[Page 3272]

HALIFAX, MONDAY, MARCH 9, 2026

Sixty-fifth General Assembly

First Session

1:07 P.M.

SPEAKER

Hon. Danielle Barkhouse

DEPUTY SPEAKERS

Marco MacLeod, Tom Taggart, Julie Vanexan

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

[The national anthem was played.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order, please. We'll begin the Daily Routine.

PRESENTING AND READING PETITIONS

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

SUZY HANSEN « » : Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition, which reads as follows:

Whereas the Arts, Culture, and Heritage Sector generated 22,000 direct and indirect jobs in Nova Scotia in 2023;

Whereas the Arts, Culture, and Heritage Sector contributes $2.6 Billion to NS GDP;

Whereas the Arts, Culture, and Heritage Sector contributes $331 Million to NS tax revenue;

Whereas the Arts, Culture, and Heritage Sector has a positive impact on the physical, mental, and social health on Nova Scotians; and

Whereas the Arts, Culture, and Heritage Sector represents Nova Scotia to the world's stage and is a vital part of our brand;

[Page 3273]

We, the undersigned, call on the Nova Scotia Government to reverse the decision to cut funding from Communities, Culture, Tourism and Heritage and Arts NS in the 2026 Budget.

I have a total of 543 signatures, and I have affixed my name, as per the Rules of the House.

THE SPEAKER « » : The petition is tabled.

The honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition from Nova Scotians from across the province, which reads as follows:

Whereas the Arts, Culture, and Heritage Sector generated 22,000 direct and indirect jobs in Nova Scotia in 2023;

Whereas the Arts, Culture, and Heritage Sector contributes $2.6 Billion to NS GDP;

Whereas the Arts, Culture, and Heritage Sector contributes $331 Million to NS tax revenue;

Whereas the Arts, Culture, and Heritage Sector has a positive impact on the physical, mental, and social health on Nova Scotians; and

Whereas the Arts, Culture, and Heritage Sector represents Nova Scotia to the world's stage and is a vital part of our brand;

We, the undersigned, call on the Nova Scotia Government to reverse the decision to cut funding from Communities, Culture, Tourism and Heritage in the 2026 Budget.

There are approximately 105 signatures on the petition, and I've affixed my signature to the petition as per the Rules of the House.

THE SPEAKER « » : The petition is tabled.

The honourable member for Lunenburg West.

HON. BECKY DRUHAN « » : Speaker, I beg leave to table a petition, the operative clause of which reads:

[Page 3274]

Whereas the Arts, Culture, and Heritage Sector generated 22,000 direct and indirect jobs in Nova Scotia in 2023;

Whereas the Arts, Culture, and Heritage Sector contributes $2.6 Billion to NS GDP;

Whereas the Arts, Culture, and Heritage Sector contributes $331 Million to NS tax revenue;

Whereas the Arts, Culture, and Heritage Sector has a positive impact on the physical, mental, and social health on Nova Scotians; and

Whereas the Arts, Culture, and Heritage Sector represents Nova Scotia to the world's stage and is a vital part of our brand;

We, the undersigned, call on the Nova Scotia Government to reverse the decision to cut funding from Communities, Culture, Tourism and Heritage in the 2026 Budget.

I have petitions totalling 636 Nova Scotian signatures, and I have signed my name in support and in accordance with the Rules of the House.

THE SPEAKER « » : The petition is tabled.

PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

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

HON. BRIAN WONG « » : Speaker, as Chair of the Committee on Private and Local Bills, I am directed to report that the committee has met and considered the following bills:

Bill No. 190 - An Act to Amend Chapter 158 of the Acts of 1919, An Act to Incorporate the Trustees of St. Matthew's Church in Halifax, and to Consolidate the Trustees of Fort Massey United Church, St. Andrew's United Church and St. Matthew's United Church.

Bill No. 204 - An Act Relating to Taxation by the Town of Kentville of Industrial and Commercial Properties in the Annapolis Valley Regional Industrial Park (amended).

The committee recommends these bills to the favourable consideration of the House, each without amendment.

[Page 3275]

THE SPEAKER « » : Ordered that these bills be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on Bills.

TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS

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

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Speaker, I'd like to table two letters that I received from constituents, related to my member statement.

THE SPEAKER « » : The documents are tabled.

The honourable member for Glace Bay-Dominion.

HON. JOHN WHITE « » : Speaker, I beg leave to table a document related to the affordability housing vacancy rate.

THE SPEAKER « » : The document is tabled.

STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS

GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill No. 237 - An Act to Provide Accountability Respecting Emergency Departments. (Rod Wilson)

Bill No. 238 - An Act Respecting Hearing Aid Coverage under the Seniors' Pharmacare Program. (Lina Hamid)

[1:15 p.m.]

Bill No. 239 - An Act to Prevent Gender-based Violence. (Susan Leblanc)

Bill No. 240 - An Act to Establish a 2SLGBTQIA+ Advisory Committee. (Lisa Lachance)

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

NOTICES OF MOTION

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Page 3276]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Lunenburg.

INT'L. WOMEN'S DAY: PRESENCE IN INDUSTRY - RECOG.

HON. SUSAN CORKUM-GREEK « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize International Women's Day, which was observed yesterday, Sunday, March 8^th. Across Nova Scotia, women lead in every corner of our province - in health care, in business, in education, in the trades, and in public service. They are building companies, pushing the boundaries of research, keeping our communities safe, and mentoring the next generation of leaders.

More women than ever are entering the skilled trades and the sciences, reshaping industries that will define this province's future. They are leading in our operating rooms and emergency departments, delivering the care Nova Scotians depend on. They are running farms and fisheries that have sustained rural Nova Scotia for generations - shout-out to my own lobster queen, Gail Atkinson, in Lunenburg - and growing businesses that create jobs in every corner of this province. They are serving in uniform in our fire halls, on our police forces, and in our military, protecting the communities we call home. In classrooms across Nova Scotia, they are shaping the minds that will lead this province tomorrow.

Behind every woman leading today is a generation of women who fought for the opportunity. International Women's Day honours that legacy and the women who continue to open doors for those who follow.

I ask all members in this House to join me in recognizing International Women's Day and in thanking the women across this province who make Nova Scotia stronger every single day.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE » : I hope everybody had a great weekend. Speaker, I'd just ask for unanimous consent to revert to Government Notices of Motion. I was a little late. I apologize.

THE SPEAKER « » : There has been a request to revert to Government Notices of Motion.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

I hear several Noes. Unfortunately, we cannot.

The honourable member for Halifax Armdale.

[Page 3277]

ROD WILSON « » : Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

ROD WILSON « » : I'd ask members of the House to pay attention and join me in welcoming members. I have guests here today, and I ask that you stand when I say your name.

Joining us today are members of the ACE Team of NS - Advocates for the Care of the Elderly. With us today are Gary MacLeod - the chair - and members Olga Milosevich and Ian Johnson. (Applause)

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

The honourable member for Halifax Armdale.

ACE TEAM: ACTIVISM FOR ELDERS - RECOG.

ROD WILSON « » : Members of the ACE Team would be no stranger to the Minister of Seniors and Long-term Care and me. Their mission is both profound and simple. They exist to speak for the most vulnerable in our society and those who cannot always speak for themselves. Specifically, they dedicate themselves to advocating for seniors in long-term care, folks who have spent their lives building our communities and now deserve to live with comfort.

Through their advocacy, which keeps me on my toes, they ensure that the voices of seniors and their families are heard and that challenges in long-term care and changes do not go unnoticed. The ACE team reminds us of a fundamental truth: how we treat our elders helps define us a province. In a time of austerity and belt-tightening, they exist to keep the government and others accountable. The ACE Team stands as a steadfast advocate for their people and on the principle that every senior deserves respect and compassion. I ask all members in the House to join me in thanking the ACE Team for their tireless dedication.

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

KOUMBIE/OLSON, TAYLOR: LOCAL ARTISTS - RECOG.

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : Speaker, I want to recognize Koumbie and Taylor Olson, remarkable artists who recently celebrated their 10-year anniversary, purchased a house in my constituency in 2020, and are raising a two-year-old child. Like many artists in Nova Scotia, they wear many hats: writers, directors, producers, actors, and educators. Their career spans film, television, theatre, and teaching workshops. They piece together livelihoods through multiple contracts and projects - not out of luxury but because this is how our arts industry functions.

[Page 3278]

It was an Arts Nova Scotia professional development grant that enabled Koumbie to become one of the first intimacy coordinators in the Maritimes, a milestone for this region. Next week, they'll be in Toronto, screening Taylor's third feature film, What We Dreamed of Then as part of a theatrical release made possible by the Screenwriters Fund, now threatened by cuts. Koumbie currently works as a sketch director for This Hour Has 22 Minutes, an opportunity made possible by programs that are now at risk.

When art funding is reduced, the effects ripple through our communities. I urge the House to recognize the invaluable contributions of artists like Koumbie and Taylor and to consider the lasting impact of arts funding on families, communities, and the very fabric of Nova Scotia.

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

HON. TORY RUSHTON « » : Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

TORY RUSHTON « » : Speaker, in your gallery today are Karen Barclay and Wanda Nicholson, who are my CAs back in Cumberland North. They share the job. Wanda and I had to drag Karen down here out of Cumberland County today, but it's with good reason. She's celebrating 25 years of service to the Province of Nova Scotia in Cumberland South. (Standing Ovation)

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

The honourable member for Cumberland South.

BARCLAY, KAREN: 25 YRS. OF CONSTIT. WORK - THANKS

HON. TORY RUSHTON « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize Karen Barclay, one of my constituency coordinators in Cumberland South. In January 2008, Karen entered the office of then-MLA Murray Scott, looking for a job. At that time, Murray was looking for a part-time CA. Soon after, Karen began working full-time for Murray and has been there ever since, working under six different Premiers, surviving three MLAs, if you will.

Both Karen and Wanda are the heartbeat of Cumberland South. I can't speak of how much I appreciate their work. They're always, as every other CC is, the front-line defence every time somebody calls the office. Obviously we all know they don't always call the office on their good days. I would like to personally thank them for their services.

[Page 3279]

Especially today, I would like to say a special thank you to Karen. Putting 25 years into an MLA office is not a feat that's seen by a lot. We're here to celebrate her today and thank her very much for her service. I would like the House to recognize Karen Barclay for putting 25 years into one of our MLA offices and thank her for her service.

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

CAJEE, DR. ISMAIL AND FATIMA: COMM. EFFORTS - THANKS

KRISTA GALLAGHER « » : Speaker, today I rise to recognize Fatima Cajee and Dr. Ismail Cajee, a hard-working and inspiring couple. They recently received an Ummah Mosque award for their invaluable contributions to our community and beyond. Dr. Ismail is a tenured emergency physician working primarily out of the central region, who goes out of his way to support rural emergency rooms when he can to prevent closures. His colleagues describe him as a mentor inspiring them to be better doctors.

Fatima has long been involved with grassroots advocacy and human rights. From helping to organize rallies and working on the Human Rights Commission, she has an extensive history of standing up for youth, for family, and anyone in need of support.

Please join me in thanking Drs. Ismail and Fatima Cajee for their tireless efforts to make our province a better place to live. Congratulations on your well-deserved recognition. (Applause)

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

C.B.: AFFECTED BY CUTS - RECOG.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Speaker, we're starting to hear from all over the Island the impacts of the proposed budget that's being brought forward by the government. No community has been left unscathed in Cape Breton, whether it's tourism, artists, poets, our Gaelic culture, our museums, our theatres, our cultural centres, our arts centres, or our adult day centres. Everybody is feeling it.

This is going to be devasting across the Island - an Island that is built on tourism, culture, our rich history, and our story. People are losing their jobs. People are scared. We're afraid that some theatres may shut down. This is significant for the island, coming into the spring.

I rise in my place to urge the government to reconsider. This budget is going to be devasting for the rich history that is Cape Breton Island.

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

[Page 3280]

CAISSIE, RITA: 25 MOST POWERFUL WOMEN IN BUS. - CONGRATS.

HON. BECKY DRUHAN « » : I rise today to congratulate Rita Caissie, the plant manager at Michelin's Bridgewater facility, who was recently named one of the 25 Most Powerful Women in Business in the Atlantic Canada Women in Business Awards held on March 5^th.

Rita has dedicated more than 30 years to manufacturing, building an impressive career that has taken her to multiple facilities across two countries. Before coming to Bridgewater, she served as plant manager at Michelin's facility in Ardmore, Oklahoma. Today, she leads the Bridgewater plant with the same commitment to excellence and innovation that has defined her career.

As we just marked International Women's Day on March 8^th, Rita's recognition is a powerful reminder of the leadership, talent, and impact women bring to workplaces and communities every day. Rita's leadership, dedication, and commitment to mentorship make her an inspiration to many.

I ask members to join me in offering congratulations on this well-deserved recognition and to thank Rita for the leadership that she brings to Lunenburg West.

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

SOMERS, ADAM: LOCAL PHARMACIST - RECOG.

HON. TIMOTHY HALMAN « » : I rise today to recognize Adam Somers, co-owner of Westphal PharmaChoice in Dartmouth East. Adam is a pharmacist known for his strong commitment to community care. Adam and his team serve residents each day with professionalism and kindness, ensuring the community can access the health services they need close to home.

Last summer, Adam warmly welcomed me to his pharmacy, where he spoke about the outstanding work pharmacists have been able to do thanks to the expanded scope of practice introduced by the government of Nova Scotia.

His work reaches well beyond Dartmouth. Adam provides care at 12 pharmacy locations across the province. This past Christmas, Adam demonstrated remarkable generosity by donating numerous items to support local seniors and partnering with our constituency office to ensure vulnerable residents felt remembered and supported.

I ask all members to join me in thanking Adam Somers and his team for their continued commitment to patients and their vital role in building a stronger, more responsive health care system.

[Page 3281]

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

SCOTIA SQ. CUSTODIAL STAFF: CONTRACT DECISION - CONGRATS.

PAUL WOZNEY « » : I rise today to congratulate the dedicated custodial staff of Scotia Square on securing a new deal with their new contractor, ensuring the continuance of the collective agreement and preventing a damaging contract flip.

Nova Scotia's janitorial sector is a particularly vulnerable one, owing to Nova Scotia's lack of successorship rights. Without the right to successorship, those employed by a contractor, as many custodians are, can be easily terminate en masse by a lower bidder taking over the contract.

This is precisely the fight in which Scotia Square's janitors found themselves last fall. Just months after securing raises, more reasonable workloads, and a pension plan, the employer's contract went to tender and threatened everything they'd fought for. Thankfully, they signed a fresh agreement with a new contractor just weeks ago to maintain these hard-fought gains.

I ask that all present join me in congratulating Scotia Square's custodial staff on their recent victory and thanking them for their dedicated service to the people of Halifax.

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

[1:30 p.m.]

BRIDGE ADULT SERVICES CTR.: COMM. SERV. - RECOG.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : I rise today to speak about the impact of the cruel recent provincial budget cuts to disability day programs including the Bridge Adult Service Centre in Amherst.

The Bridge is more than a program; it's a family. It's a place where adults with disabilities find connection, purpose, and opportunity to contribute to our community. Participants build life skills, form friendships, and take pride in the meaningful work through programs like their thrift store, laundry services, and other community initiatives.

For many families, these programs also make it possible to continue working, knowing their loved ones are safe, supported, and part of a community where they belong.

Over the past few days I've heard from parents, caregivers, and staff who are deeply concerned about what these cuts will mean for the people they love and support. They are worried about reduced services, fewer opportunities, and the negative message these cuts send to people with disabilities about their value in our society. When we invest in these programs we invest in people - very special people.

[Page 3282]

I ask this government to listen to their voices and change the direction of these budget cuts, Speaker.

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

MORRISON, JAN: LOCAL PSYCHOTHERAPIST - RECOG.

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : Speaker, I want to recognize Jan Morrison from Prospect, a psychotherapist whose nearly 40 years of dedication has helped countless individuals heal.

Psychotherapy as practiced by Jan is not just about clinical sessions; it is about building communities, supporting emergency and social programs, and fostering spaces where healing can happen through books, music, art, film, libraries, and museums. It is about enabling people to join a choir, take a bus, or call for help when life becomes overwhelming. It is about understanding that healing also comes from books, music, art, film, libraries, and museums, once again.

As a published author, poet, playwright, and visual artist, Jan knows firsthand how government funding has made these creative pursuits possible. Theatres, publishers, small presses, workshops, and education programs have all benefitted from public support, allowing artists like her and so many others to contribute to our cultural landscape.

I ask the members of this House to recommit to supporting programs and people who make healing possible, not just for individuals, but for our society.

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

SEARL, MISSY: BUS. LDR. OF THE YR. AWARD RECIP. - CONGRATS. 

HON. BARBARA ADAMS « » : Speaker, today I rise to congratulate an incredible Eastern Passage resident, Missy Searl. This year, Missy was listed as the winner of the Business Leader of the Year for her organization, the Period Equity Alliance Society.

Missy's not-for-profit has been helping so many. She has seen a need for help at the lack of access for menstrual products, and that is why she has been partnering with schools, community groups, and shelters, raising awareness, advocacy, education, and supplies that help mitigate the challenges of period poverty.

I ask all members of the Nova Scotia Legislature to join me in congratulating Missy Searl and the Period Equity Alliance Society for being named Business Leader of the Year.

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

[Page 3283]

MADER, GWEN: LOCAL ARTIST - RECOG. 

HON. BECKY DRUHAN « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize one example of the many artists who contribute to the fabric of our community and culture in Nova Scotia.

Gwen Mader is a fibre artist and craftsperson who creates from her home studio in the community of Pentz, and whose work reflects both skill and a deep connection to place. Gwen's love of making began early and over time she's developed a distinctive artistic practice grounded in patience, creativity, and care.

Working primarily with fibre, especially needle felting, she transforms locally sourced wool into detailed sculptures inspired by the natural world. Her work often features landscapes, animals, and birds, capturing the outdoors in remarkably lifelike ways. Gwen is involved in every stage of her process, from spinning and dying fleece to shaping each piece by hand. A self-taught artist. she has spent years refining her craft, exhibiting her work, and sharing her knowledge through workshops with community groups and organizations.

Gwen's talent and dedication make her a valued contributor to our local arts community. Members can explore her work online through Gwen's Handmade Creations, where she continues to share her art and connect with audiences beyond our region.

I ask members to join me in recognizing Gwen Mader for her creativity and her commitment to her craft.

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

ENDOMETRIOSIS AWARENESS MO.: CHRONIC DISEASE - RECOG.

SUZY HANSEN « » : Speaker, I rise to recognize March as Endometriosis Awareness Month, and the annual global effort to shed light on a chronic, often debilitating disease affecting roughly 10 percent of reproductive-aged people worldwide.

This year, the theme is Endometriosis Doesn't Wait. Endometriosis doesn't wait while you are trying to get a diagnosis or access to care. It doesn't wait. The goal this month is to move forward and beyond the yellow ribbons and foster year-round understanding, as awareness should not have an expiration date.

I would ask all members to join me in recognizing March as Endometriosis Awareness Month.

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

[Page 3284]

SCOTT, RAMONA: LOCAL INITS. - RECOG.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary resident of Plymouth in Yarmouth County, Miss Ramona Scott. Ramona is the very definition of a community leader. For decades, she has given her time and talents quietly and relentlessly, whether it was through WE CARE Radiothon; Seafest; or countless volunteer efforts in local schools, community events, and service organizations.

Most recently as president of the Plymouth Community Hall, Ramona spearheaded a remarkable restoration project. Thanks to her determination in securing grants and rallying support, the hall has been reborn as a vibrant gathering place, hosting meetings, yoga, sewing circles, and even Monday night kitchen parties where local musicians share their gifts.

Ramona is also a proud grand-mère to Scarlet, Dawson, and Lily and, alongside her husband, Mike, continues to show what it means to be dedicated to Nova Scotia. I ask all members of House to join me in thanking Ramona Scott for her tireless contributions to Yarmouth County and to Nova Scotia. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Victoria-The Lakes.

EVANS, GREGORY: HEALING WISHES - RECOG.

DIANNE TIMMINS: Speaker, hidradenitis suppurativa is an autoimmune disease that affects hair follicles and sweat glands. It is also known as acne inversa disease.

At the age of 15, Gregory Evans and his family knew there was something wrong. He was suffering but didn't have a diagnosis. It is estimated that between three hundred thousand and one million Canadians are plagued with this painful condition and many are misdiagnosed. At the age of 19 during an emergency visit to Baddeck hospital, Gregory finally received confirmation of his condition. Since he was diagnosed, Gregory spent five months in the Northside General Hospital where he received excellent care. Then he was transferred to St. Martha's Regional Hospital for two months where he underwent his first three surgeries. At the age of 29 after a total of nine surgeries, Gregory is presently at the Halifax Infirmary awaiting another graph surgery.

Please join me in recognizing Gregory for his amazing strength and sending him healing wishes. Gregory, your family and your community back home in Cape Breton is sending you many prayers and endless love.

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

DISABILITY SUPPORT PROG.: CONCERNS OVER CUTS - REVERSE

[Page 3285]

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Over the past weekend, I have fielded many phone calls, e-mails, and messages regarding this government's cruel cuts to the Disability Support Program, and listened to many stories similar to the fears that we have in our own family with regards to these cuts. My heart goes out to every parent, every caregiver, every person with a disability who is having fear right now, who feels the pain of this government's cuts, who has a tremendous amount of fear for the future of the programs that they love so much.

I ask this government, on behalf of all of those individuals, to please reverse these cruel cuts that are hurting people - real people with real lives.

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

COMM. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING CUTS:

UNKNOWN FUTURE - RECOG.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : I rise today to speak about the impact that the government's cuts to community transportation funding will have on some of the most vulnerable people in our province.

I recently received correspondence from the Nova Scotia Community Transportation Network, the Rural Transportation Association, and local providers warning that reductions to key funding programs will affect the ability of community transportation organizations to maintain services, support operations, and expand into underserviced communities. In rural Nova Scotia, community transportation is not a luxury. It is often the only way seniors, persons with disabilities, and residents without access to a vehicle get to medical appointments, work, school, groceries, and other essential services.

These organizations already operate with lean budgets and limited reserves. When government cuts funding or planning or operations, they leave more people behind. During the COVID-19 pandemic, they were considered essential services. Why are they being treated so disrespectfully?

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Preston.

COLE HARBOUR CANDLE CO.: LOCAL BUSINESS - RECOG.

HON. TWILA GROSSE « » : I rise today to recognize Cole Harbour Candle Co., founded in 2020 by Lauen Gerow during the COVID-19 lockdowns to help fund her university education. What began as a small venture quickly grew into a beloved local business. In 2024 Lauren graduated with a Bachelor of Commerce from Saint Mary's University. The company is now run by her mother, Adrienne.

Cole Harbour Candle Company continues to craft hand-poured soy candles and wax melts, supported by a devoted community, retail partners, and Nova Scotia Loyal. Their products have reached homes across Canada and as far as California, the U.K., Peru, and Italy, spreading light from Cole Harbour to the world.

[Page 3286]

I ask all members of this Legislature to join me in recognizing Cole Harbour Candle Company for their entrepreneurial spirit, their dedication to quality, and the warmth they bring to homes near and far.

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

BRAIN REPAIR CTR.: LOCAL RESEARCH INSTIT., PT. 1 - RECOG.

LISA LACHANCE « » : I rise today to both recognize the amazing work of the Brain Repair Centre and lament its cut to all provincial funding.

The Brain Repair Centre is located at Dalhousie University. The provincial funding was directly leveraged to raise money to build the Life Sciences Research Institute for future health professionals. The provincial funding was also leveraged for a Brain Canada grant to develop a neuroscience road show. Maybe some of you have seen it your community. Thousands of Nova Scotians have heard from other young scientists about neuroscience and hope to get into careers like medicine, nursing, technology, and pharmacy.

I know this government wants to fund research that is commercialized. Well, this is the basis for that sort of thing. In the past year, there are three amazing businesses I encourage you to check out - maybe I'll do a second member's statement to get through them all - one of which is tremendous. It was launched from the Brain Repair Centre and works on protein misfolding diseases like Alzheimer's, long COVID-19, and Parkinson's.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Digby-Annapolis.

POTTER, AGNES MADELINE: DEATH OF - TRIBUTE

HON. JILL BALSER « » : Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honour the life and legacy of Agnes Madeline Potter, known lovingly as Momma, who passed away peacefully on March 27, 2025, at the age of 85. Born in Digby and a lifelong member of Bear River First Nation, Agnes dedicated her life to family, community, and culture. A proud Mi'kmaw woman, Agnes was a spiritual Elder and an unwavering advocate for Indigenous rights. She served her community with grace and wisdom through her involvement with the Native Council of Nova Scotia and the Native Women's Association of Nova Scotia.

Appointed Elder of the East, Agnes travelled to Ottawa to represent her community and was a respected voice on the Elders' Advisory Council in both Debert and Truro. Most recently, Agnes was selected by Senator P.J. Prosper to receive His Majesty King Charles III's Coronation Medal in recognition for her lifelong commitment to service and the tangible impacts she has made on her community and the Mi'kmaw Nation.

[Page 3287]

Elder Agnes was a loving mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother, whose strength, humility, and unwavering faith left an enduring mark on all who knew her.

I ask that all members of this House join me in honouring the incredible life and legacy of Agnes Madeline Potter. May her legacy continue to inspire future generations and may her spirit remain a guiding light in all of our hearts.

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

HOJO'S JAPANESE CUISINE: LOCAL RESTAURANT - RECOG.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : Speaker, Dartmouth North has a thriving food scene. Not only do we have some incredible chefs who life in our community, but we have a whole host of fantastic restaurants and international cuisines throughout the area.

My office is just a stone's throw away from authentic Mexican tacos, Indian curries, Montreal-style bagels, and so much more.

We recently welcomed a new neighbour to the Wise Road food district - Hojo's Japanese Cuisine. This is Yuichi Hojo's second restaurant location and his first in Nova Scotia. Hojo's proudly serves authentic Japanese cuisine, like gyoza, sushi, and handmade ramen noodles. Their pork broth has certainly been a lifesaver as we continue to dig ourselves out from all that the winter has brought us.

I recently ate at Hojo's with my partner and son, and Aimé gave our meal two enthusiastic thumbs up. I ask the House to join me in congratulating Hojo's on their opening and thank them for investing in our community.

Welcome to Dartmouth North, Hojo's, and we will see you soon.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Clare.

CIRCLES OF GRIEF: LOCAL INIT. - RECOG.

RYAN ROBICHEAU « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important work of Circles of Grief, a volunteer-led group that offers compassion, support, and healing for those navigating the difficult journey of grief. This group creates a safe and understanding space for individuals coping with loss, a place where they are seen, heard, and never alone. The impact of their work is deeply felt throughout the community of Clare.

[Page 3288]

I want to sincerely thank the incredible volunteers who make this support possible: Joan Tufts, Anita Dugas, Holly Comeau, Odette Gaudet, Vivian Fahey, and Yvette Després. Their empathy, strength, and leadership bring comfort to those in their most vulnerable moments.

[1:45 p.m.]

Grief touches every life, and thanks to Circles of Grief and its volunteers, no one has to face it without support.

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

FAMILY RESOURCE CTRS.: CRISIS CTR. CUTS - REVERSE

LINA HAMID « » : Speaker, I rise today to bring urgent attention to the family resource centres across the province - the very backbone of Nova Scotian communities. For over 30 years, from Sydney to Yarmouth, they have been the safety net for the most vulnerable. While they were founded on prevention, they have been forced to become frontline crisis centres filling in gaps that this government refuses to fill in - housing, food insecurity, and social isolation. They have seen up to a 100-percent increase in service users for some centres, but their funding has been stagnant since 2021. To make matters worse, their funding has now been cut in a way that's going to make many of them unable to keep their doors open.

I call on this government to reverse these cuts and recognize that they cannot defend Nova Scotia when actively dismantling the organizations that defend our communities.

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

GUYSBOROUGH-ANTIGONISH JOURNAL: LOCAL NEWSPAPER - RECOG.

HON. GREG MORROW « » : Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Guysborough Journal on their recent rebranding as the Guysborough-Antigonish Journal. Since 1994, the Guysborough Journal has been a trusted source of local news, shining a light on the people, businesses, and events of Guysborough County. Following the successful launch of the "Antigonish This Week" section last spring by owners Alan and Helen Murphy, this new name reflects both growth and a strengthened commitment to serving readers in Guysborough and neighbouring Antigonish County.

Operating from a Main Street office in Guysborough and providing five full-time jobs, the paper continues to play a vital role in keeping residents informed and connected in print, by mail, or online. My office is a loyal subscriber and also advertises in this paper.

I commend the ownership, contributors, and staff for their dedication to local journalism. I wish the Guysborough-Antigonish Journal every success as they continue keeping their eye on the coast.

[Page 3289]

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

FLUFFYCAT BOOKS: LOCAL BUSINESS - RECOG.

PAUL WOZNEY « » : Speaker, it seems that not a day goes by when Sackville's mosaic of entrepreneurs doesn't grow more varied and colourful - or in this case, furry. New to Sackville Drive is FluffyCat Bookstore, an emporium of used books owned and operated by long-time Sackville resident Sophia, who self-describes as a humble book nerd living her dream of running a small used bookstore.

Having spent years working in other bookstores, Sophia decided it was time to strike up an independent venture, crediting as inspiration her three cats, Gandolf, Boop, and Gremlin. FluffyCat draws much of its stock from donations, and those who contribute get a discount on their next read, whether they're looking for sci-fi, romance, historical fiction, fantasy, horror, 2SLGBTQIA+, or something from a bevy of other genres.

