 30 percent of the 30 percent said they were using the bus passes.

We know that every child in this province who is in their catchment area will have access. I ask that the Leader of the Official Opposition table her comment and the evidence that all school buses are terrible. My children take the school bus every day. I ask that she table that.

This is the same party that said we had the worst child care in Canada. Yesterday in estimates, we showed them the proof that we have the second best in all of Canada.

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

DNR: MIN. COMMENTS ON BUDGET CUTS - ADDRESS

PAUL WOZNEY « » : Over the weekend, the Minister of Natural Resources took to social media to speak out against cuts in her own community. The minister correctly pointed out that the Queens County Adult Day and Respite Program is vital for seniors. She was saddened and disappointed about the choice to slash it while gutting the programs that preserve our wildlife and natural resources in her own department.

[Page 2918]

Will the minister stand with Nova Scotians and vote against her government's cuts or merely question those that affect her constituents?

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Seniors and Long-term Care.

HON. BARBARA ADAMS » : When there are difficult financial times, governments make difficult decisions. What I want to assure all Nova Scotians is that our mandate is to protect our most vulnerable.

We opened six new nursing homes in the last four years. We are going to go around this province and open seven more brand-new nursing homes across the province. That is jobs for hundreds of health care workers and others in those facilities.

I encourage all members who haven't had a chance to go visit those beautiful new nursing homes. They are stunning. That's what Nova Scotians have asked us to prioritize.

PAUL WOZNEY « » : The Minister of Natural Resources has said she didn't know about cuts to the Adult Day and Respite Program until she heard from the executive director. This is a Cabinet minister. Not only is this government refusing to consult with communities, they're not even consulting within Cabinet or their own caucus. My question for the minister is, will she speak up to denounce the cuts in her own department and across the board?

BARBARA ADAMS « » : One of the greatest things about being a Canadian is that there is free speech in this country. As you've seen around the world, not all countries have that privilege. All of our members here are dealing with difficult situations. They care about their communities and they're going to continue to advocate for them, as they should.

The priority that Nova Scotians have told me and my department is, I want home care for my loved one, I want a long-term care bed, I want the staff to be supported, give them more staff. In this budget alone we're increasing staffing for attendant care, to make nursing care safer in our nursing homes, by $12 million. Difficult decisions are made.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable member for Cumberland North.

DHW: DEPARTMENTAL NDA USE - ADDRESS

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : My question is for the Minister of Health and Wellness. When someone is sexually assaulted in the workplace by a co-worker, the employer has a responsibility to listen to the survivor, put supports in place for counselling therapy, and take every measure to hold the perpetrator to account.

[Page 2919]

Can the Minister of Health and Wellness tell us here today: what are her views on the use of non-disclosure disagreements within her Department of Health and Wellness when there are cases of sexual assault?

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Justice.

HON. SCOTT ARMSTRONG « » : Speaker, as I said, supporting survivors with sensitivity and respect is the priority for this government. NDAs should never be used to silence victims. We stand behind that statement. We're working with other provinces, and when I go to the Federal-Provincial-Territorial meeting in the spring, this will be the first thing I'll bring up. Because I believe we need a nationwide approach to this issue. I'm going to work towards that with my colleagues from around the country.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : With all due respect, minister, we have the ability to change those laws right now in this sitting. We don't have to wait for a meeting or a conference. My question again is to the Minister of Health and Wellness. The misuse of NDAs silence survivors, sometimes leading to mental health problems such as depression, and even suicidal ideation.

If the minister was made aware that NDAs have been used in the last few months by managers of the Nova Scotia Health Authority, would she think that is acceptable? I'll follow that up: If the government is not willing to make unilateral provincial changes, would the Minister of Health and Wellness be willing to start by making a policy to end NDA use within her department of Nova Scotia Health and Wellness?

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister responsible for the Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

HON. LEAH MARTIN « » : With our cross-government approach, it's really important that we all are sharing the same message that supporting survivors and victims of sexual violence with sensitivity and respect is important to not just myself, but this entire government. We've been very clear that NDAs should not be used to silence victims. Victims should be informed about what it means to sign an NDA so they can make an informed choice.

The Department of Justice has an independent legal advice program that provides up to four hours of free legal advice to adult survivors, on criminal and civil processes. The Advisory Council on the Status of Women, along with the Department of Justice, and the Department of Labour, Skills and Immigration, provide support through the Legal Information Society of Nova Scotia, LISNS, to deliver free legal advice to victims of workplace sexual harassment.

[Page 2920]

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

CCTH: MUSEUM SECTOR CUTS - ADDRESS

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : My question is for the Minister of Communities, Culture, Tourism and Heritage. This minster's budget cuts have upended the museum sector in this province; 12 museums are closing and this government has slashed the budgets of 80 more. This cut will mean people will lose their jobs at these museums and beyond, while everyday costs keep growing on this government's watch.

Did the minister count up the job losses before he blindsided Nova Scotian museums with cuts double what they expected?

[12:30 p.m.]

HON. DAVE RITCEY » : Our museums do important work, welcoming visitors and connecting people to our heritage. We need to modernize our museum system so we can keep doing the work for future generations. The Nova Scotia museums had 28 sites, more than any other province in the country.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : With respect, Speaker, that answer makes no sense. This minister says they're hoping some of the museums they are dumping will be saved by communities taking them over, but the program to help communities do that has also been cut. These museums in rural communities are unique spaces with their own collections and stories, they put small towns on the map, and they make people come to those towns and spend money there.

How does this minister expect rural communities to survive if this government cuts their jobs and the things that make people want to live there?

DAVE RITCEY « » : We will continue to support our museum system and our 65 community-owned and operated museums right across this province. We'll continue to work with community members who want to take over these museums; we'll continue to talk with groups right across this province and keep communicating. We're listening. We'll continue to communicate.

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

ANSA: INDIGENOUS BLACKS & MI'KMAQ INIT. FUNDING CUTS - EXPLAIN

SUZY HANSEN « » : For decades, the Indigenous Blacks & Mi'kmaq Initiative has helped create a generation of Black and Indigenous lawyers, judges, Crown attorneys, and advocates in Nova Scotia. This is one of the only pathways for Black and Indigenous folks to get into one of the most gate-kept professions in Canada. Now, this government is cutting its funding by 20 percent.

[Page 2921]

Can the Minister of African Nova Scotian Affairs tell me why this government is making it harder for Black and Indigenous Nova Scotians to enter a field so key for the fight for equity?

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Justice.

HON. SCOTT ARMSTRONG « » : Any time a government has to make tough decisions like this, we have to look across government. This is a good program. It's one we're proud to fund. The reduction is 20 percent, but we believe the amount of money they have will still support young people entering the justice system, young people working to become lawyers and eventually, hopefully, become judges and reach the very top of their profession. This is a good program, we're proud to stand behind it, proud to support it, and that will continue.

SUZY HANSEN « » : I'd like to thank the Minister of African Nova Scotian Affairs - I mean the minister of everything affairs - whatever the minister of affairs is. The IB&M Initiative exists to open doors that were closed to Black and Indigenous Nova Scotians for decades, but this budget is slamming those doors shut again with no explanation, no justification, and no consultation with the communities this program was built to serve.

Can the advocate for all of our African Nova Scotian affairs, which is the Minister of African Nova Scotian Affairs, tell me what message this sends to the next Black or Mi'kmaq student who wants to start a career in law?

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of African Nova Scotian Affairs.

HON. TWILA GROSSE « » : I'm listening and I hear and I understand the concerns being raised across our African Nova Scotian communities. As the Minister of ANSA, I am that bridge, I am that advocate, and I will work with the organizations. Come and let us talk and let us discuss the impact of some of these cuts. The government continues to make major investments in the African Nova Scotian communities.

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

DHW: DIRECT EFFECTS OF CUTS - ADDRESS

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : Dr. Aaron Bates is a family physician in Antigonish, and he also works in primary care in the addictions clinic at St. Martha's Regional Hospital with inpatients. In a public letter, he warned that the $309 million in cuts will directly affect his patients. He says cuts to Mi'kmaq cultural activities and language revitalization will worsen health outcomes.

[Page 2922]

He also says that cuts to mental health supports come in the middle of a deadly addictions crisis and that reducing the caregiver benefit will further strain hospitals already operating at over 100 percent. I'll table that.

My question to the Minister of Health and Wellness is: Does the minister agree with Dr. Bates that this budget will harm our most marginalized communities and their access to health care?

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister responsible for L'nu Affairs.

HON. LEAH MARTIN « » : I really want to thank the member opposite for the question, especially because when his government was in, in 2021 and 2022, the investments in African Nova Scotian - sorry, just before that, previous to us coming into government, the investments in African Nova Scotian and Mi'kmaw communities was spread out between $13 million and $11 million - and I'll table this.

THE SPEAKER « » : Okay, but you cannot use anything as a prop, so you can table it.

LEAH MARTIN « » : My question to the minister is: Why didn't his government invest half of what our government has invested?

IAIN RANKIN « » : I don't need a history lesson from that government. I actually renamed her department to value L'nu Affairs, and the person who was in that department who helped us work with community was let go by that government, Speaker. I also created many other institutions to create change in the department that this this government is dismantling. Dr. Bates points out that cuts to programs that support First Nations communities, mental health care, and caregivers come to a significant amount, money that could have been used to protect vulnerable Nova Scotians.

Why was eliminating a bridge toll here in Halifax, which nobody was asking for, prioritized over safeguarding these important programs that help marginalized communities?

THE SPEAKER « » : Before I recognize the minister, there is no pointing across the floor. We're all getting a little lax with the rules here, making me earn my job.

The honourable Minister responsible for L'nu Affairs.

LEAH MARTIN « » : Thank you to the member for the question, although I do find it interesting, coming from a former Premier who had the chance to do all this work when he was in power. It's very strange. It's great to say you care about marginalized communities, but unfortunately for you, it's too little, too late. You had your shot. We're doing it now, same thing with housing, same thing with education. We are in investing now to make up for decades of underinvestment. Thank you so much.

[Page 2923]

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

OSD: HOME CARE PROTOCOLS - EXPLAIN

LINA HAMID « » : Johanna Sutcliffe was a bright star in her family's life, an accomplished artist, and a Special Olympian. But in May of last year, she passed away while under the care of a government-run home for people with special needs. Her family learned that she was visibly and acutely ill for three days, but nobody contacted them or got medical help until it was too late. They were only advised of her passing after the fact.

Can the Minister of Opportunities and Social Development tell us if protocols were followed in Johanna's case?

HON. BARBARA ADAMS « » : Thank you to the member for the question. While the member would know that I cannot speak to specific details, I can tell you that there is a robust investigation process that goes on, whether it's through Adult Protection Services or Child and Family Wellbeing services. Whenever there are situations such as what was referenced, we take it very seriously, Speaker, and I have confidence in the department that the process was followed.

LINA HAMID « » : The reality is when Johanna's family met with management, they were told there was no protocol to follow when somebody in the house was ill. Johanna's family is looking for answers, and they are not getting them from this government or two ministers in the past 10 months. The minister's department launched an investigation, but the family was told they would not get the results of that investigation. This is something that affects them directly, and they want to make sure that what happened to Johanna won't happen to anyone else, but they are being shut out.

Why should families trust a system that gives them no answers, no appeal, and no oversight?

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. Unfortunately, my job is to keep the rules. So I have to say that any props on the floor are not allowed, nor are any props up in the Speaker's Gallery allowed. I dislike saying this, but I ask that everyone respect that rule.

The honourable Minister of Opportunities and Social Development.

BARBARA ADAMS « » : Thank you to the member for this important question. Our sympathies are certainly with this family. The investigation process is a time-consuming process, but it is very robust. I have every confidence that the department followed the protocols that are appropriate. Unfortunately, on the floor of the House I cannot speak to any particular issues. I'd be happy to speak to the member afterwards to follow this up.

[Page 2924]

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

LR: FIGHTING BILL NO. 148 - EXPLAIN

PAUL WOZNY: On Friday, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia confirmed what workers have known for years. Bill No. 148, which froze wages and undermined workers' rights, was unconstitutional. The Liberals should never have passed this awful law in the first place, but this government promised to repeal it and never did.

Can the Minister of Labour Relations explain why he left this law in place and forced workers through a decade-long court battle?

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : I can confirm that we have received the decision, but we have to take time before we comment on it. We are reviewing that decision. We cannot comment on it.

PAUL WOZNEY « » : This case should never have gone to court in the first place. Bill No. 148 should have been repealed years ago, but because this government broke its promise, workers were forced through a decade-long court battle, wasting both their time and public money. Now that they're vindicated, they want to know: Will this minister confirm that this government will not appeal this decision, and finally commit to respecting workers' rights?

JOHN LOHR « » : I will again repeat that we have received the decision from the courts and we are reviewing it.

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

DOJ: DIRECTED POLICE INVESTIGATIONS - ADDRESS

HON. BECKY DRUHAN « » : Last week, when I asked whether the Premier or anyone on the Premier's behalf ever sought to influence or direct a police investigation or incident response, the Minister of Justice responded, "Speaker, there has been no illicit contact." When I asked about direct communication between the Premier or anyone in the Premier's Office and the Director of Public Prosecution, the minister said he was aware of no such communication.

The Premier has been in office since 2021, but this minister has served as Attorney General only since October 2025, fourth in a line of Attorneys General serving this government. The minister would only be able to say definitively that there has been no inappropriate contact if he had already investigated these questions.

[Page 2925]

My question to the minister is: Has he had cause to investigate the question of interference by the Premier's Office, and if so, will he table the findings of those investigations in this House?

HON. SCOTT ARMSTRONG « » : I was asked if I had any knowledge of any inappropriate contact between the Premier's Office - I said I had no knowledge whatsoever. There's been no investigation done. This is a continued line of questioning that has no basis in fact or reality.

The Premier and his office, and the Department of Justice, we communicate regularly in my role as Attorney General to make sure the Premier and the rest of this government has information it needs to pass constitutional and effective legislation that will support Nova Scotians, not only now, but in the future. That is my role as Attorney General. I'm fulfilling that role. I'm proud of what we're doing, and we're going to continue to move this province forward.

BECKY DRUHAN « » : It is deeply concerning to me that the minister would offer this House a definitive answer without first verifying the facts. Instead of acting as a safeguard of the independence of our justice system, the minister is offering only empty assurances. The minister may have faith in the Premier, but Nova Scotians deserve an Attorney General who operates with diligence, not assumption. Faith is not a substitute for diligence.

My question to the minister is: Will he commit to investigating whether the Premier, or anyone from the Premier's Office, has attempted to interfere with a police investigation or incident response, and whether there is direct contact between the Premier or anyone in the Premier's Office with the Director of Public Prosecution, and will he report those findings to this House?

[12:45 p.m.]

SCOTT ARMSTRONG « » : I'm sure the Minister of Finance was quaking in his boots there for a moment.

There has been no indication whatsoever that there has been anything like this going on. I have no idea why the member from Lunenburg West continues to talk about these things.

The Government of Nova Scotia is progressing in support of all Nova Scotians. We're investing in health care. We're investing in education. We're investing in public works. We are doing great work in terms of supporting the future of this province. We are lowering the attachment of people in this province who need attachment to primary health care facilitators in this province. We are at 93 percent now. We are heading to 95 percent.

[Page 2926]

That's what people are talking about, and I'm sure that's what the people in Lunenburg West are talking about too.

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

DHW: LIVERPOOL ER CLOSURES - ADDRESS

ROD WILSON « » : My colleagues at the South Shore Regional Hospital in Bridgewater tell me it is mayhem in emergency these days. That's because for the last year, the Liverpool ER has been closed on weekends.

It's been five years since this government was elected on a promise to fix health care. For one year I've been asking: What's the plan? Hearing no definitive answer, I am now switching: Why has this government not brought forward a public, transparent plan for sustainable, accessible emergency health services on the South Shore in the Western Zone of Nova Scotia?

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : The emergency services in this province, as I've told the member before, are an integrated service, and it is not only at emergency departments but also emergency response starts in community. We work hard around recruitment and retention of emergency room physicians. They do have a special skill set. We continue to look at recruitment streams at places in South Africa, as an example. We've had good luck with recruiting folks in Western Zone, in particular.

We are looking at different opportunities to bring people into rural emergency departments - regional emergency departments. We're working with Doctors Nova Scotia. We're looking at the new master agreement and looking at a number or different ways and things that emergency doctors are telling us that they would like, and we will continue that work.

ROD WILSON « » : The word "mayhem" was used by the MLA for Queens to describe the ER at the South Shore Regional in 2018. She said at that time that it was absolute mayhem: extremely busy, backlogs, and nurses and doctors run off their feet. Eight years later, things are much worse, and I am sure the MLA for Queens knows this.

Frequent closures in Shelburne and Liverpool are leaving Nova Scotians to scramble to find an ER accessible on the South Shore - yet another Nova Scotia ER scavenger hunt.

Hearing this, what does the minister have to say, not to me but to the MLA and the people of Queens County who have less ER coverage now than they did five years ago?

MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : What I want folks, particularly in Western Zone, to know is that we've made a lot of investments in health care across this province, and the South Shore Regional Hospital is currently undergoing $148 million renovation of their emergency department. This will bring brand new facilities, and it will attract new clinicians, not only doctors but other health care providers as well.

[Page 2927]

We are investing in workforce. We are investing in the expansion of beds. We've invested in EHS. We've invested in a variety of different things. We look at the system in all our zones and across the province as a dynamic system. We'll continue to make those investments, and Nova Scotians should feel hopeful about the future of health care in this province.

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

DOE: NSP RATE INCREASE - ADDRESS

KRISTA GALLAGHER « » : Nova Scotia Power wants to increase the small business power rates by 7.7 percent. What is the Minister of Energy going to do to make sure small businesses can afford their power bills?

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

HON. COLTON LEBLANC « » : Unlike the NDP - who vote against tax breaks, including lowering the threshold for small business tax breaks, increasing that number of Nova Scotia businesses that can take part - we're going to continue to support Nova Scotian businesses.

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

The honourable member for Guysborough-Tracadie.

HON. GREG MORROW » : Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction?

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

GREG MORROW « » : Speaker, in the West Gallery we have Wendy Balser, who is joining us today. She is here to celebrate the 40^th birthday of her daughter, the member for Digby-Annapolis.

Speaker, if you want to talk about one of the most, if not the most, popular member of this House across party lines, hands down, it is the member for Digby-Annapolis. You spend two minutes with this member and you feel better. It's simply impossible not to. She's a charter member of the runners caucus with myself, and we're just so excited to celebrate her day with her in this House.

[Page 2928]

She asked me not long ago - because I do have some experience - "What's it like when you turn 40?" I had three words for her: "Everything will hurt." (Standing Ovation)

THE SPEAKER « » : Well, happy birthday again, member, and happy birth day to Mama Balser.

The honourable member for Richmond.

HON. TREVOR BOUDREAU » : Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

TREVOR BOUDREAU « » : No stranger to the House here, and friend to many - a good friend of mine, Warden Lois Landry is in the East Gallery today, the warden of Richmond County, a hard-working rural representative. I'm really pleased that she could be here with us today and I'm looking forward to having a chat with her after. (Applause)

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome to the House. You're no stranger. We hope you enjoy your time here.

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD » : Speaker, would you please call the order of business Public Bills and Orders.

PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD « » : Speaker, would you please call the order of business Public Bills for Second Reading.

PUBLIC BILLS FOR SECOND READING

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD « » : 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.

[Page 2929]

HON. JOHN WHITE « » : Speaker, I move that Bill No. 212 now be read a second time.

The bill delivers another important step to strengthen how we plan, build, and deliver housing for Nova Scotians. The Act Respecting Administrative Measures for Housing proposes changes to five individual pieces of legislation. Together, these changes will create clarity for municipalities and a more responsive system that keeps important housing projects moving forward.

The bill modernizes Provincial Housing Agency legislation while maintaining the flexibility to draw on expert advice when needed. It also provides greater flexibility and more collaboration with our municipal partners. Municipalities are critical partners in our efforts to address housing needs across the province. We need to make sure they have all the tools and clarity they need to lead effectively within their councils and with the province.

Changes to the Municipal Government Act and the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter respond directly to feedback we received from municipal leaders. These changes give councils clear authority regarding CAO-performance-related discussions, training, and participation on external boards and committees. They also give council discretion to delegate CAO duties during long-term actions.

We introduced mandatory orientation training so that every newly elected council begins with a consistent understanding of their responsibilities. The Halifax Regional Municipality Charter will also be further updated to give the Minister of Municipal Affairs temporary regulative authority to adjust an urban service area boundary. This change will ensure that housing projects in the Halifax region can move forward more quickly.

Changes to the Housing in the Halifax Regional Municipality Act will provide new order-making authority to the Minister of Housing to ensure more effective coordination with HRM and Halifax Water on important infrastructure decisions. Halifax Water brings essential expertise and knowledge. Their involvement on the Executive Panel on Housing will help make planning more coordinated and keep priorities aligned.

The change is about removing bottlenecks and delay that delay housing and supporting more affordable, financially sustainable development. Bill No. 212 also includes extending the Executive Panel on Housing for two more years so they can continue their important work. The panel has been very effective at moving approvals faster, resolving issues, and coordinating priority housing projects. It is the only forum that brings senior provincial and HRM leaders together to solve barriers to housing and growth.

Extending the timeframe for the panel's work also allows us to maintain momentum on priority projects. Collectively, these changes help us act faster, work better with partners, and reduce the barriers that slow down housing projects.

[Page 2930]

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

SUZY HANSEN « » : I have a lot of questions. When we think about housing and fast-tracking so many things and acting faster, clear authority and order-making powers, Halifax Water enforcement or oversight of these folks, it's making me think of a lot of other pieces. So I'm going to walk through it because I think it's really important for us to know what's in the bill, because this is going to change a lot of things and we know that there are some things in bills or in legislation that sometimes don't fit. I want some clarity, and I'm going to write some questions down so that the minister can actually know exactly what my concerns are because there is a lot going on in this particular bill.

It says in Clause 1 that it amends the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter to require the Halifax Regional Municipality to provide, and newly elected councillors of the Municipality to attend, orientation training. I mean, I thought that was already a thing. I'm glad that that's housekeeping. That's really great because it says it will allow them to have some type of training in that position.

They "shall attend orientation training provided pursuant to subsection (2)," and

The Minister may make regulations respecting orientation training provided pursuant to subsection (2), including regulations prescribing requirements relating to

(a) the content, format and timing of the training; and

(b) who is to deliver aspects of the training.

Then Number 5 is "the exercise by the Minister of the authority contained in subsection (4) is a regulation within the meaning of the Regulations Act."

You know, from this point of view, that piece looks like it's housekeeping; it's keeping up to par with making sure that our municipal councillors have the training that is needed and the education to be able to do their work as councillors.

It would be interesting to know what those regulations might look like respecting the orientation training, because as we know, when regulations happen, we don't actually get to see what those things are. I wouldn't want to think that there would be some things in there that may be influential or may cause folks to feel like they have to vote a certain way or that they don't really have the choices they feel they have in order to make decisions for their area. I would love to be able to know what those regulations are or even a thought on what the regulations might look like, based on what the minister may provide in that particular piece of housekeeping for Clause 1.

[Page 2931]

[1:00 p.m.]

