RICK BURNS: For the Department of Communities, Culture, Tourism and Heritage, I move to recommend Jason Fuerst and Prathibha Narasimhan be appointed members to the Arts Nova Scotia Board.

 

            THE CHAIR: Motion on the table. Any discussion?

 

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

 

            The motion is carried.

 

            MLA Burns.

 

            RICK BURNS: For the Department of Communities, Culture, Tourism and Heritage, I move to recommend Britanny Lodge be appointed member to the Nova Scotia Combat Sports Authority.

 

            THE CHAIR: Motion on the table. Any discussion?

 

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

 

            The motion is carried.

 

            MLA Burns.

 

            RICK BURNS: For the Department of Communities, Culture, Tourism and Heritage, I move to recommend Tyler Mackisoc be appointed governor of the Gaelic College Foundation Board of Governors.

 

THE CHAIR: Motion on the table. Any discussion?

 

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

 

            The motion is carried.

 

            MLA Burns.

 

            RICK BURNS: For the Department of Communities, Culture, Tourism and Heritage, I move to recommend Katherine, Kate, Hamilton, Cecile Kung, and Ethan Paul be appointed members to the Nova Scotia Museum Board of Governors.

 

            THE CHAIR: Motion on the table. Any discussion?

 

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

 

            The motion is carried.

 

            MLA Burns.

 

            RICK BURNS: For the Department of Health and Wellness, I move to recommend Paulette Anderson be appointed public representative to the Board of the Nova Scotia Regulator of Dental Hygienists, Dental Technology, and Denturism.

 

            THE CHAIR: MLA Burns, just for the record, could you please repeat the board that they’re being put on?

 

            RICK BURNS: To the Board of the Nova Scotia Regulator of Dental Hygiene, Dental Technology, and Denturism.

 

THE CHAIR: Motion on the table. Any discussion?

 

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

 

            The motion is carried.

 

            MLA Burns.

 

            RICK BURNS: For the Department of Health and Wellness, I move to recommend Anne-Marie Gammon be appointed public representative to the Board of the Nova Scotia Regulator of Respiratory Therapy.

 

THE CHAIR: Motion on the table. Any discussion?

 

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

 

            The motion is carried.

 

            MLA Burns.

 

            RICK BURNS: For the Department of Justice, I move to recommend Alison Warwick be appointed member, Municipality of the County of Annapolis, to the Police (RCMP) Advisory Boards.

 

THE CHAIR: Motion on the table. Any discussion?

 

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

 

            The motion is carried.

 

            MLA Burns.

 

            RICK BURNS: For the Department of Justice, I move to recommend Simon Rushen be appointed member, Town of Wolfville, to the Police (RCMP) Advisory Boards.

 

THE CHAIR: Motion on the table. Any discussion?

 

            All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

 

The motion is carried.

 

            MLA Burns.

 

            RICK BURNS: For the Department of Labour, Skills and Immigration, I move to recommend Stacia Gunn be appointed employer representative to the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council.

 

THE CHAIR: Motion on the table. Any discussion?

 

            All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

 

The motion is carried.

 

            MLA Burns.

 

            RICK BURNS: For the Department of Labour, Skills and Immigration, I move to recommend Ronald McSween be appointed employee representative to the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council.

 

            THE CHAIR: Motion on the table. Any discussion?

 

            All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

 

The motion is carried.

 

            MLA Burns.

 

            RICK BURNS: For the Department of Natural Resources, I move to recommend Dr. Jan Raska be appointed member to the Shubenacadie Canal Commission.

 

            THE CHAIR: Motion on the table. Any discussion?

 

            All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

 

The motion is carried.

 

            Thank you, MLA Burns and committee members, and thank you to our guests for allowing us to get our business done there.

 

            Our topic today is the School Lunch Program. It’s wonderful to see you. Thank you for being here at our committee.

 

            I’d like to give you an opportunity to introduce yourselves, and then we’ll get into opening statements after that. We’ll begin with Ms. Northcott.

 

            [The witnesses introduced themselves.]

 

            THE CHAIR: Thank you very much. We would like to give you an opportunity to give some opening remarks. I believe, Deputy Minister Barbrick, you have some opening remarks to offer?

 

            Deputy Minister Barbrick.

 

            TRACEY BARBRICK: Thank you for the opportunity to appear today and provide an update on the Nova Scotia School Lunch Program.

 

This appearance comes at an important point in the program. We have now served more than 12 million lunches since the program began just two years ago, and this school year, for the first time ever, the program is operating in all 373 public schools across the province, offering a nutritious lunch to more than 133,000 children.

 

Keeping in mind that only a few years ago there was no school lunch program at all, this progress not only represents a significant amount of extraordinary work by staff from the department, regions, CSAP, vendors, and schools but also a remarkable investment in student well-being.

 

At the department, we see the lunch program as one important part of the broader supports available to students during the school day. Access to nutritious food supports students’ ability to focus, participate, and learn. It also provides families with another option for meeting their children’s nutritional needs during the school week. As you know, the program is designed so that access to a meal is not dependent on a family’s ability to pay. It operates on a pay-what-you-can basis that lets families contribute when they are able.

 

The impacts of the lunch program also ripple out beyond the schools. The program involves vendors and local businesses across the province and creates employment opportunities within schools. There are opportunities to incorporate local produce like Nova Scotian apples into school meals, and investments in school food infrastructure can provide opportunities for students to develop practical food-preparation skills and explore culinary and skilled trades pathways.

 

Operating a school food program at this scale does require us to continually assess what is working and how we can make it the very best it can be. We monitor participation and ordering patterns alongside direct feedback, which helps us understand which meals students are choosing and where changes can strengthen program delivery. We know that schools have different facilities, staffing, and operational circumstances, and build in flexibility and space for local voices. Working with regions, CSAP, schools, vendors, and other partners, we’ve built a very strong program that we continue to improve and be proud of.

 

With more than 12 million meals now under our belts, we’ve reached a point where we can confidently call the Nova Scotia School Lunch Program a success. I look forward to further explaining how this meaningful program is making a difference in our schools.

 

            THE CHAIR: Thank you, Deputy Minister.

 

            We’ll now move on to Mr. Jones.

 

            DAVE JONES: Good afternoon, Chair, and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to join you today to talk about the School Lunch Program.