I ask those in attendance to please join me in welcoming FluffyCat Books to Sackville and in wishing them the best as their story unfolds.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Truro-Bible Hill-Millbrook-Salmon River.

UNITED WAY OF COLCHESTER COUNTY: SOUP FEST - RECOG.

HON. DAVE RITCEY « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize the United Way of Colchester and its annual Soup Fest fundraiser, a wonderful event that brings our community together in support of vital local programs and services. Soup Fest is a celebration of generosity, partnership, and the caring spirit that defines Colchester County.

I would also like to welcome Shelly DeViller as the new executive director of the United Way of Colchester. We wish her every success as she leads this important organization forward in our community. At the same time, we extend our sincere thanks to former Executive Director Sarah McCurdy for her dedicated leadership and lasting contributions. Because of their work and the support of our community, the United Way continues to make a meaningful difference in the lives of so many.

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

C.B. TOURISM: CELTIC COLOURS FUNDING CUT - REVERSE

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Speaker, in this government's fashion, Cape Breton has lost its visitor information centres due to the cuts for tourism. We have seen Cossit House Museum being closed. We've seen other museums potentially under threat with regard to budgets.

[Page 3290]

Now we are seeing that the provincial operating grant for Celtic Colours will be reduced by 20 percent. Celtic Colours is one of the biggest economic drivers in the fall in Cape Breton, bringing all the culture of Cape Breton together from one part of the Island to the other, helping the smaller halls, helping the smaller areas - our inns, our restaurants, our hotels. Celtic Colours International Festival brings $18 million into the local economy, and $16 million of that stays in Cape Breton. This is a very shameful day for this government.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Annapolis.

HEATHER KNIGHT CLOTHING & GIFTS: LOCAL BUSINESS - RECOG.

DAVID BOWLBY « » : I rise today to recognize Heather Knight. Heather owns and operates a small company called Heather Knight Clothing and Gifts located in Springfield.

Heather's Clothing and Gifts shop has a New Scotland or Nova Scotian theme. Many of her products are made with Nova Scotia tartan, reflecting an important aspect of our province's heritage and culture. Heather's products range from ornaments to mittens to full outfits. Heather represents the amazing kind of entrepreneurial courage. She created a successful business in a very rural community which provides amazing products while upholding Nova Scotia culture and traditions.

I ask members of this Legislature to please join me in thanking Heather for her courage and dedication to her community and province. I look forward to seeing what the future holds for Heather and her business.

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

BRAIN REPAIR CTR.: LOCAL RESEARCH INSTIT., PT. 2 - RECOG.

LISA LACHANCE « » : I'm gong to keep talking about the amazing Brain Repair Centre at Dalhousie University. As I said, all provincial funding has been cut from this centre. Why that's important in the research world is that you need to show support and stability, and then they can go out and get more money, as I said, to directly leverage to raise $30 million to build the Life Sciences Research Institute, directly leverage for the Neuroscience Roadshow.

I talked about Treventis Corporation, which is a commercialized business for the past year looking at Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. There's also 3DBioFibR, and they're the first commercialization of collagen fibre for fibre and tissue research. Again, this stuff doesn't just happen overnight. This actually does take time. I know there's some idea that we want things that can be directly commercialized. That comes from having a centre that supports people to do the research, with 150 students over seven years, plus 40 post-docs.

[Page 3291]

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

TALAY THAI: LOCAL RESTAURANT - RECOG.

BRAD MCGOWAN « » : Today I rise to recognize Talay Thai, an award-winning local restaurant in Cole Harbour that serves authentic Thai food.

Anyone who has ever ordered food from Talay Thai knows that while the food is amazing, it is the warm, inviting environment that keeps the residents of Cole Harbour-Dartmouth coming back time and time again.

Run by Niem and Jimmy Dao for 15 years, Talay Thai is yet another example of what a special place Cole Harbour-Dartmouth is. It is so wonderful to have such an amazing small business in our community that offers our community an exciting, authentic option when it comes to choosing where to have a meal.

Please join me in recognizing Talay Thai of Cole Harbour.

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

WARD 5 NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE: LOCAL ORG. - RECOG.

SUZY HANSEN « » : I rise today to recognize Ward 5 Neighbourhood Centre. Ward 5 is a non-profit organization that has been serving the north end community of Halifax since 1974.

I'm deeply concerned and disappointed to hear about the 100 percent cut to the provincial funding through OSD. Reductions to our community organizations that provide services like low-cost child care and meal programs for seniors and children undermine community health and stability at a time when the Province has identified strong, resilient communities as a priority in the 2026-27 budget. The loss of these programs will be felt immediately and deeply.

I ask all members in this House to stop these cuts. We have to do better. The government has to do better. We need to stand for our communities, because they mean so much to us. We have to stop these cuts so that we don't continue this throughout our generations.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Bedford Basin.

[Page 3292]

BEDFORD UNITED CHURCH: 2025 COBEQ. COMM. HEALTH BD. WELLNESS FUND RECIP. - CONGRATS.

TIM OUTHIT « » : I rise today to congratulate the Bedford United Church for being the recipient of the 2025 Cobequid Community Health Board Wellness Fund Grant. Bedford United Church hosts a free community meal serving Bedford, Sackville, and Hammonds Plains, offering hospitality that addresses both food insecurity and social isolation. Held monthly in the church hall, the program fosters social connection and community building during times of uncertainty and change. With participation steadily increasing, the initiative demonstrates the strong community need and engagement, supported by positive feedback from both attendees and volunteers.

Wellness funds will support the program in exploring and testing sustainability options to ensure that this vital community resource can continue long term.

I ask the members of the House to join me in congratulating the Bedford United Church on receiving this recognition from the Cobequid Community Health Board.

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

CUPE 3912: NSCAD STAFF STRIKE - SOLIDARITY

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : Speaker, I wanted to take a second and say that I'm standing in solidarity with the members of CUPE 3912, NSCAD University. They are on strike. Many of these workers are part-time professors and teachers, but of course, they are also artists who have professional art practices.

When I was a member of CUPE 3912 and teaching at Dalhousie University, it was one of the ways I pieced together my income. I taught a class at Dalhousie, I made my theatre with Zuppa, and somehow, every once in a while, I got a TV commercial. Then I pieced together my income.

These folks are fighting for higher wages. They're some of the lowest-paid part-time teachers in the country and the province. They need higher wages, but they also need their art practice protected.

I speak in solidarity with them but also against the cuts that this budget is presenting.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Glace Bay-Dominion.

FORTUNE, LYDIA HELEN: DEATH OF - TRIBUTE

HON. JOHN WHITE « » : Speaker, today I rise to honour the life of Lydia Helen Fortune, a devoted mother, grandmother, sister, friend, and proud Dominion woman whose love knew no limits.

[Page 3293]

Lydia was the heart of her family. Her kitchen was more than just a place to cook. It was a place of comfort, laughter, and belonging. She baked from memory, poured love into everything she made, and always seemed to know exactly what someone needed before they asked. She worked hard throughout her life and served her community with kindness and dedication, forming friendships that lasted decades. Her greatest joy and proudest role was being Mom and Nanny. Her grandchildren were the absolute light of her life.

Even in her passing, Lydia continues to give, choosing organ donation so that others might have hope. She lived for her family, loved with all her heart, and gave without limits. Her legacy will continue in every life that she touched. May her memory forever be a blessing.

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

LEBLANC, CICELY: GOALIE OF THE MO. (DEC.) - CONGRATS.

HON. BRIAN WONG « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding athletic achievements of an impressive young athlete from Beaver Bank, Cicely LeBlanc.

Cicely, a goaltender for the Action Benefit Solutions of Valley Wild, was recently named the Goalie of the Month for December in the Maritime Major U18 female hockey league. This is no small feat in such a competitive league, and it speaks volumes about her work ethic and her composure under pressure between the pipes. In the month of December alone, Cicely maintained a perfect 3-0 record, including a shut-out, and stopped 72 of 75 shots she faced. To maintain a 0.960 save percentage at this level of play is truly remarkable.

It is heartening to see our local athletes representing our community so well on the regional stage, proving that with hard work and dedication, our youth can compete with the very best.

I ask all members of this House to please join me in congratulating Cicely LeBlanc on her well-deserved Goalie of the Month honours and wishing her and the Valley Wild continued success for the remainder of the season.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Truro-Bible Hill-Millbrook-Salmon River.

DAUGHTER: U15A SOCCER WIN - CONGRATS.

[Page 3294]

HON. DAVE RITCEY « » : This weekend on Saturday, my daughter Alex's soccer team, U15A, won in a shootout over South Shore in a Nova Scotia Soccer League provincial championship. I had the opportunity to be on the bench with her for the first and only time this year. I was so happy for her and her teammates.

Congratulations to Alex and the CC Riders U15A soccer team.

[2:00 p.m.]

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

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, would you please call Public Bills for Second Reading.

PUBLIC BILLS FOR SECOND READING

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 212.

Bill No. 212 - An Act Respecting Administrative Measures for Housing.

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

LINA HAMID « » : Speaker, I rise today to speak on the legislation concerning housing, municipal planning, and infrastructure development in Nova Scotia.

The question for this bill is not whether or not housing is important, but whether this is the best way to go about it, and if this is going to be as effective as this government seems to think it will be. As we look closely at this bill, we see some troubling language or troubling changes that would be coming about.

Rather than focusing on building affordable homes where infrastructure already exists, this government wants to give the provincial minister sweeping powers to continue overriding municipal planning decisions. The issue with that is, let's all for a moment think, how would we feel if federal representatives for our respective constituencies suddenly had sweeping powers to override our decisions as also elected officials.

[Page 3295]

City councillors have been elected for a reason. They were chosen by their respective communities to represent the interests of their communities, and so proposing legislation that would allow the minister to override the decisions and the planning that they go into is quite troubling.

This would allow the Province to force expansion of urban boundaries. It would allow the Province to order municipalities and municipal utilities to build infrastructure where potentially municipalities would not have thought or planned on building such infrastructure.

It allows the Province to determine who pays for that infrastructure, which, again, is quite troubling because it could be that they bring forward some kind of suggestion as to where they want to build housing where there isn't currently infrastructure, but also, make the decision that the Province will not be paying for it, thereby forcing the municipalities to have to shoulder the costs.

Unlike provincial budgets which, you know, is a glaring example with this government that you can overspend, the reality is municipalities can't go above and beyond the budget that is debated and is voted on.

All of that to say that this gives the Province significant powers over the dealings of an already lawfully elected body, and when the government proposes to give itself significant powers, it is the responsibility of us as representatives provincially to ask careful questions about the cost, about accountability, about planning. City council has city planners. They are there for a reason, and they make decisions for their municipalities. We need to ask questions about whether these decisions will make housing more affordable for Nova Scotians.

We've heard time and time again about how the vacancy rates are increasing in Nova Scotia, but the reality is, that's having zero impact. In fact, it's kind of having a negative impact on affordability for rents. People are still paying more and more for housing, regardless of the fact that vacancy rates are going up. The reason that vacancy rates are going up, is there are more and more buildings that people can't afford to live in.

So, we see these high rises going up, where, for example, in my constituency in Fairview-Clayton Park, there are new buildings that have come up where a studio apartment, so not even a one bedroom, a studio apartment, starts at $1,700. That's insane, to stay the least. Starting at $1,700 for a studio apartment is not affordable. Period. There is no discussing that. Talking about making housing more affordable, this is 100 percent not the way.

I would like to spend some more time discussing the question of infrastructure. I've had the benefit and privilege of being able to get some ideas from a previously serving municipal councillor, who shared with me how this works. Because infrastructure is often the part of housing policy that receives the least public attention, but it's the part that carries the greatest long-term costs.

[Page 3296]

When we talk about housing supply, we often talk about buildings. We talk about houses. We talk about apartment buildings. We talk about units. But, before a single house or unit can be built, before a single family can move in, there must first be the infrastructure to support the building of these units. There needs to be water infrastructure, wastewater infrastructure, there must be storm water infrastructure, there must be roads.

There need to be municipal services such as access to transit or garbage collection. There must be pumping stations, treatment capacity, and drainage systems. All of the invisible systems that allow a modern community to function. Those systems are not cheap to put up, they're quite expensive. A lot of planning goes into ensuring that they are properly put up. They're expensive to build. They're expensive to maintain. It's not just the one time upfront cost. There are other costs that go into ensuring that these systems continue to work effectively, and they're expensive to expand.

When municipalities plan their growth, they take those costs into account. It's not just about the cost of putting up a building and housing people into it. There's a lot more that goes into it, particularly when, again, this bill suggests or this bill would be giving the minister sweeping powers to make municipalities widen or increase their border lines. That is precisely why urban service boundaries exist. That's the wording I was looking for - urban service boundaries.

They allow municipalities to concentrate development in areas where infrastructure already exists, or where it can be expanded efficiently, because extending infrastructure outward into greenfield developments can cost significantly more than building within existing service areas. That's another thing I learned about recently. The difference between - I think it was called brownfield areas and greenfield areas for development.

Brownfield areas would be, for example, lots that have been empty within Halifax, that have the existing infrastructure, but where some kind of covenant or another is not allowing the building of affordable housing to happen where infrastructure already exists. Giving the provincial minister sweeping powers to be able to just ask whatever municipality to expand their urban service boundaries would cause come serious issues in terms of cost, particularly if the minister decides that the province is not going to pay for it.

Ever kilometre of pipe must be installed, every pump station must be constructed, every treatment facility must have the capacity to handle the additional load or potentially having to have extra treatment facilities and those costs accumulate quickly. That is precisely why municipal planning processes often focus on density because higher density housing mean that infrastructure costs are shared amongst more households.

[Page 3297]

A single water line serving a dense neighbourhood of apartment buildings serves hundreds of residents, but the same water line extended to low-density, suburban development may serve far fewer households. Thinking about that mathematically, that means the cost per household in those expanded areas is going to go up exponentially.

Those are not ideological observations, these are facts. These are engineering realities. These are financial realities and these are planning realities.

Under this legislation the minister would have the authority to order municipalities and municipal utilities to build infrastructure for housing development. Sweeping powers to order the building of water systems, sweeping powers to order the building of wastewater systems, sweeping powers to build storm water systems. It includes other forms of municipal infrastructure required to support new housing development in areas where that infrastructure does not already exist.

Speaker, it also states that municipalities and utilities may negotiate how those costs will be shared but if no agreement is reached, the minister may unilaterally decide how those costs are apportioned. This is a significant and remarkable concentration of authority because infrastructure decisions often involve millions of dollars, sometimes tens of millions of dollars, sometimes more. If those costs are imposed without careful planning and collaboration the financial consequences can ripple through municipal budgets for years.

Once again, because municipalities are not able to run deficits, what is going to have to happen is they are going to have to figure out what other programs that they were already planning on expanding or just continuing to maintain are going to have to be reconsidered because the provincial minister ordered them to act differently.

Once again, those are elected officials for their areas. They have been elected for a reason. They were chosen by those communities, so for us to go back to those communities, that have also elected us, and say no, sorry, the person that you have elected as your city councillor no longer has decision-making power on what happens in your community. That's shameful. Think about it this way, what if the federal government decided that we can no longer make decisions on things such as community services, such as health care, such as education, nobody in here would like that but this is what this bill is proposing.

The municipalities that are going to be the most affected by this legislation are Halifax Regional Municipality, as well as the Cape Breton Regional Municipality, the two biggest municipalities that we have in Nova Scotia. The HRM currently as the largest, is home to nearly half of Nova Scotia's population. The HRM already faces significant infrastructure demands. Like many Canadian cities, HRM has to maintain aging infrastructure while also expanding capacity to accommodate population growth. Pipes need to be replaced in places where there are already units and housing, treatment plants need to be upgraded, stormwater systems must be improved to address climate impacts and extreme weather. All that work requires investment, investment that our municipal councillors are at city council already debating so I'm not sure why we need to insert ourselves into these already existing conversations.

[Page 3298]

[2:15 p.m.]

Much of the responsibility for water, wastewater, stormwater falls on Halifax Water, the municipally owned utility responsible for, again, water, waster water, and storm water services and, as anybody who pays a Halifax water bill knows, the cost of maintaining and expanding these systems is reflected in the water rates and, in fact, families in Halifax are already seeing increases in their water bills and recent adjustments have increased the average residential water bill significantly with additional increases scheduled.

These increases are driven by infrastructure costs and, so again, if the province decides to order municipalities - particularly, you know, the one I'm most familiar with, Halifax - to shoulder the cost of their own luxury housing planning, who is going to end up paying for that and that's going to be the residents of Halifax paying Halifax Water and these, again, are going to be driven by the need to maintain safe drinking water systems. They're driven by the need to treat waster water properly, and they are driven by the need to ensure that storm water systems can handle the increasingly intense weather events that our communities are experiencing.

Speaker, those costs are already real. They're already being felt by Nova Scotian families all across the province. They're already affecting household budgets and that is why the decision to extend infrastructure must always be carefully considered. It must be based on sound planning, it must be based on financial analysis, and it must be made in collaboration with municipalities that are responsible for delivering those services. Municipalities that have councillors who were duly elected to do that planning and to do that representation of their communities on a municipal level.

This legislation suggests a far different approach, and it suggests that the provincial government may just order municipalities to build infrastructure. It suggests that provincial governments may impose development decisions on municipalities regardless of their planning frameworks. So if a municipality was not planning on building housing and infrastructure in a certain area, this legislation now allows the minister to force them to do so, and it suggests that the provincial government may decide who pays for those decisions if municipalities and utilities cannot reach agreement.

That raises a fundamental question about governance: What role should municipalities play in planning their own communities? Should municipal councils elected by their residents have a say in how their communities grow? Clearly here, the answer is yes, and suggesting anything otherwise is irresponsible and disrespectful.

[Page 3299]

Should municipal planners and engineers be able to assess the infrastructure implications of development or should those decisions be centralized in the hands of provincial government? There seems to be a theme here with this government of centralizing power and authority and decision-making, and it's troubling. This is not the first time that municipal councillors have spoken up about how decisions or legislation proposed in this House would impact their decision-making and their ability to do their job, which is to properly represent their residents who are also our residents.

Speaker, Nova Scotians believe in local democracy. They believe that communities should have a voice in the decisions that shape their future. But this legislation will 100 percent certainly undermine that principle because it sends a message that the Province knows best and that the Province makes better decisions than their - once again - duly elected councillors. Local planning frameworks can be overridden by this legislation. Municipal concerns about infrastructure costs may ultimately be secondary to the provincial government's vision.

Think about that. That's a lot of power, authority, and decision-making abilities put into a single person's hands. That's really troubling.

Housing is far too important for us to come at it by this approach - by forcing the hand of municipalities. Housing policy needs to be collaborative. It must involve all levels of government, developers, utilities, and community members working together and making decisions accordingly and not having one person speak for everybody.

When those partnerships function well, we build communities that are sustainable, affordable, and resilient. But when those partnerships break down - when those decisions are imposed rather than negotiated in collaboration - the result is often conflict, inefficiency, and higher costs. Based on the conversations I've been part of and what I've been hearing from municipal councillors, we are once again in the same boat of asking: Did this government even think about consulting the people who this is going to impact the most?

The answer is no. Municipal councillors were not aware that their decision-making powers are going to be overruled by one provincial minister. What does that say? What does that say when the government chooses to have sweeping powers without actually consulting the people it would impact the most, particularly elected officials? I'm going to say this a million times, probably - elected officials were elected for a reason: to represent their people. The people of Fairview-Clayton Park, or District 10, did not elect the provincial minister to make decisions for them. They elected a city councillor.

Ultimately, those costs are borne by the very people we are trying to help. It's going to be reflected in property taxes. It's going to be reflected in higher rates for water management, renters who are struggling with the rising housing costs, residents paying higher utility bills every month. Nova Scotians deserve housing solutions that make life more affordable, and this legislation makes it less so. They deserve policies that strengthen partnerships with municipalities, not policies that override them. They deserve infrastructure decisions that are guided by careful planning and not imposed by ministerial orders.

[Page 3300]

According to the federal Parliamentary Budget Office - and I will table this later on; I don't have it on me; actually, no, I do - the prices of homes in Nova Scotia are now 74 percent higher than what the average family can afford. This is with all the increased development and higher vacancy rates; 74 percent higher than what the average family can afford is shameful. The homebuying affordability ratio is used across Canada to calculate the percentage of monthly income that the average family would have to pay to own an average-priced home - not the most luxurious home, just an averagely priced home. In Nova Scotia in 2019, the ratio was 29 percent of their average income to be able to own an average-priced home. But in 2024, which was two years ago - and I imagine it's even higher now - it shot up to 49 percent, almost half of Nova Scotians' incomes just to buy a house, to be able to have a stable roof over their heads.

Nova Scotians work hard. They don't ask for much. They simply want a fair chance to build a life here in the province that they love. Five years into this government's mandate, many Nova Scotians are asking the difficult question: Where are those differences that we were promised? Rents continue to rise, homeownership remains too far out of reach for many young families, and communities across the province are struggling to keep up with the rising costs of housing.

When legislation is introduced that claims to address housing supply, it needs to be examined carefully. We must examine whether it addresses affordability. That's the big issue here. It doesn't matter what the vacancy rate is when the units that are coming up - that are obviously vacant because it feeds into the vacancy rate - are units that people cannot afford. We must examine whether it simply increases the number of houses built in ways that may raise costs for existing residents.

One of the most significant provisions in this bill concerns the expansion of the urban boundary in Halifax Regional Municipality. Municipalities establish urban boundaries for a reason. Urban boundaries are planning tools. New roads must be created and maintained, and those costs do not disappear, as we see on our drives every day the potholes everywhere. There are costs with maintaining those roads. Ultimately, those are paid by taxpayers and ratepayers. This government wants to give a singular minister the power to force the expansion of Halifax's urban boundary, a minister who may not be that well-versed in Halifax.

That raises an important question: If a municipality has created an urban planning framework after years of consultation, research, and community engagement, why should this provincial government override that framework? Why is a minister, who was not elected in the area that is going to be impacted most, going to be able to make those decisions? It does not make sense.

[Page 3301]

What is the reasoning - I would love to hear an answer to this - that this government is choosing to centralize decision-making in something that's so important and fundamental, such as housing, in a single minister's hands? Urban planning is complex. It requires expertise. It requires the "C" word that this government seems to be sensitive to or allergic to: consultation. It requires long-term thinking not short-term benefits.

Municipal governments work closely with planners, engineers, environmental experts, and community groups. They do a lot of consultation at the municipal level to create plans that balance growth with sustainability. When a Province steps in and decides to override those plans, again using a singular person, it raises serious concerns about governance. It raises concerns about costs. The minister would have the power to order municipalities or municipal utilities to build water and sewage infrastructure to support these new developments. That is going to fall largely on Halifax Water; therefore, it will fall largely on ratepayers.

Infrastructure is not cheap. Water systems are expensive. Sewage systems are expensive. Storm water systems are expensive. These systems require ongoing maintenance and upgrades, and those costs are going to be paid by the ratepayers. They already are. Those costs are driven largely by the cost of maintaining and expanding water and sewage infrastructure.

[2:30 p.m.]

When this bill proposes forcing additional infrastructure expansion into low-density areas, we must ask the obvious question of who will pay the bill.

If the minister decides that the Province is not going to be paying the bill, municipalities are going to have to. That means residents of those municipalities are going to be picking up those costs. This legislation itself provides an answer to that question - that the minister may decide. Once again, that's quite troubling. If the municipality and the utility cannot agree on how costs should be apportioned, the minister will unilaterally determine who pays.

Again, this is a pretty significant concentration of power. Why does this government seem to think that centralization of power is the only way that results are going to happen? Just being nice and talking to people would achieve a whole lot more.

This raises another question - a question on fairness. When a minister is given the power to expand an urban boundary by orders, what are the potential implications of that? Would individuals be able to purchase land just outside the boundary and lobby for when it's expanded? Could land values skyrocket overnight based on a ministerial decision? To me that's quite troubling - the idea that somebody could get a hint that, "Hey, we're going to be forcing this municipality to expand their urban boundaries - should go and buy that lot just outside there." That's really troubling.

[Page 3302]

These are not theoretical concerns. These are real risks that must be addressed whenever the government decisions affect land values so dramatically. Speaker, the NDP has proposed real solutions to these concerns, such as the Preventing Renters from Unfair Practices Act that would deliver real rent control to lower the amount that landlords can increase rent each year. It would close the fixed-term lease loophole so that Nova Scotians don't have to find a new apartment every year.

This is another one that I am going to briefly speak outside of my notes on. The number of people who reach out to our office saying that they did not realize - maybe they should have read the fine print, but a lot of people who sign fixed-term leases don't realize that at the end of that they could be kicked out for no reason. For those around here who are maybe not familiar with what that means or how that works - yes, there's a 5 percent rental cap, but that does nothing for people on fixed-term leases. It's not attached to the unit. I don't think it's even attached to a resident when it comes to two fixed-term leases back-to-back because that's a whole new lease. It is? Okay, I correct myself.

Going back to the bill that the NDP introduced, it would establish a compliance and enforcement unit to give the Residential Tenancies Act teeth and to make sure that landlords are playing by the rules. It would put an end to landlords being able to evict Nova Scotians just because they have pets or, an example in my constituency, just because it's a large family who cannot afford anywhere else to live.

That observation reflects what many constituents tell us every day. People are working harder than ever, but housing costs continue to climb and people continue to have to make more and more difficult decisions every month about what they are going to focus their incomes on: Am I going to pay the utility bill this month or am I going to have to re-up some lifesaving medication that I need to get?

Similarly, reporting by CTV News has described how this housing shortage and rising rents are creating significant stress on families and young professionals trying to remain in this province.

During my time working in non-profit, I've come across a lot of people who were living outside - living in tents, living in their cars, living rough, who are working full-time jobs. That's shameful to be happening in our province. People working full-time jobs can't afford to pay for housing. How does this legislation address that? It does not. This is not the most effective way that we should be going about addressing affordable housing needs for our residents.

One story noted that housing affordability is the most stressful concern for residents across Nova Scotia, and this is the only thing that this government could come up with when addressing housing issues in this legislative sitting - just a force of hand and nothing to actually make sure there is more affordable housing being brought in to support Nova Scotians? This does not do that. It does not. It simply does not.

[Page 3303]

Speaker, those stories reflect the lived experiences of Nova Scotians. We're hearing them every day, and I am sure that members all across Nova Scotia are hearing those stories every day. People want real solutions. They want real action on housing affordability - not the building of housing because the ones that are being put up with less red tape are not affordable. We need real action on housing affordability.

They want those solutions to be thoughtful. They want those solutions to be sustainable. That goes into another troubling aspect of this legislation. At the same time this government is proposing expensive infrastructure expansion that could be forced onto municipalities by a singular minister, it has eliminated a program that has helped municipalities fund said infrastructure, and that is the cutting of the Growth and Renewal for Infrastructure Development Program or GRID. Projects that addressed water systems - municipalities could apply for GRID. GRID could be used to address sewage systems. It could be used to support accessibility improvements.

Another housing issue that just came to mind, as we are going through the implementation of the remedy, there was a report - and I'll find and table it - saying that Nova Scotia, in terms of accessible and inaccessible housing, has the lowest ratio. So at the same time that we are de-institutionalizing folks out into community, there is not accessible housing to support that.

Municipalities could have applied for GRID to ensure that there is more accessible housing available, but that funding has been cut. That was $15 million in funding. That funding could also be used by municipalities to adapt for climate risks. It helps support housing development in a meaningful way that was planned and budgeted for by those municipalities.

In fact, in recent years the funding had increased to support the strong demand from municipalities for this funding, but now this program has been completely eliminated. It's not a cut. It has been completely removed - this support for municipalities - at the same time that we are giving sweeping powers to a singular minister to be able to force municipalities into building infrastructure that they did not have planned.

Why eliminate a program designed to help municipalities pay for infrastructure at the same time this government is going to order them to build more infrastructure? Municipalities can't build water and sewage systems out of thin air. These projects require significant capital investment, and when funding programs disappear, municipalities are left with fewer options as to how they're going to come about getting funding to support that.

[Page 3304]

The only remaining options at this point to be able to support these additional programs or suggestions or orders put forth by the minister would be to raise taxes or to increase utility rates. At the end of the day, when the minister makes that decision but also decides the province is not going to pay for it, Nova Scotians are going to be shouldering those costs.

Nova Scotians deserve governments that work collaboratively, not a provincial government that views municipalities as an obstacle. They are partners. They understand local conditions, they understand community needs, and they understand the infrastructure challenges facing their residents and their areas that they were elected to represent.

When legislation centralizes power in the provincial government and overrides municipal planning decisions, it raises serious concerns about democratic accountability. Housing is a complex issue. It needs coordinated action. It needs collaborative action. It requires investments in infrastructure, and it requires policies that ensure homes are affordable for the people who need them.

Building houses alone does not guarantee affordability. Again, the facts are there. We're hearing the stories. Despite the fact that vacancy rates are increasing, so are rents. Rents have not gone down with the vacancy rates increasing. A house built far from jobs, services, and transit will still be unaffordable for many families. Houses built in sprawling development that require expensive infrastructure will most definitely drive up taxes for everyone. Housing policy that ignores renters risks leaving thousands of Nova Scotians behind.

Speaker, renters across the province are struggling. Rents continue to rise. Nova Scotia's current rent cap remains higher than those in several other provinces. Landlords can increase rent by 5 percent annually for existing tenants, but once tenants move out, there is no cap at all.