In Clause 2, it says it:

Provides the Municipality's Council with authority to

a) delegate the evaluation and performance management of the Municipality's Chief Administrative Officer to a Council committee;

(b) exclude or limit the Chief Administrative Officer's

(i) attendance at certain Council or Council committee meetings, or

(ii) participation or membership in external boards, committees or organizations; and

(c) intervene in the Chief Administrative Officer's delegations of authority if the Chief Administrative Officer is absent for more than 30 days.

In that second part, I would like to know: What was the driving force to making these changes? In most of my time sitting here, HRM Council and this government hadn't really seen eye-to-eye a lot. I'm curious to know why there would be a driving force to make such a change with the municipality's council: "provides the Municipality's Council with authority" to make these changes for the CAO.

Then some data behind why it's important to make these changes for the municipality and maybe some discussion on impacts and what that might look like for the municipality. I would love to hear from council. I wait to hear when this gets sent to Public Bills Committee on what the council thinks and feels about this. This is new and it's really interesting to see why this is here.

Like I said, I just want to know what the driving force is and the data behind why this change is coming forward. If, for example, a CAO is absent for more than 30 days, is that a common thing? Is that something that happens often? If they don't have participation or membership in external boards or committees, does that count as part of the 30 days that they are not participating or absent for things? I'm just confused and I'd like a little bit of clarity on that.

Like I said, I wait to hear from folks from municipal council about their thoughts on this. I would hope that they would have gotten this information ahead of time, considering that these are going to be decisions that are going to change the likelihood of the way they run council and the way they do things.

[Page 2932]

I am curious to know what that looks like. The other question is if there was consultation with staff or councillors about these changes, and what that might look like.

Let's move on to Clause 3. Wait, I want just want to see - it says: "Chapter 39 is further amended by adding immediately after Section 35 the following Sections:

35A The Council may delegate the evaluation and performance management of the Chief Administrative Officer to a committee of the Council.:

I just want to know, is that a normal thing? How does that benefit council, if it is a benefit to do that?

Notwithstanding clause 35(2)(a), the Council may exclude or limit the Chief Administrative Officer's

(a) attendance at any Council meeting or Council committee meeting, if the meeting includes or relates to

(i) evaluation of the Chief Administrative Officer, including evaluation of the Chief Administrative Officer's conduct or performance.

I think that might be a bit straightforward. When we're in board meetings we don't actually have the staff there if there is a board meeting happening. I think that one may be self-explanatory. Number (ii) is "council training, education, performance, or coaching and (b) participation in membership and boards, committees, organizations external to the municipality."

When you think about how important our community is and the work that we do in community, whether it's a councillor or whether it's an MLA or any type of political body, it's really important for us to have our finger on the pulse in the community. I'd be curious to know about that one as well, why they would be or why they could be excluded or not participate in membership and boards, committees, and organizations external to the municipality. That would be something I would want to know about, too, in that particular piece.

Clauses 3 and 4 will "(a) allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs to amend the municipality's planning documents to extend or alter the municipality's urban service area" - I'll get to that in a minute – and

(b) allow the minister to request information from the municipality or from any utility owned by the Municipality and requires the Municipality or utility to comply with their request;

[Page 2933]

(c) provide for the expiry of these newly added provisions; and

(d) provide the Governor in Council with regulation-making authority respecting the ministerial power to extend or alter the urban service and the expiry of the provisions.

In Clauses 3 and 4, it's amending these sections, and it says: "In this section, 'urban service area' means a geographical area or areas specified in the planning documents of the Municipality that may be developed with municipal water, wastewater or stormwater services."

This brings me back to 2022, I think. It was a previous Housing Minister when they erected the panel, and the panel put one of the HRM areas - I will definitely talk about it in a little bit, I just want to refresh folks' memory - how HRM had the planning group that they have there at HRM that does amazing work, and they look at all aspects, whether it was community, whether it was residential, whether it was schools and transit, they look at the whole community. They look at it as a whole when they do their planning. There was a special planning area that the minister had put forward previously. That was in Sackville, I believe.

The reasoning why, because I asked this question: Why that planning area, when clearly it was not voted, that the planners from HRM did not think that was a good idea and they didn't put it up as part of an area to be able to be developed? One of the reasons why was because there was no proper wastewater, because there wasn't any water connection or sewage connection able to be in that space. They haven't been able to do the environmental assessments of that area. I was wondering and curious to know why that was one of the areas in this special planning area.

I'm just looking at this piece where this section says, "'urban service area' means geographical area or areas specified in the planning documents of the Municipality that may be developed with municipal water, wastewater or stormwater services." That's actually an add-on to what the bill was put forward - maybe it was in an omnibus bill. That's probably why it wasn't developed in its entirety.

I say this because it just sounds a little bit odd that we would have bills that we put forward in previous sittings, and then all of a sudden, we're adding things in to amend those pieces of the bills because we want to be able to develop on land that's not environmentally assessed, that doesn't have proper wastewater, and doesn't actually have any piping or proper sewage. We want to build fast on land that is probably or may not be ready to be built upon.

I'm curious to know under Section 3, under Clauses 3 and 4, what the rationale is for that particular decision to amend 223B (1) in that section. I'm curious to hear from HRM and their planning folks on what that looks like.

[Page 2934]

I just feel like here we are again - legislation comes forward, and then we're amending and amending. I said this when I was first elected, because I learned from a few folks who had been here for a long time, and they're like, "When you open up an Act, you really should do all of the due diligence and the work and look through the Act. Have the folks who are experienced and have the expertise to go through the Act. Then we work together to put things in or add things in that make sense, so we don't have to reopen the Act again."

Here we are, reopening multiple Acts and amending them in omnibus bills, but in this particular case, this is on housing. I think we're not doing our homework, and it's showing that that homework isn't being done, unless it's intentional that this homework isn't being done because we're trying to move things forward in order for folks to just push it through so people won't talk about it. Now we bring another amendment forward where people probably don't think there's a correlation to it, but there are questions that need to be answered on why these things are happening. What is the rationale behind it?

Back to Clauses 3 and 4 in Chapter 39, I spoke about 223B (1). Now, 223B (2): "Where the Minister determines it is in the provincial interest to do so, the Minister may, by order, amend the planning documents of the Municipality to extend or alter the urban service area for the purpose of extending growth-enabling infrastructure."

I know, and I have heard, and we have talked about this, that it's all about housing. I think we can't hide behind the veil of housing when it comes to harming our communities. I mention this because this is really nice to see because it says where it's "in the provincial interest to do so, the Minister may, by order, amend the planning documents of the Municipality to extend or alter the urban service area for the purpose of extending growth-enabling infrastructure."

I have some things to say about enabling infrastructure. Let me tell you about Hammonds Plains water and how they have had water issues for decades and how the water folks - I'm going to say water folks from HRM because they are. I don't see anything in this particular bill that talks about this, but I'm going to bring it up because I need to put it on the record so that folks in this room know that it has been talked about.

They have fire hydrants that don't actually have pressure. When they need water, guess what happens? When there's a fire in the community, they have to wait for the fire truck to come at the end of the road to be able to plug in and then move water down along the end of the road at Pockwock.

I say this because the community residents have been fighting for this for years, for decades. They were told by the province and by HRM that there's nothing that they can do other than maybe add a bit of piping to offset the pressure. I'm just summarizing it because I'm not an expert in water. I was at multiple meetings in communities. In Hammonds Plains that was the discussion about water and infrastructure. When we talk about these things and how we put things in here all for the sake of housing, how is that going to affect our Black communities and our communities that have been left behind when it comes to water pressure, left behind when it comes to infrastructure, left behind when it comes to this government's legislation on how they do better for us? I want to bring that up because that's a really good point.

[Page 2935]

In that particular clause, I'm hoping, and like I said, I'm going to make a note again . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order, please. Unfortunately, you are not allowed to take pictures in this gallery. I ask anybody holding a phone and taking a picture to please erase what they have taken. It is on YouTube, so you can get if off YouTube if you would like.

The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

SUZY HANSEN « » : I'm curious to know whether or not the minister is also going to adjust and work in communities about the specifics of water pressure in African Nova Scotian communities and the environmental necessity of our water. I see that in 223C (1):

"Where the Minister determines it is in the provincial interest to do so, the Minister may request any information from the Municipality or from any utility owned by the Municipality that the Minister considers relevant to growth-enabling infrastructure, and the Minister may specify a time in which the Municipality or the utility must provide the requested information."

That makes really good sense when we think about we want to hear back, right? The minister is asking of the utility or of HRM to make sure that the utility gets back within ample time. It's really interesting that it had to be legislated, but as well, it would be nice that we could have that same respect here in the House with other ministers when we ask as MLAs questions to be responded to in time.

The next part of that is: "(2) The Municipality and any utility owned by the Municipality shall provide the Minister with any information requested by the Minister within the time specified pursuant to subsection (1)."

That's once again, more time frame information. "(3) 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." So that is something I'm concerned about, as well.

[Page 2936]

[1:15 p.m.]

You know, when we think about why the minister would need all the powers and privileges and immunities of a commissioner appointed pursuant to the Public Inquiries Act, I would like for us to look further into what the Public Inquiries Act is. I'd like the minister to speak to that because I think, when we talk about what that looks like and why you need to be immune from that, I am very curious as to what these changes might look like that the minister would need to be immune from any type of penalty if something does come about. Why would the minister need to do that? Why would we not even have that in the clause?

When we think about what we want to do and how we want to improve Nova Scotia, we shouldn't have things in here that are going to protect any type of possible wrongdoing and keep us legislators immune from that type of work. If we are confident in the work that we are doing and we don't feel like it's going to come back to us, then I think we need to make sure that we are working collaboratively with community and with the stakeholders at play.

I also want to talk about Sections 223B and 223C. They "expire and cease to have any effect on a date prescribed by the regulations or, where no date is prescribed, on November 25, 2028."

I am just curious to know why that date - 2028 - because, you know, the work still has to continue. If this piece of legislation is to stand, we want to know why these particular clauses that the minister will be immune to would cease in 2028. So, yes, that's the other piece I wanted to talk to.

Then, any amendments made to the planning documents in the municipality by the minister under Subsection 223B to continue to have effect, notwithstanding the expiration date. Why 223B and 223C, but not 223B(1) and (2)? Those are questions that I would like to hear from the minister about.

I mean, my goodness, I didn't realize there was that much ministerial authority over a lot of these pieces. And then the minister is asking for immunity, or once this bill is passed, the minister will have immunity and privileges of a commissioner appointed, pursuant to the Public Inquires Act.

Those are really concerning pieces for me because we don't have the full details. We put forward legislation, and sometimes it is really hard to navigate, but it is really important for us to know exactly what we are saying yes and no to, because the stuff that we speak to in this House stays forever. It is in Hansard. So, I would hate to think that we would be wanting to do something and say yes to something, and then it comes back on us maybe 10 years later down the road.

[Page 2937]

We've seen legislation come back 10 years later, and they have really huge impacts and effects in our communities. So, I wanted to bring that up here. There are some questions I have for the minister.

I'm going to Clause 5. It amends the Housing in the Halifax Regional Municipality Act to update a ministerial title, and Clause 6 adds, in the context of factors affecting housing supply, that the Executive Panel on Housing in the Halifax Regional Municipality shall advise on as referenced to water, waste water, storm water, and municipal infrastructure.

We are going to go to Clause 5, and it says - it's amended by striking out "Growth and Development" and substituting "Housing." That clearly is housekeeping. Changing the things that we had put in before that we are going to change again. I mean, if we had thought this through, we might have done it differently the first time, but here we are.

Then is Clause 6: "Subclause 6(1)(a)(ii) of Chapter 21 is repealed and the following subclauses substituted: (ii) factors affecting housing supply, including (A) water, waste water, stormwater or other municipal infrastructure; (B) the availability of land," - that's a question mark; I got to know about that - "(C) the taxation environment; (D) the availability of labour" - well, yes - "and (E) any other factors that may affect housing development." That's an open-ended question - "any other factors that may affect housing development."

We see that there are factors in here, like laws that are in place, that affect housing developing. And what do we do? We sit here, and we debate, and then legislated laws happen. I am just curious to know: Will that not include that anymore? Will they not come forward here on this Floor? Will they not be legislated anymore? It's just unclear what that substitution will mean. So, I'm just looking for clarity on 6(ii)(B) and (E). I'm just wondering what that might look like.

Clause 7, "allows the Panel to request information from any utility owned by the Municipality and requires the utility to comply with the request." Well, when we think about the panel, the minister is going to have complete authority and oversight and immunity. The minister can kind of make those decisions and the panel is there to just advise. I don't think they need to be directing the wastewater and the management and all that stuff because there are planners that do that work in HRM.

I'm curious to know why they need to actually have those types of powers and require the utility to comply with the request because when we think about the work that's being done by HRM and how much work is happening because, you know, as we hear from the minister and multiple people on this floor that there are tons of housing starts, there are things that are happening, people are hearing about housing and, when this is going on, there are planners that are doing that work. There are folks who are really ear to the ground, connecting in the community, trying to connect the community with the information that the government is giving to municipalities to do work in a short time frame and it's quite a lengthy task. I'm not an expert but I have had multiple conversations with planners about multiple different things and housing is one of them and it doesn't happen within months.

[Page 2938]

I know sometimes when on a time frame, when it comes to budget sometimes you want to be able to give money to certain things to be able to be done; but unfortunately, planning is not something that can happen within a one-month span or 30 days because we've heard the minister previous ask for planning from the HRM in a short period of time which is actually really hard for them when they have a ton of other things to do.

I just want us to be mindful of folks' other commitments and I think with the panel's request, I think the panel has done quite a bit and they are moving things forward in a quick, fast motion for HRM to be able to try to implement. I think asking for more is actually a lot. I'd like some clarification on Clause 7 as to the rationale for that as well because I'm curious to know why if we have a government that says we're moving fast, fast, fast but then we say slow, slow, slow we can't expect people to be robots and know everything right at the tip. We have to give people time to do that work. I think there has to be a medium in between there.

I'm going to go to Clauses 8 and 9 and it says, "(a) allow for ministerial orders to the Municipality or a utility owned by the Municipality relating to housing-enabling infrastructure work;" That goes back to my first question when I was talking about what's the driving force. Is this normal? How does this benefit folks and why does the minister need these particular powers in order to do that work. I thought we already went through that when the minister designated HRM as a special planning zone and the minister of the housing board and then the minister was the only one responsible for oversight of anything that had to do with HRM and housing.

I'm just curious to know why we're going down this path again in a different way. So, it also says, "(b) provide parameters for the exercise of the ministerial order-making power, including where the Municipality or a utility owned by the Municipality does not comply with an order within a specific time; and (c) provide the Governor in Council with regulation-making authority respecting the ministerial order-making power."

Those are all really strange pieces when the minister is going to be making the orders. If the minister is making the order, why would the Governor in Council need regulation-making authority respecting the ministerial order power? I need clarity on that because those are really important pieces in Clauses 8 and 9 that should be explained so that folks have an understanding of how this is going to affect them. I'm going to use the council just as an example because they're going to hear this once the bills pass. Then they're going to have this whole packet, I would assume, that is going to teach them how to be better councillors and "these are the new rules and this is what the minister is telling you to do and, if you don't do it, you have timelines, and if you don't do it by this time, these are the consequences. This is what I'm reading. I just would like some clarity.

[Page 2939]

I would hope to think that we are not trying to do double duty or triple duty - do 20 different jobs - when being an MLA is hard enough. I can just imagine being a minister. But we have expertise around the table. I'm in HRM, and people were voted in, just like us, as members to represent their area. I think it would do them a disservice if we're being - if councillors or anyone who works in those departments, in those offices are being told what to do by the minister or the Governor in Council to do the work, because they want it done and not because it's what the people who they represent want done. That's where we cross a line when we try to be everything. It can be a hard go sometimes. I want to make us very aware that sometimes we bite off too much, and this might be one of those things I need explanation for, on that particular piece.

We went through Clauses 7 and 8. I want to bring up that in Clause 8 it says, in 21A(1): "The Minister may order the Municipality or a utility owned by the Municipality to build, change, reconfigure or remove water, waste water, stormwater or other municipal infrastructure within the Municipality for the purpose of accelerating and increasing the supply of housing." That, to me, tells me that the minister can change plans, reconfigure plans, remove water plans, remove waste water and stormwater plans or other municipal structure within the municipality "for the purpose of accelerating and increasing the supply of housing."

I have to tell you this stuff that's going on. I know folks in this room don't really care to hear it, but I'm going to say it anyway, because it touches my constituency. It literally touches my constituency right here. There are folks who are really upset that trees are going to be taken down - and I mean, my goodness, I love trees, because I love air. I like to breathe. So, if I hear "Oh, so it's trees" - trees are amazing. We need them.

They are going to remove trees along a corridor, all for the sake of housing. Then, on top of that, they're also going to remove some of the housing along that corridor, all for the sake of housing. This is also part of HRM. Folks may - this might be the first time they're hearing this - and folks may be like, "Oh my goodness, that's not what's going on," but it is. Folks in the community that's mine and adjacent have been fighting for answers on the necessity of tearing down trees, tearing down affordable housing. Why tearing down housing all in the name of development of housing is necessary.

There's a lot of resistance to that. I know folks in here probably have had emails. They've probably received calls. They're probably had visits from folks who have been really advocating for answers on why this is necessary. This right here is speaking to all of that. When we talk about "the Minister may order the Municipality or a utility owned by the Municipality to build, change, reconfigure or remove water, wastewater," all of those things are very concerning, especially, like I said, where HRM is a part of the special planning area and the zone is quite large.

[Page 2940]

I'm very concerned as to why this would be here. Maybe the minister can give me the rationale and possibly speak to the reason why this is important. I mean, I know that the city will come forward and talk to us about these things, but these are all really strong powers to have. I mean, if you want to be a municipal councillor or if you want to be the mayor, you could just be the mayor or municipal councillor.

I feel like this right here is saying that the minister can make changes, do whatever they want, appoint things, change the building or make it as it is, or stop plans without any accountability, with immunity, without any type of - If something goes wrong, it never goes back on the minister. It's really quite an interesting to piece to see. And I'm not even halfway through the bill, and this is the start of where we are in this particular bill. Once again, I have questions.

[1:30 p.m.]

The other piece is, "apply for infrastructure funding from federal or other available sources for the purpose of accelerating and increasing the supply of housing." I thought that was already something we did. Just saying, I don't know why it needs to be in the bill. This is already something that the minister is supposed to be doing, as well as municipal councils. So I don't know if we're trying to shed that all onto councillors, or are we putting it all onto the minister? I think there's a lot to explain and to be clear about here.

Then (c) is: "do anything necessary or desirable in the interest of the safe, efficient and affordable development of housing-enabling infrastructure." I'm all for affordable housing, but I think I differ - as well as the government differs - with what the definition of affordable is. My definition of affordable is 30 percent. The government's definition is 80 percent. There's a huge gap in between 80 and 30 that really doesn't make it quite affordable.

We are in budget cuts, and we are in a deficit, and we have all of these things, yet we're expecting people to continue to fit the bill and pay for something that is technically not deemed affordable. So the minister gets to do anything necessary or desirable - which, I would like clarity on because that's like waving a wand. It could be anything.

Then number 2 says, "An order made under this Section must be consistent with the intent of this Act and in accordance with the regulations." I'm going to move on to Clause 10, which postpones the solution date by two years. I mean, I think really at this point, we're done with the panel. We've had the panel for a long time. I think they have done amazing work, and they are continuing to do amazing work. If we haven't learned from them by now, I think the minister will have all the power to do that.

I didn't agree with the panel in the first place because when we think about what the panel is doing, they're fast-tracking development all in the name of profit and not always in the name of affordability. For me, I had an issue with the panel from the start. I still do, and I think they don't need to be here for another two more years to continue to bulldoze and railroad things through. Then the minister will have no accountability to any of it, because they'll be immune. Then they don't have to worry about anything else.

[Page 2941]

I worry about that, and those are things that I think. I think the minister should know that Clause 10 for me is a no. Clause 11 and 12, "amend the Housing Supply and Services Act to update departmental and ministerial titles."

I'm going to go back to Clause 10. Wait a second. I'm going to go back to Clause 8 because there's quite a bit here that talks about Clause 8 in Number 4. It says, "The cost of any work undertaken under subsection (1) shall be apportioned between the Municipality or the utility owned by the Municipality and the Crown in right of the Province in the manner agreed upon by them."

Number 5 says, "Where no agreement is reached under subsection (4) within a reasonable period of time, the Minister may determine the apportionment of the cost of any work undertaken under subsection (1)." Wow. So if the minister decided to say, "I take no responsibility, I don't want any of it," then it's all under the municipality's purview and the utility's purview, which also adds on more cost to the taxpayers and the city. I've got to ask a question about that one too, because that one is quite an interesting piece.

I mentioned that they could build, change, reconfigure, which is also the other piece that was bothering me. "The cost of any work completed under subsection (6) is a debt owed by the Municipality or the utility owned by the Municipality to the Crown in right of the Province and may be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction at the discretion of the Minister." Interesting. So not only will they fit the bill, but if the minister doesn't like it, the minister gets to take them to court and get the money back. I don't quite understand that. I need clarity on that one.

Oh wow. Then it says, "Notwithstanding subsection (7), the Municipality or the utility owned by the Municipality does not incur any cost or owe any debt for any work undertaken under subsection (6) within the first 12 months of the coming into force of this Section." Interesting. The other two - Nos. 9 and 10 - are just cleanup, striking out and substituting the date. I already disagree with the panel's date, so that one, No. 10, is not one that I really agree with.

Then we're getting into Section 11. It says, "Section 3 of Chapter 36 is amended by striking out the 'Municipal Affairs in Housing' in clause (c) and substituting 'Growth and Development.'" That's another cleanup, which is good. If we had done it the first time, we wouldn't have to do this, but here we are.

Striking out "Municipal Affairs and Housing" in Clause (d) and the heading immediately before by striking "Municipal Affairs and Housing" and substituting "Growth and Development," which is great - let's change that.

[Page 2942]

Sections 13 and 14, remove the interim board of the Nova Scotia Provincial Housing Agency and make the establishment of the agency's advisory board optional - interesting. It says that it's repealed and the minister may establish an advisory board that provides advice and recommendations to further the agency's objectives. Any one of those sections only apply if an advisory board has been established. So it's at the minister's discretion to have an advisory board for the Nova Scotia Provincial Housing Agency. I just want to kind of break it down for you.

When the Nova Scotia Provincial Housing Agency became that name, it dissolved the board and there was a specific board, but it was staff. It was not community, it was not folks who understood the community - it was staff. That board made those decisions that came forward, whether it be a tenant's issue or tenant's rights or any of those things that typically - you know when you have a tenants' association, they have issues with the housing authority and they bring their concerns to the board, and the board has these conversations and mediates these things through housing and the tenants.

What this is saying is that the minister will choose whether or not there is an advisory board. Based on what I'm seeing here is says it that any of these things only apply if a board has been established. We know how this government loves boards and we're seeing how they are dissolving all of them.

I really feel like this is a disservice to the communities in which the Nova Scotia Provincial Housing Agency works, and it actually takes away voices from community when something may arise - which is very often - that may need an advocate or a voice to be able to put forward to staff. I think that's a no for me. I'm going to say that for No. 14 because we have to start thinking about including community voices and why it's important to keep people on boards and why it's important to have oversight, why it's important to have feedback. Because if we don't have that, then we continue to amend and amend because we didn't get it the first time and the second time and the third time.