 

            I’d like to begin by saying how proud I am of the work happening in the Annapolis Valley schools to support the School Lunch Program. There are many hands who help ensure AVRCE students have access to a nutritious lunch each day in school, and they each deserve a thank you for this important work. The evidence is clear: when students have a healthy, balanced meal each day, positive things happen, such as improved academic performance, physical health, and mental well-being.

 

Before the Nova Scotia School Lunch Program started in the fall of 2024, we already had taken steps to create a regional lunch program for cafeterias operated by the AVRCE. At the time, that represented about 80 percent of our school cafeterias.

 

This work put us in a strong position when the provincial program began. Today, all but one of our school cafeterias are operated by the AVRCE, with the remaining school having a long-standing partnership with a local community health board that operates its cafeteria.

 

Providing a consistent, stigma-free approach to ensure that all students have access to a nutritious lunch in each school has been a priority for us in the AVRCE. We welcome the introduction of the provincial pay-what-you-can model, as it addresses food insecurity through the lunch program. Along with the lunch program, every AVRCE school also offers a universally accessible breakfast program.

Using the Nova Scotia lunch payment process removes any stigma around who is paying. It also allows cafeteria staff to focus on preparing and serving meals while building positive relationships with students.

 

In the AVRCE, we have prided ourselves, where possible, in sourcing and serving local produce grown by our farmers, who are also often parents and grandparents. We have standing offers with local suppliers, such as Keddy Bros Wholesale Produce and O.H. Armstrong, to help us serve this local produce, in keeping with the program guidelines and the Nova Scotia School Food and Nutrition Policy.

 

To support the program’s implementation and expansion, many of our school cafeterias received upgrades to electrical, plumbing, ventilation, and fire protection systems. With all schools now participating in the program, this work is complete.

 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to join you today. I look forward to our conversation about school food and sharing information about the school lunch program in the Annapolis Valley.

 

THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Jones. Ms. Cooling.

 

KARYN COOLING: Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. On behalf of the Chignecto Central Regional Centre for Education, thank you for inviting me to participate in today’s meeting.

 

CCRCE serves approximately 21,000 students and employs more than 4,000 staff across 65 schools, and we organized those 65 schools into four families of schools. Within CCRCE, the Nova Scotia School Lunch Program is delivered through a fully self-operated model. We employ 123 cafeteria staff, working in 58 school kitchens, supported by four school food managers.

 

CCRCE is proud to say that we served over 1.3 million lunches last year, and now that we have launched into Phase 3 with the high schools, this number will grow. At its core, the School Lunch Program supports students and families. The benefits extend well beyond the meal itself. Access to nutritious food supports student well-being, strengthens school communities, and creates opportunities for students to connect with one another and with staff. In various schools, fresh food carts and partnerships with student-led food initiatives have generated even greater interest in healthy eating, student leadership, and participation in the lunch program.

 

I would also like to recognize the many people from CCRCE and the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development whose commitment, collaboration, and care have made this program possible. Their collective effort makes a meaningful difference every day by helping students arrive in the classroom ready to learn and providing equitable access to nutritious food.

We look forward to continuing this partnership with the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development and working alongside our dedicated, amazing staff at CCRCE to ensure that schools continue to have access to the School Lunch Program.

 

THE CHAIR: Thank you, Ms. Cooling. We will now begin with our question period from our members to our witnesses today. Our first 20 minutes will be with the Official Opposition, followed by 10 minutes from the Liberal Party, and then 30 minutes from the governing PC Party. After that, the remaining time will be split half and half, and we’ll announce how much time is left on that second round as we get into it. We will end probably around 2:40 p.m. We do have a little bit of committee business today, so to allow our witnesses to leave and prepare for our committee business, we’ll probably go to about 2:40 p.m. this afternoon.

 

With that, we will now move over to the NDP caucus to begin their questioning. MLA Hansen.

 

[1:15 p.m.]

 

            SUZY HANSEN: I just want to say first off that it’s nice to be in a room where there is all-party support for free school lunches for our kids in the school system. I remember a few years ago when that wasn’t the case, and I remember sitting on a committee asking these same questions. With that, I want to go back to the beginning for a second. The School Lunch Program was announced in the 2024 budget, but four months before that, the minister at the time was adamant that kids in school already had access to food.

 

            This is a claim that we in the NDP strongly disputed. Deputy Minister Barbrick, what changed within the department in between the minister’s claim and the 2024 budget announcement?

 

            THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Barbrick.

 

            TRACEY BARBRICK: It’s funny that you referenced previous committee discussions, because of course, when this program first started, I was not the deputy minister at the department. Lots of people around the room would know more than I would. I was doing my homework, and I went back through all the committee Hansards. There was literally May 2022, October 2022, and June 2023 - all questions around food security and providing food in schools, broad support for a universal lunch program. Here I get to be that much time later and celebrate the success of both the department and all the vendors, the regions, and what is the big lift.

 

            Before that, I was involved in the COVID-19 rollout, and I talked about that being the big lift, and I think the School Lunch Program is on par with what it has taken to deliver lunches in 373 schools across the province. It’s been pretty amazing. I think like always, the issue of affordability and ways in which families can be supported at home and school children having the opportunity to learn as best they can have continued to make food security an issue. A decision clearly was made at one point to make this investment in a phased process. This is the third year. It hits that final phase, and now we’re in every school.

 

            In terms of the conversations that might have led to that, I can’t comment too much about it because I wasn’t there.

 

            SUZY HANSEN: Fair enough. I will say, I’m glad that you did the homework behind it. It has been a long time coming and we’re grateful that we are seeing that rollout and we’re seeing it now in its entirety throughout all the classrooms. All the students are accessing that. I always talk about political will, and I’m glad that will has changed now, that we are doing the things that need to be done for our students in our system.

 

            The fact that the School Lunch Program exists as a budget line here instead of a law puts it in a vulnerable position. I’m someone who, if it’s legislated, it’s law, it will stay, and it has to be debated in order to change. We know that a government could find themselves with a tight budget, and we know that’s happening as we speak. They could decide that they just can’t afford to administer it anymore. Deputy Minister, is your department planning to pass legislation to ensure the School Lunch Program cannot be eliminated without debate in the Legislature?

 

            TRACEY BARBRICK: No, there’s been no conversation about this being legislated. I’ve been in the provincial government a long time - 25 years in fact - and I have seen legislation come and go. In terms of its binding capacity, legislation can change one way or the other. To me, the investment in this program, the fact that it’s now deeply embedded in communities, I think this has now become a part of the regular business of public schools. I don’t expect we’ll see that change anytime soon.