Fixed-term leases allow landlords to cycle tenants in and out, often raising rents dramatically with each new lease. Legal advocates have observed that fixed-term leases are now becoming increasingly common in Nova Scotia. That trend raises concerns about housing stability for renters in our province.

Nova Scotians love the communities that they live in. They want to stay close to their families. They want to stay close to their friends. They want to stay close to the schools that their children attend and the neighbourhoods that they call home. The rising housing costs are forcing people to ask whether they can afford to stay - not just whether they can afford to stay in the communities they love so much, but even whether they can afford to stay in Nova Scotia at all.

[Page 3305]

That is why housing policy must be focused not only on supply, but also on affordability. It must help people remain in their homes. It must protect tenants. It must ensure that housing development is sustainable and affordable for the long term. This legislation before us today raises many questions about municipal autonomy. It suggests taking that away. Questions about infrastructure costs - it leaves those decisions in the hands of a singular person - a minister. Questions about land speculation - again, if somebody is advised that the urban service boundary is going to be extended in a certain area, then they can go and purchase lots just outside that area. Suddenly, the land that they bought for potentially a small amount - considerably small or relatively small - is suddenly ten times more valuable the next day.

[2:45 p.m.]

It raises questions about housing affordability, questions about rental protections, and questions about whether this bill will truly address the housing challenges facing Nova Scotians. Nova Scotians deserve thoughtful solutions. They deserve transparency. They deserve a government that listens to the communities affected by their decisions. They deserve a government that consults with partners, not overrides their decision making.

Housing is one of the most important issues, if not the most important issue, facing our province and Nova Scotians right now. Legislation affecting housing must be examined carefully and debated thoroughly. It must be guided by evidence and collaboration because Nova Scotians deserve nothing less.

I look forward to hearing answers from the minister regarding the questions that we're putting up. With that, Speaker, I take my seat.

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

KRISTA GALLAGHER « » : I want to start by saying that I admire all my colleagues from all stripes who can rise and speak so passionately and at length about topics. It's quite a goal that I strive to be at, but today, I'll rise briefly to speak to the legislation concerning the municipal planning and infrastructure development in Nova Scotia.

I think we can all agree that we all deserve a fair shot to build a life at home, and everyone agrees that people deserve a place to live that's affordable, that's safe, and where you can connect with communities that you know and love. It's who we are as Nova Scotians. I think we can all agree to that.

Bill No. 212 gives the Minister of Housing order-making powers over Halifax Regional Municipality to expand their urban boundary for sprawl housing development and includes powers to order Halifax Water and HRM to build water and sewage infrastructure to out-sprawl communities and neighbourhoods by urban boundary expansions.

[Page 3306]

I haven't been doing this very long, so I ask a series of questions that may not be as eloquently spoken or as passionate as some of my colleagues, but my first question is: Why? I want to know why. Why? Why do we need this in Nova Scotia? I hope the minister can answer my question online or offline because it is a genuine question. Why? Does this legislation help Nova Scotians achieve the goal of a safe place to live? Does this legislation help Nova Scotians achieve the goal of having a fair shot to build a good life in Nova Scotia?

My next question is: Didn't we vote for three levels of government for a reason? We have three levels of government. We have a federal level; we have a provincial level, which we are all honoured to be here; and we have a municipal government. If I understand this correctly, this takes a lot of powers away from our municipal government.

This sounds expensive. When I read this, I was like, oh-oh, this sounds like tax increases to me, and our constituents are already feeling squeezed. Living in Nova Scotia right now is quite expensive. Groceries are expensive. Power is expensive. Housing is expensive. Commercial rent is very expensive, and now, this legislation is proposing that - the legislation that is on the table sounds like it is proposing tax hikes, municipal property tax hikes.

I do have more questions. If municipalities are about to face more financial obligations, how are they expected to pay for them without raising taxes?

I'm curious if the government spoke with the Nova Scotia Federation of Municipalities. They probably have a lot of insights there. Consultation there would probably be very important.

I'm curious if the minister can tell us and Nova Scotians their projections for the next five years on municipal property tax? Are they going to go up? Are they going to go down? What's the plan there?

How are seniors on fixed-term incomes expected to absorb property increases? I speak to a lot of seniors in my constituency office, and many of them are struggling to live on fixed incomes. Why are municipalities asked to carry this responsibility? I'm curious about the thought process, and it goes back to my very first question, why?

Who is paying for the maintenance costs of the sewage? That also sounds very expensive.

Nova Scotians just don't ask for much. They want to have a good life here, and they want their fair shot. They want to be able to afford the life they deserve. The member from Dartmouth South spoke on this bill a few days ago, and she mentioned that there are areas in her constituency that are ready to go. It's province-owned; it's ready. My question is: Why aren't those properties happening? We have a lot of approvals. Why do we need to create more?

[Page 3307]

Building infrastructure for low-density urban sprawl is going to be costly. And it's money that the government reminds us we don't have right now. Infrastructure is expensive. It's time-consuming to plan waster water, water, stormwater. You need to plan roads. You need to plan things that pop up in communities. There are planning realities, and there are financial realities.

When the municipalities plan their growth, they keep all these costs in mind. This legislation states that municipalities and utilities may negotiate how these costs are being shared, or the minister may unilaterally decide if no agreement is reached. And I'm going to guess in saying the municipalities are quite nervous with this legislation, because they're going to be left holding the bill.

I'm going to wrap up. I'm very quick today. I believe that we should work collaboratively with our municipalities, but this legislation does suggest a different approach. I guess I just don't understand of the goal of the bill, and I'm hoping that the minister can speak to this.

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

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : I want to add a few thoughts to this discussion on Bill No. 212, An Act Respecting Administrative Measures for Housing. The first thing I want say is that over the last couple of years we've had a number of pieces of legislation that have come forward to give the Province more power, more authority over municipal functions.

I have the transit - Joint Regional Transportation Agency Act. We have had a number of municipal affairs bills come forward. I want to say that whenever these bills have been presented to us, they have been presented as: we need these changes in order to solve the housing crisis. We need this to happen so that we can make sure we solve the housing crisis, which everybody acknowledges exists. I'm pretty sure everyone acknowledges that at this point.

But I'd like to say this: If this government were serious about addressing the problems we have with housing, the problems would be well on their way to being fixed by now. This government has been in power for five years. And this is just another one of these bills that is going to take away some authority from the municipal government, put it in the hands of the provincial government, in the name of solving the housing crisis. And yet, there's still a housing crisis.

So, call me negative. Tell me I don't understand what's happening here. But it seems to me a little bit of a bait and switch, a little bit of smoke and mirrors, to have a power grab, something that the municipality certainly - at least in Halifax - I don't think wants. Of course, we'll get this to Public Bills at some point and I'm sure we'll hear from municipalities about this bill.

[Page 3308]

As my colleagues have said today, the fact is that we do have three orders of government - four, if we count band councils, and we should be, by the way - we have elected. I elected my city councillor and my mayor - well I voted for my city councillor and my mayor, I voted for my MLA, and I voted for my MP. I participate in that democratic process, and I expect that when I do that those representatives are going to work together on the things that require working together and be responsible for the things that require them to be responsible for.

I think it's horrific that my mayor and my city councillor now are having their powers taken away from them and given to the Housing Minister, whom I did not vote for, by the way, and nobody in the HRM voted for, and the Housing Minister gets to make all these decisions for us. It doesn't seem very democratic to me.

I will also say, speaking of the Housing Minister, that part of this bill does address some stuff in the Nova Scotia Provincial Housing Agency. In Dartmouth North we have a number of residences that are under the auspices of the Nova Scotia Provincial Housing Agency, communities, full communities, and others. We have also heard these large announcements about Shannon Park getting some public housing.

Studying the Estimates of this budget I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Housing about the public housing that is planned, or the affordable housing being planned for Shannon Park and honestly, Speaker, I couldn't really get straight answers. It was very difficult to parse from what the minister said in Estimates, exactly what is happening in Shannon Park. I said that the announcement is this many units. "Yes, well that includes federal money, that includes federal announcements, that includes provincial announcements." But how much is affordable and how do you define affordable and what is going to be public housing? I couldn't figure it out and I'm a pretty smart gal.

All this concerns me because what is happening here is we have all these sweeping changes and meanwhile we have a desperate need for affordable housing. I do not see how the two are mixing. I do not see how these changes affect what's happening in Shannon Park or anywhere else in Dartmouth North or, frankly, anywhere else in the core of the city where most people are - well where there is opportunity to build most affordable housing and it just doesn't make sense to me. I really hope the minister will be able to bring some clarity to these questions - my colleague asked a number of questions - and we will get somewhere with this.

I want to go through a couple of parts of the bill that I am particularly troubled by. This is not super-troubling actually but I am going to point it out. "Clause 1 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."

[Page 3309]

Does that really have to be a law? If I was a newly-elected municipal councillor I would be asking where is my orientation training? Just as when we come here, as newly-elected MLAs, there's orientation training. I find it shocking that we have to make the municipality offer training. If it is the case that municipal members are coming and saying, "I'm a new councillor and I don't know what I'm doing and they won't give me training," then sure let's put it into law. But I have never heard that from anyone. I'm just pointing out that one - just weird.

[3:00 p.m.]

Another part of this bill is more troubling. Clauses 3 and 4 on Page 2 of the bill:

Clauses 3 and 4:

(a)   allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs to amend the Municipality's planning documents to extend or alter the Municipality's urban service area;

(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 the request;

(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.

This is what is really at the heart of this bill. This means, as far as I can tell, the Minister of Municipal Affairs-slash-Housing is able to tell the Halifax Regional Municipality to expand its urban boundary so that housing development can sprawl. It also means that if that happens, the Province, the government, can force the municipality to order Halifax Water to build water and sewage infrastructure out to the sprawl communities, enabled by the urban boundary expansions, and it allows the minister to - wait for it - unilaterally determine who pays the cost of infrastructure out to these new sprawl communities.

As a resident of the HRM, I'm paying attention to the budget deliberations at the HRM to find out what's going to happen, what services we're getting, what services are going to be cut, because that is on the table. Are our taxes going to go up? Are they not? This government is using the municipal government, as far as I can tell, as a shield to raise taxes but not take responsibility for it. If the Province is forcing the municipality to do something that they simply don't have the money to do, and they're not going to give them any money to do it from our tax base, then the municipality is going to raise the taxes. That means that this government can stand up in this House and say, "We're not raising taxes; We're cutting taxes."

[Page 3310]

In fact, they are forcing the municipality to raise taxes. It is sly, it is untoward, and it's not fair.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. I ask that you retract the word sly. Use another term.

The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : I retract the word sly. I would say it is sneaky.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. It's unparliamentary language.

The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : I retract the word sneaky. Listen, it's been a long time since I had a little thesaurus in front of me. It is creative taxation. This government doesn't love creativity as far as I can tell. I don't know what I think about the creative taxation, but that's what it is. It is forcing higher taxes on people who live in the HRM without having to stand up and say, "We are imposing these taxes on you." It's pretty serious, actually.

As my colleague pointed out, Nova Scotians work hard and don't ask for much. We just want a fair shot at having a good life here at home. Five years in, the difference that people were promised - i.e. affordable housing, an opportunity to possibly buy a home, and really put down roots and make a life here - these things are still out of reach. Rents are skyrocketing still, and home ownership remains out of reach. Every time we talk about the housing issue in this House, the government's response is supply. The government brags about record housing starts over the last couple of years, but there hasn't been a record of housing finishes yet, for one thing. Are you laughing at me? There have been a lot of starts, not a lot of finishes.

The finishes that are happening are not affordable finishes. I can count five buildings just in the core of Dartmouth North alone that are new, beautiful buildings. I'd love to live there, but the rents are not affordable - way more than I would pay for my mortgage, actually, so who's going to live in them? In fact, I have heard from a number of people in buildings that they now have a ton of empty spaces but they can't rent them because no one can afford them.

Speaker, wages are not keeping pace with the cost of rent. You can start and finish all of the beautiful buildings you want, it is not going to change the fact that the developers who put the money into building those buildings for the market are not going to get their return on investment because they cannot get the people to rent the units.

What we actually need is real affordable housing. We need this government to stop fiddling around with the details and forcing the government to push out the urban boundaries and start actually looking at how we are going to build affordable housing - real affordable housing, rent-geared-to-income affordable housing. Because we also know that when we talk about housing and we say, "Oh well, this building will be affordable; this developer is getting some subsidy to make some of those units affordable," the definition of affordable is nebulous, but also usually not really affordable - like 20 percent below market or whatever. A certain percentage below market.

[Page 3311]

It is not affordable for most people who live in Nova Scotia who are looking for a safe place to live. We say this time and again. One of the things that we need to do in this province, if this government is serious about solving the housing crisis, is to stop messing with the rules when it comes to municipalities, and actually stop the ability for housing to become unaffordable, and the fixed-term lease loophole, or at least the misuse of fixed-term leases.

Figure out a way to stop the misuse of fixed-term leases. Everybody acknowledges, including senior staff in the department, that they are being misused. Change it. Let's have a bill on this floor in this sitting that actually addresses that. How about some permanent rent control? Rent control that is tied to the unit instead of the person.

I will spell it out for the House again, in case anyone doesn't understand what I'm talking about. When somebody has a rent-capped amount - I'm paying $1,000 for my unit at whatever street in Dartmouth North - and it can only go up by 5 percent. Great, it gives me some stability, but wait a minute: I got a job in another part of town. It's better for me to move to the other side of town. Wait a minute, my abuser still lives in the building. I want to get the hell out of there.

There are all kinds of reasons why people have to leave, and when they leave and they go rent somewhere else, their unit that was $1,000 can go up to whatever the landlord wants. There is no more 5 percent cap on that until a new person comes in. So the cap is attached to the person, not the unit.

This is the reason why, when we look year after year, our rents are going up by 26 per cent instead of 5 percent. If this government was serious about fixing the housing problem, these would be the things we would be debating on the floor of this Legislature in this sitting. Not forcing municipality changes onto municipalities with little or no consultation, fiddling around on the boundaries so that housing sprawl can happen - which we all know is actually not a good way to do planning - instead of actually looking at what could be fixed right in front of us today.

I might repeat myself. I apologize in advance, but I've been talking off the top of my head and perhaps my notes say the same thing that I just said. I'm rising. I'm speaking today about this legislation, and like many of the bills we debate in this House, the question before us is not whether housing is important. We all agree, housing is important. We all agree that people need safe, affordable places to live.

[Page 3312]

The question is whether this legislation actually helps Nova Scotians achieve the goal of attainable housing. Because when we look closely, we see something troubling. Instead of focusing on building affordable homes where infrastructure already exists, this government wants to give the provincial minister sweeping powers to continue to override municipal planning decisions. It allows the Province to force the expansion of urban boundaries. It allows the Province to order municipalities and municipal utilities to build infrastructure.

What it doesn't say, of course, is that - actually, it does say it in the bill: It allows the Province to determine who pays for that infrastructure. What it doesn't say is that it is passing on the cost of infrastructure to the municipalities, who will have to raise taxes. So the taxes of municipalities will go up, but the provincial taxes won't go up, so the provincial government can stand here and say, "We didn't raise your taxes." It's creative.

It allows the Province - these are significant powers we are giving the Province - creative powers. When the government proposes to give itself significant powers, it is the responsibility of us in the Opposition and of the whole House to ask careful questions about what is actually happening here - questions about the cost, questions about accountability, questions about planning, and questions about whether these decisions will actually make housing more affordable for Nova Scotians.

Speaker, I just want to talk about infrastructure for a minute. Infrastructure is often the part of the housing policy that receives the least public attention, but it is often the part that carries the greatest long-term cost. When we talk about housing supply, we often talk about buildings. We've heard, again, in this Legislature: housing starts, housing starts, housing starts. Not a lot about housing finishes. We talk about houses. We talk about apartment buildings. We talk about units. But before a single house can be built - before a single family can move in - there has to be infrastructure that is going to that unit, whether it's a building or whether it's a single-family home.

There has to be water. There has to be wastewater infrastructure. There must be stormwater infrastructure. There has to be a road to get to the house or the building. There must be pumping stations, treatment capacity, drainage systems, and all of the invisible systems that allow a modern community to function. Those systems are expensive. They are expensive to build. They are expensive to maintain, and they are expensive to expand.

We know right now that Halifax Water - we have very old infrastructure. All of those systems are getting old and are in danger of collapsing, in some cases, or have collapsed. Halifax Water also already has to do a ton of work on the existing systems, which is going to require work and water rates to go up. People who pay Halifax Water rates got an increase to their bills in January. We're expecting another one coming in the next bill cycle.

[Page 3313]

When municipalities plan their growth, they take all of these costs into account. That is why urban service boundaries exist. They allow municipalities to concentrate development in areas where infrastructure already exists or where it can be expanded efficiently. Extending infrastructure outward into new greenfield developments can cost significantly more than building within existing service areas.

As my colleague for Dartmouth South, the Leader of the NDP, said the other day: There are places in downtown Dartmouth that are ready to go. Density is good in many ways. Density is important. Yet somehow, those buildings are not getting built.

Every kilometre of pipe must be installed. Every pump station must be constructed. Every treatment facility must have the capacity to handle additional load. All of those costs accumulate quickly. That is why municipal planning processes often focus on density. Higher-density housing means that infrastructure costs are shared among more households. A single water line serving a dense neighbourhood of apartment buildings serves hundreds of residents, but the same water line extended to low-density suburban development may serve far fewer households, and that means the cost per household increases.

There are not ideological observations, Speaker. These are engineering realities. They are financial realities. They are planning realities. Under this legislation, the minister would have the authority to order municipalities and municipal utilities to build infrastructure for housing development. That includes water systems. That includes wastewater systems. That includes stormwater systems. It includes the other forms of municipal infrastructure required to support new housing development.

[3:15 p.m.]

The legislation also states that municipalities and utilities may negotiate how these costs will be shared but if no agreement is reached, then the minister may unilaterally decide how the costs are apportioned. That is a remarkable concentration of authority - again, a remarkable way to tell the people of Nova Scotia that taxes aren't going up. In fact, they are.

Infrastructure decisions often involve millions of dollars, sometimes tens of millions, and sometimes more. When those costs are imposed without careful planning or collaboration, the financial consequences can ripple through municipal budgets for years.

The most affected municipality in this legislation is Halifax, the largest municipality in our province, and home to nearly half of the province's population. HRM already faces significant infrastructure demands. Like many Canadian cities, Halifax must maintain aging infrastructure while also expanding capacity to accommodate population growth.

[Page 3314]

Pipes have to be replaced. Treatment plants have to be upgraded. Stormwater systems must be improved to address climate impacts and extreme weather, and all of that work requires investment, as I have said. Much of that responsibility falls on Halifax Water, the municipally owned utility responsible for water, wastewater, and stormwater services. As residents know all too well, the cost of maintaining and expanding these systems is reflected in our water rates, as I just said. We have bills that are rising. They rose in January, and they're going to rise again in the next cycle. In fact, families in the region are already seeing increases in their bills.

These increases are driven by infrastructure costs. They are driven by the need to maintain safe drinking water systems. They are driven by the need to treat wastewater properly. They are driven by the need to ensure stormwater systems can handle the increasingly intense weather events that our communities are experiencing.

Speaker, these costs are already real, and they are already affecting household budgets.

When we talk about how we hear from our constituents, that they just can't afford any more, this is what we're talking about. Power bills are going up. Water bills are going up. Rents are going up. Maybe property taxes are going up. We're not sure yet. Costs of medication, cost of food - people are stretched. We are not asking for a lot. We are just asking for a fair shot to be able to have a life where people are not constantly concerned about where they're going to get the next bit of money to pay the next bill.

When the provincial government proposes legislation that could require the municipality to extend infrastructure and support additional sprawling development, we need to ask the obvious questions. What will that do to costs? What will that do to property taxes? What will it do to the municipal budget? As we know, municipalities do not have unlimited resources. Municipal governments can't run deficits the way provincial governments can. They have to balance their budgets. When the costs rise, municipalities have limited options. They can cut services. They can delay infrastructure upgrades, or they can raise taxes and fees.

None of these options is particularly attractive to the families who live in those communities. That is why the decision to extend infrastructure must always be made carefully. It must be made based on sound planning. It must be made based on financial analysis. It must be made in collaboration with the municipalities responsible for delivering the services.

This legislation suggests - proposes - a different approach. It suggests the provincial government may simply order municipalities to build infrastructure. It suggests that the provincial government may impose development decisions on municipalities regardless of their planning frameworks. It suggests the provincial government may decide who pays for those decisions if municipalities and utilities cannot reach agreement with the provincial government.

[Page 3315]

This raises a fundamental question about governance: What role should municipalities play in planning their own communities? Should municipal councillors elected by the residents have a say in how their communities grow, should municipal planners and engineers be able to assess the infrastructure implications of development, or should these decisions be centralized in the hands of the provincial government?

Nova Scotians believe in local democracy. They believe a community should have a voice in the decisions that shape their future. We have seen these galleries filled with people, on various occasions, who were upset because the provincial government is planning or proposing something that is going to take power away from the municipal government.

When we elect our political leaders at any order of government, we expect they are going to be able to do their job, to represent us and make the decisions that we elect them to make. This legislation risks undermining that principle because it sends a message that the province knows best, that local planning frameworks can be overridden, and that municipal concerns about infrastructure costs may ultimately be secondary to the provincial government's vision.

Housing is too important for this kind of approach. Housing policy must be collaborative. It must involve provincial governments, municipal governments, developers, utilities, and community members working together. When those partnerships function well, we build communities that are sustainable, affordable, resilient, and places that we want to live. When everybody is focused on making something the best it can be, that's when it can be the best.

We know there are communities built where: Oh, I forgot to build a park, we forgot to plan a park, we forgot to plant trees because we were so busy with building all these houses. What happens? Is there room for a school when we build a gigantic, new community outside the city? Do we have the money for a school? That's a question right now at Shannon Park. When Canada Lands Company was talking about developing Shannon Park, they said they would not do this unless there is a school because the existing school is crumbling and will not be big enough.

Now we've had the announcement of a school. We don't know much more than an announcement, but it was enough for things to get under way, at least. Let us hope that the two things are going to be built concurrently so that, when people are ready to move into these beautiful new places in Shannon Park, their kids have a place to go to school.

When partnerships break down, when decisions are imposed rather than negotiated, the result is often conflict, inefficiency, and higher costs for everyone. These costs are borne by the very people we are trying to help: the families playing the property taxes, the renters struggling with rising housing costs, and the residents paying higher utility bills every month.

[Page 3316]

Nova Scotians deserve housing solutions that make life more affordable not less affordable. They deserve policies that strengthen partnerships with municipalities not policies that override them. They deserve infrastructure decisions that are guided by careful planning not imposed by ministerial order.

The numbers are in. According to the federal Parliamentary Budget Office, the price of homes in Halifax is now 74 percent higher than what the average family can afford. Again, what is affordable? The Homebuying Affordability Ratio is used across Canada to calculate the percentage of monthly income the average income family would have to pay to own the average priced home. In Nova Scotia in 2019, that ratio was 29 percent. In 2024, it had shot up to 49 percent - almost half your income just to buy a house. We know that 30 percent is the sweet spot. Housing experts everywhere say that we should not be spending more than 30 percent of our income on our housing.

Speaker, Nova Scotians work very hard. They don't ask for much. They just want a fair chance to build a life in the province that they love. But five years into this government's mandate, many Nova Scotians are asking a difficult question. Where are the differences they were promised, because rents continue to rise, home ownership remains out of reach for many young families, communities across this province are struggling to keep up with the rising cost of housing. So when legislation is introduced that claims to address housing supply, we must examine it carefully. We must examine whether it addresses affordability - and I will just pause for a second and just go on a slight tangent.

This is about housing affordability, but I will say that while we debate this bill, Bill No. 212, we are also about to debate the Financial Measures Act, which is the Act that enacts the budget for this year. In that budget, there are officially 30-ish job layoffs from visitor information centres. This is about housing affordability. You cannot afford a home if you lose your job. I am talking about the artists. I am talking about the people who work in programs for people with disabilities. I am talking about the people who run the programs - at the artisan school programs, the people who run the umbrella organizations, Visual Arts Nova Scotia, Writers' Federation of Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia Choral Federation. We're talking about the people who run programs for African Nova Scotian and Mi'kmaw youth.

People are going to lose their jobs. They are already losing their jobs. So when we are talking about housing affordability, we are talking about regular Nova Scotians - and a bunch of them now have way less money per month to afford their housing. Let's face it, most people who work in arts and culture, as I said earlier in my member statement about CUPE, they're piecing together an existence. They're piecing together their income from arts grants, from teaching, from bartending. They work gigs. It's a part of the gig economy. They piece together gigs and they make it work.

[Page 3317]

I did it for a long time. I know of what I speak and I know it's stressful at the best of times. I know that when I was doing it, rents weren't as high as they are now, thank God. So we need to examine whether this bill addresses affordability or whether it simply increases the number of houses built in ways that may actually raise costs for existing residents.

One of the most significant provisions in this bill concerns the expansion of the urban boundary of the Halifax Regional Municipality. Municipalities establish urban boundaries for a reason. They are planning tools. They allow municipalities to concentrate development in areas where infrastructure already exists - water systems, sewer systems, road networks, public transit, schools, hospitals, parks. I've mentioned a bunch of these already.

When development happens inside those boundaries, the cost of providing services is lower. Infrastructure is already nearby. Transit can operate more efficiently. Public services can be delivered more efficiently. But when development expands outward into new areas, the cost of infrastructure increases significantly. New water lines must be built, new sewage systems must be constructed, new roads must be created and maintained. These costs do not disappear. They are ultimately paid by the taxpayers and the ratepayers. By the way, even if we're not talking about home ownership; apartment building owners, if their property taxes are going up, then they're going to pass those costs on to the renters. So it's not just about home owners we're talking about. I'm also talking about renters in a very important and big way.

If a municipality has created an urban planning framework after years of consultation, research and community engagement, why should this government override that framework? Why should these decisions be centralized in the hands of a single minister? Urban planning is complex. It requires expertise, it requires consultation, and it requires long-term thinking. Municipal governments work closely with planners, engineers, environmental experts, and community groups to create a plan that balances growth with sustainability.

[3:30 p.m.]

So when the Province steps in to override those plans, it raises serious concern. It raises concern about governance, and it raises concerns about cost because the minister would have the power to order municipalities, or municipal utilities, to build the water and sewage infrastructure, and order them to pay for it. Infrastructure is not cheap. Water systems are expensive. Sewage systems are expensive. Stormwater systems - also expensive. And after they're built, they require ongoing maintenance and upgrades. All those costs will be paid by the ratepayers.

[Page 3318]

In fact, many families in Halifax are seeing increases in their water bills. I've already said that. So when this bill proposes forcing additional infrastructure expansion into low-density areas, we must ask: Who will pay? The legislation itself provides an answer to that question. The minister gets to decide. If the municipality and the utility cannot agree how the cost should be apportioned, the minister may unilaterally determine who pays. That is a significant concentration of power, and it raises concerns about fairness.

Infrastructure costs do not exist in a vacuum. If municipalities must build expensive new infrastructure for sprawling developments, those costs will fall on existing residents. Property taxes may rise, and utility rates may rise. Municipal budgets face increased pressure. All of that happens while many Nova Scotians are already struggling with the rising cost of living.

I do want to raise another concern related to this legislation, and that is the potential for land speculation. Urban boundaries have a powerful effect on land values. Land located outside of an urban boundary is typically less valuable for development. But if that boundary expands, land values can increase dramatically. So when a minister is given the power to expand an urban boundary by order, we must consider the potential implications. Could individuals purchase land outside the boundary and then lobby for expansion? Could land values skyrocket overnight based on a ministerial decision? These are not theoretical concerns; they're real risks that much be addressed whenever government decisions affect land value so dramatically.

I have mentioned a number of solutions to some of these problems. Number one, let the municipalities do their work, and let municipalities have a real say in the way this kind of expansion and these kinds of developments are working. Most municipalities have done a ton of work on this already. Definitely, the HRM has. So that's the first thing.

The second thing is to protect people who are renting from all of what's going on. We have our Protecting Renters from Unfair Practices Act, which would deliver real rent control, lower the amount by which landlords can increase the rent each year, and it would close the fixed-term lease hole so a person doesn't have to find a new apartment every year, and thus their rents go up. It would also establish a compliance and enforcement unit to give the Residential Tenancies Act teeth and to make sure the landlords are playing by the rules. It would put an end to landlords being able to evict Nova Scotians just because they have pets.

People are working harder than ever, but housing costs continue to climb. Similarly, reporting by CTV News has described how housing shortages and rising rents are creating significant stress for families and young professionals trying to remain in the province. One story noted that housing affordability remains one of the most pressing concerns for residents across Nova Scotia.

[Page 3319]

During COVID-19, we saw a lot of people come home. A lot of people came back to Nova Scotia. A lot of people bought houses. A lot of people bought houses sight unseen. A lot of people didn't come back to Nova Scotia, but just came to Nova Scotia, because they saw that (a) the pandemic wasn't affecting people as harshly as in other places, and they saw the kind of beautiful life they could have here. Now we see an exodus again. You've cut down on immigration, but also people are leaving again. People are leaving to find work.

If this Financial Measures (2026) Act passes, which I am assuming it's going to, and if the cuts in that Act are not walked back, people are going to leave. If you can't make a living, if you can't pay your rent, people are going to leave and go somewhere that is more affordable. That is going to have a detrimental impact on our province.