I'm going to move on to Clause 15. It amends the Municipal Government Act to require municipalities to provide the newly-elected municipal councillors to attend orientation training. So once again, talked about that and this is just cleaning it up. It's telling us that we need to make sure they have proper training. Like I said, my question is wondering what that training might look like, what those possibilities may be, and what types of education. You have to remember that councillors are elected officials and they are elected by their people, and their people expect them to do work for them in the constituency - like us. It's really important to have that voice around the table because as we know, not every table has voices that are representative of all communities.

Going into that, it says they are going to have training, which is great - formal timing and training. The minister will decide who delivers aspects of the training. So that's cleaning up. I appreciate that.

[Page 2943]

No. 16 of the Act provides municipal councils with authority to delegate the evaluation and performance management of the municipality's chief CAO to a council committee.

This all says the same stuff as the first one. Oh, maybe this is another Act. Also, this is similar to an omnibus bill. So this is part of another Act. I'm sorry, Speaker, I'm just looking at the top of the 2s here. So, yes, it's basically doing the same thing that I said.

I'm curious to know why the minister would want to interject with the CAOs' business and doings of the work that they do in municipalities. It's quite interesting to see, and it will be interesting to hear, how the minister responds to these questions that I have that are concerning, not only for me but also for the province and what's going to happen with a number of housing movements that are about to go forward.

I'm going to go on to Clause 17 because there's quite a bit that needs to be discussed. It says it amends the definition of "Minister" in the Short-term Rentals Registration Act to be the Minister responsible for the Housing Supply and Services Act.

I'm wondering who - oh, I guess that is the Minister of Housing. Oh, because it's a different Act. Then that is that with the Short-term Rentals Registration Act.

Clause 18 provides that certain amendments come into force on proclamation - on the effective dates.

I have a lot of questions for this minister. I know that the minister is good at making sure that things are clear. I'm grateful that I'm able to have these conversations. What would have been good is if I would have been able to have my eyes on the bill beforehand, and then these notes wouldn't be so robust. I could have easily had this conversation with the minister to talk about a lot of the things.

I want us to remember that Nova Scotians work hard, and they don't ask for much. They just ask for a fair shot to build a life here at home, but five years in, the difference people were promised isn't here. Rents keep rising. It would have been nice to see something about rents or something in here about maybe putting a freeze on certain bedrooms, rents, and all these things. I know that's Residential Tenancies, but we tend to put multiple Acts in one bill. That would have been nice to see. As well, we know that homeownership remains out of reach for a lot of folks.

Since we're into housing, there are lots of ways that we could do that. This was just to give superpowers to the minister. Now, I'm down for superpowers. I'm down. I love superheroes because that's important.

[Page 2944]

I also want us to remember that in order to be a hero, we have to be doing the good for the people. If we have to do good for people, we have to make sure that there are things in here that aren't going to affect and impact our communities - affect and impact the people who are in our communities and in our constituencies.

Like I said, it brings me back to the thought of water. I'm all for making sure that we hold other utilities accountable because it's not easy when you have communities that have been without or communities that have been asking for and haven't had for a long time. There are a lot of things that we can do that could be important. In this bill, it just talks about the minister having a lot of authority over - but there isn't any discussion on how we utilize the utilities and force utilities to do the work that they should have been doing in our Black communities - do the work that they should have been doing in our Indigenous communities.

It's a shame we still don't even have running water in a lot of our Indigenous communities and some of our rural Black communities. We have to start thinking about our priorities. Is it for all people? That could be a good piece that we could have added in here to make sure that folks who live in these communities who have been asking - and I know they have lists because the water - the utility folks have lists. I have had multiple meetings with utility folks. I had multiple meetings in community. They've talked about how it's been years, and for some decades, that they don't have running water because the pipes aren't there.

Across the street, the new urban building or development that is predominantly white has good pipes, sewer, and running water. Literally across the street, they don't have that access, and they've been asking for it for a long time.

If there were pieces in there that would say we would fix those things - because that's also part of the infrastructure - I would like to know how we plan on moving forward with that. There are a lot of communities that have questions about some of those utilities and how they haven't worked for our communities.

[1:45 p.m.]

Some of the things that I have of concern are Clause 3, the Minister of Housing's order-making power to force HRM to expand their urban boundary. I live in the urban core. I understand that things need to happen, and we have to do some really good work. But when we expand our urban core, when we haven't even taken care of all of our areas, we need to start thinking about what that looks like.

Municipalities have urban boundaries for a reason. They exist to enable urban plans that can focus housing development in areas where infrastructure services and amenities already exist. I talked about the whole community, and I've had some really good conversations with councillors about how they include the whole community. You can't have development without any services, transit, schools, or emergency services nearby, within a certain radius, because it's detrimental to the community that you built.

[Page 2945]

They're very mindful and cognizant of how they make those planning decisions. I'll bring back an area in Sackville that was on the special planning area and the planning folks said this was not a good idea - it's not on the priority list because it doesn't have services, it doesn't have water, it doesn't have infrastructure. It's not ready. It doesn't have an environmental assessment. When we think about when we want to fast-track everything and we want to put through plans that have no type of wholesome surrounding plans around it, then what you have is something that's going to be in a space that isn't going to provide the things that folks need. Then you won't be living there, or they'll less likely have folks who want to live in those spaces.

We want people to live in the housing that we built. We want folks to have a home that they can call their own. Forcing the City of Halifax to expand their urban boundary against their will means forcing them to enable and pay for costs inefficient for all development, which is what we heard in a number of pieces in the bill that literally will get passed on to existing homeowners as higher property taxes and water rates.

We're hearing from folks all the time right now about water rates. We're hearing from folks about Nova Scotia Power. We're hearing from folks about their taxes. These are all things that are coming under budget through HRM, and yet we are trying to add more onto that budget in HRM and pass that off without any accountability or any ownership of it. I think we need to start thinking about these things because that's essentially what will happen. In 2028, whoever the minister is can wash their hands of it because they're immune to the accountability piece as the minister.

I want us to really be cautious and mindful. If we're making really good decisions for this province, if we're making decisions that are going to better the areas in which you're putting this legislation forward, we shouldn't be putting in a clause on how we can back out and be immune to any type of consequence that might possibly happen, because the decisions are being made here in this House.

Also, putting the power of expanding urban boundaries in the hands of the minister can also create significant ethic risks related to land price speculation. Someone could purchase land outside of an urban boundary for a low price, lobby the minister, expand the boundary to encompass their land, and when it does, see the value of their land skyrocket. These are all really important things that we need to start thinking about. I'm not saying there aren't bad actors, but there are some bad actors out there. We have to make sure that we're protecting our land and making sure that we're using it for the proper uses, and not to make profit over the people.

[Page 2946]

I also mentioned that the minister has order-making power to order the municipality and utility owned by the municipality to build, reconfigure - that to me was something I need extreme clarity on. I would hope that we have worked with our HRM partners to be able to address some of these things that the minister is asking specifically. Is it that it's not being built fast enough? Is it that we need to add infrastructure in a certain place because there has been a request or an ask to build in a space that hasn't had an environmental assessment done? I'm curious to know why these things are coming forward in such a manner that is very scary when we think about the possibilities of what could happen.

In the subsection, it also says that the cost related to these orders will be apportioned in a manner agreed upon, and if not, then the minister may unilaterally decide who the costs go to.

Back to the costs. If the minister isn't in agreement with what's happening - or decides to say, "Hey, you know what? You guys are going to take that bill" - it's going to go right back to the city, which in turn gets passed on to existing homeowners' higher property taxes and water rates, which is not what we want to do.

I like to think that, in this case, where we will see the minister with all of the authority to do all of these things - I hope that, when questions are asked about things, we're not saying the staff did it, or it was the staff's decision, because the minister is responsible for any of the decisions made by the ministerial position. We have to be clear. Obviously, the minister also wants to have immunity, so it's maybe not the responsibility that we're thinking, but I want people to think about some of these things that are here.

It also asks for the elimination of the GRID Program. The Growth and Renewal for Infrastructure Development Program supported investment in priority municipal infrastructure, projects that address critical capacity issues, build more accessible and adaptable communities, and enable the preservation and expansion of services to support housing. How come none of that wording is this bill? Why aren't we talking about supporting investment in priority municipal infrastructure projects that address critical capacity issues?

Building more accessible and adaptable communities - my goodness, that sounds so major. We're talking about the community as a whole and enabling the preservation and expansion of services to support housing. I think that's what we want.

Those are the things that we talk about here in this House. How do we support housing? How do we build more accessible and adaptable housing? How do we build more adaptable communities? I think each and every one of us is proud of the community that we come from. When we talk about our community, we talk about it as if we have ownership of it and that's who we are, and there are amazing things about our community. We want to build more of those because guess what happens when we build more communities? People take care of each other. People look out for each other.

[Page 2947]

We've heard about the cuts and how we're going to adapt. Guess what happens in communities? We adapt. We figure things out. We talk and go through things together because that's what a community means.

I'm surprised to see the elimination of the GRID Program, which is one of the questions that I have to the minister. If we're eliminating this process, which in turn is a valuable process that creates a wholesome community and allows us to do the work that we need to do for our communities and include services and our education - who wouldn't want to live in a community that has your school accessible and walkable? Who wouldn't want to live in a community where we have housing that is accessible and folks can live in it from any age that they want to.

We have to start thinking about how we build and how we build up our community. This is a key piece because we know - and I'm curious to know where there's funding is going to come from or where we're going to get this funding from. This is exactly the kind of funding that would help HRM pay for the Greenfield development in an expanded urban boundary without dramatically raising property taxes.

Everyone in this House has experienced an email from someone about their property taxes. If you didn't, then you must be living under a rock because property taxes are real, and it's happening because there need to be some cuts. Folks are changing the way that they do things, and they have to adapt.

When we think about what we are seeing here in this particular bill, it's not just the administrative measures. These are some serious pieces that the minister will have authority over, and we have to be very mindful and aware that it's not just the minister who has to make the decisions but the governing council that will override or possibly advise the minister to make changes, which is also very scary.

This program that I was talking about - the GRID Program - was established as a part of the renewed Service Exchange Agreement between the Province and the municipalities. Eliminating this program breaks a commitment to municipalities that was made in that service exchange agreement, and according to the announcement of that agreement in March 2024, that agreement was a result of hundreds of hours of consultations over eight months, working directly with municipalities across the province. Wow, that's a long time to have consultation. I'll bet there was a lot of disagreement. I'll bet there was a lot of, "Maybe we need to talk about this." "I think we should come together and have a collaborative approach on that." "You know what, I don't agree with that, but that's not that bad." "We'll do this and we'll do this," right?

I think when we talk about how we connect and how we consult and how we communicate - those are the three Cs - these are all the important pieces that people have put their time and effort into that we're basically saying we don't need that, we've got a minister who has all the authority but immunity if anything happens so we want to make sure that this bill goes through so the minister can be advised by the Governor in Council to decide things, or not. We want to control what HRM is deciding for HRM.

[Page 2948]

I want to bring some dollars into this. The $50 million program was entirely eliminated as part of the government's budget cuts. The program was popular, there had been an additional $1.8 million that was added to funding for the 2024-25 fiscal year because of overwhelming demand.

We know it's important. We know these things are important for us to be able to address. Some of these are housekeeping and here's a lot of this that actually needs to be addressed and in detail because we're talking about other elected officials' positions that may possibly be overridden because the minister wants to have all superpowers. I take my seat.

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

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : It's an honour to rise in my place to offer some comments on the bill. This bill in particular, Speaker, we believe there are some good things in the bill but also that this trend continues, that the government wants to insert itself into municipal politics. We've seen this over the last number of months here, years, where the Province wants to take over certain aspects of this province. They want full control, coming out of the Premier's Office because ultimately that's where decisions are being made. We're seeing that in another bill, with NSCC, where they want the ability to appoint who will lead that organization, instead of an independent process that a search firm would go through and the board of directors would dictate. In this case they wanted to take over the HRM. This is just another extension of that which, based on their fiscal stewardship, we sure hope they don't take over Halifax or any other municipality, for that matter. Why waste all their money, too?

Again, I go to the bill and there are things in the bill that address needs raised by municipalities. There are parts of the bill that continue this pattern of taking control of more development decisions in Halifax, which ultimately will stretch beyond Halifax into other areas of the province. This idea of taking on more development and taking on those decisions, the provincial government isn't going to be the one that is going to be putting the waterlines in the ground. That's going to be paid for by the municipality. They're not going to be the ones building the sidewalks. That will be the municipality and ultimately any other infrastructure that is necessary when the Province is making decisions on behalf of the municipality.

I said this in a previous scrum when I was Interim Leader that what these bills do also is they take away consultation. Now the province arbitrarily is making decisions based on development, or whatever. They don't have to consult. Why would they consult? They want full control.

[Page 2949]

We hear stories of potential developments that are taking place in the HRM and for those developments to take place, the HRM is going to have to build the infrastructure. The Province has no money; they're not paying for anything. They couldn't pay for the shovel to put the asphalt in the ground right now. They've got to find $1 billion for a bridge because they took the tolls off. Whether you agree or disagree with the tolls, you've still got to find the money. That money needs to be found soon because taking the tolls off probably disqualified the government for the Canadian Infrastructure Bank, because you have to show some sort of revenue stream. And guess what? That revenue stream is gone.

[2:00 p.m.]

Also, what is gone, is all of the technology, that was millions of dollars. Millions of dollars that was just bought to increase the technology so that when people were travelling across the bridge, they could track, and they had to write that off too. The Auditor General talked about all this stuff; there's lots of reading.

The great debate on the control that the Province wants to have over HRM. Well, we thought - now they've got to find the money. I don't even know if that's in the budget. They're going to have to go to Ottawa and ask. They're going to have to go cap in hand, and say, "We need the money for the bridge." And I bet the people in Ottawa might say to them, "Well, why did you take the tolls off?"

Anyway, a debate for another day. But it's part of this bill, because it goes to the fact that, whether it's HRM or CBRM, for that matter - I always use home as an example, there's a heavy cost of infrastructure when you're doing development. It's a planning process that is done very in-depth by the municipalities. Ultimately, they're the ones making the decisions on the ground.

Then they work collaboratively with the Province or the federal government. There were a bunch of different examples of infrastructure programs. Whether it was ICIP back in the day. Whether it was anything under "green", anything under "energy," anything that the municipalities would qualify for. They would map it out, they would look at the infrastructure, they would determine whether its viable for them or not. They would go to their provincial partners, go to their federal partners, and then you would figure out a way to make the project work.

Everybody was involved. The resources were there. The expertise was there. It was all there. It was a collaboration. Now, you're looking at a bill where, again, this is more overreach by the Province. I would argue that collaboration is weakened by that. The Province is not taking into account the infrastructure costs that ultimately, the HRM will have to bear in any new development. They should not have the right to do that.

[Page 2950]

HRM makes their plans based on a whole number of things. I'm sure the HRM councillors would probably explain it better than me, but fundamentally at its core, municipalities provide service. So, they're providing, whether its road maintenance, whether it's snow removal, the list goes on and on. There are councillors here; there are former councillors all over the Legislature. A lot of people had that privilege to serve. So, they're in constant planning.

Now, all of a sudden, someone from the outside is going to say "Well, no, this is what you're going to focus on, and we don't need to talk to you about it. This is what we want. Because we think this is what's best." I don't understand why you want that power. Again, it goes back to the fact that this government always needs an enemy. There's always a narrative that the government is fixing something for someone, or that these people are wrong and the government is right.

In this case, in this bill, Bill No. 212, again, it comes back to this pattern. And it's like, well, what is HRM doing wrong in this case? Why do you need to take more control over a democratically elected body of councillors? As I said, many of us in here were municipal councillors at one point; that's how we got here. Ultimately it was the foundation of who we are. Some of us were in student government too, but that's way back when. It was before Facebook.

But the fact of the matter is that a lot of us in here were elected municipal representatives. Speaker, I remember going on a tour, you and I talking about it. Sorry, I'm not supposed to say you. But Speaker, we talked about it. You were a very successful municipal councillor. A member from Whitney Pier represents Whitney Pier; another one, Sackville-Uniacke; another one, Sydney-Membertou. There's a bunch. The member from Hants, same thing - councillor.

Yeah, you can do that all day. There's a lot of expertise in this room, and a lot of institutional knowledge when it comes to being an elected civic politician. All of us know that, when we were in those roles, we were dealing with everything. It was all levels of government all day long, and they weren't coming to your office. They were coming to your house. Back then, Speaker, we had a phone number. That was it. There was no office. There was an office at city hall. But ultimately, people knew where you lived, and they knew your number, and they called anytime. It didn't matter whether it was a backyard issue or whether it was a federal program. That's what, you know - municipal politicians do a lot. I'm not taking that away from provincial or federal. But ultimately, a civic politician or a municipal politician is that one who's really on the ground in the community all the time.

Personally, I travel a lot. So, we have staff, and we do that, and we're still in the community doing our thing. But the point I'm trying to make in this bill is that you have a democratically elected council in HRM, the mayor and council elected by the people, and their job is to be stewards and set the direction for the municipality. The Province doesn't need to take over.

[Page 2951]

Sure, I've been a politician for a while. Some of us are, and we don't get it right all the time. Right? That's fine. The councils make tough decisions. People can agree or disagree. That's fine. Ultimately, you're trying to do the right thing for your community. So, why not put the sword down and just be like, "hey, HRM Regional Council - and for that matter, hey, every municipal council - we're going to be a provincial government that respects you. We may not agree on everything, but we're going to respect the fact that you have the democratic - you're duly elected to make those decisions."

Here we are with another bill that's going to put another gap in that relationship between the Province and the municipality. You're going to get into scenarios where decisions are potentially going to be made, and the consequences aren't going to be flushed out - cost-wise or infrastructure-wise or anything for that matter - and it just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to me that here's another bill that says, "Hey, HRM, this is what - we're going to tell you what to do, and it may cost you a lot of money, but we're right and you're wrong. We're right, and you're wrong."

I've got some more notes here and, as I said, this isn't the first time that the government has taken planning powers away from the city. Anyone who represents parts of Halifax is familiar with the government's designation of special planning areas in Halifax. You know what I mean? We're hearing concerns. We're hearing significant concerns from residents about these special planning areas, and these areas are where the Province had decided to exert its power. They bypass typical council processes, public consultation, and feedback periods. This is what we're hearing. This is what we're hearing. Any MLA, especially in Halifax, but I hear it too. And that real key is that public consultation.

You want feedback from the residents of an area. They have a right to have a say. They have a right to have a say, and it was no different - I said the same thing with mineral resource development. The government got themselves in this scenario with mineral resource development because they just told everybody that they're going to do it, and they didn't consult anyone. Then, all of a sudden, you're down talking to communities about uranium, and, well, you were going to consult them, but you don't consult.

Then, all of a sudden, people show up, and they start digging holes and doing tests. Of course, the community is going to get upset because there was no consultation. Then, all of a sudden, it's completely pulled back, and the Premier goes on the radio and says, well, this is dead for now. Right? Why don't you go down and talk to the community? It would have saved you a whole pile of problems, for sure, but the government, for whatever reason, just doesn't want to consult.

[Page 2952]

You know, I use the example of resource development more so. I use it with this bill, because it is important. You have a thousand of people out there today, protesting - Yeah, I'd say about a thousand. I'd say about a thousand are out there because they weren't consulted. They weren't consulted on anything. All of these cuts to critical programs - I just found out 10 minutes ago that Haley Street's cut. Horizon is cut. All of the adult day programs are cut in the CBRM. All reduced - I found out 10 minutes ago - all of those programs. People are going to lose their jobs.

The fact of the matter is that people are out there protesting today. They're protesting tomorrow. There's a student strike coming. People are protesting all over the CBRM tomorrow - the provincial building. Everybody's rallying because everyone doesn't feel heard and because this government absolutely massacred the finances of this province.

They say, "Well, we're talking about tough budgets and we're talking about - oh, we've got to make tough choices." Going back to Bill No. 212 and its idea around consultation - now all of a sudden they're talking about "Oh, we're going to go into departments and we're going to consult now, after we've told everybody that they're losing their job. Oh, we might go back in and consult to make sure everything's okay," when you actually should've brought this to the House and had a real, legitimate conversation about the future of this province. I bet you that if you had done that, a lot of these cuts may not have happened. You would've cut where you should have. There are lots of spots to cut. Lots of consultants to cut - a whole bunch of that stuff. We can get into that another day.

The fact of the matter is that Bill No. 212 kind of flows into everything else that we're talking about it. It's been a theme of this government, and it's got them in trouble. It's got them in big trouble to the point that we have the most historic deficit in the history of this province. They don't want to listen to anybody. Just un-tender those contracts. Send them out, right? A billion dollars.

Bill No. 212 - because I know I've got to talk about the bill, Speaker - but as I said, there are a lot of parallels that come with it. My colleague will talk about his own area himself, as a longtime elected representative - a very successful one. Again, we're losing the sight, as elected provincial MLAs, of the city councillors. The government's losing sight of them. They exist. They're good people. They work hard. They put their name on the ballot, no different than anybody else, and they deal with a lot of complex stuff that they have to take home with them every day. Every day, right?

We have the Legislature here. We make policy. We make laws. We make decisions that impact communities, but as I said, councillors are in everybody's backyard all the time. It's as local as it gets, but they're also dealing with the questions that come because they're accessible to the people. They're dealing with municipal-provincial-federal jurisdiction stuff.

[Page 2953]

We saw it again. I go back to the bill, and I go back to the fact that - we all agree on certain things. We agree that Halifax needs more housing, but the Province has not shown that their special planning areas will result in more housing. They haven't proven it. What is clear is that some of the special planning areas have insufficient planning and infrastructure that communities need.

This is really what's going to be a problem. The Province is going to come down and tell the municipality, "Well, these are special planning areas. You need to run water and sewer. You need to run roads. You need to run whatever active transportation aspects are there." Then you're into some major money - and where's the money coming from? It's not coming from here. There's none left for a decade at least.

Resource development projects aren't going to run water lines tomorrow if they're special planning areas. This is the thing: You're putting a bill here on the floor to be approved and you can't back it with anything - only telling HRM how to do their job. "Spend your money, 'cause we don't have any." It's a recipe for disaster.

As I said, I guarantee consultation will be gone. I guarantee - well, the goodwill is gone, you know what I mean. This is multiple times now that the Province is inserting itself into the HRM, and the community loses their voice.

[2:15 p.m.]

We do developments in the CBRM. I use a great example: the relocation of the community college. It was awesome. It was something we were proud of when we were in government - or the regional hospital redevelopment. We can use that as the same thing. We worked with the council before we made any decisions.

When we moved that community college, we went and looked at multiple spots for that community college downtown. We started looking at multiple spots. We picked a spot, but to pick that spot, we had to tear down a fire station that the municipality ran, so we sat down with them, and we built them a new one. It was back and forth, and the relationship was great. That's how it should work.

Health care redevelopment at home: the community came together, council came together, doctors - everybody came together. You know what? We collaborated on it, and now you have this wonderful facility under construction.

The point is that in those decisions, there are lots of examples. Horizon Achievement Centre is another great one, working closely with the leadership in Membertou around the infrastructure that they were looking at, which has been so beneficial to the community. It was all based on a healthy relationship. It was all based on ensuring that, if we're going to make plans as a community, we're going to do them together, the resources are going to be there from all levels to support it, and it's sustainable. That was a big part of it, the sustainability of this stuff.