 

            SUZY HANSEN: I hope so as well. The government in Manitoba actually took a bold step to try to protect their school lunch programs in case the political will to deliver it ever weakens in the future. They passed a law that says that Cabinet members of the governing party will have their salaries reduced by 20 percent if the free school lunch program is ever reduced or eliminated. Deputy Minister, has that ever been considered? Has it been thought about? Yes, things can change, and I’m glad that we see that it is there, but we’ve also seen funding in the spring budget line that things that have been there for decades can change with just the stroke of a pen. I’m just curious to know: Have you thought about that?

 

            TRACEY BARBRICK: That Manitoba approach is new to me. No, we haven’t had that conversation. Frankly, the big lift of getting elementary schools and then middle schools and then high schools on board has been the focus. My colleague Amanda who’s here with me, as well as my good colleagues on the left, certainly could tell you many operational details of making this all work, and that really has been the focus with the third phase just hitting the ground in the last six weeks. No, we haven’t looked at that.

 

            SUZY HANSEN: I do appreciate the fact that it has been a lot of work to get to where we are right now, so we would hate to lose that - this part of the program in this position, especially if there are changes that are happening.

 

            We know, and we’ll talk about this later - I think all of us have these same conversations - that missing even one meal can affect a student’s ability to learn. It was discussed earlier. Mr. Jones and Ms. Cooling, can you tell us how the School Lunch Program is benefiting students in your region?

 

            THE CHAIR: Mr. Jones.

 

            DAVE JONES: Certainly. It’s an exciting time in the Annapolis Valley. We now have a stigma-free lunch program serving all our 14,000 students and pre-Primary children. It’s stigma-free so that it’s ordered - every student is eating the same meal or almost the same meal. There are a couple of choices. The stigma of who’s eating what is now gone. As the program has progressed, we’ve also done a really good job of making sure we have portion sizes appropriate for each student. If a student’s still hungry, they have an option to have another meal.

 

            We used to have to identify the students in the school where we weren’t sure they were having a meal and we would have equity meals available for them. We were always doing a good job making sure all students had something to eat, but now it’s just part of our everyday business. There’s no identifying those students. We can make sure every student is having a meal that’s available. It’s also a hot meal served, and in the Valley, served by food that’s often grown in our area. We certainly focus on providing local food options which I think helps the community as well. Our students have access to a variety of different choices of food as the menu has evolved, and it’s lead to them having a healthy meal each and every day and everyone’s included. That’s a key piece.

 

            The cafeterias are operated, of course, by employees of AVRCE with the exception of the one school I mentioned in my opening remarks. Those employees are often family members of the children who are at the school so it’s a full circle with everyone coming together to make sure that we make sure every student has a healthy, nutritious meal each and every day. I believe over time that will certainly pay significant dividends.

 

            THE CHAIR: MLA Hansen.

 

            SUZY HANSEN: Can I hear from Ms. Cooling as well?

 

            THE CHAIR: Oh, I’m so sorry.

 

            SUZY HANSEN: No worries, no worries.

 

            THE CHAIR: My apologies. I thought you were specifically asking about the Annapolis Valley. Ms. Cooling. We do not want to leave you out.

 

            KARYN COOLING: Of course. Chignecto always loves to give a shout-out to the tremendous lunch program. Definitely echoing what Mr. Jones has said as well. Seeing it first-hand, having the ability to be in schools and see directly the students eating, the smiles on the faces, and enjoying a healthy, nutritious lunch has been unbelievable. Anecdotally, we hear directly from school staff about - we’ve said it around the table already, but we know a healthy meal at lunchtime contributes so positively to the students’ learning abilities and being able to have that positive experience in school. We were definitely excited about that.

 

            One thing that I would like to mention - piggybacking on what Mr. Jones has already said - we’re starting to capitalize on opportunities for student leadership within the School Lunch Program as well. We have started to have the co-op program under culinary with skilled trades in developing those partnerships. As the deputy minister has said, we’re in Phase 3 now, so we have all schools involved. The high school is becoming involved as well. It’s had us think outside the box. How can we capitalize on our own local employees in our cafeterias and be able to have that opportunity of our shared partnership with co-ops, skilled trades, and so they can have that positive experience as well?

 

            SUZY HANSEN: I say this and I’m smiling. We’re all really happy about this program being rolled out across all of the schools. I also want to point out that this was being done before the rollout. I remember being in committee and having these conversations because to me, I’m a community person. Knowing that the community plays a role in helping with preparing food or the local farms, the local businesses being able to make those connections in the school, it really does make a difference, rurally, but as well, in our own communities in the city.

 

I say that because I was really excited to hear this many years ago. I’m glad to hear that now we are utilizing the skills and the opportunities in many different ways in our school system and expanding on it. I worked in the school cafeteria as a student - had an opportunity to do that and have a meal. I think that’s a super benefit for anyone to be able to have these peer leadership opportunities, create positions, and create grades around that. There’s value in the skill sets that you guys have offered.

 

            I say all that because I’m always excited about school food. I was before, and I still am. I think there’s lots to learn, right? I also want to put in that the School Lunch Program isn’t just for students, right? I mentioned that just a minute ago. It’s good for parents; the cost of groceries has increased by nearly 30 percent over the last five years. Providing free, healthy school lunches and in some cases breakfasts as well to children across the province helps to lower the pressures that our families are facing across this province. Deputy Minister, can you give us an update on what percentage of parents are choosing the free lunch program?

 

            TRACEY BARBRICK: If it’s okay, Chair, I will start and then Amanda can certainly fill in.

 

            THE CHAIR: You’re good with that, MLA Hansen?

 

            SUZY HANSEN: Yes, absolutely.

 

            TRACEY BARBRICK: I will speak in kind of the overarching contribution versus what we’re seeing in terms of patterns. Right now, about 5 percent of the cost of delivering school lunches is collected back through the pay-what-you-can model. It was a little higher a couple of years ago - it was around 10 percent in year one. That’s decreased to about 5 percent for different reasons that we don’t always know but we can assume it’s sort of affordability and efforts in that space. I think Amanda could fill in some gaps on what that looks like at the - a little bit closer to individualized level, if you can?

 

            THE CHAIR: Ms. Northcott.

 

            AMANDA NORTHCOTT: Thank you. It’s my first time here, so. (Laughs)

 

            THE CHAIR: You’re great.