These stories reflect the lived experiences of Nova Scotians. People want solutions. They want real action on housing affordability, but they also want solutions to be thoughtful and sustainable.

That brings me to another troubling aspect of this legislation. At the same time this government is proposing expensive infrastructure expansion, it has eliminated a program that helped municipalities fund the infrastructure, the GRID Program - the Growth and Renewal for Infrastructure Development Program - projects that address water systems, projects that address sewer systems, projects that supported accessibility improvements, projects that help municipalities adapt to climate risks, and projects that help support housing development. The program provided $15 million in funding, and due to strong demand, additional funding had been added in recent years, but this program has now been eliminated.

Why eliminate a program designed to help municipalities pay for the infrastructure and, at the same time, order them to build more infrastructure?

Municipalities can't build water and sewer systems out of thin air. That's why that GRID Program existed, but now the GRID Program is gone. These projects require significant capital investment, so when funding programs disappear, municipalities are left with even fewer options. Often, the only remaining option is to raise taxes or increase the utility rates. That is passing the costs on to the ratepayer, the homeowner, or the renter.

Nova Scotians deserve a government - a provincial government - that works collaboratively with municipalities. Municipalities are not obstacles. They are not some frustrating little group of people who are getting in the way of provincial - or maybe they are. Maybe that's the way they are looked at, but they shouldn't be looked at like that. They should be looked at as collaborators, as fellow citizens, and as fellow residents.

[Page 3320]

They are the level of government closest to the people. They understand local conditions on the ground, they understand community need, and they understand the infrastructure challenges facing their residents. When legislation centralizes power in the provincial government and overrides municipal planning decisions, it raises serious concerns about democratic accountability.

Housing is a complex issue. It requires coordinated action, it requires collaboration between governments, it requires investments in infrastructure, and it requires policies that ensure homes are affordable by the people who live here because building homes alone does not guarantee affordability. A house built far from jobs, services, and transit may still be unaffordable for many families.

I remember, a hundred years ago, when I thought I might be able to buy a house. It was this teeny-weeny house, about this big, in Prospect village, which is near where I grew up. It needed a lot of work, but I thought what if, and I calculated all the possibilities. You know what got me in the end? Do you know what made me not be able to buy that house? I didn't have a car and because it was in Prospect and there was no transit, I would have needed a car. I could have even afforded a little crappy car, but I couldn't afford the insurance payment on the car. That's what put me over the edge, and that was a long time ago.

Had I been able to buy that house way back when, whenever it was - early 2000s - that would have been a game changer. For anybody to be able to buy something helps build

equity. It gets you ahead. People who live out past the urban boundaries are going to have a much more difficult job, and you need to have a lot more. You need to have a car. In the city, you don't really need to have a car, at least in the places where the core transit goes. Out there you do.

You can't get much past Prospect village; you just go up to the water, but for any of these other proposed developments that are pushing out into the rural areas of HRM, you need a car. That's an extra expense. Things are more expensive.

I'm going to end very shortly, but I do want to say this: Nova Scotians love the communities they live in. They want to stay close to family. They want to stay close to friends. They want to stay close to the schools that their children attend and the neighbourhoods they call home, but rising housing costs are forcing many people to ask whether they can afford to stay. Rising housing costs/cutting programs: That is why housing policy must be focused not only on supply but on affordability. It must help people remain in their homes, it must protect tenants, and it must ensure that housing development is sustainable for the long term.

I put a lot out on the table here, Speaker. Lots of questions that I've asked of the Minister of Housing. I hope that we hear from him in Committee of the Whole or on - we didn't hear from him on second reading yet, so maybe he'll stand up at the end of this debate. That's all I can say. I don't think this is a very good piece of legislation . . .

[Page 3321]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. I find it getting awfully loud in here. I ask that you respect whoever is speaking.

The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : I don't think this is a good piece of legislation, and I'd like to hear from the minister why he thinks it is and why he thinks it's necessary. Looking forward to hearing from him in second reading, or in Committee of the Whole, or hopefully on third reading if we don't hear from him before that. For now, I will just leave those questions and those comments, and I will take my seat.

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

ROD WILSON « » : I rise to speak to this bill, Bill No. 212. I thank everyone for allowing me to speak to this today. I have a number of questions for consideration and some suggestions. I'd first like to just make sure I understand the bill, because I have a lot of questions arising out of it. Perhaps if I summarize what I think are the one-two-three-four-five points in this bill, it may actually help me get through my questions.

My understanding: First thing, this bill gives the Minister of Housing order-making powers to the Halifax Regional Municipality to expand urban planning for housing, growth, and development. If that's correct, my question is - there are a number of questions, but: What's that based on? Is it based on population growth? When and where? Giving one person authority like that raises a lot of questions that I'll speak to later. One of my recurring themes through this is going to be, "Be careful what you ask for, government."

My understanding of the next intention of this bill is it includes powers to order Halifax Water in HRM to build water and sewage infrastructure to support community growth by urban boundary expansion. Again, on the face of it, that sounds fantastic. Who doesn't want stable water supply support? Ask the people in Beechville. They want water supply that would put out a fire. I'm sure my colleague, the honourable Minister of Health and Wellness, would have loved to see stable water supply at the VG yesterday. I can support that wholeheartedly.

The third understanding is that it allows the minister to unilaterally determine who pays the cost of the infrastructure out to these new communities. That's a huge authority. Wow. Again, be careful what you ask for. In that case, I suggest the emperor may not have any clothes.

Building infrastructure: I understand this is the fourth theme or intention of this bill. Building infrastructure for low-density urban growth is costly and could further raise taxes - absolutely. With infrastructure comes money, and that seems to be escalating all the projects. Cost comes (inaudible). What is the impact going to be on this provincial budget or municipal budget, in terms of revenue?

[Page 3322]

[3:45 p.m.]

The other thing that I see - and it seems to be quite clear - is that the budget eliminates the $15 million Growth and Renewal for Infrastructure Development Program that would fund municipal water and sewage. I'm curious why. Why take and promote infrastructure, take the authority to get it done, but then take away a revenue source? Where is the revenue going to come from?

I want to ask what's missing in this bill. I think the most important thing that's missing in a lot of the government's bills is the C word - consultation. I didn't see any consultation with municipalities, subject-matter experts, and everyday Nova Scotians. I think this has huge impact.

As I critique the bill, I go back to my basic question: What's the problem it's trying to fix in whatever way? What's the problem? The devil may be in the details, but what's the problem? Do we need infrastructure for housing? Absolutely. We need it in Halifax. We need it at the VG. We need it in Beechville. Do we need more housing? Absolutely.

I actually was very happy to finally find common ground with the Premier this week. I was thrilled. I'm going to paraphrase, but I'm sure if I misquote him, his Office will let me know. I believe I heard the Premier say in a speech when he spoke to energy: "Sometimes you don't feel like people hear you" or, "Sometimes it feels like people make decisions for you."

They sure do. That's how Nova Scotians are feeling. I have to wonder if maybe some members of government are even feeling that. Sometimes people make a decision for you, and you have to wear it. I don't know.

However, before I get into further clauses, I do think there are some interesting facts here. I'm trying to paint a picture of what this bill looks like from a horse cart - the person driving the cart, and the person who's maybe in the cart or wants to get picked up by the cart. I say that not just to be cheeky. I think a lot of the bills that are coming forward this week are all interrelated. What's the horse? What's the cart?

This one is particularly interrelated with so much and raises so many questions. I hear questions. Probably outside of immigration and health, the number one question and call I get to my office is on growth and development in the constituency. In my constituency of Halifax Armdale, we see construction planned for up in Ridgevale. We see Purcells Cove. As you're all probably aware, there's a huge proposed development at the Mumford mall. There are lots of community groups organizing with questions. I have gone from practising medicine to being on the steep learning curve of learning about housing and infrastructure. One of the things that keeps coming up is infrastructure - not just water and sewage, which are stand-alone important - but transportation.

[Page 3323]

As we grow and we build, we can't move the people in the city we have now. As you know, we have been described as the third-worst traffic congestion. We build on Mumford Road - I think there are supposed to be something like 15,000 units over the course of 10 years there. Where are those people going to go? How are they going to move? We have a problem now. Where are they going to move?

Again, if we build infrastructure - not just water and sewage - I think of the transportation infrastructure that we're struggling with now, not just in an urban centre. We hear about people not being able to get to Halifax for appointments, et cetera. Transportation infrastructure is a huge issue that goes hand in hand with water and sewage in growth and development.

I want to speak to the water supply. I've had many conversations with Patty Cuttell, the deputy mayor, about the safety of our water supply. I don't mean so much like the water at the VG, which has Legionella in it. I mean about the safety of a continuous water supply, it's my understanding that water rations were available after the summer. Halifax Regional Municipality was facing shortages of water, and had the drought not lifted, there was going to have to be some difficult decisions.

With this expansion, has there been any consideration given to an adequate water supply? Safe supply is different, but adequate water supply, not just for housing and commercial but certainly fire. Water supply is a big one. I think that's an elephant in the room, or a problem that another summer may make us face. Do we have water supply for the current structure?

THE SPEAKER « » : Order, please. It's again getting loud in here. If people would like to have conversations, that's fine. We have break rooms. I'm asking everyone to respect anyone who is speaking.

The honourable member for Halifax Armdale.

ROD WILSON « » : Again, I go back. Do we want housing? Yes. Do we want infrastructure? Yes. Water and sewage are not the only infrastructure, and I'll come to that in a minute.

We need an access to water supply for all the reasons we need water supply for infrastructure. Pipes without water are exactly that - pipes without water.

Other people are asking us, what's going to be the impact of uranium or fracking, should that happen on the water supply. That's a whole bigger conversation for another day.

[Page 3324]

The other thing that comes up, and it's coming up in my constituency, if we bring 15,000 people to Mumford, will we have the education infrastructure to support that? Again, it will depend on the demographics that use that. Who will move into these neighbourhoods? Who will move into Ridge Valley? Who will move into the new developments? What's our immigration going to look like? Where are they going to go? Will we have the education infrastructure? Will the schools the government is planning to build support the growth of the future? Yet another infrastructure issue that I don't know the answer to, and I think it's worthwhile looking at.

In theory, I support the Support for Fire Protection Services Act, but I also think it's a cousin to this bill in terms of if we have . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order, please. Sorry. One last time. There are certain things that you cannot do in the gallery. You can't take pictures. You can't make noises. You can't crawl over benches. I ask that not to happen again.

The honourable member for Halifax Armdale.

ROD WILSON « » : Again, all the bills that we're seeing this week have challenges and problems that I think need more homework, but they're all related in many ways. Infrastructure seems to be a first cousin to the Support for Fire Protection Services Act, which again, standards, but also supply. So how do they relate?

As population grows, where will we need health care? Where will we need schools? I think of that when I drive to Debert, and I see the massive growth in East Hants. I keep thinking, where are those people going for health care? If we continue this growth, how do we include that not only with the growth, pipes and water, the growth of housing - affordable housing hopefully - do we have the education to support it? Do we have a water supply to support it?

Health care - we know our population is growing and aging. That's going to require certain health care staffing. With growth movement to urban areas, I do wonder, communities like East Hants, where do they get their care now, and where will they get it in the future? Is the health care infrastructure prepared to support that? Are there going to be family doctors to support that growth and the changing demographics of people in that area? If East Hants doubles, where will people go? Will they go to Dartmouth? Will they go to Cobequid? Will they go to Truro?

With infrastructure at the basic level to support housing comes all of these other infrastructures that need to be considered at the same time. I don't see that happening, I see these bills coming as one-offs and I don't see a master plan. What does the future look like for Nova Scotia? Do we still want to get to X amount?

What I do see is urbanization happening - this may be part of the reason - and I've seen that coming before. Having spent some time in Guysborough, I think about 10 or 15 years ago, I saw a lot of seniors in Guysborough migrate to one apartment building on [inaudible] Street which we called "Little Guysborough."

[Page 3325]

While we continue to see our seniors migrate, and where will they migrate to, to get the support? Whether it's health care or home care - do we have the infrastructure? With new growth, new housing at different levels, again I think I'd have to wonder - what's the infrastructure? It's not just water and sewage and firefighting but do we have the education infrastructure? If we build housing without traffic infrastructure, are we just not making one?

Again, is traffic the horse or is it the cart? Who is driving the cart?

I'm not seeing this bill linked to any projection on population growth and to the determinants of health that come with that population growth. It raises the question, what's this bill trying to intend? What's its intention? It's in solo, what are the other ramifications of this bill?

I do think that the bill kind of rubs me the wrong way, and I expect will rub a lot of Nova Scotians the wrong way, is investing all the authority into a person who is the "minister of the day", of the government, the Minister of Housing. I learned the lesson that we can look at the Minister of Housing today and say oh, they are a very reasonable person, this bill is going to be great. Who is going to be the Minister of Housing in the future may not be the reasonable person.

I use the reasonable person test of the future, if you invest everything in one position, don't bank on the assumption that that position is always going to have a reasonable person or a reasonable government in it, so be careful what you ask for.

The other thing that it really boils down to is, who is going to pay for this and how are people going to pay for it? We know that Nova Scotians are struggling with their water bills, their utility bills. Nova Scotia Power wants to increase it, HRM wants to increase the water bill.

What comes to my mind is with every project, every expansion: Is there a budget attached to it? Now I realize that's a different process. We want to have someone and drive expansion with infrastructure, with infrastructure comes bills and costs. I think the biggest question is, who is going to pay for this? The answer is that we are all going to pay for it - all Nova Scotians are going to pay for this. That's why they should have some input into it, not only what the cost of it is but what's the cost of the future, now.

Agan, it's a horse, a cart. What's missing in that horse and cart is a bucket of cash. The cash is going to come from, I would suggest, people riding in the wagon, but they don't know what the price is, they don't know what it's going to cost to get into that wagon.

[Page 3326]

There are lots and lots of questions related to this. I am really trying to understand in good faith why this bill is coming forward and why authority is being invested in one person, assuming it's a reasonable intention, but I'm not getting the answers. I am hoping the minister can speak to that.

What's the problem this bill is trying to fix? Is it a current problem? Is it a future problem? There are many current problems, like the VG, however, what's the problem? Is it growth projection? What's the growth and projection? What are the infrastructure needs of the future? Perhaps that's out there, I just haven't seen it.

What's the cost projection of the future? What will inflation be? What's the cost? Are we going to be able to borrow the money to build that? More importantly, is this bill not handcuffing future Nova Scotians, future MLAs, future municipalities for a decision we make today?

[4:00 p.m.]

I have a lot of problems with centralizing the authority. Again, without the data the emperor has no clothes, because there does not seem to be any evidence or information to hang this bill on. It's like, "Let's do it, make this person responsible. Let's do it." I'm sure government members would agree, that works sometimes but perhaps not all the time.

I also want to suggest that it needs to be slowed down - not slowed down, revisited. It needs to be revisited to help me understand the problem it's trying to solve. The other question is: what are the problems or the unintended impact it may create? Not just revenue sources but also other issues such as housing - well, the goal is to support housing, but education, health care, transportation, water supply for the entire province. Again, it seems like it's coming in as a piece in isolation without a big picture.

I kind of like the big picture and leave the details to people who are much smarter than I am, but I'm not understanding what the big picture is here and what the fix in the big picture is. I'm not understanding what's the horse, what's the cart. I think I know who the driver is of the horse, but I don't know who's in the wagon because they haven't been asked to actually come along for the ride. I think people in the wagon are going to have to pay for it. They don't know what the cost is but it's kind of like, "Jump in the wagon, the minister will take you there. Don't worry how much it's going to cost."

So it goes back to the comment that the Premier made. Sometimes it feels like people are making decisions without you. That seems to be the reoccurring thing in a lot of these bills. I am thinking that people are feeling this with this bill. Somebody is making a decision for me without me, across this province. I always say in medicine a pharmacist is a doctor's best friend. They save your bacon. They help patients. I would suggest what I'm learning for politicians, consultation is our best friend and when you decide not to consult you go forward at your own risk.

[Page 3327]

I almost ask a pharmacist everything about everything especially after midnight. Again, consultation is a politician's best friend. Without that consultation, I think any government of any stripe proceeds at risk. In my observation, it seems like majority governments tend to sway that consultation and may not see consultation as their best friend. I leave that for people to live and learn from and maybe you're living and learning from that now. I hope so.

What's this bill trying to accomplish? Who is going to be impacted? Who was at the table when this bill was created? Who wasn't at the table? There are so many questions. I'm open to persuasion. I'd like clarification on what the bill's intentions are and I really have to ask why other people weren't consulted. I learned a long time ago as a family physician - people expect me to be an expert in everything - to stay in my lane, to understand what I know really well, and not to be afraid to reach out and ask for help when I don't know something.

When I jump into another lane that I don't necessarily have the right data, the right information, or haven't spoken to the right people, it usually comes back to bite me. So I have to emphasize: process, process, process. I say to government, you can do this but be careful what you ask for. You're taking on a lot of authority and with authority comes responsibility and with responsibility comes accountability.

As this bill moves forward, have the right people been at the table? Who hasn't been at the table? What are the other considerations that need to be in it?

This could be great. I actually might be able to support a government omnibus bill if you actually had everything related to the bill in it. If this bill could speak to: We're going to do this, but this bill is going to support it. This is how the fire services bill is going to support this if they're hand in hand. This is how the health care bill is going to support this. This is how they're related. That would be a great omnibus bill. But I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing fragmentation, lack of consultation, and we're supposed to just sit back and say, "Let's hope for the best." Again, I take it back to sometimes you feel like people are making decisions for you, and I think that's adamantly clear with this bill and several bills.

I will almost close by saying I did find common ground with another PC minister when the honourable Minister of Housing said that Nova Scotians deserve better. They sure do. Better is not expensive, and better is doable. Better starts at home with consultation. Ask people who are smarter than we are: What does this look like? What does infrastructure of the future need to be? How do we get there? What's it going to cost? What's going to be the labour force required to support this infrastructure?

[Page 3328]

Let's not try to be the subject matter experts, speak for other people, and make decisions. Government's not necessarily going to own the outcome. Make this decision now and it's going to have an impact for the next 10 and 20 years. I don't know how many people are going to be here in 10, 20 years, or maybe even three years, but it's going to impact people. It's a bill that seems to be done in a silo - again, an emperor with no clothes - and I think it could be better. Nova Scotians deserve better by asking the questions that we don't know the answers to - by asking other people who are experts in this area, but also consumers in this area.

The example is the short-sightedness of putting infrastructure into Beechville - somebody would have approved that somewhere along the line - that doesn't provide the right pressure in the right place at the right time for a fire. Maybe a little bit of consultation. Maybe it did happen. Maybe it was just the wrong advice at the time and is now leading that community to scramble to get the infrastructure that somebody planned for them that's not meeting their needs and needs to be replaced.

Again, there are so many questions that are attached to this. It seems to become an isolation. I expect Nova Scotians are feeling that someone is making decisions for them, and maybe those who are making decisions are not getting the best advice. I've got questions that I look forward to from the minister for clarity on. I'm asking why this is happening now. What's the unintended impact, and why not in relationship to all the other issues that go with growth and prosperity in terms of school, health, transportation, water supply, water safety. Again, I think there are a lot of questions that need to be included.

This could be a really good bill if it was perhaps more thought through, and perhaps if it had more details attached to it. In its current phase, I'd say it's a self-appointed emperor with no clothes, meaning no data to make it happen. I really have to ask if we could keep this conversation going because, before I can support it, I really need some more information, as do I expect most Nova Scotians. I expect all of our colleagues at the municipal level have lots of questions. We need more information. We need more discussion. We don't need committees. We just need to reach out, listen, and get some data.

What does the infrastructure of the future look like, but what needs to come with that infrastructure? Who are we serving with that infrastructure? What have we not thought about it? Whatever process they've got here, I haven't seen any form of evaluation. I feel like we're almost doing the evaluation here on the floor, where had that evaluation happened perhaps a little bit sooner, this bill might be able to move forward in a lot quicker manner.

Lots of questions for consideration. Open to persuasion. But again, to quote the Premier, "Sometimes it feels people are making decisions for you." I'll close with that.

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

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : I would like to speak on second reading of Bill No. 212, An Act Respecting Administrative Measures for Housing.

[Page 3329]

Certainly, housing is an important issue, I would say, throughout all of Nova Scotia. It certainly is in Cumberland North. My assistant, Dan, hears from people each and every day. Most of the situations are very sad. Last week, on my two-hour drive in, I usually spend it making phone calls and returning messages from people. Some of the stories that people share with us are appalling.

In particular, the situations with housing. People living in situations where they have no choice. Last week, someone shared with me that they have a four month old baby, and they're living in a house that - they can't find any other place. They also have other children that have been taken away and have been told they'll get them back when they have better housing. But they can't find better housing.

Their power bill is over $2,000 a month, and it's partly because there are no windows in the basement. They've all been busted out by people trying to break in, so they're literally heating the outdoors through electric heat. It's very challenging. I'm sure many other MLAs listening also have very similar stories and situations. We just want to give everybody a safe place to live - but we can't do that.

I make that first point mainly because this bill is specific to HRM. I make a plea on behalf of rural Nova Scotia for there to be more housing initiatives for rural Nova Scotia. HRM, it's obviously very important, and half our population does live here, but the other 50 percent of the people who live outside of HRM deserve legislation and changes that will help build more housing in our communities as well - because it's not happening fast enough.

However, having said that, I will discuss and debate the bill that is before me, which is Bill No. 212 - An Act Respecting Administrative Measures for Housing. I am surprised that there's still not a Department of Housing - at least I don't think there is. We do have a Minister of Housing now, which is good. But I'm not sure why we don't have a Department of Housing. It might be great for the government to explain why. I think that does send a message to Nova Scotians and to people who work in housing. If it's not given a department, an actual department, is it being valued like it should be here in the province of Nova Scotia.

I'm going to go through this omnibus bill. Health care is probably more my area of expertise and business. Although I did a learn a lot about municipalities when I was the critic for Municipal Affairs a few years ago, this is an area that I really have to take my time and read through when I'm trying to understand the legislation.

This omnibus bill is amending five pieces of existing legislation. The first one is amending the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter. So I got the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter to better understand what the changes are to this piece of legislation. In "2, Chapter 39 is further amended by adding immediately after Section 35 the following sections." So we're not changing anything, we're just adding this new section.

[Page 3330]

[4:15 p.m.]

Actually, let me go back to Section 20, Speaker. In Section 20 in the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter are different things the council may make policies about. It goes through several things. I actually thought that there was already something in legislation that required councillors to have training because I know that when some of the new councillors are elected back home, they all go through these training exercises. So I didn't realize this would need to be added, but it must be. That's what the first change is to the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter - adding a section where the newly elected councillor will be required, in accordance with regulations, to have orientation training.

I was curious - and maybe this will be in the regulations: What is the time frame for the orientation program? Will that need to be completed within six months or the first three months? Although it does say that in the regulations it will include the content, format, and timing of the training and who is to deliver aspects of the training.

The second thing that's amended in the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter is they are adding a section under Section 35. Section 35 in the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter outlines the responsibilities of the chief administrative officer. In the original piece of legislation, it goes through all the responsibilities such as coordinating and directing preparation of plans and programs to be submitted to the council for the construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of all municipal property and facilities.

It continues on, and it's adding a section that council may delegate the evaluation and performance management of the chief administrative officer to a committee of the council. So it's adding that.

It's also adding, under the responsibilities of chief administrative officer, notwithstanding Clause 35(2)(a). Just so that people know what it is referring to, it states: "The chief administrative officer may attend all meetings of the council and any board, committee, commission, or corporation of the municipality and make observations and suggestions on any subject under discussion."

The original legislation states that the chief administrative officer may attend all meetings of the council and any board, committee, commission, or corporation of the municipality, and make observations and suggestions on any subject under discussion. Bill No. 212 is amending that and stating that the council may exclude or limit the chief administrative officer's attendance at any council meeting or council committee meeting if the meeting includes or relates to the evaluation of the chief administrative officer, including evaluation of the officer's conduct or performance or council training, education, performance or coaching, and participation or membership in boards, committees, or organizations external to the municipal. It also says that when the chief administrative officer is absent or unable to act for more than 30 days, council may intervene.

[Page 3331]

It's interesting. I'm curious as to why the provincial government would want to add a section that would allow council to exclude or limit the CAO's attendance at any meetings. Normally, your CAO is the one that council would be directing, and then the CAO would direct all the staff. I don't know if I missed an explanation from the Minister of Housing about why that was added and changed in the legislation or not.

The next change to the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter is amended by adding - so again, not taking something away, but adding under Section 223(a), the following sections. Just to refer to that piece of legislation.

I'm going to refer to a little bit further down. It says: "further amended by adding immediately after Section 277A the following Section:"

And in the original piece of legislation, Halifax Regional Municipality Charter,

Section 277A (1) The Minister may make regulations

(a) respecting the nature and extent of affordable housing to be required by subsections 235(6) and 245A(4) and the enforcement of the affordable housing requirements;

Under Regulation 277A this Bill No. 212 is adding:

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

I am assuming that is taking power away from the minister, and now giving the power to the Governor in Council.

(a) setting criteria and factors to be considered by the Minister when extending or altering the urban service area under Section 223B;

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

I wanted to read that first because when you go back to what is being added under Section 223B, what this is saying down below is that it is actually not going to be permanent, or it allows the Governor in Council to make it not permanent, these changes.

In Section 223B it is adding:

(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.

[Page 3332]

(2) Where the Minister determines if 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.

Now we don't know from this piece of legislation - there have been some suggestions or gossip, for lack of a better word, in the community of why this may be here, but I know back home when one municipality tries to encroach on another, it often causes conflict that sometimes takes decades to overcome. It looks like here that the Province is going to force the hand to extend this urban service area without the need for consultation with HRM or possibly even the area that they are encroaching on.

As I said, in Section 4 of this it is saying that these changes do not need to be permanent. Also on Page 2 of Bill No. 212, something else is going to be added under 223C(3). It's going to add: "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.

I went and found the Public Inquiries Act to find what does this mean - what powers will the Minister of Housing now have, based on this Bill No. 212. If you go to the Public Inquiries Act, it reads:

Commissioner

3 In case such inquiry is not regulated by any special law, the Governor in Council may appoint a person or persons as a commissioner or commissioners to inquire into and concerning such matter. . . .

4 The commissioner or commissioners shall have the power of summoning before him or them any persons as a witnesses and of requiring them to give evidence on oath orally or in writing, or on solemn affirmation if they are entitled to affirm in civil matters, and to produce such documents and things as the commissioner or commissioners deem requisite to the full investigation of the matters into which he or they are appointed to inquire.

Powers, privileges, immunities

5 The commissioner or commissioners shall have the same power to enforce the attendance of persons as witnesses and to compel them to give evidence and produce documents and things as is vested in the Supreme Court or a judge thereof in civil cases, and the same privileges and immunities as a judge of the Supreme Court.

[Page 3333]

The Minister of Housing is going to have a lot of power from this change, I would say – going to be pretty powerful.

That is the first bill that is being amended by Bill No. 212. The second bill that's being amended in this omnibus bill is the Housing in the Halifax Regional Municipality Act. The first change in this is a housekeeping act, substituting "Growth and Development" with "Housing" for the department.

The second thing that's being changed is in Subclause 6. I think what's important - for me at least, when I was trying to understand Bill No. 212 and this portion of it, when I refer to the original piece of legislation that's being amended, it's the Housing in the Halifax Regional Municipality Act. I think one of the key pieces of this to understand - at least for me and understanding the amendments - is that the Housing in the Halifax Regional Municipality Act establishes the panel. The executive panel on housing in HRM is established. That's point 5 in the bill.

When we go to Bill No. 212 and look at what's being changed, they're actually repealing Section 6. Section 6 of the Housing in Halifax Regional Municipality Act is being repealed. What's being repealed - it's always good to know what's being repealed before you try to understand what's replacing it. "The Panel shall (a) advise and provide recommendations to the Minister and the Municipality respecting" - the part that's being repealed is point 2 - "(ii) factors affecting housing supply, including the availability of land, the taxation environment, the availability of labour and any other factors that may affect housing development." That is being repealed and replaced with:

(ii) factors affecting housing supply, including

(A) water, wastewater, stormwater or other municipal infrastructure,

(B) the availability of land,

(C) the taxation environment,

(D) the availability of labour, and

(E) any other factors that may affect housing development;

That's pretty open-ended there: "any other factors." I guess that's in the first one too. Really, the main difference is this new one that has been added includes "water, wastewater, stormwater or other municipal infrastructure." I have heard my colleagues talk about that as well.

[Page 3334]

There are a few other changes to the Housing in Halifax Regional Municipality Act, including under Section 13 - I won't bother reading that - and under section 21A.

In the original piece of legislation, 21A says, "no injurious affection." "Property is deemed not to be injuriously affected by any action taken under this Act or the regulations." Interesting. This is being "amended by renumbering Section 21A as 21B and adding immediately after Section 21 the following Section." That is not being removed, but it's being amended by adding this:

[4:30 p.m.]

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; and

(c) do anything necessary or desirable in the interest of the safe, efficient and affordable development of housing-enabling infrastructure.

Also, in the Housing in the Halifax Regional Municipality Act, another amendment from Bill No. 212 is under Section 23(fa). Currently it's so that this section in the original bill - Housing in the Halifax Regional Municipality Act - Section 23 is to do with regulations. The Governor in Council may make regulations. (f) currently says "respecting the powers of the Panel" - so again, referring to that executive housing panel - "respecting the powers of the Panel under Section 18." Bill No. 212 is adding "(fa) setting criteria and factors to be considered by the Minister when issuing orders."