[Page 2954]

Now, this bill - I'm going to go a few more minutes on this, then I'll stop because I know there are other speakers - it's another example of what you don't need to do in the HRM. You're putting this bill on the floor now. Five years ago, when there was money here in the province, maybe the government could try to argue resources, this, that, and the other thing. The fact of the matter is that you're putting a bill on the floor where you're going to give more authority to the provincial government over the HRM, and you're not giving the HRM a cent to help. You're going to say, build those water lines, this development is great, this is great, build them.

Halifax is going to have to try to go to the feds because there's no money left.

I'll stop there for now. I look forward to the comments of my colleagues. This bill has good stuff, but it needs a lot of work.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : I'm going to speak for a moment because - we stand in this House. We've all done it. We've stood there, and we've said, "Well, I would have done this, or we did this."

I've been around longer than that member. I'm one of the three or four people who have been around the longest. I remember the chants of "no consultation." I remember the chants of "cuts to community." I remember that one of the reasons I got involved in politics in the first place was because the previous NDP government - the same thing - cuts to grants and cuts to programs.

I remember the NSTU putting out an advertisement around classroom cuts. I remember, under the NDP government, the highest increases in power in this province's history over a five-year period. I remember, under the Liberal government, cuts to MetroWorks. I wasn't made aware of it. In fact, MetroWorks was in the same building that my office was in. They came down and told me, "Did you know that your government just cut our funding 100 percent?" No, I didn't.

They cut Autism Nova Scotia. They cut CFIB. The reason they gave at the time - and I was there - was that the NDP had messed up the finances of the Province, and they had a huge hole to climb out of. While true, difficult decisions were made, and some of those difficult decisions were continued deferred maintenance. Respectfully to that member, a lot of money has been invested in Cape Breton under the previous government and this current government.

So I would ask, which projects would he not do to balance the budget? Because Cape Breton Regional, what it looks like now and what it looked like 10 years ago is night and day, and that member knows that. He knows that and he proudly says that.

[Page 2955]

The NSCC waterfront campus has transformed Sydney. He knows that. I just received a question the other day from his counterpart, his partner there, on a school in his community that is being built, with childcare. Would you have us cut that? We know and that member knows better than just about anyone else in this Chamber, the cost of deferred maintenance.

If he and I were standing outside the Chamber, and we had an honest conversation, I bet he could pinpoint it down to the billion, or the million, when it comes to education, when it comes to health care, when it comes to roads, all of that. He knows that the deferred maintenance from past governments is in the billions of dollars. Billions of dollars.

We have two choices. Do we continue to let the critical infrastructure around us crumble, or do we invest in it? Do we work with our municipalities to invest in it? He knows as well as anyone else in this House - and so does the Official Opposition - that we have a housing crisis. We have to expedite building homes, and that includes affordable housing and public housing, which for the first time in decades, this government built.

When I first got elected, it was painful to get a roof replaced in Greystone, in public housing, because there was no money. They know that. So tough decisions were made. Thousands and thousands of people came to this House, 24/7, to say their voices were not heard. The largest protest in this province's history. In fact, you can look around this Chamber right now - the member can stand up and speak. I'm not interrupting that member.

You look around this Chamber - a lot of members are here because of those times. I was a part of it. I'm not denying that. I see the member over there making faces and making comments. I never once denied it. There are a lot of members around here on all sides who are here because of those cuts; because of the impact on teachers. We live and we learn. Tough decisions were made then.

Nobody is standing here proudly patting ourselves on the back when we make cuts, and we make decisions that impact municipalities, and they impact our federal partners. Nobody wants to do that. Everybody in this Chamber knows that. We don't want to impact communities, especially marginalized communities that have been historically impacted by past governments.

I want, we want, everyone in this Chamber wants the same thing - every single person who lives in this province to see a future that they want, and that reflects who they are. I'm not going to stand here like some people do and give a sermon about what it's like to be something I'm not.

I'm not going to stand here and tell you what it's like to be a visible minority, because I don't know and I would never do that. I'm not going to stand here and tell you what it's like to be part of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community because I'm not part of it - but I support them. I believe that when it comes to visible minorities, when it comes to the 2SLGBTQIA+, when it comes to anyone, but especially marginalized communities, they need to be reflected in our education system. They need to be reflected in our health care. Health care looks different from one end of this province to the other, but it also looks different depending on who you are. We know that.

[Page 2956]

Every time a bill comes up, this constant trying to set a narrative that is simply not true - it's American-style politics. It really is. I have corrected the Opposition several times on child care. We have the worst child care in the country, they said. Not true. I laid the numbers out for them yesterday. We have the second-best in the country. That's not us saying that, those are numbers from the federal government. They said that $12.13 doesn't count. It certainly does, because under our federal agreement, they say it counts. Because a couple of members across the way say it doesn't count, I guess they override the entire agreement from the federal government.

We can stand in this Chamber, and I've been guilty of it - I've said it before and I'll say it again, we're all part of this - but at some point, we've got to have open and honest dialogue with the public. When you stand here in this House and you say things that you know are not true, it does a disservice to every single person who's in this Chamber and every single person who comes after us.

We respect our municipal partners. We absolutely do. They do an incredible job under difficult circumstances. I've been lucky to have some really good municipal partners. When I work with them, I don't ask them what party they belong to or what their beliefs are, who they love, or any of that stuff. What I say is, "Let's just get stuff done." We might not always agree on how to do it, but we all want the same thing.

I know the member talked about water and sewer. I'm going to tell you a little story about water and sewer. I stood there with the previous government and the previous MP. Some of you may know the previous MP for Halifax who's now the mayor. We made an incredible announcement. Water and sewer were promised to my community decades ago by the municipality. Why was it promised to Herring Cove? It wasn't promised because at the time it was a huge, massive, growing community. Not at all. It was actually still considered rural, and it was still considered a place where - we weren't really ever considered a part of HRM or Halifax at the time. They said they needed to put a sewer plant for the rest of Halifax somewhere in Halifax. We're not going to put it in the south end, we're not going to put it in the north end, we're not going to put it in Dartmouth South or Dartmouth East or any of those areas; we're going to put it in Herring Cove.

Shortly after that, they put a C&D site in Harriestfield. I thank the member for Timberlea-Prospect who helped spearhead the cleanup of that site after 30 years of dumping and nobody wanting to take responsibility. The reason I talk about the water is because people were promised water and sewer to the community if they took this sewer plant that sits on our coastline, a spot for generations that had been a gathering spot - I'm not going to tell you what we did there, but we had some fun there, bonfires and parties and things like that. That's where they wanted to put it, on a pristine part of the coastline. One of the first things you'd see as you come into Herring Cove. The community made an agreement. Sure, okay, but we need water and sewer. Yes, no problem.

[Page 2957]

Guess what happened? They ran a bit of water and sewer, then all of a sudden, this little community of Timberlea exploded. Now we've got to run water and sewer to Timberlea. You guys are going to have to wait. Then we've got to run water to the airport. You guys are going to have to wait. We've been waiting for 30 years. We ended up getting some funding under the federal government. The federal government put forward, I think it was 60 percent, we had to put forward 20 percent. We made the announcement, it was all exciting, they were finally starting Phase 2 of a three-phase project in Herring Cove. Guess what? The municipality decided not to do it. Why? Your guess is as good as mine.

[2:30 p.m.]

When you give them 80 cents on the dollar, and they still won't keep their promise to the community, I think people lose faith. What I will say is I have faith in this council. I have faith in our municipal leaders to do the right thing.

We stand in this Chamber day after day, year after year, and we hear from the Opposition, who say we need housing. We need housing now. Why haven't you built housing now?

Guess what housing needs? I'm going to surprise you and shock you. Do you know what housing needs besides electricity? Water and sewer.

I know some of the members opposite have fought hard to stop developments in their community, but at the same time have said to build more. That's their right. We are a province where people want to live, so we have to adjust to that.

There have been times, I know there have been other bills where that had been put forward that may impact the municipality. To my knowledge it hasn't been used. In fact, there has been a heck of a lot of collaboration between the province and the municipality of HRM.

I'll give you another example. Shortly after having the honour and the privilege to be Minister of Community Services, now OSD, the very first thing that fell on my plate was Parade Square. I give credit to the member for Halifax Chebucto because we worked side by side on that. The member gave me a lot of great information. Actually, in fact, the member brought forward a solution that we ended up running with. I have no problem standing in my place and saying that I worked with the NDP on something, or I worked with the Liberals on something. I have said it before - a good idea is a good idea no matter where it comes from.

[Page 2958]

The truth is, in order to move forward on that, HRM needed our assistance. We could have said, "This is your property. This is your responsibility. You allowed the encampment there. You deal with it." We didn't. We got together. We worked with the municipality. We came up with a solution.

Quite frankly, the province bore almost 100 percent of the cost. That's what responsible governments do: They take care of our most vulnerable. They work with their partners.

Yes, Speaker, I'll go back to this bill, this budget, and this House sitting. The truth is that, like this bill, like any other bill, decisions are made. Tough decisions have to be made. We know that it impacts people. Nobody wants that.

For anyone on that side to paint it as that something malicious is happening or we're doing this because this is something - it's because they have never been in a position to make these types of decisions. For them to say something like that shows that they have never had to make the tough decisions. We're going to continue to invest in our municipalities and our most vulnerable and our visible minorities and the 2SLGBQTIA+ community. Do we want to do more? Absolutely.

I heard the member say, "You cut the HST," and all that. Well, imagine if the Liberals would have gotten elected. They would have cut the HST by two points. They're not talking about that. We would be running a $2.5-billion deficit budget.

March 2^nd on CBC, the Leader of the Official Opposition was asked if she would raise taxes - she refused to answer. A refusal is an answer. When you refuse to answer a question and refer to tax cuts that have put more money in people's pockets as a joke. In the House on February 25^th, it's a joke.

So I suspect we'll spend hours on this bill and that's a good thing because that's what democracy is. And we'll be here to defend the legislation we've put forward, and as the Premier has said, we've heard him say it, the proof is in the pudding. If we do something that has unintended consequences or we're told that something has had an impact that we didn't foresee, unlike previous government, we're not going to dig in. We're going to listen and we're going to find solutions. This has happened before where nobody's perfect and sometimes legislation is not perfect, and we fix it because that's what responsible government does. That's what human beings do. You don't dig in. You don't say, "You know what? I don't care."

So all this is to say that I just hope that we can get back to the facts. I hope that we can get back to not splitting hairs to try to prove your point. To say that I had a discussion in this House in Question Period where they removed pre-Primary and before-and-after schools as if it wasn't child care, as if the government is not spending hundreds of millions of dollars on these things. These impact and help people right across this municipality, right across HRM, Speaker, but it doesn't prove points that individuals want to prove. Again, when asked, "Would you tell your constituents that they can no longer have those services?" you could hear a pin drop. Making a mockery and talking down about the School Lunch Program, a $100-million investment. "Well, why don't you just give kids another chicken nugget?" Who says that? Who says that, really? I would be absolutely embarrassed to say that, especially if that was your profession.

[Page 2959]

We know that children go to school hungry right across HRM, right across this municipality. If we want to do a short history of when I started first following politics, it was under the Dexter government - nothing happened. The Liberal Government came in - credit to them - the breakfast program. They realized how important it was. I stood there in the schools as the breakfast program rolled out. The NDP voted against it, by the way, they absolutely voted against it. Then, the lunch program came because that's what you do - $100 million toward the lunch program and 9 million meals had been served across the municipality.

A flippant comment was made as if it was nothing and I just can't get past it. I can't get past that because there was no apology, there was no explanation. It was just, feed the kids a little more as if it was an insult, and they won't apologize for it. They will not and that's fine.

So we'll be here all night on this and whatever else we need to do because we know that what we're trying to do in this bill and all the other bills that we put forward is build the best possible Nova Scotia we can in the package and in the financial envelope that we have.

I will say this: we hear this over and over from the Opposition - both sides will say, all that money you blew and wasted. I guess everybody's in the same boat, because the NDP government in B.C. is running a massive deficit, the Liberal government in N.B. is running a massive deficit, and all governments - including the federal government which is running one of the largest deficits this country has every seen, but because they wear the same colour - quiet. We are all in the same boat from one end of this country to the other and one municipality to the other, and that's why I know that what's coming from HRM is going to impact my community, absolutely it is, but I understand where they're at and that's why those decisions they're going to make are in their wheelhouse.

Again, time and time again we hear this: "You wasted money." They said, "You decreased taxes." Well, guess what, it wasn't too long ago that I heard them talk about how we are the most taxed province and municipality in the country and shame on us for collecting those taxes, right?

[Page 2960]

We will do the best we can with this bill, any bill, the municipality will do the absolute best we can. We've said it before and the proof is in the pudding. When we can do more, we will do more. If you look from the line budget to the Department of Municipal Affairs right on up to every other department, from 2021 to now, it's a 50, 60, 70, 80 100 percent increase in budgets. More money is going to the municipality for infrastructure and roads and services in the HRM than at any other time in this province's history.

The HRM likes to say there are more cranes in the sky than there have ever been. I will leave it at that. I'm sure there's going to be lots of conversation on this. I get up, I say this, but I really do respect this process and I respect the Opposition. I respect what they say. I respect the time they take. This is all part of the process, and this is how we make legislation.

I would just ask that we keep it factual. Let's not get personal. People are tired of that. They are absolutely sick and tired of it. I hear comments from people right across Nova Scotia, not just about what's happening on this side but what's happening on that side, too, and the comments that are made on that side of the House.

When leaders come out and make comments toward this bill or any other bill that are misleading - or misinformed, I should say - it has real life consequences. I gladly support this bill and I look forward to the rest of the debate on this.

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

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : I can't sing but I can quote William Shakespeare who says: I think thou doth protest too much. Or, as I would say to my children, "This is the pot calling the kettle black." If we don't want to make it personal, we don't cast aspersions on individual members of this House, which I think that the Government House Leader did no fewer than five times in his speech. (Interruptions)

BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : It's the truth. It's what was said. It's literally what was said.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order, order. You know what? Here's the thing: all groups do that here, so if you can give it, you can take it. It is (interruption) - enough. If a person is speaking, I would appreciate no yelling across the floor.

The honourable member for Dartmouth South.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : I am responding to a comment that the Government House Leader - who I don't think spoke to the bill in the last 20 minutes - made saying that we should keep it civil in this House and should not make it personal. That member just made it personal, time and time again, so I look forward to the member taking his own medicine.

[Page 2961]

In the meantime I rise with pleasure to speak to Bill No. 212, An Act Respecting Administrative Measures for Housing. Here's the thing, Speaker: the Halifax Regional Municipality is what is called a creature of the province. They are an organization that by law cannot run a deficit, and so when the government tells them to do things and doesn't give them the money to do it, they are effectively dictating municipal policy in a way that ties the hands of the municipality and unquestionably interferes in their jurisdiction. That is what this piece of legislation does and that, quite frankly, is what this government does. They dictate, but they don't respond. They tell, but they don't help.

[2:45 p.m.]

We have seen over the last number of years dozens of intrusions into municipal matters. I think my colleague, the member for Sydney-Membertou, spoke as a former councillor at length about the experience of provincial governments doing that. Here's the thing: If we wanted to help municipalities, we wouldn't cut $600,000 to add to a $1.2-billion deficit to stop kids from taking the bus.

We could give that fraction of a percentage point of our budget - we could leave that in place and kids could take the bus. Somehow, it is not appropriate, because HRM didn't give them the bus numbers, to interfere in the jurisdiction of our largest municipality that is choked with traffic. We don't have $600,000 to help kids take the bus.

Let's talk about infrastructure in HRM and ways that this government could help. In the middle of our city, we have the former Bloomfield School, we have the former St. Patrick's-Alexandra School, we have the former St. Patrick's High School vacant for years and years. We have time and time again brought this up on the floor of the House. We have brought solutions to the House. We have said, "Hey, government, how about a vacant land tax?" How about instead of us paying - Nova Scotians paying these inflated taxes, developers pay for the privilege of sitting on serviced land - doesn't need services - in the middle of communities that they're not going to build on?

It is unbelievable that we allow wealthy developers to land bank in the middle of our city that is bursting at the seams, our city that has traffic problems that we can't handle, our city that is lacking infrastructure. We have three former public school sites that reverted to the Province, and this Province pretends that they can't do anything about it. I can give you a lot of other ways that this government could help.

There are many communities in HRM that would love to have mandated services. Africville doesn't have a bus. Africville didn't have any infrastructure for generations: water, sewer. Hammonds Plains found out that their fire suppression systems didn't actually work a few years ago. We have a legacy of systemic environmental racism in this province, and that has been expressed through the provision or lack thereof of infrastructure. Not only has this government not paid any attention, they actually suppressed the environmental racism report that their own government commissioned.

[Page 2962]

Let's talk about representing things properly. I'm going to respond to a few things that the Government House Leader said in remarks. We're debating here, and the first thing I want to respond to is the idea that this government respects this process because that is absurd. This is not a process. I was elected nine years ago, and at the time, people were lamenting that we were losing the traditions of the Legislature. At that time, we would come in for our spring sitting, bills would be introduced. Over the period of a few weeks, we would debate them, and then the budget would be introduced. And then we would go line by line through the budget. Then the FMA would be introduced, the bill that enables the budget. And then we would debate the FMA.

This is a farce. And the persons in control of these proceedings are the Government House Leader and the Premier. They decide when we sit. They decide when the legislation comes. They decide what gets included or excluded from briefings on that legislation. And we are left to pick up the pieces. It's not about deal-making, with respect, Speaker.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. Sorry. I need to recognize you again. Can we just keep our extracurricular comments down, please. Thank you.

The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Thank you, Speaker. I will say to the Government House Leader on the floor what I've said to him in the hallway which is, if we want to bring the temperature down, if we want to do this properly, we call normal hours. We introduce legislation in a manner that the public can have time to understand it. We let them know when Public Bills is. Not at 11:00 p.m. on a Friday when the Public Bills Committee is meeting on a Monday morning. But with enough and proper notice that experts and citizens can have a say on legislation. None of that is happening here.

I want to talk about this bill, if I may. The reality is, the Government House Leader referred to tough decisions, and the fact that we've never had to make tough decisions. It's true. I, myself, have never been on the government side. But it's also true that this government has never had to make tough decisions either. Because they have had more revenue than any government in history. So, this sitting, this budget, they're making tough decisions. And they're showing us who they really are.

We've got a $1.2 billion deficit. And we see decisions like this that are deflecting and downloading the fiscal and other responsibilities of this province, in this case on to a municipality, but in general onto communities that are least able to bear it. I want to say it again: the $130 million worth of cuts that we see in the budget do not in any way ameliorate the $1.2 billion deficit. It is a shield. It is a device. Because this government needs an enemy. We know that. So, today the enemy is us. We are the enemy. We are misrepresenting things. And we've heard the new Tory talking points this sitting. "Tough decisions." "Not telling the truth." "The members aren't working with us." We've heard it from every minister. That's how we know that they're talking points. But that doesn't make them true.

[Page 2963]

When we criticize the government's accounting on child care, it's because they're including free universal programming when they give us an average cost. And whether or not the federal government uses that, it's not what Nova Scotians think they're doing. We're not saying that we haven't made any progress on child care. We're saying that they should be honest about their math. And we think they should be honest about their math in a lot of other places too.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. Order. Unparliamentary language, to be honest is - I ask you to rephrase that. Order. I've been pretty good all day, last night, letting people wander off a little bit. Now that I'm getting some kickback, I think I'm going to bring it back on. I ask you to rephrase that. And I ask you to stay to the bill, which is about housing.

The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Thank you, Speaker. We would like the government to be transparent about their Act, and I'll just finish responding to the point that the Government House Leader made.

The other talking point I think we've heard from a few ministers today is that decisions will have unintended consequences, and the government might address those. So this bill might have unintended consequences, like saddling HRM with an enormous bill for infrastructure that they can't afford, creating sprawl that they can't support in places that don't have schools and hospitals. But I would submit that that and all of the things that the people outdoors have been protesting about, and all of the things that the African Nova Scotian community was upset about the other night - those aren't unintended consequences. Those are, in fact, intended consequences.

Legislation is a statement of intention, and if the legislators don't do their homework, that's on them. In this bill, the intention is to give the Minister of Housing order-making powers to expand the urban boundary in HRM and, while we need housing, we also have a municipality that is confronting a lot of things in their jurisdiction that the Province isn't confronting. We also have a municipality that is not being supported by the Province in many of the ways that they need to be.

Our schools are bursting at the seams. We have challenges with traffic. We have challenges with public spaces. We have a government that seemingly hates transit, which I submit will come back to bite them because we can't fit any more cars in Halifax. People have to drive. There are lots of people who have to drive, and the people who have to drive have to drive, but we are actively taking away the capacity for people who don't have to drive to have another choice. I just think that is incredibly shortsighted.

[Page 2964]

This bill allows the minister to determine who pays the cost of infrastructure into these new urban boundaries. Again, HRM has a different fiscal capacity, which is to say very little, than the Province does, even in a situation - a $1.2-billion deficit, a rising debt. The Province actually has a lot of fiscal capacity. We've seen that. They have spent $6.7 billion outside of the budget. They had the capacity to do that. HRM can't do that. Municipalities are not legally allowed to do that.

So we're setting up a collision course here for the Province to decide that they want one thing - that HRM is going to need to forego other things in order to afford. The municipality, unlike the province, has a very arduous and transparent budgeting process where they categorize and they recategorize and they have staff reports and people present, and when they get to the end, they have some representative sense of why they have prioritized things the way that they have. What we have here is a situation where the Province is going to come in and put themselves at the top of the list. That could be a real problem, and like almost every other bill we're debating, our question is: Why?

The Government House Leader loves to talk about collaboration. He just wants us to all work together and I think somewhere he might believe that, but all of this legislation is contrary to that. The way we conduct business in this House is contrary to that - directly contrary to that. It flies in the face of the idea that we can work together. I am proud to say that I have worked with members on all sides of this House, including the Independents, on various initiatives. I'm always game if there's something we can accomplish, but my job right now is to be a check on what seems to be the effort to obtain unbridled power over everything with no process by this government.

[3:00 p.m.]

This is one, as I said, of many bills that does seek to do that. We saw something pretty similar in Ontario with the Greenbelt Foundation. Doug Ford wanted to push out the urban boundaries, and people revolted. The same thing is going to happen if we pass this.

Again, we have large, serviced parcels in the city. They have the infrastructure they need. We're not building on them. In my district of Dartmouth South, we have two special planning areas. Those got built. There's some new smear campaign about how I didn't support building Mount Hope. It's not true. I thought maybe we could not change the rules so that we don't protect wetlands anymore. But every step of the way, I said we can have housing, and we can also have some regard for the environment.

In Dartmouth South, this government, the Province - I think in the title of the Minister of Public Works - owns two prime development parcels right downtown, serviced, on transit, one of them has beautiful waterfront views. Nothing is happening.

One of them was slated for affordable housing development with one of the largest real estate investment trusts in the province and one of the most respected non-profits. This government just cancelled it. They said their priorities had changed. The idea that the priority of this bill is to provide housing when, in fact, it handcuffs the municipalities - I have questions, Speaker.

[Page 2965]

I have talked about the fiscal capacity of the Province. I have talked about the fiscal capacity of the city. The other thing that happens in this budget, related to this bill, is that the $15 million Growth and Renewal for Infrastructure Development Program, which actually helped to pay for municipal water and sewage infrastructure, has been eliminated. So we're saying, you have to do it, and we're saying we're not going to pay for it. It doesn't make sense to me.