 

            AMANDA NORTHCOTT: Thank you very much. I can speak a little bit to the participation and utilization of the program and how that kind of aligns with the parental contributions or family contributions. What we see in the program is there is about a 50 percent participation. About 50 percent of students are accessing this program within any given order cycle. Those students who are accessing the program are using the program, so the uptake is around 50 percent as well.

 

We actually seeing the uptake in our Phase 1 schools - the schools that have now been in the program for two years - increase. This means that the students who are using the program are using the program more often. I think that’s a really important piece of information to have, that we’re seeing both expansion and participation because we’re bringing on schools, but we’re also seeing expansion and participation for the students who have been participating in the program since the beginning. That’s one piece of detail around participation and utilization.

 

            How that aligns with parental contributions: In the first year, we had - I think, Deputy Minister, you just mentioned - about 10 percent of parental contributions in the second year. In 2025-26, that was about 6 percent. Again, we don’t really know what the reason is. We can kind of assume that it has something to do with affordability but, really, we’re happy to see that the uptake of the program is growing and that students who are using the program are using the program more often over the course of the last two years.

 

            THE CHAIR: MLA Hansen, with six minutes.

 

            SUZY HANSEN: Oh, great. We’re starting to see that it’s almost a truly universal program. I’m not trying to not have any funding allocated in between. Whatever you can give, you can give, and I think that’s stated in the process of ordering. I think that speaks volumes to the access and who’s utilizing it. Then there’s no stigma behind - because you couldn’t give me an example of, like, we’ve heard from these folks who said X, Y, and Z. It’s really, truly a program for anyone to be able to use at any time, no matter what situation you may be in. It’s really good to hear that we’re almost there at that point.

 

            In 2022, the Auditor General found that some students would not eat for the entire day because they didn’t have food available to them, and we know that demand for food support has only increased in this province since that time. The executive director of Feed Nova Scotia recently said that the food banks have never seen this level of demand across the province. Deputy Minister, are you confident that if the AG re-did her audit today that there would be no kids in school going hungry or a small percentage of those kids?

 

[1:30 p.m.]

 

            TRACEY BARBRICK: This program was never about collecting fees. It was providing the options to families who felt like they could or wanted to contribute. It was always about feeding children. I think the other piece that Mr. Jones referenced around - there’s no more stigma around identifying the child who’s paid versus not paid. Having a paywall, a digital system so that the children are out of that, the school staff are out of that. The financial transaction not being part of the deal I think really has made that so you can be as discreet as you want to be with obtaining food.

 

There isn’t a school in this province that doesn’t offer food right now. The last Phase 3 program just came on the high schools in grade - I think there were about 70 schools in the end. (Interruption) About 37 high schools, just purely high schools that weren’t already scooped up with the 7 to 12. That was the tail end. There isn’t a school that doesn’t offer - there are two choices for every meal: a vegetarian and a non-vegetarian; 88 different menu options; lots of different elements within that; and, of course, not all children are going to eat every option, but they can eat every option.

 

I feel confidently that every child in the province has access to school lunch, right now, for free if they want and need it - very exciting.

 

SUZY HANSEN: How much time is left?

 

THE CHAIR: Three minutes and fifteen seconds. MLA Hansen.

SUZY HANSEN: Great. I’m going to direct this to Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones had spoken about a breakfast program, and I’m curious to know what that entails, how this came about, and how it’s going.

 

DAVE JONES: In the Annapolis Valley, as I think most schools around the province, for quite some time now, has had a universal breakfast program. It looks different depending on the school. It could be bowls of cereal that are available, it could be fruit and vegetables that are available, sometimes delivered to the classroom, sometimes the students pick them up as they come into the building. It’s usually run by volunteers. It could be staff members who are volunteering time before they start work to do that. That’s been in place for as long as I can remember.

 

We know having a nutritious meal is important, but also starting the day off on the right food is equally as important. The school breakfast programs do that. As I said, it looks different at every school: who’s operating it, who’s volunteering, who’s making sure the options are available, and what they look like or how they differ, depending on the need, depending on what’s available. We leave that up to individual schools to come up with the option that works best for their school community. The universal breakfast program that we offer has been quite successful.

 

SUZY HANSEN: Just a quick follow-up on who pays for this program. Is this school led? Is this community volunteer? I’m just curious.

 

DAVE JONES: I’d say all of that. There are donations, there are grants that are available. There are lots of different ways in which it gets paid for, but certainly, as I said, schools get donations all the time. They’re part of some different programs where there’s money available. There are grants that they apply for. Sometimes there are parent organizations that are involved as well to make that all happen. Again, it looks different from school to school.

 

SUZY HANSEN: I still have time?

 

THE CHAIR: You have a minute.

 

SUZY HANSEN: Oh, wow. (Laughter) I’m going to go to the deputy minister. Just a quick question: What percentage of kids are consistently using the school lunch program? I think you mentioned it, but I just want to write it down, because I know I’m going to forget.

 

TRACEY BARBRICK: You’ve got me trained well. I know to look for the light. I just wanted to add what Mr. Jones just said. The Province funds about $4 million for school breakfasts, and that is augmented by some of the things that Mr. Jones just highlighted. Fifty percent - I think it’s 47 percent of children are ordering at least one meal in every cycle. That doesn’t necessarily mean that only 50 percent of children are ever accessing school lunch; that 50 percent could be different children, but for the cycle of ordering, at least one meal in every cycle it’s 50 percent.

 

THE CHAIR: We will now move on. Order. I meant to mention, if you are in the middle of an answer and we are up against our clock, I will have to call order in the middle of your statement, just so you know. We’ll now move on to the Liberal caucus, and, I believe, MLA Druhan.

 

HON. BECKY DRUHAN: I want to thank all the witnesses for coming and I want to thank each of you for your role in broadly supporting our students in their learning and their well-being, and because our issue and topic today is school food, very specifically on the work that you do around this. There is all-party support for this. I know what is involved in making this happen, so I just want to express my real appreciation for your work around it.

 

I take just a minute to pause and talk about what that looks like, because it’s important for people to understand, I think. I just want to acknowledge that for as long as educators have been educating, they have been considering the needs of the students beyond learning. I know that before the lunch program was introduced, we had teachers, school staff, and principals in the regions who were working to make sure that they were able to meet student needs, including food.

 

Those are individual answers to what is fundamentally a systemic issue. I want to acknowledge the work that has always gone on in our school system by staff, educators, and others to meet broader student needs, including access to food. I want to say that this kind of thing is something that we recognize required a system solution. I was really grateful to be Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development and to be able to introduce this program that we’re now seeing reach its full potential across the province and also being introduced into high schools now.