The third Act that is amended in Bill No. 212 is the Housing Supply and Services Act. The first thing that's being amended is, again, housekeeping - changing "Growth and Development" to "Housing." And Section 26 - I've got five Acts here, so I'm trying to keep them all straight, Speaker.

This is amending a piece of legislation called the Housing Supply and Services Act - Chapter 36 of the Acts of 2022. This is an Act that was brought in by this government, and they're making an amendment to it. Under Section 26 of Chapter 36, it's being repealed. What's being repealed is advisory board, "The Agency has an Advisory Board that provides advice and recommendations to further the Agency's objects."

[Page 3335]

That's being repealed and substituted with "The Minister may establish an Advisory Board that provides advice and recommendations to further the Agency's objects." Bringing in ministerial control is what I would gather from this change, so that's all for that one.

The next one is - Part IV of this omnibus bill is the Municipal Government Act. It's basically making the same changes - it looks like it to me, anyway - the very first Act I referred to - the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter. The first change was making changes to bring in training, and that's what it looks like this is doing now. The Municipal Government Act will make amendments - also making sure that a newly elected councillor receives orientation training.

The fifth Act that's being amended by Bill No. 212 is the Short-Term Rentals Registration Act. It looks like it's moving this piece of legislation under a different Act. It says, "Clause 2(aa) of Chapter 9 of the Acts of 2019, the Short-term Rentals Registration Act, as enacted by Chapter 22 of the Acts of 2023, is amended by striking out 'of Municipal Affairs and Housing' and substituting 'responsible for the Housing Supply and Services Act'." So, it's moving it to a different Act.

That's an overview of the changes to the legislation, Speaker. Hopefully, that makes sense to people. It's difficult when we get omnibus bills because I feel it's really important to do my job as MLA that I fully understand every bill. When they're omnibus bills - this one's not too bad, there are only five pieces of legislation that are affected - but I always have to print out, read the original legislation, and then look at the new bill that's making changes to make sure that I better understand as much as I can; then trying to have conversations with people that are impacted by the bill. I actually haven't seen anything publicly, but I may have missed it - that people here in HRM Council have made any comment about this piece of legislation.

I think one thing as I mentioned in my opening remarks is that I support more housing and I support the building of more housing. I support reducing delays in getting housing built, but I don't believe that the speed of building more housing should come at the expense of accountability and transparency and fair cost sharing. I also think that we need to make more of an emphasis on increasing housing in other areas of the province outside of HRM.

Accountability and transparency are both two things that our Auditor General has continued to bring up over the last four years with this government; I think those two things apply to this bill as well. Bill No. 212, after my evaluation of it, it appears to extend the Halifax Regional Municipality Executive Panel on Housing, giving the Minister of Housing here in the province authority to amend the HRM planning document's urban service boundary. It also allows our Minister of Housing to order HRM or Halifax Water to build or modify infrastructure. I'm not sure how they're going to take that advice from a Cape Breton MLA. Maybe well, it's hard to say. He's a good guy.

[Page 3336]

It allows the Minister of Housing to step in and do the work if they don't comply, allows the Minister of Housing to recover costs as a debt, and lets the Minister of Housing decide the cost sharing if no agreement has been made.

My evaluation of Bill No. 212: also make the Nova Scotia Provincial Housing Agency advisory board optional which, out of all the things that I looked at with this bill, I will say that stood out to me. We have seen a trend with this government of removing boards, removing levels of governance structure to bring in the community voice, to bring in voices of people that aren't on the government's payroll that could truly bring in a perspective that is fair and representing the community. So removing an advisory board or making it optional I don't believe is good governance, and would potentially weaken the decisions that may be made.

Bill No. 212 also seems to add mandatory councillor orientation and expands the regulation-making powers. I understand that even though I'm not an HRM MLA - I am from definitely rural Nova Scotia - that there definitely is a housing crisis as well here in HRM. The vacancy rates remain tight and infrastructure bottlenecks delay multi-unit builds. Water and wastewater capacity is often the limiting factor and municipal approval timelines are often blamed. So we're often seeing it's the municipalities blamed for these . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order, order. I ask that all members turn off their phones. I can't be the only one who hears that. I ask that all members in the audience make sure their phone is turned off as well in the galleries. There is no filming and no taking pictures. Please make sure all phones are on silent.

The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : As I mentioned, there is no doubt that there is a housing crisis here in the Province of Nova Scotia. We've seen significant population growth, and we didn't have the infrastructure in place before that happened.

In Cumberland County, and even more so in the Town of Amherst, we also had extenuating circumstances that made pressures on housing worse, including that they had a private boarding house burn. I believe there were 19 or 20 people, all low-income, all people who had very significant health issues, who really could only afford this very extreme low rent - I think they paid $250 a month - and that place burned down. All of a sudden, we had an extra 20 people in our town without a place to live, and who really didn't have the money to move into a bigger place.

[Page 3337]

Before that, we also had a big apartment building burn down, and I think there were many, many tenants there too. It doesn't take much if there's already not enough supply, and you have a couple of fires in a community, it really can add a lot of pressure on and cause a lot of problems. We all need a place to live and lay our head at night, and we all do what we can to help others out.

In fact, my husband and I had I would say the honour of one of our children living with us for five years after the pandemic, because the idea of finding a place just wasn't possible. We loved having them, but I don't think that was their choice. They preferred to be out on their own, and now they are, but it's not easy for our young people.

Just recently, I had a town hall session and one of the young people that was there, he and his mom have been involved since 2017. He was very quiet during our - it was actually my Advisory Board, he was very quiet. I won't say his name in case he wouldn't want me to, but I said, "Do you have any advice on what I should be talking about in the Legislature this coming sitting?"

This is a young man who's probably about 25. He's been able to get a really good job, he works for Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and he said, "I can't afford a home. I think that for people my age, something needs to be done to be able to afford a home." Now I was able to share with him, because our provincial government had just made that announcement of the 2 percent for the down payment, so I was able to share that information with him.

We also have a great housing project in our area, that the province was involved with, as well as private sector - the John Bragg Society, which is now called the River Philip Foundation, as well as the Town of Amherst and the federal government. Our two municipalities worked together so that infrastructure could be put in place. It's a beautiful housing project that partially is rental, low-income affordable, and then purchase, but you have to be in a certain wage category to qualify.

So there is work being done, but not enough to meet the demand. We need to continue putting our foot to the pedal.

The other thing that really stands out to me in this bill is a big shift with regard to ministerial override. The Minister of Housing can order HRM or Halifax Water to build infrastructure. The Minister of Housing can decide the cost apportionment. If no agreement, the Minister of Housing can step in and do the work. The Minister of Housing can recover the cost as a debt and the Minster of Housing can plan boundaries if it's "in the provincial interest."

My question to the minister would be: What defines provincial interest? I think that's an important thing, especially HRM Council to know. And what is a reasonable period for an agreement? How much time is the minister allowing for HRM to get things prepared? Are these orders made public, or are they private? Is there an appeal mechanism that the HRM Council can use? What transparency accompanies these powers as well. Again, back to transparency and accountability.

[Page 3338]

These are questions that the Minister of Housing could answer before second reading finishes today, and that may help inform the public before Public Bills Committee, when this comes to that committee.

Regarding infrastructure and who pays, I think this is probably a very big concern for HRM Council. They all have a budget that they have to conform to. They aren't like the provincial government or federal government. They can't have big debts year after year. They have to have a balanced budget. If they are not sure of the costs of this infrastructure, this is going to make it very difficult for them in their planning.

If the Minister of Housing directs infrastructure and Halifax Water must comply, costs are imposed and recovery is treated as a debt. If this happens, who pays? Ratepayers, municipal taxpayers, or provincial taxpayers? I think those are questions to be asked.

[4:45 p.m.]

I had a friend message me on the weekend - this is going to upset some people, but I think it's kind of funny, so I'm saying it in humour. My friend who messaged me on the weekend about this particular bill said they compare it to when Trump said he was going to build a wall and get someone else to pay. I know. It's kind of funny, you've got to admit.

My point is that I don't think it is good for legislation for the province to put legislation forward saying that they are going to force HRM's Council to build something and then force them to pay. HRM should be a partner. They should be included in the planning and there should be clear accountability and transparency for who pays as part of their budget. Affordable housing cannot quietly become unaffordable utilities.

Bill No. 212 also looks at urban service boundary changes. The bill allows the Minister of Housing to amend HRM planning documents that affect sprawl, servicing costs, environmental impact - which hasn't really been talked a lot about when we discussed this bill, but it is something that should be considered - as well as long-term infrastructure burden.

The question is: If we expand service areas, are we simultaneously committing to fully funding the infrastructure that makes them viable, and that would be a balanced approach.

The next consideration of Bill No. 212 are the governance changes. The advisory board, as I mentioned before, becomes optional, which means there is less structured oversight, more internal concentration of authority. When authority increases, oversight should increase alongside it, not decrease. That is governance-focused, not anti-housing.

[Page 3339]

Good governance is better for all of us, whether you live in HRM or anywhere in Nova Scotia, and on this topic of governance, I want to just make a point, tying this into Bill No. 212. We've seen, since the government took power - and it's not personal, Speaker, but I think it is important to sort of show the trend.

Back in 2002, the government reduced the independence of the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia Board. It required the board's appointment and removal of the CEO, to be subject to the approval of the minister, and it required the Gallery to submit its accountability report and business plan, as the minister directed. That meant the board no longer had full authority over its own CEO and reporting structure.

Even where boards were left in place, the government weakened their independence. In the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia Act, the board could no longer freely appoint or remove its CEO without ministerial approval. Just like Bill No. 212. We are seeing governance changes in Bill No. 212. We also saw it back in 2022 with the Invest Nova Scotia Act, Bill No. 214. This is one of the clearest examples of centralized control disguised as modernization.

The Act said: The management and control of the affairs of the corporation are invested in the minister. The CEO is appointed by the Governor in Council, reports to the deputy minister, and performs the duties the minister determines. The board is only an advisory board, not a governing board. The minister is not bound by its recommendations, can issue policy directions, and must approve the corporation's business and strategic plans.

With Invest Nova Scotia, the government replaced independent governance with an advisory model. The board could advise, but the minister controlled. Just as in Bill No. 212, we are seeing the advisory board become optional. We are moving more concentration of authority and power to the minister. I actually reference back where one of the changes in Bill No. 212 gives the Minister of Housing the same power of the commissioner in the Public Inquiries Act, which is a lot of power.

Other changes we've seen this government make with regard to governance were back in 2022, the Build Nova Scotia Act, and that also followed the same model. The statute says, "The management and control of the affairs of the Corporation are vested in the Minister." The CEO is appointed by the Governor in Council, reports to the deputy minister, and performs duties the minister may determine. Again, there is only an advisory board, not an independent governing board.

In the case of Build Nova Scotia, it was set up with an oversight vested in the minister, not an independent board. This is not decentralization; it's executive control. Again, one of my main concerns with Bill No. 212 is the power. The authority is increasing with the minister, and oversight is not increasing along with it - less structured oversight and more internal concentration of authority.

[Page 3340]

One of the bills that's being amended in Bill No. 12 - I've already referenced - is the Housing Supply and Services Act, Bill No. 222 from 2022. This is a major example of governance and power being put into more of a centralized power.

With the Housing Supply and Services Act that is amended in Bill No. 212, the Act says that the management and control of the affairs of the agency are vested in the minister. The minister may exercise the powers of the agency. The CEO is appointed by the Governor in Council, reports to the deputy minister, and performs the duties the minister determines. The agency began with an interim board made up of deputy ministers, and the later board was only advisory.

The minister was not bound by its recommendations and could issue policy directions. The agency's business plan and multi-year strategic plan also required ministerial approval.

In Housing, the government did not just reform governance; it vested management and control directly in the minister and reduced the board to an advisory role.

We saw changes in Bill No. 212 to this piece of legislation. We also saw changes in governance similar to Bill No. 212 in the Municipal Finance Corporation Dissolution Act. Bill No. 223 is one of the starkest examples because it did not merely weaken a board, it eliminated it. The Act says plainly, "The Corporation is dissolved." It then assigned all affairs and matters relating to the financing role to the minister.

The government literally dissolved the Municipal Finance Corporation and transferred its function to the minister. That is centralization, plain and simple.

Again, Bill No. 212 - one of my main concerns is around the governance changes and the weakening lack of oversight. We saw that similarly in 2023 with the Financial Measures Act, Bill No. 279. This one is more technical, but it still reflects a centralizing trend. It was done in the credit union system. The bill expanded oversight powers under the Credit Union Act, including stronger authority over the central and broader supervision and intervention mechanisms through the Municipal Finance Corporation. It's not as clean an example as some of the other bills, but it is part of the same pattern: fewer arm's length checks and more top-down control.

Some changes are technical, but the direction is the same: less independent decision-making and more centralized oversight.

[Page 3341]

Bill No. 212 is bringing less structured oversight and more internal concentration of authority, similar to what we saw in Bill No. 329. This is the last example I'll give, but my point is that there's a trend of taking power - centralizing power - in the government. Bill No. 329 took planning power away from local democratic structures and concentrated it in the minister's office. It allowed the minister to designate special planning areas to amend or appeal.

I'm a big fan of democracy, Speaker. I do think that the need for more housing is urgent. Speed is important, but so is accountability. When you have proper governance and when you do adequate consultation, you make better decisions. I think many people around the province agree with that.

Just an overview: Bill No. 212, an Act Respecting Administrative Measures for Housing, represents a significant shift in Nova Scotia's housing-governance model from municipal-led planning toward centralized provincial authority. I realize that the government is probably justifying this in their need to accelerate housing supply - or at least, we assume that is why.

The bill does two major things. It accelerates housing delivery by giving the Province direct powers over infrastructure - planning, boundaries, and municipal coordination - and expands ministerial control over municipal governance and housing institutions. It does so, though, by weakening mandatory oversight structures and enabling decisions by order and regulation.

My core concern is that speed is being pursued through centralized authority without equivalent safeguards for transparency, affordability outcomes, or protection against cost-downloading to municipal taxpayers and utility ratepayers. Bill No. 212, as I mentioned at the beginning, amends five statutes in six parts: the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter, making mandatory orientation training for newly elected councillors, expanded council authority over CAO oversight and participation, and new provincial power to amend HRM urban service area planning documents.

The second one is the Housing in the Halifax Regional Municipality Act, expanding executive panel scope, compelling utilities to provide information, creating ministerial order power over HRM Halifax Water Infrastructure, and extending the panel to 2028.

The third is the Housing Supply and Services Act, removing the interim board and making the provincial housing advisory board optional; the fourth, the Municipal Government Act, mirrors the HRM Charter governance changes for all municipalities, and that's for the orientation and training; and then the Short-term Rentals Registration Act - administrative update for ministerial responsibility.

Several key provisions come into force only on proclamation, allowing government to control the timing of this - so it's not clear for all the stakeholders and people who would be affected by this piece of legislation. They really have no idea when these would come into play.

[Page 3342]

This bill - Bill No. 212 - represents a core policy shift, giving the Province authority to order municipal infrastructure. I know in the Town of Amherst, there are some exciting things happening. They're expanding their infrastructure to enable our industrial park to grow - kind of like "build it and they will come." I'm really excited and proud of the work of the Town of Amherst and our council. They have a very strong economic development focus and growing our economy there and expanding. It's been really frustrating to watch everyone grow around us - Moncton and Halifax - and now we're going to do some growing.

What I love about that, and what's different from Bill No. 212, is that it was our municipal council that made those decisions, and then they will work with our Province and federal government to gain funding for the infrastructure for water and sewer for our industrial park.

Bill No. 212 is, I think, sending a message to Halifax Regional Council that maybe they don't feel they're doing the job that's needed to be done - which we didn't see before. It's one thing that I would say with the previous government. We didn't tend to see these major changes with regard to the municipality. There seems to be a real push-pull. There seems to be a lot of conflict between our provincial government and HRM, where our provincial government sees a need to step in and take the control away. A lot of people, including me, would rather see a more consultative approach.

[5:00 p.m.]

Bill No. 212 is also a cost-sharing and financial risk that the minister is deciding - making a lot of the decisions. Costs are to be proportioned by agreement between the Province and the municipality. If there's no agreement reached, then the minister determines the cost split. I can't imagine how that must feel for HRM, when they're trying to balance their budget and be in control of their finances.

The fact is that numbers speak for themselves. Our provincial government - we've not done a good job, here in the Province, of strong fiscal management.

When HRM looks at that and looks at our history over the last four years for cost overruns, for the number of projects that have gone out without tender, without proper procurement - this isn't me saying this, the Auditor General has come out on this several times - and how much money has been spent outside of the approved legislative oversight, I'm sure that causes HRM to be concerned that they can say what they want. But at the end of the day, Bill No. 212 gives the minister the ability to determine the cost split.

[Page 3343]

If HRM or the utility does not comply, the Province may perform the work itself, and the cost then becomes a debt that they will owe to the Province, recoverable through court action. There is a 12-month window during which costs may not be recovered, after which a liability may be attached, so there are huge implications. Municipal taxpayers or utility ratepayers could face substantial financial exposure from municipally ordered projects.

The Minister of Housing can amend HRM planning documents by order. These new HRM Charter provisions will allow the minister to extend or alter HRM's urban service area. We don't know where. We're not sure where that is being planned or why. In fairness to both the provincial MLAs and to HRM council, that should be made clear. The fact that that there is a piece being added in Bill No. 212 that makes it temporary that they can extend the urban area, tells us that there is probably a specific project that this is for. We can make that assumption, but we don't know. Again, we want to see more transparency and more accountability by the government. Share with us. Share with the people. We are the government for the people not the other way around.

The Executive Panel on Housing expansion: The panel now explicitly considers municipal infrastructure constraints and can compel information from HRM-owned utilities, and now it is extended from 2026 to 2028. Infrastructure capacity becomes formally integrated into provincial housing decision-making.

There's a lot in this bill, and there should be a Department of Housing. All this work would be managed. You sometimes wonder: There's a lot of piecemeal - even this bill. It's amending five different pieces of legislation that all impact housing. If there was one Department of Housing, would there be better coordination of some of the work, not just in HRM but around all of Nova Scotia? We would love to see that.

One of the more recent examples - I did mention this to the minister - is around customer service that we have as a government. Recently, my office has been getting people coming to my office with a little piece of paper that says on it: "Take this to your MLA office or to the library." People in Cumberland County right now who apply for rental subsidy used to be able to take the documents into the Housing office and have them sent, but the last few months, when they take their applications in to the Housing office, the Housing office sends them to my office or to the library to have the documents sent.

I talked to the minister about that. Why would the Housing office not do that? It's just good customer service. I guess there's a difference between public housing funding versus the rental subsidy, so that's the reason behind it. In my opinion, the customer doesn't know that. They're just looking for help, and it's the Housing office. They always used to be able to get their documents mailed in or faxed in or scanned and emailed in and sent to the Province. Now they're being sent to the MLA's office.

Listen, my staff and I don't mind. We're there to help. One day, my main assistant was off on vacation, and my casual staff didn't have the email address to send it to, and it wasn't on the little piece of paper. The customer, the resident, came to my office. She said, "They said come to the MLA's office, or the library, and fax the document." I said, "Did they give you a fax number." She said, "No," and there was no fax number on the piece of paper.

[Page 3344]

My main point, Speaker, is that for housing and for any government department, for that matter, we should always be thinking about the impact that our changes are making on our taxpayers, on our residents. We're here to serve the people. I have seen this sort of centralization or decisions being made, whether it's in housing or other departments, that aren't always helpful for the people.

I'll come back to the bill, Speaker, but I'll just mention whether it's the centralized number for the Department of Public Works, whether it's the centralized number for income assistance, whether it's the centralized number for mental health, it's really frustrating when people call those numbers, and they're put on hold, or they have to take 20 minutes while they go through all the rigmarole. It's no different for housing when they go to a Housing office to have papers sent in, and they're sent to the library or to my office. We need to get back to a focus on customer service for the people of Nova Scotia.

Bill No. 212: I already at length talked about the governance changes and really focusing on how there's just a continued movement to the centre - centralization of power. There are all kinds of research and data out there that we could read that talk about good governance involves community input.

Good governance requires having boards in place and listening to those board members. If we only listen to the people who are on payroll within our departments whether it's housing or others, we're not going to get a real view on the things that are needed for us to hear. They're not going to disagree with what the minister or the deputy minister says to them. They're on payroll. They're going to say what people want them to say and what they think wants to be heard.

Speaker, thank you for the time to debate and discuss Bill No. 212. As I mentioned at the beginning, it's not my area of expertise. That's why I need to study the legislation in depth. I do believe housing is urgent, but not just in HRM. I would love to see more of a focus on rural Nova Scotia for getting more affordable housing built throughout all the province - in Chester, in Lunenburg, in Yarmouth, in Digby, in Amherst and Cumberland County, in Antigonish, in Cape Breton, Guysborough, all around the province. There's a whole rural part of the province that sometimes gets left out and not enough attention paid to.

I do believe one of the overarching concerns with Bill No. 212 is the focus of provincial control versus municipal autonomy. I'm concerned the message that this sends to our municipal leaders. They are a very important part of moving this province forward. I urge the government to consult with them. I look forward to hearing more at Public Bills Committee on Bill No. 212.

[Page 3345]

THE SPEAKER « » : Is the House ready for the question?

There has been a request for a recorded vote.

Ring the bells. Call in the members.

[5:09 p.m.]

[The Division bells were rung.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. Are the Whips satisfied?

The Clerk will conduct a recorded vote.

[The Clerk called the roll.]

[5:39 p.m.]

YEAS NAYS

Hon. Brian Comer Claudia Chender

Hon. Nolan Young Lisa Lachance

Hon. Kim Masland Susan Leblanc

Hon. John Lohr Hon. Iain Rankin

Hon. Brendan Maguire Hon. Derek Mombourquette

Hon. Barbara Adams Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin

Hon. Michelle Thompson Paul Wozney

Hon. Fred Tilley Suzy Hansen

Hon. Dave Ritcey Kendra Coombes

Hon. Twila Grosse Hon. Becky Druhan

Tom Taggart Krista Gallagher

Hon. Brad Johns Rod Wilson

Marco MacLeod Lina Hamid

Hon. Susan Corkum-Greek

Chris Palmer

Melissa Sheehy-Richard

Hon. John A. MacDonald

Hon. Brian Wong

Hon. Trevor Boudreau

Brad McGowan

Kyle MacQuarrie

[Page 3346]

Tim Outhit

Rick Burns

Julie Vanexan

Dianne Timmins

David Bowlby

Nick Hilton

Hon. Timothy Halman

Hon. Scott Armstrong

Hon. Jill Balser

Hon. Colton LeBlancoHon

Hon. Kent Smith

Hon. Greg Morrow

Hon. Tory Rushton

Ryan Robichaud

Damian Stoilov

THE CLERK » : For, 36. Against,13.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is carried.

Ordered that this bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Bills.

The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD « » : Speaker, pursuant to Rule 5C, I move that the hours for Tuesday, March 10^th, be not 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. but instead be from 11:00 a.m. to 11:59 p.m.

THE SPEAKER « » : Pursuant to Rule 5C, there has been a request for the hours for Tuesday, March 10^th, be from 11:00 a.m. to 11:59 p.m.

All those in favour.

There has been a request for a recorded vote.

Ring the bells. Call in the members.

[5:43 p.m.]

[The Division Bells were rung.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. Are the Whips satisfied?

The Clerk will conduct a recorded vote.

[Page 3347]

[The Clerk called the roll.]

[5:52 p.m.]

Hon. Brian Comer Claudia Chender

Hon. Nolan Young Lisa Lachance

Hon. Kim Masland Susan Leblanc

Hon. John Lohr Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin

Hon. Brendan Maguire Paul Wozney

Hon. Barbara Adams Suzy Hansen

Hon. Michelle Thompson Kendra Coombes

Hon. Fred Tilley Hon. Becky Druhan

Hon. Dave Ritcey Krista Gallagher

Hon. Twila Grosse Lina Hamid

Tom Taggart

Hon. Brad Johns

Marco MacLeod

Hon. Susan Corkum-Greek

Chris Palmer

Melissa Sheehy-Richard

Hon. John A. MacDonald

Hon. Brian Wong

Hon. Trevor Boudreau

Brad McGowan

Kyle MacQuarrie

Tim Outhit

Rick Burns

Julie Vanexan

Dianne Timmins

David Bowlby

Hon. Timothy Halman

Hon. Scott Armstrong

Hon. Jill Balser

Hon. Colton LeBlanc

Hon. Iain Rankin

Hon. Derek Mombourquette

Hon. Kent Smith

Hon. Greg Morrow

Hon. Tory Rushton

Ryan Robicheau

Damian Stoilov

[Page 3348]

Danny MacGillivray

THE CLERK « » : For, 38. Against, 10.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is carried.

The House will sit Tuesday, March 10^th, 11:00 a.m. until 11:59 p.m.

The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.

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

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

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD « » : Speaker, would you please call 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. 198.

Bill No. 198 - Financial Measures (2026) Act.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Finance.

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : Speaker, I move that Bill No. 198 - Financial Measures (2026) Act, be now read a second time. Today with second reading of the Financial Measures (2026) Act we are actively pursuing many of the opportunities outlined in Budget 2026-27 Defending Nova Scotia. The Financial Measures (2026) Act makes changes that support this year's budget and government's overall objectives.

As you are aware, Nova Scotia is forging a path toward powering our future, building stronger and healthier communities, and ensuring the province's fiscal stability. This legislation makes tax changes by amending existing legislations such as the Income Tax Act, the Revenue Act, the Non-resident Deed Transfer Tax Act, and the Sales Tax Act.

We recognize the need for EV and hybrid owners to contribute to road repairs and maintenance, which would normally happen through motor fuel taxes. A new $500 biannual levy on electric passenger vehicles, and a $250 biannual levy on hybrid passenger vehicles will begin on October 1, 2026. The types of hybrid vehicles they will apply to will be set out later in regulations. Nova Scotia is the fourth province to create an electric vehicle levy, behind Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Quebec.

[Page 3349]

The Financial Institutions Capital Tax will increase from 4 percent to 6 percent on November 1, 2026. This applies to banks and trust companies. Nova Scotia is harmonizing the vaping tax with the federal vaping tax. This allows the Province to receive tax revenue from vape products ordered online from outside of Nova Scotia. As a benefit, Nova Scotia will receive an additional $11.7 million in revenue, mainly ordered online from outside of Nova Scotia.

Also under the Revenue Act, penalty limits for tobacco-related offences will be increased as of April 1, 2026. The Foreign Tax Deduction will align with federal rules on personal and corporate income taxes. The sunset date for the Capital Investment Tax Credit will be extended. Projects approved by the end of 2035 will be able to receive the tax credit.

Renewable electricity providers can become bulk suppliers and offer a point-of-sale rebate under the Your Energy Rebate Program, known as YERP. Nova Scotia has taken the initiative to ensure that our natural resource framework reflects today's realities and supports long-term sustainable development. In keeping with this vision, the FMA supports longer term forestry licences, to help business in sectors like forestry.

Reporting any land use used as carbon sink so that preferential tax rates will only be provided to active forestry properties, clarifying that gypsum on Crown land belongs to the Province. Shifting criteria for mineral lease renewals from legislation to regulations. Treating tailings and waste rock as a mineral resource. Addressing inefficiencies related to community and conservation easements, and making terminations a Supreme Court decision. Towing vehicles illegally parked in provincial parks and on Crown lands. Efficiencies in setting park fees.

[6:00 p.m.]

Other changes in this FMA will introduce more efficient and cost-effective approaches in a variety of areas. The FMA will modernize our legislation and reduce red tape. The Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission will be dissolved, and staff and operations will be integrated into Link Nova Scotia. Consumers will benefit from an independent dispute resolution service for investment-related complaints under amendments in the Securities Act. The new casino will be exempt from development permits for construction or renovations. The Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation will be exempt from paying deed transfer tax. Changes to the Meat Inspection Act will enable a risk-based meat inspection model at provincially licensed abattoirs. The Minister of Agriculture will gain responsibility for the oversight of harness racing in Nova Scotia. We are responding to feedback from industry and municipalities. Insurance renewal notices can be issued electronically with consent. The ability to issue municipal assessment notices electronically will save up to $1.3 million per year.

[Page 3350]

As we move forward with changes that will help enact Budget 2026-27 Defending Nova Scotia, I am filled with optimism. This budget is about defending Nova Scotia by strengthening our foundations and positioning our province to move with confidence in an increasingly uncertain world. These amendments in the FMA will help us unlock our potential and build a stronger, more resilient Nova Scotia.

Changes will be coming related to Community Easements Act and the Conservation Easements Act at the Committee of the Whole House based on feedback we've already received.

I look forward to hearing my colleagues' remarks.

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

LISA LACHANCE « » : On the too-long-didn't-read version of this, this government has spent irresponsibly, spent recklessly, and gotten into a real mess that did not need to be. They didn't get results for Nova Scotians but did billions of dollars of government spending without competition, without follow through, and without asking for results. They created this financial crisis that is now going to be part of our reality for a long time. We're facing a budget that does nothing but create more chaos, and the FMA as part of that is truly problematic.

I'm going to walk through a number of the assumptions behind the FMA and then talk to specific Acts within the Act that are effective within the FMA.