Forcing the city to expand the urban boundary is going to force them to raise taxes to pay for cost-inefficient sprawl and development. It is so much more expensive to provide infrastructure outside of an urban boundary than it is inside. We know that. We see water bills going up. We are price-sensitive to infrastructure right now, I would say.

We are now giving this Province the opportunity to build the most expensive infrastructure that's going to land at the feet of the taxpayers. Why? Why don't we focus on actually developing the land that we have inside the urban boundary, particularly the land that's owned by the Province?

I'm going to wrap up, Speaker, but I just want to note that the urban boundary expansion powers and the dissolution of the Executive Panel on Housing in the HRM are both noted in this bill because they are both set to expire in 2028. What could be happening in 2028? (Laughter) Probably an election. I don't know. We didn't have a fixed election date; we did have a fixed election date; now we don't have a fixed election date. Reading the tea leaves, I'm guessing 2028 is probably about when we're going to have one - so some new things set up for these folks to campaign on.

Also, I have to read this because I can't even. Clauses 13 and 14 eliminate the interim advisory board of the Nova Scotia Provincial Housing Agency and make the establishment of the board optional. The only person on the interim board is the deputy minister. The government never actually appointed anyone to the advisory board since it's been established in legislation in 2022.

This government does not like boards. They don't like advice. They don't like independence. They don't like experts. We don't have a Nova Scotia Health Authority board. We don't have a Nova Scotia Provincial Housing Agency board. Most of our Crown corporations either don't have boards, or if they do, they advise the minister. They don't advise the director of that corporation.

Lots of people in this Chamber have served on boards and know the function of those boards: to provide advice, to provide support, to provide expert opinions, to provide guidance, and to provide direction. It appears as if all the work of every board of every Crown or former Crown in the province and every independent agency is being done in the Premier's Office. I don't know how many staff there are in the Premier's Office, but there's not enough.

[Page 2966]

We've heard, over and over again, ministers deflect responsibility for budget cuts in their area or in their constituency, saying they didn't know - how could a minister of the Crown not know? - or worse yet, blaming staff. Staff made the decision to cut.

I was asked by a reporter yesterday, "How can I get in touch with the staff who decided to make the cuts?" Shameful.

This does speak to the bill because this bill does the same thing. It deflects responsibility. If we want to solve these problems, we can't shunt them off on another order of government, on another Cabinet minister, or on public service workers. We need responsibility. If we need more housing, let's build more housing. We're on board, but let's start with the low-hanging fruit. Let's build housing. We need to build housing all over the province, where it's needed. We have good programs, but we need a lot more of it. We need to work on what our priorities are.

This is going to cause headaches. It's not necessary. It's an overreach. It's a consolidation of power that isn't required. Once again, it's this government showing us who they really are.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Argyle.

HON. COLTON LEBLANC « » : Headaches. The member opposite referenced headaches. You know what causes headaches in Nova Scotians? Looking to find a place to call home.

This is a portfolio that I had the honour and privilege of leading. I respect the work that my team - my former team - has done. It was referenced by the member opposite that the civil servants did this, and the staff did this. Guess what? These are dedicated Nova Scotians who show up every single day and put their heart and soul into what matters the most, and that's the work that they're doing to advance this province.

With respect to Housing and the staff - and if it's any other department - these are people who have experience, who have knowledge, and who have a skillset to work with their ministers. It is incumbent on us as ministers to have a level of trust and a level of confidence in what is being recommended to us and bring those decisions and those recommendations to the Cabinet table.

Otherwise, to twist and turn and manipulate words in a way that may make sense for the Opposition, in that sense, continues to cause me a headache.

[Page 2967]

Here we are again with a situation where the NDP says one thing and want another. They want more housing, but they don't want more housing. They say it's going to cause headaches. I again say that what is going to cause headaches for Nova Scotians living here in Halifax, in my constituency, or in another part of this province is the headache of trying to find a place.

What Nova Scotians can be reassured of is that they have a government that is not only saying we're going to create the conditions to build more homes. Three years into our Action for Housing plan, we are seeing those results. I'm proud of the work that the former Minister of Housing did under my leadership that we were able to achieve, and the work that continues under the current Minister of Housing. We've paved the way for over 68,000 new units that have been committed. Housing starts are up 36 percent. The vacancy rates are double now. Nova Scotians should be reassured that we are moving the needle on that.

We look at, in this case with this piece of legislation, some of the hurdles and we are talking about the Province getting involved with HRM. I can tell you from speaking with my colleagues, speaking with others, there have been projects in the pipeline just waiting for a check mark, waiting to say go, start building, and guess what? This government created a mechanism to finally get developments under way in this province and get developments under way in this city.

I encourage any member to take the ferry from Halifax or Dartmouth or Dartmouth to Halifax return trip and try to count the cranes in the sky. You lose count. Frankly, there is a wait-list for cranes in the city. It's a sign of growth, and as a member of this government, we've heard challenges with respect to transit and other things. These are challenges of growth, and I'd much rather be dealing with growth in this province than be part of a government dealing with decline.

These are real challenges and I do not want to diminish the impacts that they have on Nova Scotians, but that's why we created Link Nova Scotia. That's why we are taking a look across government of how we make it easier to do business. How do we make it easier to get goods and people in and out of the city? We've been fortunate to see the growth that we have in this province, and I think we are a beacon for opportunity, or a beacon for business. We are a beacon for Nova Scotians to proudly call Nova Scotia home, to open up a business, to start a family - to really see themselves in the future of this province.

We have SPAs. When the special planning areas were created through the mechanism of the executive planning panel, the sky was going to fall. Oh my gosh, the sky was going to fall. Well, our newer members may believe the sky is still falling, but guess what? Houses are being built. Hundreds of people have found a place to call home in these special planning areas.

[Page 2968]

Nova Scotians should be reassured that their future service communities - the assessments and analyses that are required when it comes to infrastructure, environmental concerns, flooding concerns, transportation requirements - are all taken into consideration. These are not a blank approval, but for far too long we've just said, well, you know, let's wait and see. Well, Nova Scotians cannot afford to wait and see.

Often in this Chamber in my time as Minister of Housing, the finger is really easily pointed to the Province as being the sole responsible level of government for housing. We all have a responsibility. The federal government has responsibility for housing, the provincial government has responsibility for housing, and so do our municipalities. I think of a project in Yarmouth on Shaw Avenue that was announced last year where all three levels of government contributed one thing. The town put forward the land, the Province put forward money, as well as the federal government, and guess what? Affordable housing is being built in Yarmouth, and there are many other situations like that that can be replicated and shared.

I also think of the Land for Housing initiative that our government spearheaded in the early days of our first mandate. I remember when we were fortunate to open that up across the harbour with our community partner, Rooted, and one of the questions from the media was: Minister, can you explain why it took so long? It took like 18 to 24 months to finally get this bill. Eighteen months for a development agreement through HRM. It might be a miracle, but the miracle is finally that we have that place built.

Again, it comes down to collaboration. It comes down to working with all levels of government to create the conditions to sometimes government getting out of the way. There is a time and place and a role for government, but sometimes it requires us to get out of the way and let builders build, and to allow Nova Scotians to find a place to call home.

[3:15 p.m.]

We've heard some smearing that after years of wasteful spending, reckless spending, that here we are with a fiscal capacity, but I ask the members opposite: What reckless spending did they not support? Did they not support the rent supplements, the record investments that we made in rent supplements? Did they not support the community housing . . .

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

LISA LACHANCE « » : I rise on a point of order. I'm wondering if you could determine whether "smearing" was parliamentary or not.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member did not direct it at anyone and therefore, it is not a point of privilege. No, the honorable member did not direct it. The Clerk has made me promise to not show any drama here, but I can, because I'm ready. It is not a point of privilege. The honourable member for Argyle.

[Page 2969]

COLTON LEBLANC « » : The members opposite characterize our spending and our investments in Nova Scotians as reckless. Is it the community housing investments that we've made, record investments in that sector to support them, to build and preserve new units? Is it the home repair programs that we've done? Is it the historic, and for the first time in generations, public housing investments? Is it the First-time Homebuyers Program that our government launched last month? Is it maximizing the public housing resources that we currently have to ensure that the most vulnerable Nova Scotians are the ones who should be living in public housing?

At the end of the day, this is not about power. This is about ensuring that we are moving this province forward. Again, the members opposite can characterize it any which way they want, but they can be reassured, and Nova Scotians can be reassured, that we are a government of action. We want to build this province forward. We will defend our record and we will defend the foundations that we built over the last four years. We know the future of this province is bright. We know that we are a beacon of opportunity, and despite the fiscal challenges that we see here in Nova Scotia and across this country, we're one of the first provinces to table a budget. I'm very interested to see what the budgets are going to look like right across this country when other provinces and territories introduce their budgets.

Guess what? There are difficult times. Nova Scotia will be able to weather the storm better than others. Under the leadership of this government, we will continue to be there for our fellow Nova Scotians.

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

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : I am speaking in opposition to this bill, particularly the power reach over HRM yet again. The reasons why I think it's inappropriate for the minister to put himself in a position where he can arbitrarily increase the urban zone where services will be implemented is because he has not answered the question of who will pay. I think I can speak from a geographic perspective representing Timberlea-Prospect, where literally half of my area is within that urban, city water, sewer, transit area and then the other half is rural HRM.

There are huge areas of HRM that are rural. It's where most rural Nova Scotians actually live, in HRM. The implications could be significant when power is given to the minister to override local, democratically elected councillors who have planning staff who go through the process in terms of how they can figure out who's going to pay and how infrastructure is sequenced. It really just weakens the coordination of how that infrastructure is sequenced. It weakens the coordination of how that infrastructure comes in. It enables political decisions to be made.

[Page 2970]

This government has made themselves proud of making top-down decisions without thinking of the impact in the end.

There are a number of examples of how water was dispersed out to communities throughout the HRM. It shows how important the local voice in council is. In Timberlea, the last major development was Brunello. That was made possible based on councillors working together to figure out capacity at the sewage treatment plant and needing to either expand the existing one at Timberlea or redirect toward the peninsula. Those are the kinds of micro-decisions that were important and needed to be made at the local level - not the minister's level and, frankly, in the Premier's Office, where we know most decisions at the ministerial level are made under this government.

My colleague mentioned Upper Hammonds Plains. That's a good history lesson. For those who may not know it, the Province expropriated the land around Pockwock Lake area, where a lot of the Halifax water comes from. That was a Provincial decision to run water through the streets of Upper Hammonds Plains, a Black community. That community wasn't even able to access the water. They had poor drinking water, couldn't access the water, and the pipes were literally going through their backyards.

We have major problems within our institutions with systemic racism. Am I saying a decision like that that was made 50 years ago would be made today? I hope not, but there are issues that have not been solved within our institutions. We have to know the history, and who knows the history more than the closest government to the people? It took until the 1990s - 1999 - when that community finally was able to access the water in their backyard.

My colleague mentioned how it was recently brought up how the capacity of the fire hydrants isn't up to the standards of what it would be in other areas. That was in the 1990s. That's not that long ago. Accountability is important to keep close to people. I know about these history lessons because my father was the councillor for Hammonds Plains when he was able to deliver water for the Upper Hammons Plains community and right that wrong.

I want to remove the political decisions from these important decisions where communities go, especially when we know the HRM has literally thousands of approvals right now that do not have units built. What's preventing the province from arbitrarily creating new zones that we don't need?

Transit is an important piece of this. We know that this government is, for some reason, anti-transit. Most progressive jurisdictions that are looking at planning and building big communities are building them, densifying, and adhering to principles called transit-oriented development - TOD. It's a known acronym, even in places in Canada - Montreal and Vancouver - because they are being forced to be able to develop that way. They're running out of land, and they need to have big transit investments.

[Page 2971]

If we are going to start approving zones with city water services, there are going to be massive financial pressures for the HRM to deliver transit in those communities. If Prospect, for example, becomes an urban area, they're going to need transit out that way - or other communities that don't have city water. Who is paying for that? Who is paying for the long-term maintenance costs of the pipes in the ground? The minister has not answered those questions because he knows it's the municipality.

That is an important piece that we looked at. There is a pattern of power that this government wants but not explaining how they're actually going to be able to provide for the infrastructure needed.

Timberlea had water sometime in the 1980s. Councillor Helena Poirier brought it there and it really did create and enable growth. I'm really proud to represent the community because it has become one of the best examples of what complete communities can look like: walkable, livable, welcoming communities. That was because of municipal collaboration and working to get sidewalks built, to get amenities, partnering with other levels of government to build a community centre that's going to open up soon, infrastructure around roads working with all levels of government to make sure that happens and not a top-down approach.

Now, if there was a budget saying that there was a certain amount of money coming from the Province or operating funds going into transit, then some of this might be a little bit more palatable but Timberlea still needs amenities and infrastructure. They need sidewalks going up the parkway and HRM is already cash-strapped. What this is going to do in my view is halt progress in those emerging communities because there is going to be so much pressure in wherever this province decides they're going pluck new communities down with city water and sewer.

I like to stay respectful in my debate. I'm not going to cast aspersions. I think it's just really important that we're on the record saying that we oppose the increasing power grab in the minister's office when these decisions should be made at the council level; because it is council that can balance appropriately the infrastructure requirements, the environmental issues, what capacity they have within their own sewer and water system. I can guarantee you those conversations are not happening at the seventh floor across the street.

What conversations are happening: "We need more housing. What can we do? What legislative tools do we need to keep pushing, pushing, pushing to build more houses?" Without the thought needed or required from professionals to make sure that it's done appropriately and that we have the right infrastructure so that we don't make mistakes of the past.

[Page 2972]

I just want to register those thoughts. Obviously we don't support the bill.

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

KENDRA COOMBES « » : I'm rising today to talk on Bill No. 212 here and I'm just getting the bill out because I really want to go through some stuff here.

So in Part I of this bill, it states:

20F (1) In this Section, "newly elected councillor" means a councillor who has been elected to the Council and was not a member of the Council immediately before that election.

(2) The Municipality shall, in accordance with the regulations, provide orientation training to newly elected councillors.

(3) A newly elected councillor shall attend orientation training provided pursuant to subsection (2).

(4) The Minister may make regulations respecting orientation training provided pursuant to subsection (2), including regulations prescribing requirements relating to

(a) the content, format and timing of the training; and

(b) who is to deliver aspects of the training.

(5) The exercise by the Minister of the authority contained in subsection (4) is a regulation within the meaning of the Regulations Act.

I have been pushing since I became the MLA for Cape Breton Centre at the time and now Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier, and prior to that, as a CBRM councillor, for proper training to be done. What I'm hoping - and I believe what is put here for the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter is also applying to the Municipal Government Act - is when we're talking about orientation training, we are not just taking about the role of the councillor and the roles that the clerks play and what have you and what roles each department plays.

[3:30 p.m.]

What I am hoping is also involved in this training is sensitivity training. That is what many of us who were on councils begged for and asked for, and that's when the - I'm blanking on the word; if someone could help me with it, that would be wonderful. (Interruption)

[Page 2973]

This what happens as time goes by. It's the sensitivity training, but it's - a code of conduct. There we go. I got there. It's like asking for the thing like that - like the flicker when you get to the word "remote."

The code of conduct was put in. We asked for the code of conduct, but you can put a code of conduct forward, but until you actually understand what each part of that code of conduct means, it's useless.

The same with orientation. If we're talking about orientation, I want to know - and I'm hoping one of the ministers can stand up at some point and tell me - if orientation is going to include orientation to what a code of conduct is and do some sensitivity training. When we're talking about members of council who are racialized, or when we are talking about members of council who are gender-diverse, part of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, and/or women, most of these places are not often designed - as many of you know, I had my own experiences as a CBRM councillor where I was harassed a number of times by a couple of fellow colleagues.

My hope is that when we're talking about the orientation training, we're not just talking about orientation training here and we're not just talking about, "Here's your role. This is what you do." I hope we're talking about the nitty-gritty sensitivity training and the nitty-gritty of what the code of conduct is. I'm going to hope for it, but due to the budget of what I'm seeing, I don't know if there's going to be any.

Some municipal councils do not have a lot of money. It's hard for them to contract out anywhere to do that kind of sensitivity training. I'm hoping that the minister can tell me if this is going to be funded by the Province, considering the Province is putting this into the MGA as well as into the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter. It's being prescribed, so I'm hoping there's going to be some funding attached to that to actually help municipal councils be able to do this kind of training properly.

I'm still waiting to hear back from councils about this. I'm hoping I'll hear about them soon.

The next aspect of this, Speaker, is one that I'm trying to ascertain as to what it is. It's Clause 2, for the minister:

35A The Council may delegate the evaluation and performance management of the Chief Administrative Officer to a committee of the Council.

[Page 2974]

35B Notwithstanding clause 35(2)(a), the Council may exclude or limit the Chief Administrative Officer's

(a) attendance at any Council meeting or Council committee meeting, if the meeting includes or relates to

(i) evaluation of the Chief Administrative Officer, including evaluation of the Chief Administrative Officer's conduct or performance, or

(ii) Council training, education, performance or coaching; and

(b) participation or membership in boards, committees or organizations external to the Municipality.

I understand the first half of this. You do not want your only employee - I'm going to put on my geek hat - when you're a municipal councillor, your only employee - the only employee you're allowed to direct to do anything as a municipal councillor - is your CAO. You are not allowed to direct any other department. Your CAO is your only staff person.

It does make sense that, if it's not being done in councils, you would not want to include your CAO. To attend council meetings where you are evaluating that CAO, where you're having conversations about that CAO's conduct; that makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is - if you want your CAO in the training, education, performance, or coaching, one thing the CAO is, is the one who is actually able to help you understand your role, and then help them understand their role.

I get it. If you don't want them involved, sure. To exclude or limit participation or membership in boards, committees, or organizations external to the municipality, that one I have a question about. I don't know how many of you are fully aware of municipalities, but the CAOs have their own organization, AMANS. I'm wondering if the minister - because this is where my thoughts go when things are vague, and this is vague. This could mean almost anything. When I see comments that are vague, I want to have somebody explain them fully to me.

Does this mean that you can exclude your CAO from participating in AMANS - which is the, I guess sister or cousin to the NSFM, which is for the councillors. AMANS is for the CAOs. Does that mean they can't participate in - what type of committees are we talking about? Any committees? It's very vague that we're telling a CAO that we could exclude them or limit them from participating in organizations external to the municipality.

Is that out of the fact that it could be a conflict of interest for them to be on a board where a board might come to a municipality for financial support? That can be understandable. I had that same idea with councillors. I have a disagreement with that. If your organization asks for money from somebody, you may not want to be on that board or be seen on that board as a conflict of interest, or exclude yourself from the debate, as many have had to do.

[Page 2975]

It is a question because it is so vague, and I would really love to have a rationale to this. It could be a perfectly fine and understandable rationale. Right now, it's vague to me. As somebody who really likes to have things concrete and to fully understand what each clause means so that it later doesn't come back to bite us, I would really love if the minister could explain this one to me.

For the reason - did municipalities come asking for this? Was AMANS consulted? If not AMANS, were CAOs across the province consulted about this and got their input? Were councillors, mayors in discussions on this clause? As I said, there could be a perfectly reasonable explanation for that one, but that's the one I truly don't understand.

What I really don't get is 35B(b), I guess it is.

Those are just briefly my beginning thoughts on just a few clauses here. I have quite a bit more in this, so bear with me here.

I'll start with giving a brief overview of the rest of the bill and how I've interpreted it. The main takeaways that I got from this bill have been: It gives the Minister of Housing order-making powers to the Halifax Regional Municipality to expand their urban boundary for sprawl housing development. It includes powers to order Halifax Water and HRM to build water and sewage infrastructure out to sprawl communities enabled by urban boundary expansions. It allows the minister to unilaterally determine who pays the cost of the infrastructure out of these new sprawl communities.

Building infrastructure for low-density urban sprawl is costly and it could further raise property taxes and water rates for existing homeowners and rate payers in the HRM. That is what I am kind of getting from this bill is some of these consequences and takeaways here. Then, I want to talk about the actual aspect of the budget completely eliminating the GRID, which is the Growth and Renewal for Infrastructure Development Program, which funds municipal water and sewage infrastructure.

I just don't think that Nova Scotians ask for much. I don't think they are asking for a lot. I think what they are asking for is actually within what government is supposed to provide because Nova Scotians - they work hard, and they want to be able to build a life here in Nova Scotia. Preferably I'd like to see them in Cape Breton.

Five years, roughly, I think, into this government, give or take six months maybe, the differences people were promised by this government have not arrived. The rents keep continuing to rise and home ownership continues to remain out of reach. I have spoken to small developers in my constituency who have told me that the cost of building or the cost of maintaining their smaller properties has made them have to increase rents, which they know. They say the painful part of that is that they have to increase rents on people they know may not be able to afford it, even though they try to keep it affordable, and they are having a really difficult time.

[Page 2976]

I am talking to renters who say the same thing, "I'm having a difficult time renting. I can't find a place."

[3:45 p.m.]

I told a story here - it's a story I'm telling, but it's a reality for several people in my community who have been homeless because they make too much money to be able to use the programs, but they don't make enough money to be able to afford a place to live. This is the reality Nova Scotians are facing, and rather than focusing on building much-needed affordable homes where infrastructure and services already exist, this government is cutting grant programs that help with water and sewage infrastructure needs. If this government was serious about fixing these problems, Nova Scotians would feel the difference by now, but they're not.

I have said this prior to the last election, and I think I said this after the election. I've said it a lot in this House. This government is so focused on giving themselves more power to override community and municipal governments and build homes that people won't be able to afford. A minister stood in his place and talked about the cranes in the air. How many of them are affordable? How many of those buildings that are going up with all those cranes that the government is so proud of are going to be affordable?

I have spoken to people, and I've heard that there is a building that has gone up, and it starts at four units on several sections of an apartment building - on several floors, there are four units. Then it goes to three units on some floors, then it goes to two, and then it goes to one. Can somebody look me in the eye in all seriousness and tell me that the average Nova Scotian would be able to afford to live in that building? Can someone please look me in the eye and tell me, without a single doubt, that the average Nova Scotian, or the Nova Scotian who is struggling just to afford their medications, can afford to live in that kind of building?

The answer is, I believe, no. If you're already trying to be able to afford your bills, your basic power, food, rent, medications, anything else in your life, are you actually going to be able to afford to live in a building where the first several floors are four units, the second floor maybe three, the next floor two, and the last floor one, which are penthouses, by the way? Can you really tell me the average Nova Scotian who is struggling can afford that?

I want to go back to the bill and its clauses. First let me talk about, for people who may not know, the GRID Program. I decided to look it up. I knew it, but I wanted to be able to give the government's full view on this. Apply for funding to support municipal infrastructure projects.

[Page 2977]

The Growth and Renewal for Infrastructure Development Program provides funding for municipal infrastructure projects. Municipalities and villages can apply for funding from the Growth and Renewal for Infrastructure Development Program to reduce the cost of infrastructure projects. You can apply until 9 October 2025.

Question: Now that the program is cancelled, are all those applications null and void? I would like for the minister to answer that question. Now that they have cancelled the program - and my goodness, they have. Please, nobody get up and try to deny this reality because the GRID Program is $15 million in the grant budget, and the reduction is $15 million. Now $15 million from $15 million is zero. That's regular people math. If the PCs want to use their PC math, they can try.