 

This is about ensuring that students have healthy lunches for their healthy bodies now and into the future, but it’s also fueling learning. You can’t learn when you’re hungry. It’s also an important measure as we see the cost of groceries rise for affordability. I just want to thank you all for that work and acknowledge how much work has always gone into this in the system and recognize that this kind of system solution is really necessary for the issues that this addresses.

 

I want to dig into a few topics that I think are live in the operation of this now and just ask a few questions about those. The first one that I want to start with is around diverse dietary needs. We know that there are students who have allergies and sensitivities, celiac, and other dietary needs. We also have cultural and religious requirements that many students have around school food. I appreciate that there are two meals offered every day, so there is variety built in around that, but I wonder - and I’ll ask this question generally; I know there may be a different lens on it from the department level versus the regional level. What can you say about the availability of alternatives for students who do have diverse dietary needs, and what work may be under way to expand access to diverse meal offerings?

 

THE CHAIR: Just so I know: Are you opening this question up to the entire table? Okay. Who would like to begin?

 

Deputy Minister Barbrick.

 

TRACEY BARBRICK: Let me jump in to start, if that’s okay, and then Amanda, who lives in this space every single day around the continuous improvement pursuit of school lunches, will offer lots more. One of the things that has been a feature of this program with each phase is continuously responding to the needs of the program. Right now, vegetarian meals - there’s also a wide variety of cultural meals that Amanda could highlight that really have been intended to be as inclusive as possible.

 

The celiac piece and some of the real safety allergy responses are tricky because they require a specialized kitchen with a provincial scope. It’s really tricky business. We continue to look for ways to address that. Right now, there are gluten-friendly menu options. I have an 87-year-old aunt who has celiac disease. I have a very close understanding of what it means to have a kitchen make a mistake for her health. We’re not taking that lightly with little people and are being very careful about real allergies. The IWK expertise around nutritional advice regarding reducing allergen possible exposure has been taken in all the menu development and continue to work in that space.

 

If you’re comfortable with me taking a second, I know Amanda could talk more specifically about some of the cultural inclusions in menu options.

 

THE CHAIR: Ms. Northcott.

 

AMANDA NORTHCOTT: We are continuously getting feedback from the families, from the schools, and from the kitchen staff about the menu and what’s working, what’s not working, and what the students’ needs are in the schools. One way we’re addressing this is around our menu planning: increasing access to a variety of foods across the menu and hopefully capturing as many students as we can on any given day or within the ordering cycle as we do that.

 

With that, we have expanded the menu itself from, I believe, about 40 meals in phase one to about 65 in the second year. We’re at over 80 meals now that are in our recipe bank. Those include expanding gluten-friendly options on our menu and taking a menu approach to that. What we do is look at a population approach to the menu, and where we do have those gluten-friendly options available in our recipe bank, we try to spread them out across the menu. Hopefully if those students can safely access those meals, they can access them within the given week. We do that with a few things. We also have expanded our vegetarian options for those students who are choosing not to eat meat or can’t eat meat. There are vegetarian options available to them.

 

Also, we work closely with our health partners. If there is a health care need identified, we work with the Nova Scotia Health Authority and the IWK on the health care planning for those children. This includes severe allergies. They are able to work with the school and with the family within the context of the lunch program to really see what is safe for those students to be accessing and what creates a safe school food environment for them. With that, we also make sure that we have a full ingredient list for families and for students when they’re ordering meals so that they can make informed choices on what meals they would like to access and which ones are safe for them to eat.

 

THE CHAIR: Would any of our Regional Centres for Education want to take a stab at this one? Ms. Cooling.

 

KARYN COOLING: Provincially, I just need to acknowledge that we’ve done a really great job adhering - and Amanda talked about this, the feedback directly from families, staff, and cafeteria workers and what we’re observing in action from the lunch program.

 

Most importantly, the students - some of the schools in CCRCE were able to participate and some students were able to participate in the student feedback. The Province was able to take feedback directly from the students to help expand the menu items and make some menu changes that Amanda already referenced. I just wanted to say that. I think that’s one of the biggest successes of us fine-tuning the menu and moving forward.

 

THE CHAIR: We’re good? MLA Druhan.

 

BECKY DRUHAN: I really appreciate that. I know when we built the school food program initially, it was so important to hear from the schools that identified a need for it, but then also we had so many schools throughout the province that had successful programs in place already. That and then input from staff teams and students really informed the genesis. I think it’s great that that’s continuing to drive improvements in the program.

 

The next question I want to ask about is around food waste. We do hear from students and teachers that there can be a significant amount of food waste associated with the program. I would like to know whether the department or the RCEs are currently tracking how much food is being wasted through the program. What measures are in place to reduce that waste, including whether orders are being adjusted based on participation rates and student preferences?

 

THE CHAIR: Ms. Northcott.

 

AMANDA NORTHCOTT: Certainly for the first two years, we’ve been really focusing on developing the program, implementing it, and expanding it across all schools. With that, we are hearing feedback about food waste. We do have some measures to track that and also to respond to it.

 

One thing we do is we look at our data. This includes what meals are being ordered and what the trends are there. That tells us one piece of the story; it doesn’t tell us what is being consumed on the plate, let’s say, at the school level. We do regularly communicate and get feedback from our schools, from our kitchens, and from our school administrators to say what meals are performing well at the school level and which ones are not performing well and we’re seeing a little bit more plate waste or those types of things. The tracking part of it is really directly with the schools.

 

We’ve also developed a tracker within our platform itself to have the kitchen staff track...

 

[1:45 p.m.]

 

            THE CHAIR: Order. That concludes the 10-minute period for the Liberal questioning. We will now move on to the PC caucus with 30 minutes. I’ll look for a hand. MLA Burns.

 

            RICK BURNS: Hi, and thank you for sharing about the program. It sounds like it’s seeing a lot of good success.

 

            I wanted to bring up the point that we’re hearing from families about the pressure of the cost of living, so, of course, providing food for students at school is able to help facilitate that.

 

            I guess my question would be: how does the School Lunch Program help ease some of these pressures for Nova Scotian families?

 

            THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Barbrick.

 

            TRACEY BARBRICK: It’s pretty remarkable that in two school years there have been 12 million meals served. While there is some contribution to the program, that’s never been the focus. Recovering revenues has never been the focus. The focus has been accessibility for children to high-nutrition food. That’s pretty remarkable just in its contribution to families. The possibility is to contribute up to $6.50 per meal down to $0, so even the recovery cost - there are certainly no profit lines built into any of this, so it’s pretty remarkable that that’s the contribution.