This government had so much opportunity. Of course, it's been challenging at certain times, yet this government had the chance to create security. Just because you have fiscal capacity doesn't mean you spend it on whatever. You think about what safety nets need to be put in place. The OAG has pointed this out. Major banks like Scotiabank have pointed this out. Not all fiscal space or capacity is the same. I submit that what it's based on - a population boom in the middle to tail end of a global pandemic that resulted in increased federal revenue at a time when the entire fiscal framework was focused on stabilizing - that's probably pretty unique, probably not going to last, and unlikely to be replicable. That was the start of this government creating a chaotic fiscal environment.

Unless some of the new folks - folks elected in 2024 - think that is new that we're raising concerns about how this government has managed its money, it's not. I have questions dating back to 2021 - November 2021 - to the former Minister of Finance and Treasury Board asking about how we are making sure what we're doing is going to lead us to a more fiscally secure place. In March 2022, I was interested in the March Madness of that year - $150 million in one-off, unbudgeted, unplanned announcements that happened within about a week - and wondering if the Premier would admit that there was no real plan for this but there was just a scattershot rush to spend unexpected surpluses?

[Page 3351]

I can go through a couple other things to lay the groundwork that we - often I, on behalf of the NDP - have been asking questions about this government's spending. Later in 2022, I was concerned because I was worried that what was being tabled didn't quite make sense. It didn't account for the expected inflation rates at the time, so I asked the minister: Is this going to keep the lights on?

If, at some point, I find something from the minister that I want to share with you all, I will find that, but I will table all of these.

I asked the minister about the financial plans. I stated in March of that year - that would have been 2022 - that in that financial plan, the one that I did ask questions about at the time, there was a belief that inflation would go down and prices would become normalized and fall. I'll table that.

Eight months later, we know the exact opposite has happened. Many analysts in the federal Ministry of Finance anticipated a recession, for instance, at the start of 2023. When I inquired about these types of concerns, that the population growth would not continue, and thus our increased revenues would not continue, and when I used words like "recession" - I think I also used "austerity" - the former Minister of Finance and Treasury Board would quite honestly mock my questions. The good times were rolling in Nova Scotia, and what did we have to worry about?

At a certain point, we started to figure out that not only was the budget that had been set out concerning, but that at the end of that fiscal year, I think it was $1.7 billion in out-of-budget spending. I'm happy to go back and revisit what is fairly familiar territory. I also debated that on the floor of the House.

It's true that the Finance Act was revised in 2010. It was a huge revision. I was at the Department of Finance and Treasury Board at the time. Lots needed to be fixed. Often that happens. You have a piece of government legislation, and it gets outdated or so many things are added into it that it doesn't make sense anymore. It's a huge undertaking.

At that time, it didn't propose the current process we have for special warrants and for additional appropriations - for out-of-budget spending. When government has an urgent need or a new need to spend, it proposes a process for that. It's true that it does not propose returning to the House. From 2022 onward, we have been asking questions about this out-of-budget spending.

The simple fact was that it didn't make sense to me how you could have a budgeting process that should involve all government departments, that ministers should all be aware of what's happening in their department and what they're putting forward, and that becomes your annual budget. This is thing that we expect governments and other organizations to do. You present your budget for the year.

[Page 3352]

Never have we seen a government spend out of budget at the rate of this government. I know that spending is available as orders in council. I would welcome anybody who hasn't had a look at those to go find them. They're a bit tricky to find, but you can find them. They're not that accessible to the public. Go through 2021, 2022, and 2023. They were vague, they were large sums of money, and in no way did they make any sense in terms of what the spirit of the Finance Act asked for in terms of being new or necessary spending.

Like the Auditor General, we've been calling for the government to commit to a more transparent process, the likes of which we see in other provinces and territories, where governments can still make the necessary expenditures, in a unique situation they can still respond to crises but then those additional appropriations come back to the House.

One of the things I'm worried about when we have 13 percent of our budget going out the door without being looked at in the Legislature is actually who else is getting a chance to look at the combined spending that comes through four quarters a year and what it really means.

We are sitting here in the House debating a budget where we want to understand what the collective impact is. What is in this budget, what does it do; if there are some changes here, what does it mean over here? A lot of this requires really detailed analysis and collaboration. It has been clear thus far that ministers are not aware of what was in the budget, that ministers are really not aware of what's happening for their own departments and they certainly in other departments that might affect their mandate or the carrying out of their mandate. Maybe it's not in their mandate because it is a program in another department's mandate. But, at the same time, when you have responsibility for the Department of Mental Health and Addictions, the Department of African Nova Scotian Affairs, or the Department of Seniors and Long-term Care, obviously detrimental decisions in other areas are going to affect your ability to deliver on your mandate. At the very least, decisions, you should understand their impact and plan accordingly. There should be communication, collaboration. That's not what we're seeing from this budget.

As I said along the way, the Office of the Auditor General and I and others have expressed their concern about the out-of-budget spending, particularly in terms of what results it was getting for Nova Scotians. I will take you back to the 2024 report from the Auditor General that looked at the value of over-budget spending. The office chose a random selection - I think it was about 18 percent of that year's allocations - and looked. I have tabled this in the House before. If you haven't looked at it, if you weren't a member at that time I really encourage you to have a look at that report. All of the $432.7 million that was randomly sampled was spent prematurely, so none of the proponents actually needed the money before April 1^st. None of that was an emergency at all.

None of the decisions had value-for-money considerations evident in any of the decision documents. All of the $432.7 million of spending proposals went through an expedited approval process. Contracts were weak. There was never any provision in any of them to return money to the province if it was unspent.

[Page 3353]

Let me just go back. We're talking about proponents and doing important work. EfficiencyOne is one who was already sitting on a whole bunch of program money. Then we gave them more program money that they did not need in that fiscal year. Just to be clear, they did not need it. I think EfficiencyOne might have, because of their other work, had this agreement around what happened if they didn't spend the money. No other contract did. So they're like, "Hey, university X, Y, or Z, we'd like you to do this thing. We're going to give you $34 million - you don't do this thing yet, it's not clear when you're going to be able to do this thing, but don't worry, you take the $34 million, you get the interest on it and if you don't manage to do what you said you were going to do, maybe give us a call. But we're not going to write down anything about it."

I think this is an irresponsible way to manage money - to manage the public purse. That was just a sample. Certainly it would be interesting to have the Office of the Auditor General go back through a number of the other out-of-budget spending.

I have a real-life example or a current example. We were given the Summary of Additional Appropriations for February 2026, and in that, there was $28.0 million related to digitizing geoscience assets. As we were in Estimates, I took the chance to ask the Minister of Natural Resources about this expenditure.

[6:15 p.m.]

Why did this expenditure have to happen in February? Why couldn't it wait for April 1^st and be part of the global budget that we're looking at for the Department of Natural Resources? I asked the minister if, in fact, it was going to be expended and off the Province's books by the end of March, and I asked the minister if there was agreement behind this. I can grab the transcripts, but there were no direct answers, so I can't tell you. I understand it has something to do with the federal program, and it was probably good things to do. I'm sorry, but this is all part of talking about how we got to where we're getting to.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. That's fair, but we're supposed to be talking about the Act. I can name the 100 things in this Act - well, it's only like, 20 - but we have to talk about the actual bill. There's room for some berth, but we're now four and a half minutes in.

The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : This is an example of where it's not clear why this expenditure happened when it did and why it's not part of the overall analysis done in the department. Thus, why is it spent in this current fiscal year, which will end?

[Page 3354]

I argue that it's not going to be used. It's not going to be expended by March 31^st. That defies credibility. That defies the imagination. If we're handing over $28 million right now to the federal government, there should be a contract in place that the minister can table to show why we would have to do that. That's not what was revealed in Estimates. I don't know if there'll be any effort to correct this. I have some things to table, so I'll hand those forward.

This government is setting a lot of records. They're not the kind of records that you want to set. It's the largest out-of-budget spending and percentage without legislative oversight in our province's history, the largest in-year deficit in our province's history, and coming right up, because of how the government has mismanaged what was available to them to make what we would call investments in Nova Scotians, the largest debt-servicing costs ever in the history of the province - the largest net debt. We have a number of records coming out of the fiscal management of this province, and people are starting to notice, but it's not the way we want to be noticed.

We know that S&P did an out-of-cycle review, based on the deficit and the December fiscal update, and has downgraded our credit and put us on negative outlook. Currently, there are only two provinces on negative outlook. Everyone else is stable or positive, so that suggests to me that we're doing a bit worse than the rest.

I also went and had a look at Morningstar DBRS. Maybe you had a look. They issued an initial response to the budget. This is not something that is being shared across the country. What they said was - I'll table that - "Nova Scotia's deficit is likely to be the widest among all provinces on a Morningstar DBRS-adjusted basis." Basically, our deficit is going to be the largest, based on what our revenue-generating capacity is. It's the biggest debt is what I would translate that as, and I will table that.

Then, I went and looked at the Fraser Institute, which - it's rare in my life. They've been around for a long time, and I haven't been following them. It's a conservative think tank, so let's go see what they are saying about Nova Scotia. On February 11^th, they issued a notice that said: "Nova Scotia government must tackle eye-watering deficit." On February 24^th: "Nova Scotia government talks about change but delivers familiar budget with huge deficit." I'm just going to read some quotes. They're three-minute reads, folks. You can go read them. There are other things talking about our fiscal capacity and fiscal management on the website. It won't take you too long.

[T]his approach is largely more of the same from the Houston government. . . First, there's no plan for a balanced budget. And the government projects three additional large deficits and much more debt each year until 2029/30. Debt will increase by approximately 50 per cent between 2025/26 and 2029/30, and will grow rapidly as a share of the economy - a clear sign of unsustainable finances.

[Page 3355]

I am directly quoting, just so everybody knows.

This is a costly approach for Nova Scotians. Because of the ongoing deficits and increases to debt, debt interest costs will exceed $1 billion for the first time. . . debt costs will increase to nearly $1.5 billion by 2029/30. . . the premier has increased spending at every turn . . . A changing fiscal picture does not absolve the government of the duty to responsibly manage provincial finances.

We had COVID-19, we had supply chain, we had inflation, Russia invaded Ukraine, and everything else that we know is happening out there in the world. It is creating great uncertainty, but it is still the responsibility of this government to plan. They also said that this budget actually puts off most of the heavy lifting for the future. I'll table those two things from the Fraser Institute.

If you look in the government's budget at the multi-year fiscal stability plan. I actually just think that's a funny name, because it's not about fiscal stability. I just call it something else. If you look at that, it says: "Total Target Reductions". The budget for this year, the total target reductions were $304 million. That doubles for next year to $622 million. Then in 2028-29, $756.8 million, and in 2029-30, $914.3 million. I can table that.

I think that when we look at those numbers, along with continued deficits, a growing debt, a worsening net debt to GDP ratio, all of the indicators are really negative. I also think what a mess this has been in a first year of trying to think about - it's not really called expenditure growth. I think it must be really confusing for people, because on one hand, some people are being told we can't afford it, we can't do it, we can't do it all, and then at the same time, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board keeps talking about this being a spending budget. I think this must be very confusing for folks, to be really blunt.

I think it's also a harsh way to communicate cruel cuts. I don't know how you can brag about a spending budget when people are losing their jobs and communities. We are learning every day - communities are telling us more and more about how this budget is going to impact them.

In the fall, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board kind of announced a spending review process. That spending review process was not clear. I will say that I had the honour, the privilege to work on a number of government spending reviews. I worked on the first Harper government spending review whenever that was, 2006-07. This idea that government spends, spends, spends and then oops, of course, or something changes, this happens, and things do happen. There are external economic shocks, absolutely.

[Page 3356]

In fact, there's a great document called Canada's Federal Spending Reviews: 50 Years of Facts, Figures, and Lessons. When I had a look at that, it did remind me of some questions that quite honestly, I wanted to ask of the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board in the fall, like, how this is being done. I know from having been assigned these, what some of the best practices are. One of those things is that the messaging is super clear - that people are mandated to work across departments in their various sector areas so that there is an understanding of what's happening.

You look at things like: Is this still the responsibility of this level of government or is this another level of government? Then you look at things like: Do we have value for money? What's our data? So if we're looking at programs that we want to see what's working, what needs changes, of course, government programs might often need changes at various points, but I would say that as far as being shared with us, as far as the OAG has found, there's been very little . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. The bill is about fairly concrete measures. I have them all here: Assessment Act, Community Easements Act, Conservation Easements Act, Crown Lands Act, Forests Act, Gaming Control Act, Income Tax Act, Insurance Act. It's not about the general budget so we have to talk about the things that are in this bill that was introduced by the minister, and it's about 25 minutes in.

The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : I appreciate that. Don't worry, I'll talk about the Acts as well and the particular composition. I'm well aware of what's in the bill actually, thank you, but I am ready to talk about those specific aspects. I'm ready to talk about those specific aspects because this was kind of, I mean - the cuts are all here, but there are a whole bunch of very concerning things in this FMA.

We have another omnibus bill - 20 Acts. Just so we're all on the same page, the Appropriations bill that comes forward is built from all the resolutions that we consider in Estimates and the resolutions of sums of money put forward for departments that maybe don't sit in Estimates, and then the FMA was supposed to activate the budget. The FMA - things like Income Tax Act, Revenue Act. But what's hiding in here, which has become the tradition of this government, is a whole bunch of other stuff. So this . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

HON. KENT SMITH » : Rising on a point of order. I don't think there is anything hiding in the budget, Speaker.

THE SPEAKER « » : I'm dismissing the point of order. It wasn't against a member or anyone in this thing.

[Page 3357]

The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Thank you, Speaker. Within this bill, there's probably the makings of an agricultural policy bill. Now, I would say there are some other things that we would want to see in that, of course, but they're between a number of the Acts. There are changes to the Conservation Easements Act and Community Easements Act. I understand from the minister, as I understood from stakeholders outside of the House, that there will be changes. I would really implore the minister to bring those changes forward now so that, as part of our deliberations here, as part of Public Bills, people are aware of what is being said.

Stakeholders understand that these changes to the easement Acts, both of them, will be changed. My concern is that maybe it will just be dealt with in regulations, so I am putting out a marker there that even if - I'm not sure who can amend at second reading, but that's okay. You can still share the information. It's a crazy new thing, in terms of sharing information, so that we all have the right information that we're looking at.

[6:30 p.m.]

The other part - there's stuff about the Meat Inspection Act in the Financial Measures bill. I won't use the word that I used before. (Laughter) I won't say that. If you were someone who has some beef cattle, or you own an abattoir, you wouldn't necessarily think that the Financial Measures Act had anything to do with you. Now, you could know if there was consultation done by this government on the different provisions, but there isn't. There isn't consultation, so lots of folks are left not necessarily knowing what's happening, especially - we voted against extending House hours tomorrow night.

Listen, we're happy to be here. We're happy to be here on a set calendar for this Legislature. We're happy to be here and do the work. I don't think we should be debating bills that are public bills - they're named public bills - in the middle of the night, outside of the media cycle and outside of when we would ever expect stakeholders to want to be sitting here and listening. Part of that is that this government's gotten good at moving things quickly. Things end up on the floor of the Legislature and are debated and passed before anybody who's affected has a chance to know about it.

We believe in talking to the Nova Scotians who are affected by the work we do in the Legislature. When I get the FMA, and it has 20 Acts, then I'm not afraid to undertake the work of government and start doing some consultation. Government could do this consultation ahead of time. Government could do better communication with stakeholders, with everybody, with all Nova Scotians, about the legislation - any legislation but particularly this legislation because this enacts the budget. We can't debate the Appropriations bill. We can go to Estimates and ask questions, but this is where we want to see the budget enacted.

[Page 3358]

We're up for the challenge. Don't doubt us over here. It does mean that, along with trying to understand the biggest deficit in years, the largest net debt, a worsening net debt-to-GDP ratio, and trying to understand the financial basis for the budget, we're also running around saying, "Hey, abattoirs, what do you think of this?" "Hey, butcher, what do you think of this?" That's on one small piece of the bill.

There's also a Natural Resources policy in here - and not hiding in here - under the Crown Lands Act. It extends the licensing power of the minister from two years to five to ten years. Some people would be concerned about what that means for areas like the Ingram River Wilderness Area. That is an area of shared resources. There is high-production forestry happening right now, but if the minister is able to give a 10-year vision, how does that affect the community's ability to also think about protecting and saving that space, for instance?

I have received many angry emails - I'm assuming others have too - about the proposed changes in the Forests Act. Basically, how people are understanding this - and again, I would invite the minister responsible to correct any errors I make - what people understand is that not only if you have a commercial carbon sequestration project on your site, but if you have land and you're not actively harvesting it - for forestry, just to be clear - then in fact you're going to pay hundreds of percent more in taxes.

Basically the government is going to penalize a landowner in Nova Scotia for doing what they want with their property. Yet at the same time we understand that this government keeps talking about rural jobs, the rural economy, rural livelihoods. I would submit that Nova Scotians who own land, who own a woodlot - there's a family woodlot down in Queens County that folks have not taken a lot out of, frankly over generations, because they value it being there and available for the future, so it has not been really forested.

I have a woodlot in the Valley and I am not currently foresting it. It's an amazing piece of land that actually has red spruce on the floor of the Valley, which is incredibly rare. I think, the family on the South Shore thinks they should be able to manage their pieces of property the way they want to. In particular it seems that what is being punished here is anything other than high-production forestry. What I would submit is that people are going to face increased taxes on small family woodlots and, for whatever reason, they are not going to be ready to develop those woodlots to take a lot of wood for commercial purposes out of there.

It's going to become really expensive to keep paying taxes on something they are trying to protect and that government is fundamentally overreaching. I would just recall to the previous Financial Measures (2025) Act of last year which also extended government's ability to access your land or to explore on your land, even the top six inches, depending on the particular economic interests.

[Page 3359]

Again, last year people were aware of, for instance, the overturning of the uranium ban that was well known in communities. People did not know about the changes that were brought forward that changed how their land could be - how government could come on the land, they could access it, they could also explore the top six inches of soil without the landlord's permission. We also removed, I think, a number of other ways, made it more difficult for, in a situation where there's a prospector who wants to access your land for something and you don't want them to access it, now gives a lot more control to government, in fact, to mandate that access. We had that happen in Yarmouth County last year.

That's last year. I'm just saying what we have more of a natural resources bill that is altering how rural Nova Scotia works, like how rural Nova Scotia property owners can own and manage their property. I think that's very concerning. I don't think at first blush that woodlot owners knew they had to read the Financial Measures (2026) Act because it could fundamentally alter their tax bill for the year. If they are looking at carbon sequestration projects, it could really dampen the development of that. Basically these changes - if it's not in high-production forestry, people are going to be taxed more. I don't think that's what Nova Scotians signed up for. I don't think that's what we expect from our government.

The Mineral Resources Act, the Minister in his opening comments explained it in a way that's different from how I understand it. I looked at this with stakeholders, and what I understand it does, under the Mineral Resources Act, is that any land that contains gypsum becomes Crown land. So, it's essentially expropriated by government. Again, I don't know that people in rural Nova Scotia know that this is what's being debated in this House.

Because there hasn't been consultation, there hasn't been outreach. We're hiding natural resources policy, and environment policy, I would say, in the Financial Measures (2026) Act. And I would say, as well, that there are some gypsum deposits which are currently in community easement or land trusts. I didn't spend a lot of time on the Conservation Easements Act. Just let me pull up some of the letters I've received about this.

I've received some emails from folks who, in one case it was part of a legacy, so when the partner of this relationship passed away, they worked with the Nova Scotia Nature Trust to protect a part of Nova Scotia that they loved. They owned it. They wanted to give it away. They wanted to protect it in perpetuity. So, people who enter into land trusts understand that the law provides for that protection in perpetuity.

We can think about the various announcements from the Nova Scotia Nature Trust, the islands up on the Eastern Shore. There are just so many beautiful places that have been perpetually protected, and that those who entered into those agreements, and all Nova Scotians, assumed were there and protected. The current proposed changes remove that as a guarantee.

[Page 3360]

As I understand it, under the Acts as they currently exist, easements may only be terminated by:

(1) an agreement between the holder of the easement and the landowner.

(2) if the holder of the agreement ceased to exist, and neither the Province nor any other eligible body under the Act, has taken over the easement within their respective 90-day option periods.

So, under the Act, donors of perpetual conservation easements to a trust have every reasonable expectation that their donative intent will be carried out in perpetuity. Indeed, in my experience with these, one of the concerns most frequently expressed by landowners who want to donate to easements is, what happens if that particular trust ceases to exist? At this point, there is the provision for other trusts.

The Nova Scotia Nature Trust I hope isn't going anywhere, although I don't know how these Act changes will affect their sustainability. Should the Nova Scotia Nature Trust, for some reason, not be able to continue their functions, there would be other folks in the province who are recognized as holders as land trust, and the in-perpetuity responsibilities of protecting that land could be passed over to them.

The other thing that happens in both the Conservation Easements Act and the Community Easements Act, as proposed in the FMA, is this concept of undue hardship. This basically means that - and that's not defined, so I would just say that that's not defined, but, any court which might authorize termination of a conservation easement based on extreme hardship, would be required to conditional termination upon the determining or paying full compensation.

Basically, it opens up this idea of extreme hardship, that someone could come and say, "This island in front of my home in St. Margarets Bay has been protected. It has been donated to the Nova Scotia Nature Trust, but actually, I think that I could build a really great spa, so I have this plan. By not being able to do this, you're causing me extreme hardship. These are the scenarios that people have mapped out to me.

[6:45 p.m.]

This is really an example. I see confused looks from other members. Listen, I didn't go into this budget bill knowing a lot about easement law and land trusts and how they're established. I'm learning. What I guess I would suggest is that we all should understand the implications of everything and every law that we pass.

[Page 3361]

We are legislators. These laws are supposed to be well thought out, useful, not have unintended consequences. These laws that we're passing affect people's lives. They affect people's lives and how they live on their land. Other bills obviously affect people's lives in lots of different ways. For the purposes of this Act, I will not go too far down that road, but you get the idea. If you don't understand this, well we probably should have had some consultation and more explanation.

I went to the bill briefing on this. We went through the 20 Acts of the FMA in the bill briefing in about 25 minutes. That's about a minute an Act, which means that we did not get a very full explanation of anything. Any time that we asked questions - actually I don't know that any questions in that session were able to be answered in the room.

This is complex stuff. It affects how we hold Nova Scotia, how we conceive of Nova Scotia, how lots and lots of Nova Scotians want Nova Scotia to be. All those people who donate land in perpetuity to the Nova Scotia Nature Trust and to other trusts do so because they want that land protected. It's a gift to Nova Scotians.

Most of this land - you can get a charitable receipt and blah, blah, blah, but most of these lands often can be sold for a lot of money. People who donate them to land trusts are saying, "You know what? What's more important than money? What's more important is that this beautiful piece of Nova Scotia is saved forever, for generations to come."

The changes that are proposed in the FMA - why in the FMA? I don't know, but here they are. They put that at risk, put that at serious risk. That goes for both the Community Easements Act and the Conservation Easements Act. There are two Acts.

THE SPEAKER « » : Honourable member, I hate to do this. I just find it very noisy in here, so I ask, if you don't have a mic and if it's not turned on, don't talk.

The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : I'm not going to have time to go through all of the problematic aspects of this bill, so I might just stick on easement Acts for a couple more minutes and then get to my wrap-up.

Bill No. 198 would in two respects significantly impact the ability of a landowner to preserve their land for agricultural, working woodland, wetland, and other open-space values as contemplated by the Act. One is extreme hardship, and it's not defined - assuming it will be defined in regulations, but it can be reasonably implied that it means a severe need for money in the way that hardship is, I guess, recognized in other areas of law. My lawyer friend to the right is nodding, so maybe that's correct. (Laughs) I don't have legal counsel, though, for my own.

Because the conservation easement may now be terminated without the agreement of the eligible body which holds the easement, the donation of the easement may no longer qualify as an unconditional gift, thereby eliminating the right of the donor to deduct the value of the easement as a charitable donation but still leaving the owner with capital gains under the Income Tax Act. This would obviously be grossly unfair and untenable. What I also recognize is that that can all happen over a span of years.

[Page 3362]

The donor voluntarily gave the conservation easement to the eligible body. The termination of the easement at the request of a subsequent owner without consent of the original donor of the easement does a grave injustice to the intent of the donor and provides the terminating owner with an unearned economic benefit of land freed of the easement to alleviate the extreme hardship of the terminating owner.

There's more. That's just on the Easements Act. I'm sure that all of us - actually, maybe not me, but most of us have part of our beautiful constituencies protected by the Nova Scotia Nature Trust or another land trust. We know how important that is to people and how valuable that is to people.

I think that's just one example. If someone is able to rise and explain the Easements Act, that would be great, or if someone is able to rise and explain the changes to the Forests Act, fantastic. Maybe someone could rise and talk about the Mineral Resources Act and the implications for people who might, unbeknownst to them, have gypsum on their land. I didn't even get into the Provincial Parks Act. This expands the ability of others than a Conservation Officer to impound vehicles. This sounds funny, but these are the sorts of things that trip you up in laws. "Vehicles" is not defined.

The bill goes into a long list of new powers for the minister to proscribe permitting fees, access fees. I'm actually just going to open it up to that Act. There are, in fact, 20 Acts in here. It's a big read, and I hope that if you're a member of this House of Assembly and you're going to vote on this bill, that you've read this bill, and that you understand the changes to all 20 Acts. That is your responsibility as a legislator. Nova Scotians expect no less than we understand the bills that we're talking about and passing into law.

Under the Provincial Parks Act, the minister may establish and charge fees for entrance into provincial parks and park reserves of persons, vehicles, or vessels; fees for the use of provincial parks and park reserves or of any facilities or services in provincial parks and park reserves. This is where is gets a little interesting. I would love to know more what the thinking is, and I think Nova Scotians would too: "fees and rentals for any licence, permit or lease, any use of land, buildings, installations or facilities, or any other right issued, made or given in respect of a provincial park or park reserve."

I guess at its best, that means the minister can approve a canteen at Dollar Lake next summer, for instance, or at worst, the minister could approve a major development in a provincial park without any need to go to public consultation. It rests with the minister. It's deeply concerning.

[Page 3363]

This bill includes 20 complex Acts. There are 20 pages in here on the Assessment Act. There is a Securities Act change in here. It just goes on and on. I would submit that the results that we're seeing of this bill as it ripples across Nova Scotia, and the lack of engagement from ministers and government MLAs on the content of this bill - Speaker, I move this bill be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following: Bill No. 198, the Financial Measures Act, be not now read a second time, but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn for the reasons I have stated in my speech.

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

KENDRA COOMBES « » : I want to confirm that this is the motion I'll now be speaking to that my colleague has just put forward.

THE SPEAKER « » : Okay. The rule is if nobody gets up to speak, then we have to do it. Two people got up to speak, so is the House ready for the question? (Interruption) Oh, no?

The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier.

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Speaker, I just wanted to have it confirmed that I was speaking to the motion that my colleague just put on the table. So it is confirmed now, and I'll be taking it away.

For anyone who may be confused at this moment of what just occurred, we feel that this bill is so bad - a terrible, terrible bill - that we need to take it out of second reading and take it off the order paper. That is how strongly we feel about the budget. It is how strongly we feel about the FMA, which is a part of said budget.

There are a lot of bad things in this bill, and I will go through some of them as time permits. Nova Scotians really do expect - I shouldn't say they expect it now, considering all the cuts this government is making to programs that help people's lives - but, when they voted this government in, they expected that this government was there to make their lives better. This budget will not make a difference on the biggest issues they face, like the high costs of housing and massive power bills.

This budget cuts jobs and programs that Nova Scotians rely on, with no plan to get back to balance. This PC government is making Nova Scotians pay for this government's financial mismanagement and is pushing through a massive Financial Measures Act that tackles everything from forestry to provisions on meat inspection.

Thousands of public sector jobs are being cut this year, and this government plans to cut the same number each year, over the next three years. While this government is expecting Nova Scotians to pay the price for their overspending, they are padding the salary of their backbench MLAs and significantly expanding their ministerial budgets, to hire political and public-relations staff. Good going.

[Page 3364]

Rather than having the backs of Nova Scotians in tough times, this government is slashing funding to various community organizations. We've heard through them. In my area, there are Caper Base, Horizon Achievement Centre, Haley Street Society, just to name a few. These are day programs for people with disabilities - hitting the most vulnerable, punching down because of their financial mismanagement.

Innocent Nova Scotians have to suffer because this government can't handle their money. Mental health care has to suffer because this government can't handle their money. Early childhood education has to suffer because this government can't handle their money. Programs for young people have to suffer because this government can't handle their money. Tourism jobs have to suffer because this government can't manage their money. Rural public transit services. I heard a minister bemoan the fact that a bus doesn't come towards his constituency. Cutting the public transit service is not going to help that, Speaker - just a little secret between you and me.

[7:00 p.m.]

Municipal infrastructure funding is going to suffer. This government, in another bill, wants to override the HRM. My guess is that eventually they'll get around to the CBRM and all the other smaller municipalities and towns. Then on the other hand, they're cutting all the different funding that municipalities rely on to do the job of infrastructure, accessibility, wastewater, and sidewalks.

Slashing supports for people on income assistance: A dental program just came in, and now they're slashing it - which is an important program. Do you know how many people end up in our emergency rooms with an abscess in their teeth? True story: They've come through my offices.

The cuts to domestic courts: We declared intimate partner violence an epidemic in this province, and this government's response was to cut the Domestic Violence Courts. That sounds on brand for the PC government. It's quite a lot of PC math happening, which they're not very good at. Their finances are a mess, and it's going to be Nova Scotians who pay for that. Some of Nova Scotia's most vulnerable populations are going to pay for that, so kudos.