Again, I ask the minister: All the municipalities and the villages that applied for this funding by October 9, 2025 - are they still getting their funding?

The application goes on to say:

Use the Growth and Renewal for Infrastructure Development Program Application Form to apply for funding to support the cost of municipal infrastructure projects that address critical capacity issues, build more accessible and adaptable communities and preserve and expand services to support housing.

You need to use the funding for municipally owned infrastructure projects like:

·         water, wastewater and stormwater

·         accessibility

·         climate change adaptation

Shovel-ready projects that help communities address critical capacity issues and health and safety, expand services, build more accessible and adaptable communities, and enable or preserve housing are given priority.

The Growth and Renewal for Infrastructure Development Program may fund up to 50% of eligible costs for each project. The applicant or other sources need to fund the remaining balance of the project.

[Page 2978]

Eligible costs include:

·         engineering services and project management

·         design as a stand-alone project

·         construction inspection and administration

·         construction and equipment acquisition according to the plans and specifications

It also goes on to talk about the ineligible costs, and it provides a reporting system, which means accountability. That's the GRID Program, so we are all clear on what this is.

Up until October 9^th, people could have applied - or municipalities and villages could apply. Then we find out - I believe prior to this bill, but I can't be certain on that; everything blends together in this House - but I'm pretty sure we found out about the cuts before this bill. Again, for the record, what we have found is that the Growth and Renewal for Infrastructure Development Program is going to be cut by $15 million in the budget, and it was already budgeted for $15 million.

Now we have a bill that, in Clause 3, states:

(1) In this Section, "urban service area" means a geographical area or areas specified in the planning documents of the Municipality that may be developed with municipal water, wastewater or stormwater services.

(2) Where the Minister determines it is in the provincial interest to do so, the Minister may, by order, amend the planning documents of the Municipality to extend or alter the urban service area for the purpose of extending growth-enabling infrastructure.

223C (1) Where the Minister determines it is in the provincial interest to do so, the Minister may request any information from the Municipality or from any utility owned by the Municipality that the Minister considers relevant to growth-enabling infrastructure, and the Minister may specify a time in which the Municipality or the utility must provide the requested information.

(2) The Municipality and any utility owned by the Municipality shall provide the Minister with any information requested by the Minister within the time specified pursuant to subsection (1).

(3) 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.

[Page 2979]

So, a lot of power here.

223D (1) Sections 223B and 223C expire and cease to have any effect on a date prescribed by the regulations or, where no date is prescribed, on November 25, 2028.

That caught my eye, because if I remember correctly, either some of us were re-elected and some of us were newly elected in November a couple of years ago. And if I'm not mistaken, this falls close to the election date.

(2) Any amendments made to the planning documents of the Municipality by the Minister under subsection 223B(2) continue to have effect notwithstanding the expiration of Section 223B pursuant to subsection (1).

Then Clause 4 has:

277B (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations

(a)   setting criteria and factors to be considered by the Minister when extending or altering the urban service area

(b) prescribing a date for the expiration of Sections 223B and 223C.

(2) The exercise by the Governor in Council of the authority contained in subsection (1) is a regulation within the meaning of the Regulations Act.

And then we go into other parts of this where there's Part II, Housing in the Regional Municipality Act, and there's a sixth subclause. It is repealed in the following subclause, substituting factors affecting housing, supply, including water or wastewater, stormwater and other municipal infrastructure, the availability of land, the taxation environment, the availability of labour and other factors, including housing.

Clause 8 says:

21A (1) The Minister may order the Municipality or a utility owned by the Municipality to

(a) build, change, reconfigure or remove water, wastewater, stormwater or other municipal infrastructure within the Municipality for the purpose of accelerating and increasing the supply of housing;

(b) apply for infrastructure funding from federal or other available sources for the purpose of accelerating and increasing the supply of housing.

[Page 2980]

This Part I have to talk about before I go any further, I really do. Does this government not think that municipalities are not applying for federal funding? Do they really think the municipalities are just sitting on their hands? Do that have that low of respect? That municipalities are just sitting around waiting for a windfall? Do you know what most planning departments are doing in municipalities? They're spending their time writing grant to anywhere and everywhere that they can get funding. To tell them that they must apply for infrastructure funding by the federal government, is basically telling them, "We don't think you're doing it." They are doing it.

[4:00 p.m.]

This also says to me, "Forget about us. We, the PC provincial government are not going to help you. Go ask the Feds. But we want you to put in wastewater and sewer, and waterlines, and stormwater, and we want you to build roads. Don't forget the roads. We want you to build the roads. We're telling you that you have to do this here and there and everywhere where we want it, but go to the Feds for money. Don't come to us. The GRID program is gone. You're just going to do what we tell you and we are not going to pay a dime for it, but the municipalities are."

Do you know who lives in the municipalities? Our constituents. Really what this government is doing is trying to save money by robbing Peter and paying Paul. So this is their plan, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong. You are going to download all of that onto the municipalities and then when constituents get up in arms, go, "Oh, blame the municipality. They are in charge of water and stormwater and sewage. They are in charge of that, not us. They are in charge of your road, not us. They are in charge of your sidewalk, not us."

Here's the story. Here's what's happening and you're not going to tell them. "Well, we dictated. Yes, we dictated where that planning area was going to go, but don't blame us for your high taxation and water. Don't blame us for taxes going up - not our fault. We didn't do it." Behind the scenes, it's all about, "We did dictate that we wanted housing in this area. We did dictate that they put in water and sewer and stormwater."

Really what it is, is the Province downloading responsibility onto the municipality, making the municipalities take the heat for the provincial government. They are saying, "You are going to do this, you are going do what we want you to do, when we want you to do it, and where we want you to do it at," and then they tell them to go look for money from the feds, and they cut programs like the GRID program, they've basically washed their hands of this whole thing - but they want the power. The government wants the power to be able to dictate where housing goes, but then throws the municipal unit under the bus, along with the student bus pass. Both of them are really under that bus, maybe getting dragged, Speaker.

[Page 2981]

I got derailed, and I knew I was going to, because that line is just incredible. I hope I'm wrong. I hope I got this wrong when I read it - I really do. I know I didn't get the GRID program wrong because I'm looking at the numbers, but maybe they're going to come up with a better program - more money to help. But I don't see it in the budget.

Before anyone says I'm fearmongering here, I'm only reading what they're putting down. Let's go through those clauses for a moment. Clause 3 gives the Minister of Housing order-making power to force the Halifax Regional Municipality to expand their urban boundary. Speaker, we have talked in here many times about incomplete communities. It seems to me that this feels like an expansion of that.

Clause 3, municipalities have urban boundaries for a reason. They exist to enable urban plans that focus housing development in areas where the infrastructure, services, and amenities already exist, so new infrastructure doesn't have to be laid down. Quite frankly, in most of our communities, there are areas that are still waiting to actually be serviced - older areas still waiting for service. What urban planning does is allow - there's already the infrastructure in place. That's why Shannon Park is a good place to put something. As someone who lived there for a bit when I was a kid, it already had roadways. It already had the infrastructure all laid out. It's a good place to have it. It makes sense.

It is much more cost-efficient for property taxpayers and it's also more environmentally friendly as greater housing density allows for better and more efficient public transit services. Forcing the HRM to expand their urban boundary against their will means forcing them to enable and pay for cost-inefficient sprawl development, which gets passed on to existing homeowners as higher property taxes and water rates. People are already upset about their property taxes. I know I get them every year. I can count it like clockwork, what's going to happen, once PVSC sends out their preliminary this is what your bill is going to be before you get it from the municipality. People are already upset by what they pay in property tax.

People are already upset in almost every municipality - at least in the two big cities I can say, in HRM and CBRM - about their water rates. Again, this I feel is the government's way of not taking the responsibility of the costs.

Putting the power of expanding urban boundaries in the hands of the minister can also create significant ethics risks related to land price speculation. Someone can purchase land outside of the urban boundary for a low price and could lobby the minister to expand the boundary to encompass their land.

Speaker, I think it's the Minister of Housing who's going to be the responsible party here. I don't think it's the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I do believe it is the Minister of Housing who's going to be the responsible party. I'm not casting aspersions on to the Minister of Housing here. What I'm saying is that this could run a risk of perceived ethics and perceived ethical violations, whether they exist or not. It creates an issue of trust. Should that minister do that, people will see the value of their land skyrocket, which will result in higher taxes, unless they're capped, and then the tax is going to go on to the next poor individual who ends up buying a home in that area, and the cap comes off.

[Page 2982]

Clause 8 gives the minister order-making power to "order the Municipality or a utility owned by the Municipality" - for example, let's go with Halifax Water - "to (a) build, change, reconfigure or remove water, wastewater, stormwater or other municipal infrastructure within the Municipality," which would mean inside the expanded boundary, "for the purpose of accelerating and increasing the supply of housing."

Subsections (4) and (5) say that the costs related to these orders will be apportioned in a manner agreed upon by the municipality or utility unless there's no agreement, at which point the minister may unilaterally decide how the costs are divided.

As I've said, this is a whole lot of bill that gives a whole lot of powers. There seem to be two things at work here, which is confusing for people. You have a Minister of Municipal Affairs, whom this bill affects. It's pretty much the Municipal Affairs bill and the HRM charter, which the Minister of Municipal Affairs is fully and wholly responsible for. Yet - I don't want to talk out of church, so I'm going to go back and see if I read it right.

I don't see a definition here, and I could be wrong about who the minister is. I keep seeing "the minister," and it's cited as a Housing bill. The Minister of Housing is named on the bill, yet this whole bill changes the MGA and the Halifax charter. When we're talking about "the minister," I'm not certain who the minister is. Is it the minister the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is responsible for these two Acts, or the Minister of Housing, who is not responsible for these two Acts but is responsible for housing?

Which minister is making these decisions? I had been under the assumption that it is the Minister of Housing because it is the Minister of Housing whose name is on the bill. The government would have done a better service if they had defined who the minister responsible for these parts of the Acts is. This can create a whole lot of confusion over where the responsibility lies.

We discussed the requirements of newly elected members of municipal councils. We discussed the CAO and how the Act interacts. This is the other part of why there's confusion in this bill. I still don't understand - hopefully, one of the ministers can stand up and let me know. If this is a housing bill, then why are the municipal training and the CAO changes connected to this bill? They are two separate entities. They do not interact with each other at all.

Again, I'm not quite certain as to why those two parts are in a housing bill because they have nothing to do with housing. It's the roles and responsibilities, as well as proper training for municipal councillors, hopefully paid for by the Province, and the information on the CAO - what the CAO can do or can't do, connected to this housing bill. I would love for clarification on that, or is it just because you were opening the bill and you decided, "Why not? Let's throw this in, too."

[Page 2983]

[4:15 p.m.]

Then, let's go to Clauses 13 and 14. Now, Clause 13 just says: "Section 25 of Chapter 36 is repealed." Then, "Section 26 of Chapter 36 is repealed and the following Section substituted: 26(1): The Minister" - again, not certain which minister we are talking about - "may establish an Advisory Board that provides advice and recommendations to further the Agency's objects." Section 26(2) says: "Sections 27 to 38, 43 and 45 apply only if an Advisory Board has been established."

Now, what I gathered from these two clauses, is that it eliminates the interim advisory board of the Nova Scotia Provincial Housing Agency and makes the establishment of the board optional. My other understanding of this is that there is only one person on the interim board, the deputy minister, and the government never appointed anyone, not a single person, to the advisory board since it was established in legislation in 2022, as part of the reorganization of provincial Crown corporations. This also seems to be a trend in this government is that they create boards and they never fill them.

We do have the ABCs as part of the Human Resources Committee, to appoint people to boards. That's one of the roles and responsibilities of the Human Resources Committee is to fill those ABCs - agencies, boards, commissions. I don't understand why this government has continued to create boards which they never quite fill. It seems - it's a waste of time. Speaker, if you are going to create a board, fill the board. If you have no intention of it, why are you creating it?

When you put things in legislation, it's not optional. It's law. It's not optional. It's like speed limits. Speed limits are not optional; they are the law and if you are over the speed limit you will break it. It's not an, "Oh well, maybe we'll see," but that's how the government seems to be taking these boards. Again, boards, agencies, commissions oversights: they're supposed to provide those oversights, provide those transparencies, and provide what one would only hope would be some accountability here.

Speaker, sometimes things around here are just - there's a lack of common sense. I've already discussed a little bit about the GRID Program, and I am going to tell you, I am really upset by the elimination of the GRID Program, but I am also upset by the Provincial Capital Assistance Program which was $1.6 million in the budget. It was budgeted at $1.6 million. It's now reduced by $1.6 million?

Speaker, these programs, municipal programs go into helping create community, helping to enhance community, the infrastructures. It goes into ensuring that municipalities are accessible to our constituents and yet we're seeing that program eliminated, among a few other programs within Municipal Affairs.

[Page 2984]

What I want to tell my fellow colleagues across the aisle is that municipalities use the programs that the provincial government funds, they don't take that money and hide it in a bank somewhere. They take it and help create the communities that we walk in every day. They go to the sidewalk that a person, whether in a wheelchair or using a cane, using a stroller, can walk and jog and run safely. They go into making sure that people who have other accessibility issues, like hearing and seeing issues, making sure they can fully participate in community.

These programs go into making sure water mains aren't constantly breaking down in our communities. We have to live in them too. The municipalities aren't in isolation; they are where we live, yet these government programs being gutted completely are going to ensure that municipalities cannot actually accelerate housing the way this government thinks they can do it without the funding.

Speaker, I'm very passionate about municipal affairs so you have to excuse me here. Seeing some of these cuts and knowing what they're going to mean for communities like the HRM, like the CBRM and every community in between is quite frustrating because this government is asking municipalities in this bill to accelerate housing but not providing the means to do so. What they are providing for themselves, at least from my interpretation of this bill, is a dictatorial approach to housing, "You're going to build here. We know there's no waste water, there's no sewer, there's no infrastructure here but you're going to build here because that's where we want you to build. The programs that can help you are cut, they're gutted, they're not budgeted any more, so go to the feds."

A few years ago the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing - not our current one but the former minister, floated to municipalities that they could always increase their residents' taxes, they could always increase their tax rates to pay for things. When municipalities are already over-taxed, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing told municipalities, "No, we're just going to use the old money. Instead of giving you new equalization payments, we're going to use the old money from 1995" - 1995-96, somewhere in that line - "and we're just going to rearrange that money, but you can continue to highly tax your residents."

If there's no funding attached to the bills that the Minister responsible for An Act Respecting Administrative Measures for Housing - if there's no funding attached to it, and funding has been cut in the municipal units, what are municipalities likely to do? What are they going to have to do? They can go to the feds and ask for help, and the federal government can be the heroes of the story and take away that shine from the Province. In conjunction with that, they'll have to raise the taxes, possibly, in order to pay for it all.

[Page 2985]

I in the CBRM, some of my colleagues in the HRM, some of my colleagues in Amherst area, and my colleagues in Antigonish, we're all going to have to pay those taxes that occurred because of this type of - eventually, that's how it's going to occur because of the elimination of a program or because, in the HRM's case, the minister is dictating where everything goes.

In my final few minutes, what I'm going to say is this. One, we shouldn't be downloading more and more on municipalities without providing them a funding stream. The other aspect of this is that I would love to know which minister is going to be responsible for this portion of the Act: the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of Housing? With that, I take my seat.

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

PAUL WOZNEY « » : I want to kick off my remarks by acknowledging that the impact of this bill is probably pretty good for my community. I know the Minister of Health and Wellness once remarked that I come from a magical place. It's hard for her and the government to understand, but I'd like to introduce you to Sackville for a minute.

In our community, we often watch - in the context of HRM having been forced to fold into the municipality in the mid-1990s - HRM Regional Council making decisions and greenlighting projects that are awesome for the peninsula, awesome for Dartmouth, awesome for Bedford, and awesome for Cole Harbour, yet when we need the support of HRM Regional Council for projects that are a benefit to the hard-working folks in our communities, all the votes needed to support those projects suddenly run silent or go elsewhere on HRM Regional Council. There's a lot of frustration in Sackville over HRM Regional Council's ability to action projects that are good for our community.

I want to be clear. I can't say enough good things about my HRM Regional Council colleagues, Councillor Billy Gillis and Councillor John Young. Lest anybody put words in my mouth, both these individuals - the amount of hustle that they put forward on behalf of folks in our community is immense. They are an absolute joy to work with. I'm able to communicate and liaise with them, and problem solve where layers of government intersect, and it's hard to know who's responsible. They are earnest and responsive.

[4:30 p.m.]

My comments here can in no way, shape, or form be construed as criticism of the folks on HRM council with whom I share the responsibility of representing folks in my community. They're wonderful colleagues and I hold them in the utmost esteem. Speaker, just across the aisle, my colleague from Sackville-Uniacke - we have different lawn signs come election time. We have open lines to dialogue and we're able to speak about matters of concern for the community of Sackville and how we can collaborate to move priorities forward. I appreciate that very much about the member for Sackville-Uniacke - that his heart and his intention is to do well by the people of the community he represents.

[Page 2986]

We've got the setting in Sackville were we've got willing parties at different levels of government to collaborate, to put aside partisan difference, and to look at things that our community needs, and then across the aisle here in Province House and in HRM Council, lobby to push projects forward that make a lot of sense where the city doesn't have to wave a magic wand and come up with 99 percent of costs or overcome all kinds of barriers.

A lot of hard work goes into putting forward projects for our community that would make a heck of a difference for the folks who live in Lower Sackville and contribute to the overall well-being of our city. Yet oftentimes, when it comes to the proposal and approval phase, lots of folks in Sackville are frustrated when HRM Council doesn't find the political will to greenlight what's good for our community. The perception in Sackville is that councillors in other parts of the city often say no when it's time to do good things for Sackville because it just means less of the pie for the people they represent. That's the perception. I'm not accusing anybody of anything, but those are the sentiments I hear on the doorstep in talking to residents in Sackville.

So if this bill is passed as written without any amendment - we just fast track and say, "Bam, it's intact" - there is a world where the powers contained in this legislation overcome some inertia that serves to frustrate our community.

It is one of the worst-kept secrets in our province that Costco would love to open a third location in HRM at Margeson Drive. That's the Middle Sackville exit off Highway No. 101. This is exceedingly popular, not just with folks in Sackville, but instantly folks who travel along Highway No. 101 into the city every weekend to either go to Dartmouth or all the way to Bayers Lake. All of a sudden, they don't have to make that trek. They can cut off at Sackville and save themselves half an hour and 40 minutes, and avoid the zoo that can be Dartmouth Crossing or Bayers Lake on a busy weekend shop.

This would mean good jobs for Sackville at Costco. It would mean new services. Proposed in this same neighbourhood is also - I want to make sure I get the name right here - the Cobequid Cultural Society Centre of the Arts, which has been a concept that a dedicated group of advocates have been fighting for for well over a decade but can't get built because HRM won't extend the service boundary to this particular highway exit.

Despite there being a plan for a design community that contains retail, shops, health care, other social services, an arts centre, schools, Costco, a rapid transit depot - I mean this is a golden example of community design ready to put shovels in the ground here in Nova Scotia. We have a developer that stands ready to do their part in underwriting and sharing the cost of infrastructure development, yet we can't get a green light for this to get built in Nova Scotia, or built in HRM.

There's a world where the powers contained in this Act make possible this project whose progress has been frustrated by the way HRM Council currently operates. It could be very good for Nova Scotia. This whole project, this whole concept, could move forward in a far more timely manner than it appears it would move forward in the absence of this legislation, given the way that HRM Council operates.

[Page 2987]

There's another story I want to tell about why potentially this legislation might be good for Lower Sackville.

Many people may not know that Lower Sackville is home to two of the 52 historically Black communities in our province. One is called Maroon Hill. It kind of crosses into the boundary of the neighbouring district of Sackville-Uniacke. Right in Sackville-Cobequid, we actually have the community of Cobequid Road. Cobequid is a Black community. It was founded after its founder by the last name of Williams was granted an over 200-acre tract of land between First and Second Lake in Lower Sackville at a time before there was any development, any roads. It was granted to this individual, and it became the site of a vibrant African Nova Scotian community right in our own backyard in Nova Scotia.

Fast-forward to the time when the former City of Halifax made the shameful racist decision to expropriate the lands upon which the historically Black community of Africville sat. It's a little-known fact that at the same moment in time when the City of Halifax appropriated the land on which Africville sat that other municipal governments also seized Black-owned lands in Nova Scotia. One of those parcels was the 200-plus acres belonging to the Williams family in Cobequid Road.

Shamefully, the family was deprived of land it had lived on for more than a century, had invested in, had developed, had cultivated a rich and vibrant community, including a school, including a church and lots of other services for residents at a time when services wouldn't be extended to them because they were Black. All of a sudden, this family and this community no longer owned this land that had been rightfully deeded to them by the Crown. For decades, this land was held eventually by the Province of Nova Scotia and HRM.

Not so long ago, the descendants of the original landholder, Terry and Linda Williams, constituents of mine, through partnership with my predecessor, Steve Craig, were able to recover the deed or the title to a portion of the 200-acre parcel that was unlawfully expropriated from them. They got some of the land back that they had owned in their family, but not all of it.

This parcel, when they regained title, the family hoped that this was finally the moment when they would be able to develop this parcel, to subdivide it, and that descendants of the original deed-holder would finally be able to build homes on land that had been in the family for generations.

[Page 2988]

They have done the due diligence, Speaker. They have done the work to subdivide the land. They have done the work to submit and obtain permits, and respect all the land-use bylaws that exist and apply to that parcel.

The family continues to experience barriers connected to systemic racism. Previous speakers from my caucus have rightfully highlighted a shameful history of systemic racism as it pertains to African Nova Scotians in terms of the development of land that they own, and the deprivation of their communities of essential infrastructure, not only to develop homes, but businesses and generate wealth relating to the ownership of lands that they hold. HRM has begun the process of righting some of these wrongs.

They have a program. Its initials form the acronym ANSCAP. Through this program, historically Black communities have access to qualified city planners who support communities holding lands that they have never been able to develop, to navigate the complex web of municipal building permits and approvals for larger developments. We are starting to see historically Black communities finally be able to build on lands that they have owned for many generations, and yet faced innumerable barriers to development because of how infrastructure was intentionally built to exclude these communities.

We see Halifax Water and other utilities over the decades - if we look at an aerial map of where services run, the mental gymnastics involved to not call it racism are immense. Literally, services running around the outside boundary of Black-owned lands rather than through and open up development. This is not an issue endemic to Cobequid Road in my constituency, but it's a problem that exists all over HRM.

There is a world where if this bill passes as written, conceivably the Minister of Housing could exercise their authority to order Halifax Water to run water access along Settlers Lane and finally make accessible to the descendants of the Williams family to build homes on land that has been in their families for generations. But in the absence of access to potable water, their plans to build remain at a standstill, no matter how much I advocate, no matter how many HRM staff I talk to, no matter how many people at the city I implore that the right time to do the right thing is right now.

These folks have waited long enough. The land was taken out of their hands for decades. It has now been back in their hands for decades and they still can't build homes on this land because racist infrastructure exclusionary practices deprive them of the city services that they pay Halifax Water for, as landowners. They pay the same ditch tax as everybody else in HRM, and yet, HRM won't service their land because once upon a time some white person decided to run city services up a road that is 200 yards away from their property along a road where nothing on the other side of the road can possibly be developed for residential purposes. There is literally no need for water access along that stretch of road, yet that's where they chose to put it.