 

            In addition, though, I would talk about the economic impact both at the local food level - there are all kinds of great examples of the apple - the new apple-processing centre and programs that we contributed to the cost of that in the local economy, but also, of the self-operated cafeterias or school lunch programs, there are over 300 employees who are attached to those jobs. Those are good jobs with pensions and benefits. From a local economy, that’s 300-plus jobs in addition to the vendor-operated facilities that have another number of jobs - that we don’t necessarily have the explicit number, because it’s an external business.

 

The economy alone - we are producing, potentially, some version of a thousand employment opportunities attached to this program, in addition to the local home and the reduction of costs for a family. It’s also the opportunity for jobs across this province - sometimes in geographies where good jobs with pensions and benefits are less prevalent than in other areas, depending on the geography.

 

            The total economic contribution of the School Lunch Program is pretty staggering. It’s very exciting to see all of these children have food and work in their local community.

 

            RICK BURNS: In fact, you’ve sort of touched on the second half to my question, which was the economic impact downstream to being able to have local apple producers and the economic benefit as well. We’re really seeing kind of a circular economic benefit from students being able to be provided food and businesses being given the opportunity to supply that food and creating work locally.

 

            Do you hear from the businesses and the vendors as far as their experience in being able to provide and support this?

 

            THE CHAIR: We’ll go to you, Ms. Northcott.

 

            AMANDA NORTHCOTT: We have a very good relationship with our vendors. These are contracted food service providers - third-party vendors who also tell us about how they’ve been able to ramp up their businesses and hire more staff. They’re also doing a lot of procuring locally. It’s actually a requirement within their food service contracts that they procure 20 percent local ingredients. We’re certainly seeing the economic impact of that for our food service providers as well as our self-operated schools that are hiring staff directly.

 

            It’s also - there are ripple effects through the supply chain. There are ingredients, but there’s staff, there’s labour, there’s infrastructure, there’s equipment, there are delivery drivers - there’s a big ripple effect in providing lunch to every school across the province.

 

            THE CHAIR: MLA Sheehy-Richard.

 

            MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD: My ears perked up when you said “apple slicer.” I smiled to Mr. Jones because that’s not only in my old elementary school but in my community. It’s really full circle. I mean, one of the reasons I ran in the first place was for more access to school food. I ran a daycare for a long time, and I remember it was a struggle to see that everybody had something to eat. It makes me really happy to see how far you’ve come. Just the uniqueness to being so - the Annapolis Valley is known for the apples.

 

Where we have very different kitchens in Nova Scotia, and very different models of service, how did the department reach utilizing those differences and then adapting to those in various schools across the province? They are so different.

 

THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Barbrick.

 

TRACEY BARBRICK: Again, I’ll start, and then everybody else knows lots more than I do and have been in this business for a lot longer. I had the benefit of coming in when phase two was hitting the ground, and by that time, a lot of the kinks that all of these folks and all of the vendors and everybody that contributed to this important program - they had a bit of an energy to it and had worked out some of those difficulties by the time I came along.

 

One of the things that’s unique about this was the provincial request for proposals for provincial lunch programs. The standards were put out that had to be met, the menu at the time - it’s evolved over time - and people actually came in and applied for a geographic area where they felt they could meet the need.

 

As part of that, there was also some capital money for equipment and kitchen renovations and all of the pieces that went with that. Lots of communities where they already had somebody in the school who had been delivering school lunches for years were the applicant, and they were able to expand as part of that, and do some unique kitchen upgrades to continue to support those local businesses.

 

I do think the provincial request for proposals was a really sound way to go about that. People had the chance to express an interest and still go through a competitive process but it also was embracing community businesses that had existed for a long time. I think that managed to keep and honour the people who had been involved in this work, and there are a number of businesses that have expanded quite substantially as a result of this work and had the capital money to support their expansion. Very good local business development and support.

 

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD: I also know that early on in the days it was always like “We can produce enough food locally to feed all of us.” The barriers that I saw in the beginning with local farmers are being met, and more and more food is being utilized.

 

How do you balance the supply and the demand? The 20 percent local, is that something that was easily achieved provincewide? In the Annapolis Valley Centre for Education, it’s probably more easily accessible, but how did you make sure that the local food got to the various parts of the province that maybe aren’t as agriculturally strong as other areas?

 

THE CHAIR: Ms. Northcott.

 

AMANDA NORTHCOTT: The 20 percent within the vendor contracts is a really good baseline, I think. This ensured that because of seasonality and access and volume, let’s say, we were providing a fair chance for our vendors to be able to meet the targets that we were requiring of them. Within the contracts themselves, they do have to keep record of these local purchases if we ever want to ask where exactly they are getting the ingredients, and how they are meeting those targets. I think that was a really good baseline for them, just recognizing the availability, the seasonality, and the volumes that this program requires.

 

At the regional level, the regions have procurement strategies that are wrapped around the school food program. In some regions it’s a little bit easier to get local food, and in other regions it’s a little more difficult. We also provincially work with the Department of Agriculture to really scan our menu and our ingredients to ensure that we are using as many local ingredients as we can.

 

We have also purposefully, based on that relationship, made swaps out of ingredients to meet that local procurement and that 20 percent for ourselves as well. The apples are a good example of that. There were a few non-local fruits, let’s say, on our menu, so we did move forward with replacing them with local apples to try to meet that 20 percent and beyond.

 

            MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD: I know my other colleagues have some questions, so last but not least - actually, I have two, because I’m curious about what your priorities are in the coming years. Is it still working out kinks? Have you set a next challenge or where your priorities lie? What other advice would you offer other jurisdictions that would take on such a challenge that you have in such a short period of time?

 

            THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Barbrick.

 

            TRACEY BARBRICK: Full respect for all the people who have been deeply involved in this for years. I don’t want to be glib about my ability to answer things that people are living every day. I think the two things that are the next iteration: The waste is absolutely something that we’re all committed to, and at some point, it would be great if Amanda could talk to you about the pilot on some waste reduction efforts, because I think that’s got a lot of potential. There are some really positive things happening there. Then, I think, also continuing the pursuit around cultural inclusion of food options - safe options that can accommodate more children as much as we possibly can. I think that continues to be the next frontier.