I want to get into some of the parts of this bill, and I'm probably going to jump around a little.

First, let's talk about what some media has had to say about this. I'm going to get this out. There we are. This was an op-ed. It's not an op-ed - I'm sorry. This is a news release from the CCPA. It says:

[Page 3365]

Nova Scotia tabled its 2026-27 budget [. . .] today. The lack of significant evidence-based investment at the level needed in income supports, affordable housing, and public child care, combined with cuts to public sector jobs and services, risks making life more expensive for Nova Scotians.

The suggestion that the government can make cuts without Nova Scotians feeling the impact is not realistic; the government is Nova Scotians providing services, caring for those who are ill, caring for our parents and grandparents, educating our children, creating art, protecting and sharing our history, staffing our libraries, and supporting community members across the province to have a better quality of life. They are planning for five per cent cuts in the civil service, and three per cent cuts for the broader public sector each year for the next four years; cuts do not create prosperity, and their analysis of the lack of revenue growth that will come from this shows the effect over time.

Public services are social and economic infrastructure. When they are weakened:

·         families pay more out of pocket;

·         local economies lose good jobs;

·         pressures increase in health care and housing, and;

·         long-term costs to government rise.

We have seen that, Speaker.

Nova Scotia is facing a significant deficit, but the province remains in relatively strong fiscal health, if they continue to invest in what people need. For example, the additional $3 billion added to debt for long-term care homes that we do not own, is not the kind of investment that is needed. Too many of these long-term care homes are for-profit, and could be at risk of being sold for the benefit of multinational corporations, while we add their loans to the public debt.

That could be true, Speaker. We've seen it before.

The government is also signalling a greater reliance on natural resource expansion as the "path to prosperity."

[Page 3366]

Resource development can play a role in the economy, but it cannot substitute for the broad-based growth that comes from investing in housing, care, education, and community infrastructure. Jurisdictions that rely heavily on resource extraction often experience greater volatility and less inclusive growth. The risks to the environment and to our climate are too costly.

I have received several letters regarding issues and concerns around natural resources, so let's take a look at some of those that affect natural resources in this FMA. This amendment to which I'm speaking - this motion that I'm speaking on - is us saying that this budget is a bad budget and needs to be rethought. This is one of those reasons:

Part II, Community Easements Act, Clause 52, Subsections 13(3) to (9) of Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2012, the Community Easements Act, are repealed and the following subsections substituted:

(3) A community easement may be terminated by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia on application by

(a) the owner, if the Court is of the opinion that continuation of the community easement would produce a severe hardship for the owner.

Now, there is no definition of what that means, "severe hardship." That's one issue here. I'll go on:

(b) the owner, when the easement holder ceases to exist.

(4) Where an order is made pursuant to subsection (3), the owner shall file the order with the appropriate registry of deeds and send a copy to the Minister.

(5) When an easement holder ceases to exist and the owner wishes to make an application under clause (3)(b), the owner shall give ninety days' notice in writing to the Minister of the owner's intention to make the application, and the Minister may elect to assume the obligations of the easement holder and accept the rights and privileges respecting the community easement.

(6) Where the Minister elects under subsection (5) to assume the obligations of the easement holder and accept the rights and privileges respecting the community easement, the Minister shall, within the period referred to in subsection (5),

[Page 3367]

(a)   notify the owner in writing; and

(b) file the election with the appropriate registry of deeds.

(7) Where, in accordance with clause (6)(a), the Minister notifies the owner that the Minister has elected to assume the obligations of the easement holder and accept the rights and privileges respecting the community easement, an application under clause (3)(b) may not be made by owner and any such application, if made, is deemed discontinued.

(8) Upon the Minister's compliance with subsection (6), the Crown in right of the Province is the holder of the community easement.

Speaker, what that clause does is permit the termination by the Supreme Court of Canada of a community easement where its continuation would produce severe hardship of the landowner and simplify the process when an easement holder ceases to exist. In effect, what the PC government is choosing to do here in this part of the bill is to make it easier for landowners to terminate community and conservation - I forgot the conservation part.

I didn't get there, but easements on protected land that they own in two ways. It introduces a new right for the landowner to directly apply to the Supreme Court for the termination if they can demonstrate severe hardship, and as I said before, it is unclear what that severe hardship could mean.

There's a similar provision that currently only exists in New Brunswick and Saskatchewan. In Alberta, the minister can terminate an easement if they believe it to be in the public interest. No other province has a similar rule. Previously, there was a legislated process where an easement holder ceased to exist. Notices went out to those eligible to take over the easement instead and gave them the opportunity to take it over. Then, if no one took it over, the minister and the Crown could take over that easement. If the minister did not want to take it over, it could be terminated.

I have read this trying to make sense of it; my entire caucus actually has read this and we all try to make sense of it and what it comes down to - or at least what I believe it comes down to - is that under this amendment no notice to eligible organizations is now sent out if the easement holder ceases to exist, only the minister.

Eligible organizations include municipalities, First Nations bands, and non-profits. It said if the minister does not elect to take on the easement themselves within 90 days, it is terminated. This makes it harder for easements to stay protected. Over time, as those who have attempted to take over them will not be notified, they will be terminated when the holder ceases to exist and it comes to my thoughts that there's a reason for this, there's a reason that the PC government has put this in.

[Page 3368]

Now I don't know if any of you have been watching the news over the past several years or the past several months, I should say, but there is Dartmouth Cove infilling. Is that what this is about? Is it about other lands that the government wants to do something on that are protected lands? It's very curious - extremely curious - as to why the government wants to expediate getting rid of easements.

The other thing I don't understand is what they have against protected land and I still don't understand what a definition for severe hardship is. Is that because there's protected land and somebody wants to build on it? Does that make it a severe hardship? If I were Al Borland, I would say, "I don't think so." That's showing my age, isn't it?

[7:15 p.m.]

I do wonder about that concept, Speaker. I do wonder if this is because this government wants to do certain things, on certain protected lands, that they know people will be upset about. If they can really move through these types of easement processes without notification to community or organizations that might have a vested interest, they could do that.

I'm going to skip around here. Let's go the Crown Lands Act. Clause 56 reads:

Subsection 31(3) of Chapter 114 of the Revised Statutes, 1989, the Crown Lands Act, is repealed and the following subsections substituted:

(3) Except with the approval of the Governor in Council, no licence issued pursuant to this Section shall be granted for a longer period than five years or renewed for a longer period than five years at any one time.

(4) No licence issued pursuant to this Section shall be granted for a longer period than ten years or renewed for a longer period than ten years at any one time.

What this basically says is that the Crown Lands Act is to provide that the Minister of Natural Resources may grant or renew timber and resource licences for up to five years without Governor in Council's approval or 10 years with Governor in Council's approval.

This is different than, I believe, our current one, which I believe is two years. Again, I'm curious to know why we are giving the minister that much power without having to go back to Governor in Council. I would be happy to have the minister fully explain that in their response.

[Page 3369]

Then there's this little ditty in Clause 57. In Section 32 of Chapter 114, this gets amended:

(1) In this Section, "a person who owns or operates a wood-processing facility" means either of the following:

(a) a sole proprietorship, corporation, general partnership or limited partnership that owns or operates a wood-processing facility as part of its core operations;

(b) a corporation where, as part of the corporation's core operations, one or more of its shareholders owns or operates a wood-processing facility.

My understanding of this is that we're just adding a definition to a person who owns and operates a wood-processing facility. Definitions are great. I go back to hardship, severe hardship. You put a definition in here for a person who owns or operates a wood-processing facility, yet we don't put a definition for severe hardship in the other part of this bill.

Then we get to Clause 58. I think what I'm going to do is read some of this. Actually, I think my colleague did. What I'm going to do is explain it.

This allows a conservation officer or other person appointed by the minister - question: Who is the other person appointed by the minister? - to cause vehicles found on provincial Crown land "in violation of the Act or the regulations to be removed and impounded," and it "outlines parameters and rules relating to removal and impoundment."

The minister stated I think in Estimates - and I'm just going to summarize my understanding of what the minister said - that people shouldn't be parking illegally and blocking the area onto Crown land. My question becomes: Do we mean someone who may have parked their car, wandered off, and forgotten about it for a little while, or are we talking about the fact that people are protesting against clear-cutting, which relates to the Forests Act? Is it regarding the fact that someone doesn't have a place to live and has decided to park their only home there for a safe place to be and now we're going to impound them, or is it mostly because of protesters?

I am of the belief that it is because of protesters. It's another way to try to stop people from protesting the clear-cutting that can occur in forests. It is another way to stop people from gathering in a spot for a number of types of protests. Again, is it because someone blocked the road and other vehicles have to get out the driveway, whatever entrance into the park, and other people have to get out? That's understandable, if you couldn't find the person. That's understandable. There are a bunch of people at the park and someone parks and blocks the whole entrance and other people need to get out - makes sense. I don't know if that's what this part of the clause is about.

[Page 3370]

Again, there doesn't seem to be a definition of what a vehicle is. We added a definition just before that to a person who owns and operates a wood-processing facility, but again, also where it counts, no definitions have been added.

As you know, there have been cuts within the Department of Natural Resources. What it was called by this PC government was a restructuring. I have received emails about this. A lot of people talked about the drastic restructuring and the cuts to the Department of Natural Resources and raised serious concerns about how effectively our natural resources, our forests, our wildlife, our rural communities,

will be protected moving forward. These changes create the clear impression that the department's mandate is shifting away from stewardship and toward facilitating accelerated resource extraction. History shows that aggressive extractive approaches do not deliver lasting economic stability, environmental sustainability, biodiversity protection, or healthy forest ecosystems. When oversight and conservation functions are weakened, the long-term environmental and financial costs are borne by the public.

A strong Department of Natural Resources should be grounded in science, transparency, and sustainable land management. Instead, many residents are concerned that these decisions lack a clear scientific foundation, long-term vision, and meaningful public accountability. Weakening environmental oversight while appearing to prioritize short-term industrial interests undermines public trust and puts Nova Scotia's natural heritage at risk.

That was from a constituent from Cape Breton East who sent that to me. I will table it.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. There was an article from earlier that needs to be tabled. I'm trying to keep on everyone to table things as they are done speaking. Okay? Thank you.

The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier.

KENDRA COOMBES « » : I have another - I'm going to summarize this one because there's a lot in here.

[Page 3371]

One constituent of mine wrote to me talking about this emerging restructuring of the Department of Natural Resources, the diminished independent wildlife science expertise and weakened stewardship, and the enforcement that could be a profound mistake with long-term consequences. They were gravely concerned that DNR has potentially flipped from a mission of protecting our wildlife and natural resources to one that's focused on keeping the public out while letting big businesses in to carve out what they want for their industries and shareholders.

I understand that concern. It brings me to the Forests Act. From the Forests Act - what the Forests Act does in this is it ensures "that preferential tax rates are only provided to active forestry properties; land used as carbon sinks will need to be reported and would be taxed at a different rate if not actively contributing to the forestry sector."

This means that if somebody has a forested area - a woodland lot - they're now going to be punished for ensuring the safety of their forest and for ensuring the protection of their woodland lot because they're not cutting it.

We're supposed to be protecting as much land and forest as we possibly can - and our waterways. That is the mandate, and yet this Forests Act - Part V of the FMA - does the opposite. It does the opposite of what we're mandated to do. I'm not surprised because this government seems to like to do the opposite of what we're supposed to be doing - right hand and left hand not knowing what the other is doing, it seems.

[7:30 p.m.]

I don't understand it. I don't understand how, when we're supposed to be protecting our forests, our woodlands, and our wood lots, this government - not we, I don't want any part of it, I'm not here for that - this PC government is saying that if you don't cut, you're going to be taxed. Make that make sense. I mean, really, make it make sense. To create a tax as an incentive for protected land to revert to being in active forestry use and for property taxes on woodlot owners using their land for conservation purposes could go up.

For that clause alone, this Act should not be read for a second time because it flies in the face - it flies in all common sense of what the mandate is. Our mandate is to protect our waterways and our land and have so much of it protected I think by 2030. We're falling short and we're about to fall even shorter if we have everybody going and hacking at their woodlots just so that they don't have to pay an extra tax.

This government is taxing people for being good environmentalists. This government is punishing people for conservation. This government is punishing people because of how they choose - the people who own the land, the woodlot - how they choose and what they choose to do on their land. Now, imagine, Speaker, you owned a woodlot. Imagine that you were doing your best to protect your land, and now the government is going to punish you for doing so. I'm at a loss for words. I read that and I couldn't believe what I was reading because it sounded that ridiculous to me.

[Page 3372]

This government says that they want to do good forestry, smart forestry, and yet in the FMA, if you do proper conservation, you're going to be punished with taxes. If you do what I would consider not the greatest conservation by cutting down your woodlot, don't worry. You get special tax preferential treatment here.

Then, we go on to another way the government has decided to punish people. I'm just going to get this out. That is through EVs. Speaker, I don't know if you this, so I'll let you in on a little secret. There's a tax here. Remember the government said "no tax" - remember the minister said "no taxes" and the Premier said "no taxes"? Well, I just pointed out one tax, to woodlot owners, and now there's the electrical vehicle tax. So I'm trying to figure out what the government has against woodlot owners and conservationists and people who are using electric vehicles. I'm not sure what the electric vehicle did to you - to the members - but it must have been something because they really have it out for them.

There is a tax in this that at the time when Ottawa, our federal counterparts, are incentivizing EV adoption with rebates and charging investments. This PC government is introducing a penalty on owners who choose cleaner vehicles. By cleaner vehicles, I don't mean a clean vehicle like my-kids-don't-live-in-my-car-at-all type of thing, and you're-not-going-to-find-Cheerios type of thing. I mean a cleaner vehicle as in environmentally. As I said before, this government has claimed that there are no new taxes, and there's proof that there are new taxes - the woodlot owners being one, EVs being another.

Many EV owners and observers have described the levy as penalizing people for choosing to reduce emissions, especially those who bought their EVs to lower their carbon footprint. It is a tax on doing the right thing.

Normally, we often tax things that are not the healthiest options. That's why we tax cigarettes - to disincentivize people from smoking. Here we have the opposite, both times. People are trying to do the right thing, and this government is now going to tax them for doing the right thing.

The tax is a flat amount, based solely on the type of vehicle - not how much you actually drive. People who drive very little pay the same as heavy drivers. Speaker, traditional fuel taxes align with usage - the more you drive, the more you pay. This new levy doesn't track actual road use at all.

The government claims that this tax is needed to address road wear and tear. The reality is that heavy trucks and commercial vehicles cause far more pavement damage than the passenger EVs. What's worse is that this government can't make the argument that this tax is needed because EV owners don't pay gasoline tax.

Quickly after the budget came down, there were some articles in the Chronicle Herald, and in there it says that the lifetime costs of EVs in Nova Scotia was already higher than gas costs. The new levy makes it worse.

[Page 3373]

Speaker, Kurt Sampson, executive director of the Electric Vehicle Association of Atlantic Canada, said that if you don't already have an EV and you are thinking of buying one, the levy will probably make you consider it a bit.

Speaker, the imposition is that the provincial $500 biannual levy on electric vehicles was announced by this province in the budget. For most people who already own an EV, the levy, for the most part, won't change the economics of EV ownership. However, it will stop other people from thinking about buying them.

I just don't think it is genuine for this government to say on the one hand, no taxes, and then we find out there is a tax. There's tax for going toward an electric vehicle. There is a tax on woodlot owners. I'm not really sure why.

I said earlier in my comments that I don't know what EVs and woodlots ever did to this government. I'm still wondering what it is. This government also has something against bikes and bike lanes. It has something against rural public transit. All things that work for good and that help reduce carbon footprints seem to be a not-so-great, terrible thing with this government.

The other part of this - while I was reading the bill, my understanding was that this legislation does not actually distinguish between the plug-in hybrids and the regular hybrids. That means that under this legislation, possibly popular car hybrid models like the Toyota Prius, the Corolla, the RAV4, hybrid models like the Honda Civic and the Hyundai Elantra could also face that tax.

Then we get into one of the ones that we have discussed before: the land transfer tax. Under the FMA for the land transfer tax, it would exempt casinos from land transfer taxes. I'm assuming this is related to the harbourfront Halifax casino relocating to Dartmouth Crossing. The Province retains the revenue from the operating casinos through licences given by Gaming Nova Scotia, but the Halifax Casino itself is owned and operated by a private company called Great Canadian Entertainment. According to the provincial press release, "Great Canadian Entertainment will own, operate and maintain the new casino."

This means that a private company will get a special exemption on paying land transfer taxes to the city of Halifax at a time when it is considering deep budget cuts to prevent significant property tax hikes. This bill also exempts all future proposed casinos for all municipal powers over planning and development and subdivisions within the MGA and the HRM. While that might seem not so harmful, it does mean some special treatment.

Then there is the other deed transfer tax - the non-resident deed transfer tax that has reared its lovely head again. I'm hoping that the minister can explain this one to me as well, so I'm going to read it. It's Clause 99 to Clause 101.

[Page 3374]

[7:45 p.m.]

The deed transfer tax does not apply in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations.

5A Where the Administrator has reason to believe an ownership interest in residential property was granted to one or more non-residents, and none of the exemptions prescribed under the regulations are applicable, the Administrator may assess the grantee for

(a) the deed transfer tax;

(b) interest at the prescribed rate; and

(c) a penalty determined in accordance with the regulations, which may not exceed 100% of the tax,

and these amounts become due and payable by the grantee.

5B Where there is more than one grantee, the grantees are jointly and severally liable for the deed transfer tax, the interest and any penalty.

It also says:

(ka) respecting the process for claiming an exemption from the deed transfer tax;

(kb) respecting liability for tax where an exemption ceases to apply;

(kc) respecting assessment of the deed transfer tax;

Speaker, it says regulations. I'm hoping that the minister can explain because this is very unclear. It just says as may be prescribed by regulations - that we are not penalizing Nova Scotians. I say that in terms of a person who lives outside of Nova Scotia who may want to buy a home for a person living in Nova Scotia. Are they going to be hit with this deed transfer tax when they're trying to keep someone in Nova Scotia? I don't know. It's always prescribed in regulations. These are the concerns we have. Almost everything that could be potentially controversial with this government also tends to hide in regulations.

[Page 3375]

Now, Speaker, I go to the Provincial Parks Act. There's a part of the Provincial Parks Act that deals in fees, fees on to parks. The minister in Estimates - it says:

14 The Minister may establish and charge

(a) fees for entrance into provincial parks and park reserves of persons, vehicles or vessels;

(b) fees for the use of provincial parks and park reserves or of any facilities or services in provincial parks and park reserves; and

(c) fees and rentals for any licence, permit or lease, any use of land, buildings, installations or facilities, or any other right issued, made or given in respect of a provincial park or park reserve.

Although the minister assured me in Estimates that this is pertaining to campgrounds, nowhere in this part of the bill does it actually say in provincial campgrounds, or that it relates to only provincial campgrounds. The question becomes, if this was only supposed to be related to provincial campgrounds, why wasn't that stated clearly in the Act? It leaves me to question if there was a potential to start charging people fees to enter provincial parks. I think that is a legitimate concern, Speaker. It absolutely makes no sense if it was only - I want to take the minister at their word. But the Act says something different. The Act doesn't say campgrounds - we understand campgrounds have fees. Anybody who goes into a provincial campground knows that there are fees, but nobody knows going into a provincial park - let's say Dalem Lake in Cape Breton, a beautiful provincial park, or Dominion Beach, another provincial park - that there are not going to be fees potentially added there. If the case was not to add fees to those places, wouldn't it be advisable to make that quite clear when you're making legislation.

Speaker, I don't know about you, but I like my laws clear. I like set rules and knowing what the actual outcomes are going to be. When you have something as vague as this, it is hard not to wonder if the government is leaving itself open for fees for services and the ability to do so.

We've already talked about this part a bit - about where the minister can appoint the conservation officer or another person to cause vehicles found in the provincial parks or park reserves in violation of the Act or the regulations to be removed and impounded. Again, I wonder: Is that because of people who are living rough going into the parks, where they can feel it's safe to be? Is the point to remove them - someone sleeping in their car, someone sleeping in their trailer - is that the point of this, or is the point to try to curb protestors and stop protestors from blocking particular areas that they feel are being harmed?

[Page 3376]

If it's about impeding other vehicles from enjoying the park - other people from going in with their vehicles to enjoy the park - I can understand that, especially if you can't find the person. I can understand that Dominion Beach - you don't want cars blocking the entrances and exits because you want people to be able to go and enjoy the full use of the park. I get that, but I'm not sure how much we've had of that problem. It seems another way of hindering protests.

I've gone through several Acts - still not finished. I know everybody would love to hear me for about two hours, and I would love to entertain that, but I've only gone for a few. What I can tell from what I've seen and read of this bill, here are a few things.

This government - there appears to be an attack on rural Nova Scotia, rural Cape Breton, which doesn't make sense considering most of the PC MLAs are rural MLAs, yet I'm seeing tons of rural cuts and issues within the rural community.

I didn't even get to gypsum. I didn't even get to the fact that potentially your land could no longer be your land because of some mineral. That you could have your home built on land and guess what? Oops, they found a mineral and guess what? It's gone. Government comes to take it because it's theirs. With that final moment, I will take my seat.

THE SPEAKER « » : We are going to go in rotations here.

The honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to get up and say a few words on this. It's an important conversation and I appreciate the ruling that was made. Members will all have a chance to say a few words. That's fine, and we are working together as House Leaders to work through the debate. This is democracy, right? I'll leave it at that.

I'm on my feet to really talk about everything now, seeing that this hoist motion essentially says that this bill should be returned and revised. Ultimately, when you look at the FMA, there are a number of aspects of it. There are a number of different things that I can talk about at length when the time comes. Ultimately, the FMA is about the implementation of the budget. It's the implementation of the money that is going to come forward to fund particular things within the FMA in the global context of how the government is going to operate.

I think that's important because there has been a lot of conversation this week, in the last two weeks, but ultimately Nova Scotians have been speaking loud and clear about their displeasure of the budget and I think that this is actually a very healthy conversation. As I said, the House Leaders are working out hours for the debate, looking at what's reasonable when it comes to the speakers who will be involved moving forward in this debate, as we move past this hoist into the initial reading of the bill, and I think it's going to be healthy.

[Page 3377]

I think that ultimately the government has had a very, very difficult week overall, for a number of reasons, and I say it with all due respect. We're all elected representatives, we all make decisions, we all do what is necessary, but the government representatives in the past week have taken it hard and have been provided with a lot of really important feedback when it comes to many of the things that are involved in the FMA and many of the organizations that are impacted by this proposed budget.

This debate that we are having on this hoist motion and the conversations that we are going to be having as we move back into second reading in Committee of the Whole House on Bills are ones that are important because I think that the government should relook at this, and I think the government may relook at this. I'll get into that momentarily, but particularly if you look at where we are now as a province, when you are trying to implement the FMA and the financial aspects of it.

This government came in with a $350-million surplus. That was the first year that they came in, based on a whole number of factors - COVID-19, population growth, we were coming out of the pandemic. There were infrastructure projects happening. There were historic transfers coming from the federal government, and they had a lot of money - probably historical levels of money at the time. They were coming off a previous government that ran five consecutive balanced budgets at the time, made their own strategic investments in certain areas - all governments do that. The health of the Province was good. The overall debt of the Province at that point was $16.5 billion.

[8:00 p.m.]

You fast forward to now in 2026-27, and as we all know, the projected deficit is now $1.2 billion. The net debt, which is frightening, is now $27.9 billion in an economy that is slowing right now or levelling out - I don't want to say slowing. You always want to speak positively of what we can all do together for investments, but ultimately, it is what it is. The population is stabilizing, you have the economy slowing at this point, and the government has made some pretty significant decisions around some of the revenue that has been coming in as part of their overall budget.

One of the aspects of this - people agree or disagree - is the Bridge Commission Act. We think that there needs to be some second thought with that, and to provide history and context: The tolls on the bridges here generated approximately $40 million in revenue annually, which was used for maintenance, which was used for the aspects that are necessary for bridge maintenance and revenue for the Province. It had an independent oversight with Halifax Harbour Bridges. That revenue would have been the foundation of the Province having to look at spending over $1 billion to replace a 50-year-old bridge.

[Page 3378]

We can talk about whether you agree or disagree. The fact of the matter is that this is a significant project, and nobody was really asking for the removal of those tolls. It was not a conversation that I was hearing when I was in the city. I would argue that many of the MLAs haven't heard it either. Into rural Nova Scotia, the same. Yes, the government has made the argument about other bridges. That's fine, but ultimately, this was a revenue decision that the government decided to take away.

To put it into context, the royalties that would come from an offshore wind development project are similar, annually, to the bridge tolls. There's construction and stuff associated that comes with any energy project - which is critical to its success, because we don't have those components in place. But to put it into perspective, the royalties that would be generated from that energy project are equivalent annually to what the bridge tolls are. That's how significant a revenue source that was for a bridge. The MacKay Bridge - a large part of our economy is driven over that bridge. It's a big part of who we are.

Yes, it seems important, because you want to be fair across the province, as the government says, but if you're planning long-term, you're saying to yourself, "We see this wave coming, we've overspent in every department, the transfers are drying up - they're not drying up, but they're levelling out - the population is levelling out, the economy is levelling out. We need to hold onto the revenue that we have."

The government didn't. Not only did they lose that $40 million; they put $300 million on the books. Then they wrote off equipment that was bought in the millions to help upgrade the way the bridges worked. It's just this huge amount of money that if the government's planning down the road, you say, "If that's a priority for us, then maybe we look at phasing it out, or maybe we look at another way of doing it."

It's just like nobody saw that. It was just done. As I said, you can look at other bridges and tolls and all those things, because I think future governments are going to have to look at that stuff. They're going to have to find a way to generate revenue to cover the cost. The Province now, referencing the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission Act, they have to find $1 billion-plus on their own to replace the MacKay bridge. I argue that they've disqualified themselves from the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We can debate that, but there are certain aspects of that fund where the Canada Infrastructure Bank comes forward and they play a part in supporting the finances associated with big infrastructure projects.

Now the Province of Nova Scotia, whoever is in government, is going to have to go cap in hand to Ottawa, saying, "Please help us with our bridge." And I would argue the Government of Canada is probably going to look at them and say, "Why did you take the tolls off?" Whether you agree or disagree with the debate around fairness or not, these are major pieces of infrastructure, that need to be replaced, and we need to find the money to do it.

[Page 3379]

And this government, now holding the largest deficit in history - and by the way, this is Year 1 of this plan. There are four years of this. You're reducing the public service by 5 percent a year for four years. This is Year 1 of a four-year plan, in the second year of a government mandate. If they stick to their plan, there are more cuts coming next year, and there are more cuts coming the next year, and there are more cuts coming the year after that. That's the plan.

So you're saying to yourself, we have a revenue problem. We're trying to stimulate the economy, and we have these infrastructure pieces that need to be done, so we should stabilize what we're doing. And that's why this hoist motion to take the FMA and bring it back is so critical. And the Bridge Commission is a big part of it. It is.

I think that whether it's this government or the next, because I think the whole landscape has shifted here in the province, when it comes to who will be the next government, or the size of that next government, whether it's a majority or minority. I think that this is going to be a huge conversation, because it needs to be done. You can't just push this down the road.

In all the budget deliberations that's we've heard so far, nobody's talking about how we're going to address the MacKay bridge, how we're going to address the maintenance. Well, you're going to budget for the maintenance associated with the bridges, but there's this big question mark over the MacKay bridge and its replacement, and where the funds are going to come from. That is not being talked a lot about in the budget, which I think really is problematic for a whole number of reasons.

You hear the commentary across the province, and even in the city, that's why I can confidently stand on my feet without hesitation to say that nobody asked for this to be removed. People understood that the infrastructure is aging. It is a 50-year-old bridge. Nobody outside of HRM was asking for this. All of a sudden, every Nova Scotian is taking on $300 million-plus in debt.

They're writing off equipment in the millions that was meant to upgrade the bridge in the way people paid. All of the financial planners and the Fraser Institute, all of them said the same thing: This isn't a good idea. You're in a situation where you need the revenue. The creditors look at decisions like this and they say, "Okay, well, we look at a credit rating of the province, and how are they going to generate revenue? Well, they economy is levelling out, and population is levelling out."

One of their biggest decisions was to take $40 million of revenue out of the system. For what? You've got to find it. That's the thing. I think Nova Scotians understand that. Because people are really paying attention to this, and they're really paying attention to the finances of this province. Frankly, they're frustrated, they're angry. I'll get into all that momentarily, because I want to stay on the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission Act. But ultimately they're frustrated and they're angry.

[Page 3380]

They're showing up here in the thousands. They're protesting all over Nova Scotia, because, as I said in my member's statement today, art centres slashed in communities across Nova Scotia. Mi'kmaw education programming slashed. Education and support for

African Nova Scotian communities slashed, adult day centres slashed, programs to support women, slashed, programs to support seniors, slashed. The list goes on and on. People are like, why? To take your revenue away, to take away a system that nobody was asking to take away, that people understood, that this was part of life, that you paid that toll at the bridges. They got it and now they really understand because now the information is out there - $300 million on the books, right away on the books.

Nova Scotia takes over all the infrastructure of that bridge, and they take over all the maintenance of that bridge and guess what? They don't have the $40 million a year to do it that they were getting from the bridge tolls, so now they have to go find it from Sydney to Yarmouth and every community between. We saw this week every community suffered because of it. Everybody was impacted, right across the island, right across the Valley, right across the South Shore, everywhere. That was $40 million in revenue.