Rather than run it up Settlers Lane so that this access would exist and support the development of these lands, they ran it the other way instead. Speaker, I daresay it has everything to do with the fact that the land was owned by a historically Black community, and that this practice is far too common in the way that infrastructure has been planned and constructed all throughout HRM. The Minister of Housing, under these rules, could with one fell swoop, provide the Williams family with justice and access to the potable water they have been asking for for decades and have rightfully deserved as rate payers.

[Page 2989]

There is a world where this legislation, as written, is really good for the constituency that I represent and I recognize the potential impact of that. But Speaker, I have to sit with the question of whether or not I should vote in favour of this legislation simply because it happens to be good for the backyard that I represent, or to acknowledge that this legislation, as it's written, poses risks for our province.

[4:45 p.m.]

I want to spend some time about exploring why handing these powers to the Housing Minister at this time, for the timeline proposed, may not be in the best interest of our province.

The government of Nova Scotia declared an area just off the Hammonds Plains Road that sits between Bedford and Lower Sackville - this currently forested area is hundreds of acres in size. It includes the entire Sandy Lake watershed. The Sandy Lake watershed is an ecologically sensitive area that is an important breeding ground for endangered species. Over the last 40 years report after report has been written documenting the need for this area to be protected against development, given the ecological sensitivity of the natural features of his area and the incredible risk it poses; not only to the watershed and wildlife and ecological diversity, but also against erosion of a watershed that plays a major role in mitigating the effects of climate events like floods.

In case anybody hasn't been paying attention, we have had a number of disastrous floods that connect to this watershed in the recent past in Nova Scotia. In fact, my own basement of my home was destroyed in one such event. The dangers of development to this watershed are very real to me and the people who live in my community.

Speaker, dedicated volunteers and advocates in Sackville, Bedford, Hammonds Plains, and beyond recognize the critical importance of this parcel of land to sustain the ecological diversity of this part of the province, but also to protect against the escalating impacts of increasingly severe climate events in this area of Halifax. Every time we have a flood along the Sackville River, members in this House representing Bedford constituencies have phones that ring off the hook as homes along the Sackville River are washed out yet again.

These homes were built on a flood plain long before the HRM adopted a plan to prevent development within known flood plains, providing rigorous setbacks to protect against these kinds of floods. The cost to the taxpayers of Nova Scotia for these properties built on these flood plains - which insurance companies will no longer provide personal insurance or homeowner's insurance for to protect against the costs of these disasters - falls ultimately on the people of Nova Scotia when government has to provide relief for folks who are living in a flood plain we know that, with regularity, is going to damage their homes and require major renovations.

[Page 2990]

This is the watershed I am talking about. This is not a "what if"; it's a fact of life connected to this watershed. The government of Nova Scotia has determined that developing a parcel of land that encompasses much of the watershed feeding into Sandy Lake - be designated a special planning area.

This project is enormously controversial in the HRM. This project comes with an out-of-the-blue overnight addition of a connector road that would connect from the Hammonds Plains Road at what we formerly called Kearney Lake Road - now it's Larry Uteck Boulevard - and take a straight shot right through currently forested land and emerge and connect to what folks in Sackville now know as the Beaver Bank Connector to Highway No. 101. This is being hailed as a major event in housing in HRM. It's going to create 9,000 units, mixed housing, but it violates everything we know about protecting this environment and we know that this special planning area is not going to result in affordable housing for Nova Scotians.

I note with interest a previous speaker's objection to housing starts in Nova Scotia. We don't object to housing starts in Nova Scotia, Speaker. What we continue to draw attention to are that the houses that are being started in Nova Scotia are out of the reach of hard-working Nova Scotians to purchase. They do not address the question of hard-working families that don't enjoy a net household income of $150,000 or more. They can't afford to buy and move into these homes and stay in these homes. These are the people who are being squeezed out of apartments where rent continues to grow year over year over year.

Those pressures remain even in this budget and when we look at what kind of housing is going to get built in the Sandy Lake area, it's not affordable housing. At bare minimum, these units are going to be more than half a million and they are going to range upwards into the $1 and $2 million. These are going to be executive homes for the affluent. That's not to say that affluent Nova Scotians shouldn't be able to buy homes befitting their income. That's not what I'm saying but this project is being billed as a solution to the crisis in affordable housing, not government funded to the tune of 100 percent subsidy housing but housing that people can actually afford to buy and stay in for the long run.

There is a dearth of that kind of housing in our province, and the development of Sandy Lake is not an answer to that question. Nonetheless, the province has decided to fast track the approvals for this neighbourhood. I'm sure lots of members of the PC caucus will say, "Will you look at all those housing starts in Sandy Lake? That's good for the province. That's great. Look at all those houses that are available to people." What they may not know is that the special planning area doesn't impose on people who buy a house or a lot or the developer - with having to collect a fee which in turn goes to HRM to fund the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure that this entire 9,000-unit development is going to rely on. That means that someone is going to build all of this stuff and they're going to hand it over to the city and the city is not going to have a single dime from the sale of any of these highly valuable homes to help pay the costs associated with the provision of services.

[Page 2991]

The government in its wisdom had green lit a major housing development in an area of the province that's already overtaxed in terms of infrastructure. This stretch of road where this community will access, where cars will spill onto is already a parking lot twice a day for an hour and a half every day.

I worked at Charles P. Allen High school. When I leave to drive down Innovation Drive and try to get on Hammonds Plains Road, a stone's throw from where the Sandy Lake development is going to occur, I routinely waited an hour to travel approximately . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order, order, order.

The honourable Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : Point of order. Development charges do apply to these special planning areas, just to correct the member.

THE SPEAKER « » : Okay, thank you, honourable member. That's not a point of order.

The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.

PAUL WOZNEY « » : I thank the minister for the interjection, but our folks at HRM Regional Council disclose a very different story. Their perspective on the burden on municipal infrastructure is one of deep concern. The government is, "Sure, let's run the road; let's do all of this." Who is going to get saddled with the cost of providing this infrastructure? HRM is not going to benefit from the fees that other developments in HRM are required to furnish to the city, which means that HRM Regional Council has to fight with the question of where they are going to find the revenue to fund these services in the long run.

Right now HRM is in the middle of its own budget process, debating how big the rate hike for the coming budget year will be. If you are an MLA representing any constituency that overlaps with a community in HRM, I know that your inbox, just like mine, has overflowed with literally hundreds of emails expressing concern about municipal rate hikes that will eat into people's ability to afford their costs and pay their bills. That includes emails from concerned renters and concerned homeowners and concerned landlords.

[Page 2992]

When we sit with the question of whether or not this legislation as proposed is good for Nova Scotia, it raises real concerns. This is a government that doesn't take the time to figure out what needs to happen with communities impacted by its decisions. It imposes decisions on communities and leaves them to deal with the fallout after.

Folks in Bedford already put up with some of the worst traffic in HRM. It takes an hour to make the turn from Innovation Drive and get on to Highway No. 102 at the Hammonds Plains Road exit. It takes 40 minutes to travel 750 metres, just to get on the highway. That's not a bad day. That's just an average day. Residents of Bedford and these communities have made clear to HRM councillors and to any MLA who will listen that the addition of this development will compound in an exponential way the traffic frustrations that already exist in these communities.

I know that my colleagues for Bedford South and Bedford Basin are hearing these concerns. I am copied on correspondence from constituents in my constituency and theirs. I know that they are seeing them. I know that they're hearing them. Yet despite community voice that says this is the wrong thing at the wrong scale at this time until we have infrastructure to sustain this kind of addition, this is going to compound the frustrations of the community and complicate the quality of life that people enjoy at present.

I want to spend some time looking at what the goal is of this legislation. Being fair? I see this bill as the province's response to perceptions that HRM Regional Council in particular often operates at a pace that frustrates development and change that many of its residents are hungry to see move forward. That's an issue worthy of attention.

It's an issue worthy of the question of how we address this problem in a manner that is proactive and constructive.

[5:00 p.m.]

I'm not arguing that the inspiration for this bill - but I am going to ask whether or not this bill is necessary to address the question that I have just raised. Does the government need to grab HRM Planning & Development by the throat and be able to make overarching, imperative orders to HRM and Halifax Water to address the concerns?

Here's where I want to double back. I made some points a little bit earlier. Folks in Sackville are frustrated about the inaction or the slow response of HRM to the potential of the addition of a Costco Wholesale Canada store in our backyard. That's something they want to see moved forward. Right now the current process is frustrating approval for the infrastructure that would be necessary to make sure that this lands in our backyard and enhances our community. That sentiment is legitimate, but do we need this bill to fix that problem?

[Page 2993]

The problem that frustrates a yes to this development is one of cost. It's not a question of democratic decision-making. City council hasn't green-lit the approval for this project because to do so requires substantial infrastructure investment funds. Previous speakers have already alluded to the fact that the current proposed budget eliminates the GRID grant that exists to support Nova Scotian municipalities to develop infrastructure necessary to improve and grow local communities. I think that fund has particular relevance and significance for smaller municipalities, but I think it would be a shame and it would do a disservice if we assume that GRID is for small towns only.

GRID is a fund upon which HRM could also draw down resources, and in particular, the costs associated with running water and sewage to the parcels of land necessary to greenlight the approval of a Costco, the Cobequid centre for the visual and performing arts, and other infrastructure at the Middle Sackville exit off Highway No. 101, to really form the foundation of a planned community where people don't have to drive into Halifax and further tax already dense-traffic roads where you have to find parking.

This project would help alleviate some of the pressures and stresses that our city is experiencing. What is the hold-back here? What is the major obstacle? The obstacle is funding for infrastructure.

If the Province of Nova Scotia were to show up as a partner to defray the costs of the infrastructure that needs to be built - this is a project that's too large for the city to manage on its own. I know that in dialoguing with a number of HRM councillors, that's the major barrier. It's not that the project doesn't make sense, it's that the price tag to the city on its own is simply too large for them to say yes.

The Province could devote funding for this particular infrastructure project in HRM. This government has the ability, in the management of the public purse, to devote funding and to put some very specific strings on how that funding can be used. I agree that not every pot of government funding is a slush fund. That would be a ridiculous statement. Governments of every stripe - Liberal, NDP, Progressive Conservatives - have earmarked funding for specific purposes to achieve and sustain projects that are in the public interest.

This legislation isn't necessary to greenlight the infrastructure that is necessary to make sure that Costco comes to Lower Sackville - Beaver Bank. It's a question of budget priorities, not of legislative framework incapacity.

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board could easily designate funds to invest in this and make no mistake, Speaker, it would be an investment. This is not about digging a bunch of holes and laying a bunch of pipes. The return on investment is decades away in the future and would be hard to recoup. Spending this money on this infrastructure wouldn't be a net loss for the province, or a wash, it would be seed money for a sure thing win. We'd have a performing arts centre. We'd have a Costco. We'd have a rapid transit terminal that promotes the access to rapid transit all the way into Halifax - hundreds if not thousands of vehicles every day left behind in the garage so that folks can take reliable, timely bus transit downtown.

[Page 2994]

The wins of this community are immense, not just for Bedford - Sackville but for the HRM and frankly, for the province. We don't need this law to solve the problem. I've heard the Minister of Growth and Development often express his confusion about what we should invest in and what we shouldn't invest in.

I understand that we don't get the people's money out of the Monopoly box and how we spend it is something we sit with and take very seriously. But there are spends of public money that yield returns in the present, in the immediate, and for the long-term future. Then there are spends that are sinkholes. This is not one of those sinkholes. It's a value-add to the province that would generate jobs, generate revenue, and promote the development of housing that falls far more inside the envelope of hard-working Nova Scotians - that they could afford the price tag to get in and stay in for the long run.

Do we need this bill to realize justice for Terry and Linda Williams in the historically Black neighbourhood of Cobequid Road? Not at all. Providing funding to the Department of African Nova Scotian Affairs for the express purpose, with a mandate to address barriers to historically Black communities to develop lands for which systemic barriers to development exist would be a net value-add to this province.

There's a community land trust in Upper Hammonds Plains, a notable historically Black community in our province. The leadership and the community of that land trust have grand designs to build housing that is economically accessible to African Nova Scotians for whom home ownership is otherwise out of reach, to help them access home ownership, to get into a home and stay in a home for generations and begin the process of accumulating generational wealth to hand on to their children and their families.

We don't need $200 million in this fund or some staggering number of zeros number. A very modest investment in the Department of African Nova Scotian Affairs to address historical barriers to Black-owned land development would make an immediate and generational impact for Black communities. We don't need this bill to achieve that fix.

So if we have the power in this House, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board certainly has the power. The Minister of African Nova Scotian Affairs certainly has the power. The Minister of Housing certainly has the power through the budget process to direct funding, with strings attached, to say these funds will support housing in these communities in these ways. This government has all the tools that it needs, absent this legislation, to achieve its priorities of creating housing people can afford to buy and housing people can afford to stay in for a lifetime. It has the tools needed to achieve that goal.

[Page 2995]

When I look at this bill, is it necessary? Not really. We've got the tools already in hand to fix the problems that frustrate the development of housing in HRM at present. The government has the power to come alongside HRM as a partner. I hear any number of members of the Progressive Conservative caucus talk about their positive relationship with Prime Minister Carney's government in Ottawa, across any number of portfolios, and speak glowingly about the dialogue that's being had about funding for priorities that will benefit Nova Scotians.

Here's a golden opportunity for this government, through their positive relationship with Prime Minister Carney's government, if the government doesn't have all the money to put into a designated infrastructure development fund, and if the government doesn't have all the funds necessary to make an investment in a fund within the envelope of African Nova Scotian Affairs to achieve land justice. This government says, "When we can do more, we're ready to do more." How much could this government do, and how could dialogue with Ottawa augment its limited capacity to address these needs?

There are channels, there are ways, to achieve the total funding envelope necessary. What we don't have in Nova Scotia are municipalities that throw up their hands anytime there's a price tag attached to development and say, "We can't do it. We have no money. The province will have to give us all the money we need because we can't pay a dime. It's Tim Houston's job."

Sorry. I apologize, Speaker. I'm out of order. I apologize, sincerely. I happily retract it and offer my apologies to the Premier.

Nonetheless, the point stands. We don't have municipalities out with pitchforks and torches demanding the Premier pay for everything that they want to do. That's not what's happening. We have municipalities willing to pay their fair share of the costs involved in development. They're willing to do their fair share of funding, change, and growth that help develop housing that people in their communities need. Being fair to all parties, we have municipalities willing to do their fair share. We have a provincial government that says, "If we can do more, then we'll do more. If we have within our hands to do something good for the people of Nova Scotia, then we'll listen, and we will act."

We hear from the provincial government, across any number of portfolios, that we have a federal partner in Ottawa with whom there is an open line of dialogue so we can collaborate on solutions to meet the needs of Nova Scotians.

[5:15 p.m.]

Speaker, we have at our disposal the ability to meet the challenges that this bill appears to be an attempt to solve. The last thing I want to talk about here is a date.

[Page 2996]

The Leader of the Official Opposition questioned the date of November 28 - no, sorry, it's November 25, 2028, for the purposes of accuracy - and questioned what could be happening at that time. In reading this bill, I didn't make any leaps about a provincial election, but I did a little walk mentally into the calendar to ask why 2028? November 25, 2028, really, when we look at the timing of municipal election cycles, that is sort of the outer limit of when municipal elections could be concluded in our province in the year of 2028.

When I look at that date it leads me to wonder whether the time-limited nature of the superpowers this Act would hand to the Minister of Housing is a temporary solution to bypass HRM Council, because by all accounts, we only see Halifax Water - this appears to be a Halifax-centric piece of legislation, based on references and language present. It appears to be an attempt to sidebar or reach around HRM Council to greenlight things that the government thinks needs to get done in a shorter order than HRM Council will take to get done.

It appears that the sunset date of these powers looks forward to a time when perhaps a different mayor, a different council may take a different tack on approval of infrastructure and stewardship of development in greater HRM.

I can't say for certain that's what it is, but with respect to the government, that's my guess when I look at that date, and I guess I worry that if we enact this in law and the tea leaves, come election time in 2028 for HRM, appear to be falling in a breeze that a provincial government may not like, maybe we're back here to extend the timeline of these powers and the government remains enmeshed in municipal-level decision-making - a job that it is not ideally equipped to do.

Once you give yourself a power, it's hard to let go of that power, and so I simply wonder whether or not this is the approach that's warranted to address the question of: What can we do to remedy the blockages or the obstacles in front of developments that hold some potential to address the pressing issues of the day, namely (Interruption) Apparently I sound like Siri, Speaker. Apologies. (Interruption)

Careful, AI will take all of our jobs before long, Speaker.

My closing thought here is: With all the tools available to this government, is this an additional set of powers for the next two-and-a-half years that are necessary to overcome the barriers to growth and development that currently exist in the HRM?

In the most constructive, respectful manner I could possibly muster, I submit that this is not needed to achieve that goal. This government has the powers. I'm not being snide when I recognize that this government holds a sizeable majority. It doesn't need our help in Opposition to do the things that it says are important to do. It has already at its disposal a significant number of levers to promote and to expedite the growth and development it believes is important, particularly in the Halifax region.

[Page 2997]

On that basis, I simply offer these thoughts in hopes that the government can understand how the exercise of its existing powers could be of benefit to folks in HRM, in my community - if it has an interest in doing so - and how it can avoid taking on a whole other set of headaches and complications in terms of function.

We know that this budget aims to reduce the civil service by a significant margin, not only this year but the year following, the year after that, and the year after that. All of us in this House have immense respect and esteem for the staff of all the departments of government, who work hard, day in and day out, with devotion, care, and expertise to help build the province that we all aspire to.

I submit that by giving these powers in this bill, an ever-shrinking public service for the next four years is going to find it exceedingly difficult to take on what is an immense additional burden if the Minister of Housing, under this bill, is going to take on these superpowers.

The minister doesn't have a department behind him. He has a portfolio in the Department of Growth and Development. He does not have a dedicated team behind him to take on these powers and to exercise them.

With that, I simply say that, with that budget piece in behind, it's important that we sit with the implications and impacts of this bill, not only for today's government but also the government of tomorrow and the government of two years from now, three years from now, and four years from now when, under fiscal restraint, they are going to do with significantly less staff support and capacity to support the powers of the ministers who remain in Cabinet.

Speaker, I want to thank you. I want to thank the members in Chamber who listened to my remarks. Not everybody listens actively in this House when I speak, and that's okay, but I do appreciate that people took the time to hear some perspective about this proposed legislation. I hope it's furnished some constructive and positive food for thought about whether this is the approach that's best, not only for HRM but for the province as a whole.

Speaker, having shared these remarks, I move to adjourn debate on Bill No. 212.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is to adjourn debate on Bill No. 212.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

[Page 2998]

The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD « » : Speaker, pursuant to Rule 5C, I move that the hours for Wednesday, March 4^th, be not 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. but instead be 1:00 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.

All those in favour? Contrary minded?

The motion is carried.

The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD « » : Speaker, would you please call the order of business, Government Motions.

GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD « » : Speaker, I move that you do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on Supply.

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

KRISTA GALLAGHER « » : I am here to tell some stories about my last years since we were here in the Chamber. A few weeks ago, I went to the Sea Farmers Conference here in Halifax and I listened to sea farmers who were growing oysters, scallops, and seaweed and talked about innovation in the sector. Many of them had pieces of homemade equipment that they had built out of necessity.

One farmer showed a photo of a piece of equipment he had designed and made locally for about $20 that would help him grade and measure scallops much quicker than he was doing by hand.

Another showed a piece of equipment that helped with seeding seaweed growth where kelp spores were seeded onto twine, allowing kelp to grow vertically. That was really interesting. This process is really finicky and needs to be done delicately and this piece of equipment they had designed, with the help of the Government of Quebec, helped fund and make this process more automated and no longer needed to be done by hand.

Another showed a system for scallops where lobster bins were placed in the ocean and tied to the side of the boat. Once the scallops were graded, they could then go back into the ocean to lower mortality rates considerably from being in the air too long.

[Page 2999]

Speaker, these solutions are simple, they are so logical, and they are easy to implement. The kind of solution that is obvious when you do the work every day, in and out. Farmers sharing information, sharing tips and tricks to help their neighbours and the industry as a whole. This is really the Nova Scotian way. We know how to tackle a problem, we know how to do it together, and we're not afraid of some hard work.

If these sea farmers could do so much with what they found on their farms or in the local hardware stores, what could they do with large provincial grants in innovation? It's no secret, Speaker, that our province is struggling in the world of productivity and provinces grow their wealth by producing more with the same amount of labour.

This government and our Premier talk a lot about innovation and that innovation holds promise for our province because while we have people like sea farmers who I spoke with, tinkering away and creating solutions, we also have room to grow and room to grow our innovation economy.

We are a small population, we aren't going to win at the game of scale. We have an aging population operating some of the most labour-intensive industries in the economy that compete with global markets.

Nova Scotians work hard and they are proud of the work they do but hard work doesn't set the price of lobsters or beef or blueberries, productivity does. This is where we can turn innovation from a buzzword into survival. What if we won at the game of intelligence? This could make the kind of difference that would change the game in Nova Scotia.

As I have been talking about in the House, things aren't so smooth for Nova Scotia businesses these days. Costs are like commercial rents are rising, and it won't help now that the government has cut programs that businesses rely on. It's not fair to these people who are working hard to make it through another year.

I believe in the promise of innovation to help make a difference and I believe there is a way that this government could help. Innovation in agriculture and aquaculture does not look like an app, it looks like an investment in equipment to seed kelp.

[5:30 p.m.]

Last year, I visited a dairy farm in Truro. It has a milking system that keeps data on each of their dairy cows. Through a tag in the cattle's ear, this data tells the farmer's milking yields, quality, cow health metrics like lactation status, body conditions, temperature, even the last time that that cow emptied their stomachs - ultimately extending the life of the cow, the health and well-being of the animal, and directly making life easier for the farmer and her employees.

[Page 3000]

What if we had a Nova Scotia where tech like this, innovation like this, was adapted quickly and the risk was removed? A private operator can't carry the risk alone. A farmer deciding whether to adapt to technology risks their livelihood. An aquaculture operator risks their licence and entire crop cycle. If it fails, they don't just lose money; they lose their business. In this province, there are mountains of costs rising around producers. Feed is up, fuel is up, fertilizer is up, insurance is up, interest is up. Equipment - ever tried buying a combine? Prices are astronomical.

Mother Nature doesn't care about inflation. We can't ask her to grow a crop faster because our insurance bills are due. "Excuse me, Madam Scallop, I have an estimated bill from Nova Scotia Power that I need to settle up. Can you grow a little faster?" You can't tell a cow to produce more milk because there's no diesel in the tractor.

I can see I have made the Speaker smile a little bit. (Laughs)

Margins are getting squeezed, which is what we're seeing here in Nova Scotia. According to the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture's 2025 Economic Impact Study, farm operating expenditures are at 95 percent. This same report states that the industry of agriculture contributes $906 million to the provincial economy and supports 50,000 jobs. These aren't small numbers - certainly not a lifestyle sector.

This is economic infrastructure. If the government was serious about seeing this sector grow, truly meeting its potential, then we would be doing all we can to fan the flames of innovation.