            I think what will continue to be an issue is ensuring that we have good tracking and intelligence on what’s actually happening in that school program and continuous improvement all along. The pilot is quite interesting, if you wanted to hear about that. I know Amanda can talk in some detail about that pilot on waste reduction, because we are all concerned about waste and we can control that some by making sure that menus are responsive and we’re not having a lot of food waste, but there are also containers that we need to pay attention to.

 

            THE CHAIR: Ms. Northcott.

 

            AMANDA NORTHCOTT: Last year, one of our food service providers partnered with a provider of reusable packaging. Right now, our standard packaging is plastic packaging. It is recyclable, so the students dump in the compost and then put the packages in the recycling bag. We did partner with a food service provider who had reusable packaging to pilot this program - so what would it look like if we were able to have containers that could be used more than once and then sent to recycling.

 

            This rolled out in about 30 schools last year. What it was was that the containers were identifiable; they were blue instead of black. The provider of the containers would actually come and pick up the containers at the school. They bring them back to their facility, wash them, sanitize them, dry them, restack them, and get them back to the vendor so that the vendor is able to use these packages up to 100 times. It’s moving a model from potentially a single-use plastic to a plastic that is able to be used up to 100 times.

 

            The pilot was quite successful. It had a return rate of over 80 percent. These packages were going back in the system to be reused, and now we’re building on that pilot to look at how we could potentially further expand it or operationalize it across the program and across more schools. The 30 schools that were participating in the program last year are continuing to participate in that reusable packaging program for this year as well.

 

            THE CHAIR: MLA Boudreau.

 

            HON. TREVOR BOUDREAU: Thank you, all, for being here. Obviously, it’s a very important topic. I think it’s very timely, given the affordability crisis. I’m a numbers guy. Stats really interest me. If you think about 12 million meals, and we’re saying $6.50 a meal, that’s at the low end of what it would cost. If my daughter says today, “Dad, can I have money to go out and eat?” It’s $10 to $15 is what I’m handing her. It’s not $6.50. If you do the numbers, you think about that: 12 million meals. That’s $78 million that’s staying in the pockets of Nova Scotians.

 

            I know the feds have a stat where they say $100 a year is saved on groceries for a family with two children. Even that math, it’s $52 million. That’s money that people have to spend on other things, other necessities. I think it’s crucial that kids get the food they need to be able to deliver at school, to be able to be present, to be able to really focus on their studies. It is also an incredible way to support families on the financial side, too. I think just sitting here listening to the numbers, it’s quite impressive that in two years, we were able to save that. That’s going to continue on for many years.

 

[2:00 p.m.]

 

I want to get back to the discussion about the program itself. Look, I have two different kids. My daughter eats like I do. We eat anything. We’ll try anything. We love all foods. Then I have a son who probably isn’t as adventurous with his food options, although he is getting better. I will say he is getting better.

 

I think you talked a little bit about it, in terms of adjustments that have been made, but what changes have been made to menus and portions based on what you’re hearing from students and families?

 

            THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Barbrick.

 

            TRACEY BARBRICK: A couple of things. Some of the additions that are intending to be more culturally inclusive that have been added over the years - an Acadian rappie pie has been added. That was newer. There’s been butter chicken, chicken souvlaki, falafel, shawarma, a burrito bowl, ramen-style bowls - selecting from lots of different cultural menus. But I was interested to learn - because I actually have what the most commonly ordered meals are, so I’m curious. My kids are now 18 and 23, so they’ve aged out of this. In fact, my youngest just graduated from high school, so he missed the high school rollout by one year, which would have been tough, because I’m pretty sure you’d be hard-pressed to feed that guy. (Laughter)

 

Of course, no shock to any of us is cheese pizza, but vegetables and fruit that come with it; beefy tomato pasta; creamy Alfredo. The one that I saw that I was surprised at - chicken souvlaki and rice is in the top 15. The top 15 are not what you would think about - what we grew up with. If there was a hot lunch in your school, it was probably the little pizzas or a hot dog - you know, hot dog day. I don’t want to say bad things about hot dog day, because that was very important as a child, but the commonly selected meals are more diverse than I might have expected for children. Continuing to bring in more options, take the feedback of children - what’s being ordered, what’s not, what are we seeing for waste - let’s keep continuously iterating that menu to include more things.

 

To your point, if you do have a child who’s maybe a little fussier, having them exposed to meal options that they just maybe haven’t seen before can help with that palate, even if it’s just trying a little bit of it. I think we’ll continue to look for opportunities to bring in more things that children like and that will be an ongoing experience. I don’t think there will ever be a point where this menu is fixed and we’re done. I think we will be constantly making adjustments.

 

            TREVOR BOUDREAU: I think that’s important, and you hit the nail on the head. My mom would have said the same thing about my brother and I. She had two children who were so opposite in terms of their eating, but as you encourage and get them to try new things, that’s when they open their palate.

 

My daughter had a teacher, and one of their programs in school was actually trying new foods - and this was before the School Lunch Program - but just trying and experiencing. Kate would come home and say, “Dad, we’ve got to go get some dragon fruit,” so she was making me try things. I do think that part of this program should be about encouraging and trying new things and experiencing new things. I think that’s important as kids grow up, too.

 

On that, when we look at a program like this, you have all these stats and this data that you look at, but beyond the number of meals that are actually served, what kind of information do you use to know that the program is working? It’s not just about the number of meals, but what else - what other data would you be using?

 

            THE CHAIR: Ms. Northcott, we’ll start with you, and if anyone else wants to chime in - MLA Boudreau, is that okay?

 

            TREVOR BOUDREAU: Yes.

 

            THE CHAIR: We’ll start with Ms. Northcott.

 

            AMANDA NORTHCOTT: Volume is very important to us. The ordering data is important. We do see which meals are being ordered, at what rate, at what time of the year, in what grades, by vendor, and by delivery model. We’re really able to get a lot of data out of our ordering platform, which we call Bon Appétit, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. We’re regularly talking to the Regional Centres for Education and the CSAP. We’re talking to the school administrators themselves, and we’re talking to the kitchen staff, who are really seeing these kids pick up and eat the meals, and how they’re interacting with the meals. We really try to triangulate the data that comes from the ordering platform with some more of that qualitative data and qualitative input that we can get from schools, kitchen staff, and families as well.