I would also argue that it's going to be a situation where they're going to have to go to Ottawa without the revenue they had, coming off it, and say to Ottawa, "We need you now to help us secure hundreds of millions of dollars of more taxpayers' money at a federal level," when they could be looking at other ways to finance it. I argue having the revenue allows you to apply through multitudes of areas on ways that you can stretch out the payment over time. Now this thing is going to be $300 million in debt, as I've said, plus add another billion dollars when you get into the construction of it. It just didn't make sense and its going to be a big conversation for whoever the next government is going to be, when they look at the bridge. As I said, this is one of the aspects of the FMA and I believe that it is one of the most important ones.

The government has a big money problem. They have a very significant money problem, the most significant money problem in the history of this province, and a government that had the most money ever in this province. It's quite amazing. I indicated the numbers earlier on, as I said back in 2021, you are sitting on a $300-million surplus, it was a surprise. That's because Nova Scotia was strong through the pandemic. As tough as the pandemic was, the economy kept going. People started realizing through the pandemic that Nova Scotia was a really spectacular place to live, they wanted to raise a family here, they wanted to get away from the big cities, so they decided to come to Nova Scotia.

We benefited greatly from it, we really did, not only financially but culturally and socially, all that in between. We've seen people come from all over, to live here and raise a family, which also puts some other strains on the system as well. Ultimately COVID-19 played a big part in it and Nova Scotia had a strong COVID-19 plan, one that kept the economy running and this government came into a surprise $300 million surplus.

[Page 3381]

That's great. But as I said, the challenge comes as we continue to talk about bridges and we talk about other things, in 2026-27 that's a $1.9-billion deficit. That's $27.9 billion on the net debt, and $11 billion, Speaker, from the time that they formed government until now. It's completely unsustainable. As I said, the projections don't get any better. So you've seen cuts to programs this year across the province; as I said, the list goes on and on. I could give 100 examples. There are people who have been advocating in the gallery here this week representing various organizations. We've been having a lot of conversations on the Island, we've seen people rally across Nova Scotia. That's why I believe that we should send this Financial Measures Act back to revise is because a lot of this is the implementation of the budget.

[8:15 p.m.]

As I said, we've seen people rally all over the province because of that mismanagement. The government says, "Well, B.C.'s in record deficit, and Alberta's in record deficit." This place wasn't in record deficit. You had a $300-million surplus when you came into government. There was no record deficit.

Investments were being made. Businesses were growing. People were moving here. Conversations were happening about the expansion of communities and housing and what we needed to do to support our kids. We started seeing child care coming; we started seeing pre-Primary coming; we started to see school construction. I give the example: The schools at home and on the north side, and Glace Bay were announced back in 2019.

You started to see the focus to the future. There was a focus on and growth to the future in communities across Nova Scotia. You saw internet coming across Nova Scotia. You started seeing all of the things that governments try to do, and every government does. Now we are at a situation where a lot of that is going to be harder to do. It's going to be a lot harder to do because the capacity to do things isn't going to be there because of the fact that you have a situation now where you are in year one of a four-year plan where you're going to cut. The government just couldn't, at times, understand the ability to focus on the long term.

When you build programs to support kids, pre-Primary was a long-term investment. You are making a long-term investment in every four-year-old across this province, and guess what? It pays off big time for social development, for education, for transitioning into school.

Child care was the same thing. We negotiated a $605-million child care deal with the federal government back in our time, and the whole premise is you are thinking long-term. You are thinking of long-term infrastructure - the building, but also the supports for the kids for when they transition into school - but also giving families a break on what can be a very significant cost when it comes to child care.

[Page 3382]

·         Again, I go back to the FMA because this motion talks about sending this back - because this is where the budget is implemented - through the Financial Measures Act. I go back to long-term planning, and I go back to infrastructure. There is a lot of talk of infrastructure within the FMA. I use the example of the hospital redevelopment at home, which was designed by the doctors and the medical professionals on the ground, which was celebrated by almost everyone in here. Not everyone, but the fact of the matter is that was long-term planning to understand that the population trends in the CBRM were changing, so we needed to look at one major hospital, which held our cancer centre, critical care, and ER. You had the Northside General Hospital, which was going to act as a centre. You had New Waterford Consolidated Hospital, which was a long-term care school medical centre, which was a different concept, and then you had the expansion of the work in Glace Bay. I'm concerned that the Glace Bay isn't going to happen, which will be a big conversation at home, 100 percent, if that doesn't go forward.

Again, it goes to long-term planning, and we were doing all of this under the umbrella that we had to make sure that we were doing whatever we could to keep the finances strong. Some people would argue, Well, you shouldn't have done that. But guess what? We are sitting here talking about an FMA tonight. We're in a hoist motion where we are asking to send it back because the finances are really tied to this thing.

I would argue that the government got itself in trouble because they weren't planning long-term. They weren't planning long-term, and here you are. You've seen some big-ticket items over the years. Governments make investments in multitudes of things, and people will debate and will talk about their plan, but I didn't really see one.

The 2024 election, if you are talking about finances, was about the carbon tax. That's what it was about. It was very political. My point is that, when you are making decisions as a government, your main focus and your main foundation can't be politics all the time. It can't. You have to make decisions, and you make those decisions on the foundation of the fact that you don't want to make those decisions against the most vulnerable people in your community. That's what we always say. We held the line at times. Every government does. Every government holds the line. They do. Where we didn't hold the line is in the fact that - that's why pre-Primary came. That's why the breakfast program came. That's why a lot of the programs that supported youth came. This government has implemented some, too, but ultimately, our focus was to ensure that our most vulnerable were looked after.

I've said this in speeches in here before. The greatest strength of a community or of a government - whoever the government is - is their ability to support the people who need the support the most. It is the empathy that we all carry in us when we take these positions - to put our name on a ballot - to support people.

[Page 3383]

This is why I believe this motion matters so much - because the empathy is gone. This budget, instead of looking at higher levels within departments, looking at the amount of spending that I argue shouldn't take place, the government went after the most vulnerable Nova Scotians. It makes zero sense.

As my colleague, the Leader of the NDP, has said - and I agree with her 100 percent - it's a fraction of what is needed to attack the deficit. That's it.

I don't understand that. I'm not trying to be super divisive about this. I have relationships with everybody on every side. People come here with the right intentions. They do. They come here with the right intentions. We're all here, elected in our communities, because we care. Ultimately, people have enough confidence in us to mark their X next to our name. It's an honour. We all have the honour of being here.

My old friend - good friend - Alfie MacLeod used to say that there's never a bad seat in this House. There's not. That was one of his favourite sayings. It's true. We debate issues in here. It gets heated and passionate in here. That's part of it. You do your best, Speaker, to tell us where and sometimes how to get there, but that's okay. That's your job, too.

The point I'm trying to make with the FMA, and the fact that the FMA is tied to the financial controls of this, is that nobody in here, in my opinion, wants to vote for a budget or support the FMA as is, knowing full well that it is going to impact great community organizations - the arts and culture of your communities, the people who tell the stories, the people who play the music, the poets, the storytellers, the artists, and the kids who see this and make this part of their life. It's a huge part of their development.

There's nobody in here who wants to support cutting that stuff. As I argued the other night as we argued the FMA, I fundamentally believe the government MLAs didn't know that this was in the budget. I believe that because there is no way - there is no way - that any caucus would sit in a room together and say: Let's cut theatres by 20 percent. Let's cut programs that support various stakeholders in communities across Nova Scotia - yes, let's defend that.

I'm not saying that to be mean. I fundamentally believe that the elected representatives on the government side did not get the full picture of the FMA, which we're talking about bringing back to have a conversation. That's one of the most important aspects of it. I think everybody in here would argue that this thing has been a disaster. It has been disastrous in how it was rolled out. The branding of Defending Nova Scotia - give me a break. I don't know who came up with that. They didn't know what the budget was, either. That's what I would argue. Defending Nova Scotia.

[Page 3384]

Anyway, back to the FMA. As I said, I come to this with all respect. You know, I could sit here and scream and say, "Oh, the government this and the government that." I'll criticize the government, but I ultimately know everybody in this room. Like, I'm the fifth longest-serving guy here now. People come in here with the right intentions. People come in here to support their communities and people want to ultimately do what's right. That's it. It doesn't matter whether you're a Liberal, a Tory, PC, Independent, Green Party - it doesn't matter.

You put your heart out there and you run for the right reasons. Some people will disagree, but ultimately, I've been around long enough that if people have the privilege of taking a seat in here or at a local level as a councillor or at the federal level, it is because their community knows them, and their community believes in them. They put a plan forward and they want to do what's right for people, and especially right for people who need the support the most. It's true, and I think everybody in here agrees with me.

I really think the reason why this hoist motion matters so much - and people can correct me if I'm wrong - is because by taking this bill, the hoist motion of the FMA, and sending it back, it's going to give those MLAs a second chance. Because they're going to need a second chance. They are. It's very difficult, right. Like I said, you can look at aspects of the FMA, Speaker. I look at the FMA. Of course, there are various aspects of it. Part XVII is the Revenue Act, and that's really where my focus of the conversation is with this as well. The Revenue Act is essentially where you look at revenue that is coming in. There are number of situations here, but ultimately, the foundation of the FMA is what sets the tone and what actually implements the money to be spent in this province.

I'm very cautious about sticking to topic, but I think this motion allows us to really have a frank conversation, as MLAs, to say this is our second chance. This is the sober second thought. Take a look at this and bring it back so we can all, most importantly - the people who are on the elected government side as well - sit down and go through this thing so we can truly get a picture of what is transpiring.

I believe that in the FMA and with the budget overall, their caucus was probably told this was the biggest, largest infrastructure budget in history and there is so much that can be built, and this is great. It's like somebody went on AI and typed in "give us a budget that destroys or severely impacts the most vulnerable communities" - and there was your budget. I don't mean to be flippant about it, but it's true. I just don't understand in what reality whoever designed this thought it was great to cut funding from 287-plus programs that support the most vulnerable people in our province and the greatest organizations we have.

I can't table a radio interview, but there was an interview done on CBC by a former Minister of Education under the Savage government. It was brilliant and he nailed it. MacEachern - it was the same thing. Savage at the time - I can send the link of the radio thing if I have to table something. He was doing the interview, and I was listening to it coming up to the city today. Savage's philosophy is the philosophy that we all want. They had huge deficits that they had to deal with, and they had to wrestle with. It was in health and it was in education and he got into all of that.

[Page 3385]

Savage was adamant about not touching anything that supported the people who needed support the most. I'm not phrasing it as eloquently as Mr. MacEachern did, but they went through that process, and they ensured that as they went through trying to wrestle a deficit under some challenging circumstances when it came to revenues, that they were going to do their best to try to not impact the most vulnerable Nova Scotians of the day. That was back in the early mid-1990s.

[8:30 p.m.]

Fast forward to 2026, and here we are. It's the polar opposite. The deficit is the highest it's ever been. Our net debt-to-GDP is going to go well past the threshold over the next number of years, which is probably going to even further impact our ability to borrow and is going to raise a lot of alarms.

Instead of looking at the structures - like looking at Health - the CEO of the Nova Scotia Health Authority in committee said that that needs to change. Let's have a conversation about what needs to change there. Let's have a transparent conversation about what's actually happening, but no, let's look at 287 programs across the province and start there. Over $130 million worth of funds that - I know in Sydney, Horizon is severely impacted. Highland Arts is severely impacted. Haley Street, also at home, is severely impacted. Savoy is impacted in the Bay. You look at any program that's supporting youth is impacted. There's no rationale for it. There's no reason for it. There's no reason for it at all.

Bringing this back and having a conversation is going to give everyone, in particular the government MLAs, a real chance to sit down as a caucus and say, "Okay, guys and girls, let's figure this thing out."

I see it online. I saw it online this weekend. The government's in full defence mode right now. Everybody's sharing the same posts about the same things. All of a sudden now, you're playing - you should never be playing defence. You should've known what was in the budget in the first place. You could have had a fulsome debate about it, so you wouldn't be in the situation that you are, where you're out there constantly defending and giving out information, which we can debate in here, because I question some of it that has been presented.

[Page 3386]

Ultimately, the government's in defence mode now. They are, and they're going to be in defence mode until - unless they do the right thing, which they should. They should take some time to think about this. Take some time to go through those organizations. Take March Break. Have a sober - have a real conversation about what is going to happen and the impact of these.

I use Sydney as an example. They closed Cossit House, and they cut the funding 20 percent to the Old Sydney Society. Guess what happens? St. Patrick's museum - now they're in jeopardy of closing. For thousands of people coming off the cruise ships, it's the first place they go. The HAT is a great example. The Savoy Theatre is a great example. The Louisbourg Playhouse - all these wonderful organizations are in jeopardy. They're all in jeopardy.

I would argue that there are probably some other places that you can find in government. You've had the debate in here, where people say "Oh, well, where would you cut?" There are always places you can find inefficiencies where you don't have to take away from vulnerable people or great organizations. Ultimately, it's about decisions. You make decisions, and you make decisions in the long term.

When governments don't, you're now in a situation where - I always say that this government had the largest revenues probably in history when they came in, but it's all gone. Sure, you make investments - we can use a pile of examples - but now you're not in a trajectory of growth. You presented a budget that is the first of four years of cutting 20 percent of the civil service. I can tell you, Speaker, those letters are going, and it's devastating - people with families. "Derek, I got my" - oops, sorry - "MLA for Sydney, I got my letter." (Interruptions)

The point is that it's devastating. It's year one of it. It's year one. You're talking about cuts to programs across the province like artists, musicians, and all those wonderful programs. This is year one cuts. The government has shifted. The dynamic has shifted that bad that the government can't plan for the future; they're planning for four years of deficits. They're planning for four years of cuts.

You need to go back to the drawing board and figure this out. Again, I've been around. I've seen multiple governments come and go. I've served in almost every spot in this Legislature. If this is your plan, you won't be the government. You won't. Too many people are paying attention now. They really are. I don't think people realize politically, looking at the FMA and why we're asking to bring it back, how severe this actually is for people and how angry and upset people are. These cuts have impacted - there hasn't been an issue with one sector or one or two groups or sectors; it absolutely obliterated every organization across the province in one swoop. I've never seen anything like it in my life.

Again, why we're asking for the FMA to come back is so the government can look at this and say, "Hold on." I'm sure some of the members of the caucus probably said, "Whoa, what's this?" I don't think they knew. Listen - actually I won't say that, because you're not allowed to say what people are doing in the House. The point is that I'm saying this, and I'm sure in the minds of some of the government MLAs, they're like, "He's right. He's absolutely right. I had no idea that we were cutting 20 percent out of theatres. I had no idea that we were cutting programs that supported African Nova Scotian and Mi'kmaw education and programs and services. I had no idea that by taking the tolls off the bridges in Halifax it's going to take $40 million of revenue away." It's going to cost us $1 billion and put $300 million on the deficit. Now we've got to find that money so we can support the programs that we're taking away from kids.

[Page 3387]

It doesn't make any sense at all. We shouldn't even be having this conversation right now. It's $130 million in a $17-billion budget, but this is where you went to cut. Go back and take a look for those kids. Go back and take a look for those artists and those writers. Go back and take a look for those theatres and those museums. Go back and take a look. You have the chance to do it right now. You do. I think you will. I think you will and I hope you will. If you do, it will be a great win for the province. It will be a great win for all of these people. Ultimately for the people - because this government does it all the time. The Auditor General, people came forward, they pulled back - pulled back on multiple things. Ultimately, they had a sober second thought.

These were on policies, more significant - significant is the wrong word, but policies that didn't impact people on the ground every day. They impacted policy and they impacted decision-making or they impacted other things, but why not do that for kids? Do that for the artists. Do that for the theatres and the museums. Do that for the people who marched out here last week and the thousands who are going to show up tomorrow. Do it for them. Do the right thing and we'll all celebrate. Do the right thing. You have the chance to do it. I'm hopeful they will. We saw a glimmer of that today, and I'm hopeful that you will.

Looking at the FMA - I still have some time left here. It's been a pretty interesting couple of weeks. As I said, governments will go through various times of making decisions where not everybody is going to agree. This is one of them, that's for sure. As I said in my opening statement when I had the ability to first address the House about the budget, I said this will be an ultimate test of caucus to see if caucus can survive something like this. We started seeing the FMA and we started seeing the numbers and we started seeing what was in it. We knew how devastating it was going to be. I don't think the government is going to completely survive this, even with some redirection and recourse.

A lot of people are going home who didn't need to go home - on the FMA, as we talked about. It's heartbreaking, and I'm sure people have heard from people across the province, in their communities, who have lost their jobs. It's been one of the toughest weeks I've seen in here, and it's one of the toughest weeks I've seen for a government. It's one of the weeks when we are seeing a lot of people upset.

As I said, it's not just one or a few sectors that have been impacted when you're talking about making decisions. The government, in one swoop, took a swipe at everyone. They looked at everyone and said, "Everybody's going to feel this pain." They're feeling it. They're feeling the pain, and the stories have been tough. The stories have been heartbreaking.

[Page 3388]

I'm worried about the adult training centres across the province. I know this decision is going to put some of them in jeopardy. When we're looking at the Remedy, we need them more than ever. They provide such an important part of the independence of members of our communities. I always say Horizon Achievement Centre - she would say I love the place - is a wonderful organization that supports so many adults in the community. The businesses that they run - they do the mailing in CBRM, they cater, they cater weddings, they play music, and they're a big family. It is the foundation for everything that is social and emotional for them and their families, too, because it provides independence right across the board.

Why do we want to take that experience away from anyone? We don't have to. It doesn't have to be done. This argument that I hear about the Remedy and the money that flows that will go directly to families - that's part of it, but I argue that as people move to more independence, they're going to need the Horizon Achievement Centre, and they're going to need all these organizations that you all love and, at some point, have supported in some way.

You don't reduce them. You give them the funding, and you provide them funding through the Remedy, to help them transition. That's the key here. We all know there's a transition, and in the FMA, when it comes to the finances, which triggers the spending - I'm doing my best to stay on the budget, but I'm passionate about this, and I think everybody else is. It goes back to what I'm trying - my argument that I'm trying to say tonight is that we have these wonderful organizations that will help build what the Remedy is supposed to be. As people become more independent, they're going to need them.

As I said on the FMA when this was presented to caucus, I'm sure nobody in caucus said, "You know what? Let's cut that by 20 percent, too" - because they didn't know. They didn't know what was in the FMA. They didn't know about bridge tolls, the Securities Act, or all those things.

I'm staying on topic. I've got 12 minutes. I'm staying on topic.

I'm going to take the last few minutes and say this. I said a lot tonight. I tried to not be hypercritical because we'll debate all these issues. We'll be critical of each other. That's fine. I wanted to bring the human element into this because I had a chance to talk for an hour about it.

[8:45 p.m.]

[Page 3389]

As I said earlier, the government has a chance to take a second look at this because ultimately, regardless of political stripes, we're people. We're people who want to do the right thing. I was on the government side, and we had to make tough decisions and I would say the same thing if I was on the Opposition side. You ultimately come in here with the intent of doing what's right for people. You don't get it right all the time, absolutely not, and the government didn't get it right this time.

I'm starting to believe that there's an acceptance from the government that they didn't get it right this time and they have a chance to fix it. It's not a ton of money. It's significant money but significant to the fabric of who we are as communities. I believe that adjustments can be made. I believe that the caucus wants them. I believe the government caucus wants them. I believe the government caucus was presented a half-message budget that talked about defending Nova Scotia, natural resource development, and big infrastructure. "Defend Nova Scotia. Here's the message. Jump on the train. You all have to defend it. You are part of the government caucus. Away you go."

Then you found out, oh my God, what's this? Oh my God, this organization just called me. What's this? I lived this: pharmacare. I remember those days. That was something that we kind of stepped in on, but we had to take a step back because we knew it was impacting people.

In this case it's the same thing. The fact of the matter is that the government caucus - guaranteed in my mind, on the FMA, guaranteed in my mind - did not have all the details of this budget. I think we saw in the FMA when we were talking about the removal of bridge tolls, I don't think the government knew the impact of that, nor did they know the impact of the fact that they were going to be cutting theatres right across the province, or they were going to be cutting important programs to support youth and seniors.

The government has a chance to take this motion and send it back, look at the aspects of the FMA and look at the overall aspects of the decisions they decide to make. Big protest tomorrow. Why don't you get up in the morning, Speaker, and tell the people that you know what? We're going to look this over again. What a message it would be, right?

Again, Speaker, when you look at the FMA and you are making decisions around various aspects of this, whether it's the Revenue Act or the security proceedings, or the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission Act, or supports around youth or supports around arts and culture, you want to do what's right.

I think I've kind of said what I need to say tonight. I would say, go home and think about it and go to caucus tomorrow and say, "Listen, I listened to the speech of the Sydney-Membertou member. I listened to him and I believe." You know what? We hold these seats for a temporary period of time and when you hold these seats, you want to do what's right. You are not going to get it right every time. You may have the privilege to serve on both sides because as Alfie used to say, there's no bad seat in this place; there's not. But we're all human beings, nobody wants to see the cuts that are coming. There's only one government caucus right now that can change that. So go home tonight and think about this speech and think about that adult day centre, think about that theatre, think about that museum, think about those volunteers, think about those diverse communities that we have that we celebrate their history. Think about the poets, think about the musicians, think about your families, think about the province.

[Page 3390]

Think about the province. Go home tonight. You can change this, you have an opportunity to do it and I hope you do.

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

Order, order. You missed, because you weren't here, the big debate over two people standing at once. Right, there was a big debate. Yes, my bad. Imagine that, I messed up. We're doing rotation.

The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD « » : I move to adjourn debate on Bill No. 198, Financial Measures (2026) Act.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is to adjourn debate on Bill No. 198.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

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 the Committee of the Whole House on Bills.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is carried. We will have a short recess while the clerks set up.

[9:09 p.m. The House rose and resolved into the CWH on Bills with Deputy Speaker Julie Vanexan in the Chair.]

[Page 3391]

[11:18 p.m. CWH on Bills rose and the House reconvened. The Speaker, Hon. Danielle Barkhouse, resumed the Chair.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. The Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on Bills reports:

THE CLERK « » : That the Committee of the Whole House on Bills has met and considered the following bill:

Bill No. 186 - Support for Fire Protection Services Act.

without amendments. The Chair has been instructed to recommend this bill to the favourable consideration of the House.

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

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 Tuesday, March 10^th, between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 11:59 p.m.

Government business for tomorrow will be the Committee of the Whole House on Supply, second reading of Bill No. 198, Committee of the Whole House on Bills on Bill Nos. 196, 193, 201, and 187.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is that the House do now rise to meet again tomorrow, March 10^th, between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 11:59 p.m.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

[The House rose at 11:20 p.m.]

NOTICES OF MOTION UNDER RULE 32(3)

RESOLUTION NO. 406

By: Melissa Sheehy-Richard (Hants West)

[Page 3392]

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

Whereas Nolan Gerald Delaney Allen of Windsor, Nova Scotia, passed away at only 18 years old on November 1, 2025, after a long and courageous battle with recurrent and metastatic anaplastic ependymoma; and

Whereas he was a devoted son to Gillian Delaney and Bradley Allen, a loving brother to Cole and Sidney and a deeply cherished grandson, nephew, cousin, and friend to many; and

Whereas he was an exceptional student, graduating from Avon View High School with Honours of Distinction, despite significant medical challenges;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House of Assembly join me in remembering Nolan, honouring his courage and kindness, and extending our deepest condolences to his parents, siblings, family, and friends as they celebrate his life and legacy.

RESOLUTION NO. 407

By: Hon. Derek Mombourquette (Sydney-Membertou)

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

Whereas the Donkin Memories Facebook group was organized by Robert MacDougall to ensure that the Cape Breton mining community, previously known as Dominion No. 6, recognizes all the local miners who lost their lives in the pit and are memorialized on the anniversary of their deaths; and

Whereas the Donkin Memories Facebook Group recognizes all the professional hockey players, ensuring the community's sporting history is acknowledged; and

Whereas the Donkin Memories Facebook Group remembers all the veterans of World War I and World War II from the areas of Donkin, Schooner Pond, and Port Caledonia, and they are memorialized, demonstrating their heroism and sacrifices to this country;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House of Assembly give our heartfelt appreciation to Robert MacDougall for his extraordinary contribution to organizing the history of the Donkin area in a readily accessible format for all of its current and former residents to reflect upon.

[Page 3393]

RESOLUTION NO. 408

By: Susan Leblanc (Dartmouth North)

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

Whereas on February 15, 2026, the Cole Harbour Rockets faced the Express Basketball Club in a gold medal game; and

Whereas the Cole Harbour Rockets, led by coach Tara Lawrence, won their gold medal game; and

Whereas Blake Snow played on the Cole Harbour Rockets;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House of Assembly congratulate Blake Snow and the Cole Harbour Rockets for winning gold medals.

RESOLUTION NO. 409

By: Susan Leblanc (Dartmouth North)

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

Whereas on February 15, 2026, the Cole Harbour Rockets faced the Express Basketball Club in a gold medal game; and

Whereas the Cole Harbour Rockets, led by coach Tara Lawrence, won their gold medal game; and

Whereas Damien MacLeod played on the Cole Harbour Rockets;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House of Assembly congratulate Damien MacLeod and the Cole Harbour Rockets for winning gold medals.

RESOLUTION NO. 410

By: Susan Leblanc (Dartmouth North)

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

[Page 3394]

Whereas on February 15, 2026, the Cole Harbour Rockets faced the Express Basketball Club in a gold medal game; and

Whereas the Cole Harbour Rockets, led by coach Tara Lawrence, won their gold medal game; and

Whereas Darius MacLeod played on the Cole Harbour Rockets;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House of Assembly congratulate Darius MacLeod and the Cole Harbour Rockets for winning gold medals.

RESOLUTION NO. 411

By: Susan Leblanc (Dartmouth North)

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

Whereas on February 15, 2026, the Cole Harbour Rockets faced the Express Basketball Club in a gold medal game; and

Whereas the Cole Harbour Rockets, led by coach Tara Lawrence, won their gold medal game; and

Whereas John Handerek played on the Cole Harbour Rockets;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House of Assembly congratulate John Handerek and the Cole Harbour Rockets for winning gold medals.

RESOLUTION NO. 412

By: Susan Leblanc (Dartmouth North)

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

Whereas on February 15, 2026, the Cole Harbour Rockets faced the Express Basketball Club in a gold medal game; and

Whereas the Cole Harbour Rockets, led by coach Tara Lawrence, won their gold medal game; and

[Page 3395]

Whereas Jonah McKenna played on the Cole Harbour Rockets;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House of Assembly congratulate Jonah McKenna and the Cole Harbour Rockets for winning gold medals.

RESOLUTION NO. 413

By: Susan Leblanc (Dartmouth North)

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

Whereas on February 15, 2026, the Cole Harbour Rockets faced the Express Basketball Club in a gold medal game; and

Whereas the Cole Harbour Rockets, led by coach Tara Lawrence, won their gold medal game; and

Whereas Kairo McKenna played on the Cole Harbour Rockets;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House of Assembly congratulate Kairo McKenna and the Cole Harbour Rockets for winning gold medals.

RESOLUTION NO. 414

By: Susan Leblanc (Dartmouth North)

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

Whereas on February 15, 2026, the Cole Harbour Rockets faced the Express Basketball Club in a gold medal game; and

Whereas the Cole Harbour Rockets, led by coach Tara Lawrence, won their gold medal game; and

Whereas Lorenzo DePetris played on the Cole Harbour Rockets;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House of Assembly congratulate Lorenzo DePetris and the Cole Harbour Rockets for winning gold medals.

[Page 3396]

RESOLUTION NO. 415

By: Susan Leblanc (Dartmouth North)

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

Whereas on February 15, 2026, the Cole Harbour Rockets faced the Express Basketball Club in a gold medal game; and

Whereas the Cole Harbour Rockets, led by coach Tara Lawrence, won their gold medal game; and

Whereas Makel Norrie-Brown played on the Cole Harbour Rockets;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House of Assembly congratulate Makel Norrie-Brown and the Cole Harbour Rockets for winning gold medals.

RESOLUTION NO. 416

By: Susan Leblanc (Dartmouth North)

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

Whereas on February 15, 2026, the Cole Harbour Rockets faced the Express Basketball Club in a gold medal game; and

Whereas the Cole Harbour Rockets, led by coach Tara Lawrence, won their gold medal game; and

Whereas Marcus Barreiro played on the Cole Harbour Rockets;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House of Assembly congratulate Marcus Barreiro and the Cole Harbour Rockets for winning gold medals.

RESOLUTION NO. 417

By: Susan Leblanc (Dartmouth North)

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

Whereas on February 15, 2026, the Cole Harbour Rockets faced the Express Basketball Club in a gold medal game; and

Whereas the Cole Harbour Rockets, led by coach Tara Lawrence, won their gold medal game; and

Whereas R Allan played on the Cole Harbour Rockets;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House of Assembly congratulate R Allan and the Cole Harbour Rockets for winning gold medals.

RESOLUTION NO. 418

By: Susan Leblanc (Dartmouth North)

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

Whereas on February 15, 2026, the Cole Harbour Rockets faced the Express Basketball Club in a gold medal game; and

Whereas the Cole Harbour Rockets, led by coach Tara Lawrence, won their gold medal game; and

Whereas Tye Lawrence played on the Cole Harbour Rockets;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House of Assembly congratulate Tye Lawrence and the Cole Harbour Rockets for winning gold medals.

[Page 3397]