That same report also points to the path forward. Greater competitiveness depends on adapting new technologies and tools that help farmers work efficiently. That is where the government has not kept pace with reality. Innovation doesn't need to be flashy. It rarely comes with ribbon cuttings. It's milking systems that allow families to sleep through the night without the worry of losing a valuable cow. It's a sensor that prevents catastrophic loss in aquaculture cage at 2:00 a.m. Sometimes it's a homemade grading tool because someone was tired of wasting valuable hours.

All this means that little by little, day by day, Nova Scotia businesses will be able to move past the daily struggles and just build a good life here. Innovation in Nova Scotia is problem driven, it's practical, and it's usually invented by folks who are doing the work. Let's invest in that.

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

HON. KENT SMITH « » : I am so, so pleased that the member for Halifax Chebucto spent a few moments speaking about aquaculture, because my ears perked up and I was ready to chime in. I will say that the member raised some good points. I, too, attended the sea farmers' conference. It was wonderful. We have a wonderful aquaculture sector here in this province. When the Premier speaks about natural resource development, aquaculture is a big piece of that, along with Wind West and other critical mineral extraction.

[Page 3001]

When we go back to the sea farmers' conference, the group of entrepreneurs that we have in this province are a fantastic and resilient group . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: Second to none.

KENT SMITH « » : . . . that are second to none, many people are saying. When the member speaks about the desire for some type of supports to help industry grow - pun intended - I'm so pleased to share on account of the fact that it seems like I will not be called up for Estimates this year. (Interruptions) Sad face.

In this year's budget for the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, we're making a significant investment in aquaculture. We're investing in a seafood sector innovation hub that will conveniently address many of the concerns that the member raised. The goal for the seafood sector innovation hub is fourfold, if you can say that. We're looking to deliver practical, industry-focused innovation services. We're looking to connect industry, academia, and government through a consolidated information portal. We're looking to provide extension, outreach, and technical expertise, and we're also looking to lead applied research and coastal monitoring to support sustainable growth.

This is the type of innovation that we need, especially in this moment in time, for the aquaculture sector. People may know that on P.E.I. they've suffered a terrible disease called MSX. There's another, less impactful disease called Dermo, and there are worries that that could impact our oyster industry here in the province. We've taken steps to make sure that we're making practical investments in the aquaculture sector because we see it, and we know that it is currently a driving force in our rural and coastal communities. We expect that it will continue to be so as we move into the future.

Now, I could stand here all day and speak about fisheries and aquaculture, but I think I've spent enough time. But I want to thank the member for inspiring me to share this wonderful investment that we're making from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture to Perennia and to the Centre for Marine Applied Research. I'm so thrilled for the future of our aquaculture industry. It's going to be a key piece in our natural resource development as we advance and grow our Nova Scotian economy.

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

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : I know much has been said in Supply about this budget, but I would like to correct the record on some of it. I want to explain to the public who are listening, and to my colleagues in the house here, all the good things that we are doing in this budget. There is a large number of . . .

[Page 3002]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : A point of order. I learned earlier this week from the honourable Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that, in fact, it is against the rules of the House to speak out to Nova Scotians through the camera. It was ruled on earlier that that was a point of order.

THE SPEAKER « » : That is correct. He was speaking to me. Yes, well, we're all experts in something now, aren't we? At least, I hope. I remind members that if that does happen - I didn't see that here, but if it does happen, you're not allowed to do it.

The honourable member for Kings North.

JOHN LOHR « » : Speaker, I would like to take a moment of your time to speak to you and to the public about the budget that we have put forward and talk about some of the things that we are doing in the budget.

The first thing the public needs to know is that this year's budget has record spending in Health and Wellness. We are spending $6.7 billion in Health and Wellness. Lest anybody be unclear, that's $738 million more than last year. I will talk about some of the things that money is being spent on in a moment.

We are spending $2.3 billion in Education and Early Childhood. That's $116 million more than last year, and a lot of that is the School Lunch Program. I'm hoping that my colleagues across the floor will vote for our budget simply for that School Lunch Program, which has been transformational for students in our schools who go to school hungry. We know that if you're hungry, you can't learn, and we care about that. That is a very big lift for us.

We're spending $1.8 billion in Opportunities and Social Development, which is an increase of $108 million more. A fair bit of that is indexing of income assistance and the Remedy. Those would probably be the two big lifts.

We're spending $1.6 billion in Seniors and Long-term Care, which is $110 million more than last year. Again, a fair bit of that would be the builds in Seniors and Long-term Care. Our province went through at least 15 or 16 years of no builds in Seniors and Long-term Care. In fact, the Dexter government opened the last two Seniors and Long-term Care builds, which had been announced by the Rodney MacDonald government. They opened them, but they didn't announce any more until the eve of an election in 2013. Then promptly the next government, the McNeil government, cancelled all that. So we went for a very long time with no builds in Seniors and Long-term Care. I'm very proud of our government for having addressed that.

[Page 3003]

We know there's always more work to do, Speaker. I want to say that we have worked hard as a government on health care. We have seen 570 net new physicians in the province. We've seen surgical wait-lists at a record low since 2015. We've seen 80,000 more primary care appointments every month. We know that our pharmacists are working to scope of practice - probably the most significant scope of practice from what they can do almost anywhere in the world. That accounts for some of those.

We are working in Housing, and we are continuing to invest. There was a great article in today's CBC about us continuing to invest in housing and affordable housing - community housing program. I know that when we came into government in 2021, we had the Affordable Housing Commission Report, which the McNeil government, or maybe it was the Rankin government, had commissioned a report. Ironically - can I refer to that?

THE SPEAKER « » : No, unfortunately you cannot. I'd ask you to retract that.

The honourable member for Kings North.

JOHN LOHR « » : Speaker, I retract that. The previous government had commissioned a report on affordable housing. Ironically, if you go back to 2013, the Dexter government had also, on the eve before an election, commissioned a report on affordable housing and they read very similar, those two reports, if you go and read them. It's quite interesting that in lieu of doing something, they created a commission and did a report.

I'm happy to say that this government stepped in and started to work on housing. Hats off to our Minister of Housing. We are seeing that we are meeting our housing goals.

There is more to do for sure. I just want to say how pleased I am to see that we have enabled that Downpayment Assistance Program through our credit unions. To me, that is a transformational program. I am really pleased to see that that has happened - that somebody can go and get a little bit of backstop from the province to have a smaller downpayment, they can afford a home.

Just to tell you two families' stories - I know you guys like stories. In my own family's life, when my father and mother came from Holland in 1958, they had no money. The Dutch government paid their passage on the ship to get here. The Canadian government took them in. Canada took us in as a family in 1958. The Dutch government backstopped the loan to purchase a farm, which they did for every Dutch farmer who came here. You could borrow up to 75 percent in a commercial loan, much like you can today, and the other 25 percent you had to have down.

[Page 3004]

My parents didn't have that. I think the Dutch government guaranteed 20 percent of that and my father put down 5 percent. He bought that farm. That farm continues 60 years later, now owned by my son, and continues to be farmed by our family. It was a similar type of program that enabled our family to have a farm when a government said we'll backstop some of the margin there. We're doing that for people today in Housing. So my family has been impacted by a program like that 60 years ago. I'm just so pleased to see, and in fact, if I do the math, it's actually more than 60 years ago. I'm just so pleased to see that we're doing that.

[5:45 p.m.]

I want the people of Nova Scotia to know that we know there's more to do in health care, and we're doing that. We're doing an historic capital bill in health care. We're putting $1.2 billion into building hospitals. These are generational investments. Some of the largest hospitals being built in the country are being built right here. It is a lot of work. If you look at the city of Halifax, you can go down Robie Street and see those three cranes.

I was talking to somebody a few days ago who drives into the city every morning at about 6:30 a.m., and she said she always looks up to see if the crane operators are there yet. Frequently, they're in those cranes at 6:30 in the morning. Those workers are working hard to make that happen. I can't say how much I appreciate that.

We're doing an $873-million build in seniors and long-term care which, again, I say is a generational build. I'm very proud of the Minister of Seniors and Long-term Care, knowing that that's what we needed to do. We were looking at years of deferred maintenance there. Not only that, we've increased the hours of care. I know that the minister could speak to that better than I could.

The third big number in our budget that you need to know, and I think the public needs to understand, is we're doing a $681.2-million tax break for Nova Scotians. We know that the average family is 2.1 people. If you take $681 million times 2.1, and divide by the number of residents, it's about $1,400 per family this year. Putting money back into the pockets of Nova Scotians, believing several things: believing that Nova Scotians know better how to spend their own money than we do, that's the first thing we believe; and we believe that it will drive our economy forward when we put money back in the pockets of Nova Scotians. They will spend their money here; they will invest here. We will see our economy grow.

In fact, last year, when we gave a historic tax break to Nova Scotians, we've seen this year increases in provincial tax revenue. We saw our taxes still go up. We still see growth. We know that investing in Nova Scotians is the right thing to do. That's why we're doing that tax break. We know that Nova Scotia needs that. In fact, this is an affordability measure. Every one of us is paying taxes all the time. This is a way of helping Nova Scotians. I'm very proud of that.

[Page 3005]

We're also doing a historic investment in highways and structures: $476 million in Public Works. Our roads need that. We live in a climate that beats our roads up. We all know how rough winter is on our roads. It shreds them. We all know that this is an ongoing effort. We're always trying to keep up with road maintenance. We understand that. I just want to say, "Hats off to the minister." Our people in Public Works work so hard. I can't tell you how much I appreciate them. They care. They drive on the same roads as we do. They have a lot of pride in their work. I know they care. They want to see our government invest in roads. We are continuing to invest in roads.

The next big lift in the budget is $233 million for One Person One Record. I've been in this Legislature a long time, and I think we were talking about One Person One Record in 2015, 2016, and it didn't happen. I know the moment that we said we are doing this, it was quite a moment for us as a government. Everybody in the room stood up and cheered. You know what we knew? That if we didn't do this, what we knew - it's a big lift, for one thing. We knew that it would be a big lift in every hospital. We know it's hard to roll in, and we already knew that when it was being rolled in, it would be a struggle for any hospital that it's being rolled in to, that efficiency would reduce.

We knew we had to backstop that roll-in with extra people. We knew it would be hard, but the other thing we knew was if we didn't do it, within five or 10 years, we would not be able to recruit a doctor. Young doctors coming out don't want to live in a paper-based world driven by the fax machine, where you have to write stuff down. We know that this roll-in of One Person One Record is crucial to recruiting doctors two, three, four, five years from now. It's a big lift, that's for sure. I just want to express my appreciation to the nurses and doctors in the areas that it's being rolled in. We know it's a challenge. We know it's a big lift. We're there working - we've been providing the resources. We're continuing to invest in that. We know that in fact, that type of data management, that is the future. We are committed to that.

There are so many other things that we are doing. We have $84 million to improve primary care access; $59 million to transform disability support in community living; $56 million for student assistance. We have $47 million to hire pharmacare and emergency medical respondents. There is a lot of medical stuff in this. Child care transformation: $40 million. Accelerate the skilled trades growth plan: $34.3 million. I could go on. There are so many things that we are doing.

We are continuing to invest in MOST - More Opportunities for Skilled Trades and Occupations Tax Refund - so our young skilled tradespeople who come here get a tax break. We are investing in modular dialysis and I can tell you, that's quite an amazing thing to see. I know that we have a modular - you know, that we are doing that - and medical facilities and project renewals; $8 million for universal mental health. Eight more million; this is an increase of $8 million; $5.5 million for AlayaCare; $5.7 million for rural doctor training.

[Page 3006]

Speaker, this budget is spending record amounts. We see a 7.7 percent growth in spending at the same time that we see a 5.1 percent growth in revenue, so do the math. That results in a $1.2 billion deficit. We don't take that lightly. That is a concern for us. That weighs on us, I want you to know, but I believe in the future of Nova Scotia.

I just want to tell you one thing in my last 29 seconds. A few days ago, there was an announcement of a $200 million wind program down on the South Shore wind farm. That's a big announcement. I asked my staff in Finance, "Was that $200 million built into our fiscal plan in terms of revenue?" They said, "No, minister. That was - we didn't have line of sight on that announcement, and we don't put anything in until it's announced." That's $200 million more in our economy this year that we didn't count on, that we made our budget. That's a pretty big deal.

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

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the minister who just spoke. We all know that this government is really good at spending money. So does the Auditor General; that's why she talked about how the government has spent more than $6.7 billion over budget in the last three years alone. It's not so much about how much money you spend. It's how well you spend it.

On that note, I'd like to talk about something that's very important. It's non-political, it's non-partisan, it's non-regional, but it's fundamental to the survival, the security, and the economic stability for Nova Scotia. I am speaking about the Chignecto Isthmus: the narrow strip of land connecting Nova Scotia to New Brunswick, the only land connection between our province and the rest of Canada. If it fails, Nova Scotia is physically cut off. It's not rhetoric; it's just plain geography.

It is our economic lifeline. The Chignecto Isthmus carries the Trans-Canada Highway, Canadian National Railway Company freight, fuel shipments, food deliveries, agricultural exports, medical supplies, electrical infrastructure, and telecommunications infrastructure. According to the federal and provincial analysis, billions of dollars in trade move through the corridor called the Chignecto Isthmus annually.

Speaker, I will refer to a document, and I will table it at the end of my speech, called Economic Impact of Chignecto Isthmus Transportation Corridor Final Report. In this report that is from March 26, 2025, so about 11 months ago - actually, 12 months ago - this report identifies that at least $94.4 billion in freight goods are shipped annually across the Chignecto Isthmus, averaging $259 million a day. The $59.9 billion move by road, which is representing 63 percent of the daily average of $164 million; and $34 billion by rail, which is 37 percent, equivalent to $95 million per day. The majority, 81 percent, of this serves needs outside of Atlantic Canada including 26 percent for international trade. Ontario and Quebec together account for nearly half, 48.5 percent of the shipped value.

[Page 3007]

It is important to underscore that these results do not capture the total value of goods moving across the Chignecto Isthmus, since the following things are excluded. When we talk about $94.4 billion in freight goods shipped annually, it's not the total. It's actually more than $94.4 billion a year.

First, these values only include certain commodities shipped by rail and truck to wholesalers and retailers. This may not fully account for retailers that move goods from a central warehouse in one province for their retail locations throughout Atlantic Canada, for example. Secondly, this does not include courier delivery of retail goods across the border to consumer households, nor movement of medical supplies from distribution centres to health care facilities, particularly from New Brunswick to Nova Scotia.

Sector impacts for roads, for example: a survey conducted by the Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association, APTA, indicates that approximately 2,400 trucks per day cross the Chignecto Isthmus, which translates into 876,000 per annum. The average value of each shipment by APTA members is $100,000, which equates to $240 million per day, or $87.6 billion per annum.

The New Brunswick Department of Transportation and Infrastructure indicated an average of 2,800 trucks per day pass its Aulac weigh station every day. The APTA truck traffic estimate is similar to Cobequid Pass data, indicating 2,144 average daily trucks for the latest year. Considering some trucks only go to Amherst and others go to P.E.I., not over the Cobequid Pass, 2,400 is probably a reasonable overall estimate coming into and across the Chignecto Isthmus.

Looking at the sector impacts for the port, in 2023 the port of Halifax handled 546,163 20-foot-equivalent units, of which approximately 394,831 moved by rail. Markets included central Canada, the U.S. Midwest, and western Canada.

Now I want to talk about rail. There are at least 9 component CN operations that could be impacted by a breach in its line that crosses the Chignecto Isthmus. These include international import/export containers, mostly handled at PSA Halifax; domestic containers handled at CN Halifax Intermodal Terminal; international break bulk; grain handled at the Halifax Grain Elevator; autos handled at Autoport consisting of European imports for all Canada, and North American production for the Atlantic region; petroleum products for Nova Scotia handled at Esso tank farm, formerly the refinery; interline traffic to and from Cape Breton; central Nova Scotia railway; team track volume to and from Burnside Industrial Park in Dartmouth and other industrial parks; volumes to and from Port Hawkesbury Paper in the Strait of Canso. CN estimated value of their shipments across the Chignecto Isthmus is $34.5 billion a year. Traffic volumes taken into consideration, there are at least 3.1 million cars and 783,000 trucks based on Cobequid Pass traffic data. That does not account for all traffic across the Chignecto Isthmus.

[Page 3008]

A closure would affect 4,300 to 11,660 cars daily and 1,820 to 2,010 trucks daily depending on the time of year. Alternate routes cannot accommodate all of these vehicles, so only the highest priority cargo and personal would have an option via another route.

[6:00 p.m.]

I want to share a key point that is probably the most important thing that I could share during this talk about the Chignecto Isthmus, and it's cost comparison. Current estimates for upgrading the Chignecto Isthmus infrastructure are about $650,000 million. One week of transport disruption could hold up $1.8 billion worth of goods - one week - for $259 million per day. Longer disruptions would cause household and business losses that far exceed the cost of upgrading the isthmus. I haven't even talked about the impact on the people who live on each side of the isthmus. I wanted to share that data from that report, and I will table it at the end of this speech.

Engineers and economists have warned that closure for even days - not months, but days - would have catastrophic economic consequences. The results would be that grocery shelves would be empty, fuel would be rationed, manufacturing would halt, and supply chains would fracture. It's not simply a Cumberland County issue. It's not even a Nova Scotia issue. It's a national trade infrastructure issue.

Climate reality has changed the equation. The isthmus sits barely above sea level, as anyone who has been out there and seen knows. It is protected by aging dikes, some originally constructed in the 1600s and 1700s by Acadian settlers. Today, those dikes protect the highway, the railway, thousands of hectares of agricultural land, and our critical utilities, but climate change has altered the risk profile because sea levels are rising, storm surges are increasing, and extreme weather events are becoming more frequent.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Environment Canada both confirm that Atlantic Canada is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise and coastal storm surges. In 2022, Hurricane Fiona showed us what climate intensity looks like. We were fortunate that the surge did not reach the isthmus at that time. Next time, we may not be so fortunate. This is not alarmism; it is physics. Water flows to the lowest point, and the Chignecto Isthmus is one of the lowest points in our province.

I will also refer to this CBC article that was done by Erica Butler in October 2025. I'll refer to what this article mentions:

An astronomical cycle is playing out, creating bigger tides in the Bay of Fundy and increasing the vulnerability of the infrastructure and communities on the isthmus.

The 18.6-year-long lunar nodal cycle is one of the many patterns tracked by warning preparedness meteorologist Bob Robichaud, with Environment and Climate Change Canada.

[Page 3009]

"It looks like the next peak of this 18-year cycle is going to occur at various times between about 2029 and 2036, with 2034 being the probable time when the peak tides are going to be observed."

The Tantramar Marsh is some of the most productive agricultural land in all of Atlantic Canada. It's protected only by engineered dikes; if those dikes fail, saltwater intrusion could permanently damage the farmland. That affects our farmers, food supply, and world livelihoods, so this is not only about highways. It's also about food security.

We already have an agreement in place - March 2025 - so let's now talk about accountability. The federal government agreed to 50 percent. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick agreed to 25 percent. The framework is established; the funding model is known. This is not an unresolved jurisdictional any longer.

The question now is not who pays. The question is when we build. Nova Scotians deserve a public timeline, milestones, transparent reporting, cost updates, and risk updates. Project work should go through legal tendering practices, not handed to friends. We cannot allow this to drift. We cannot allow this to become another study, another consultation, another delay, or another year of delayed delays. Construction costs, climate risk exposure, economic vulnerability - the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of repair. This is not an opinion; that is established economic principle in infrastructure resilience planning.

The Chignecto Isthmus carries our fuel supply, food supply, military support, and emergency access. In an era of global instability, we cannot ignore strategic vulnerabilities. The Chignecto Isthmus deserves serious leadership. As someone who has run businesses and clearly understands fiscal management, I can say this clearly: responsible leadership plans before crisis. Responsible government invests in prevention. Responsible government does not wait for disaster to force its hand.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has repeatedly emphasized that climate adaptation costs rise exponentially when delayed. Insurance markets are already factoring climate risk into premiums. If this corridor fails - the Chignecto Isthmus - the economic losses would dwarf the cost of reinforcement. Borrowing for resilience is different from borrowing for operating deficits. This is capital protection of critical infrastructure, and that is sound fiscal management.

What must happen now is the Government of Nova Scotia must publish a clear construction timeline, table quarterly progress reports, identify lead accountability - who is the lead, and who is accountable with government - confirm federal funding release schedules, and provide transparent cost projections. Taxpayers are committing to 25 percent of this project. They deserve transparency, they deserve urgency, and they deserve leadership.

[Page 3010]

This is about rural Nova Scotia being valued. Too often, rural infrastructure projects wait until there is a crisis. Northern Nova Scotia is not peripheral. The gateway to our province matters. When trucks cross that highway every hour, when trains pass through that marshland, and when families depend on fuel deliveries, they are depending on decisions made here in this Legislature. The cost of doing nothing is too great. Engineers have warned for years that, without reinforcement, a major surge could breach sections of the dike system.

The Chignecto Isthmus is not a strip of marshland; it is the economic spine of Nova Scotia. It is the artery through which our trade flows. It is the gateway that connects us to the rest of Canada. We have the funding framework, we have the engineering studies, we have the climate data. What we need now is urgency. Leadership is not waiting for disaster; leadership is acting before disaster strikes. We must commit publicly, report transparently, and move from agreement to action because the water is rising.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is carried. We will have a short recess while the committee sets up.

[6:08 p.m. The House resolved into CWH on Supply with Deputy Speaker Marco MacLeod in the Chair.]

[10:29 p.m. CWH on Supply rose and the House reconvened. The Deputy Speaker, Marco MacLeod, took the Chair.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order, please. The Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on Supply reports:

THE CLERK » : That the Committee of the Whole House on Supply has met and made progress and begs leave to sit again.

THE SPEAKER « » : Is it agreed?

It is agreed.

The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD « » : Speaker, this concludes government business for today. I move that the House do now rise to meet again on Wednesday, March 4^th, between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 11:59 p.m.

Following the Daily Routine and Question Period, there will be Opposition Business. After Opposition Business, Government Business will include Committee of the Whole House on Supply and Second Reading. I ask that you recognize the honourable House Leader of the Official Opposition to call Opposition Business for tomorrow.

[Page 3011]

[10:30 p.m.]

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

LISA LACHANCE « » : Tomorrow we will be calling Bill No. 216 and Resolution Nos. 376 and 375.

THE SPEAKER « » : Very good. Thank you.

The motion is that the House do now rise to meet again tomorrow from 1:00 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

The House is adjourned.

[The House rose at 10:31 p.m.]

NOTICES OF MOTION UNDER RULE 32(3)

RESOLUTION NO. 393

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 rise to recognize Scouter Mark Pound on being awarded the Medal of Merit for especially good service to Scouting. This prestigious honour reflects his exceptional dedication, leadership, and commitment to youth in our community; and

Whereas through countless hours of volunteer service, Scouter Mark has helped instill values of teamwork, responsibility, and citizenship in young people, leaving a lasting and positive impact on generations of Scouts and their families; and

Whereas the Medal of Merit is reserved for those whose service truly goes above and beyond, and Scouter Mark's contributions exemplify the very best of the Scouting movement;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House of Assembly join me in congratulating Scouter Mark Pound on this well-deserved recognition and thanking him for his outstanding service to our community.

[Page 3012]