 

            In our first year of the program, we did do surveys with families to ask questions about the program. Each year, before we put new items on the menu, we do engage students in student engagement sessions where we talk to them. We do a bit of focus groups, and we also talk to them about what is working well for them, what they’d like to see on the menu, how the technology is working for them, what it looks like when they go up to the school cafeteria, how the service line is, and how the service time is. We’re really always trying to get that more school-level information from the Regional Centres for Education, as well as from the schools and the families themselves.

 

            THE CHAIR: Is there anybody else? Mr. Jones.

 

            DAVE JONES: You can see it when you’re on the ground in the school. Whenever I visit schools, I always make a point to go in and talk to the cafeteria staff. Yesterday I was at a P to Grade 8 school. They have two lunches, first for the elementary students and then for the middle-level students and the activity that’s happening during lunch time. When I talked to the cafeteria workers when this first started a couple of years ago, I would say, “What’s the most popular meal?” They’d list one or two meals.

 

            Yesterday when I asked the cafeteria worker - I’ve visited a number of them over the last couple of weeks - the list isn’t one or two. The list is this long, and there’s another cafeteria worker in behind that cafeteria worker going, “Don’t forget about this meal, because that’s really popular too.” The meals are getting more popular. We’re hearing that from the cafeteria workers. I’m hearing it from the principals. We’re certainly hearing it from the students and the excitement - it’s just a buzz of activity. Yesterday was chicken and rice day, I believe, and it was very exciting.

 

            The other interesting point, living in the Valley: They were also chopping up carrots. A choice yesterday was also carrots. I drive by many fields on my way to work, and I drive by many carrot fields. High probability that those carrots came from the field that I drove past. (Laughter) That’s a good news story.

 

            THE CHAIR: Ms. Cooling, would you like to share anything? I always feel like I’m forgetting you, Ms. Cooling. It’s not because I’m an Annapolis Valley MLA, just so you know. (Laughter)

 

Ms. Cooling.

 

            KARYN COOLING: I was wondering. (Laughs) Mr. Jones is echoing what I’d be saying too: seeing it first-hand but knowing that the program is working. We have the privilege of being able to be in the schools and seeing it and feeling it, without a doubt that it’s working.

 

Back to your point about your son being a picky eater - your second child - the reality is that when I’m sitting at a cafeteria table and there are other people who are eating a certain meal that I may not eat at home when I’m with my mom and dad, I might take a risk and be eating that meal as well.

 

            The success of the program is expanding the diversity of menu items for the students, but I’m going back to the first voice of the students, the cafeteria workers, and the staff directly involved. The fact that that feedback is being utilized and we’re seeing changes - it’s not just being heard but actioned - is a huge part of the success of this program. That’s why it continues to be developing and working and increasing in popularity as well.

            TREVOR BOUDREAU: Maybe just a couple of comments. How much time do we have?

 

            THE CHAIR: Six minutes and twenty seconds.

 

            TREVOR BOUDREAU: I won’t take that, I promise.

 

This is an incredible success story. There’s more to it. It’s still continuing to evolve, and it will still continue to grow. My interest in data - when I was thinking of data, it was like, “Is it the Acadian regions that are liking the rappie pie?” I do think it would be interesting to see the data from different parts of the province and what works well and what doesn’t. I think you have to be that nimble. I think that’s what we’ve tried to do: be creative, look at all the different options, look at different menu options.

 

Any time we can expose people to different foods and different cultures - it’s the same idea for me with the international student program that we have in schools: experiencing different people from all over the world. We’ve taken them for years. That’s how my kids got used to trying different foods from all over the world. They would make stuff. It’s highly effective in terms of just exposing them to different things.

 

            I’ll pass it on to my colleague, because I can talk for a long time.

 

            THE CHAIR: We know that, MLA. (Laughter) Thank you.

 

            MLA Fadare.

 

            ADEGOKE FADARE: While my colleague was talking about picky kids - my kids are very picky. I almost thought you were describing my family for a second. My daughter can eat anything, but my son...

 

It’s amazing talking about this conversation today. It just reminds me of Clayton Park West - the opportunity to go to so many cultural organizations, ethnic groups, community groups. I have the delight of being able to experience all kinds of food. I’m happy that our kids who we’re raising for the next generation are able to have those opportunities.

 

I think this program underscores many things, from what we’ve heard today. It’s not just one thing. Some people see it as just a line item within the budget, but we’re seeing many things. We’re seeing the ecosystem for local businesses. We’re seeing employment. We’re seeing pensions. I think it’s a really remarkable story.

 

I know a couple of people who would talk about this. Talk is cheap. We’ve been able to make this happen. I think it’s such a success story that I really do commend and celebrate the government for making sure that it’s not just talk of “I support something” but also being able to - because ideas are ideas, but the ability to turn ideas into what I call tangible solutions that created all this ecosystem - I think it’s incredible.

 

Chair, how many minutes do I still have left?

 

THE CHAIR: Three minutes and forty-five seconds.

 

ADEGOKE FADARE: Okay, cool. I’ll try to ask one of my very first - one of the things that I would underscore that I’ve heard today is the issue around 47 percent of people are using it by (inaudible). I’m just kind of curious. Are there lessons or are there conversations with the families who are not using it to figure out - because at the end of the day, we want to see more families being able to engage with this. I think that’s the whole goal. I love the fact that you talked about stigmas being removed, which speaks about esteem for children and all that. With removing the cost from family members - from students to be able to feel like, “Oh, my family is not able to afford this.” I love all of that.

 

I’m just wondering, are there lessons that we’re learning or are there are ways we’re reaching those underserved or those individuals or families that are presently not utilizing that at this juncture?

 

            THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Barbrick.

 

            TRACEY BARBRICK: I think the encouraging thing is twofold. We’ve just gone to high school, so let’s see what these high school kids do. There are slightly bigger portions and there are a little bit of additions to the menu options for high school kids to appeal to those guys. Then continuous surveying around who’s using it and who is not using it. There are also some children who are using it now and then, but not on a regular ordering cycle, so how do we continue to make adjustments to menus to be appealing to those kids? Is it to the point of things like allergies and a little bit more tricky health-related things that we need to be super-careful with little people, because they also don’t - if you’re celiac and you’re 50, you’re pretty astute at managing that as an adult.

 

With little people, we have to be more careful, because they may not self-select - mindful for those who maybe have food issues. Can we do more to bring those kids - the kids who now and then order - what more can appeal to them to bring those children in?

 

            There are just always going to be families that make - I had a son who’s a high-performance athlete. He eats like a - I don’t know how you would ever feed that kid enough food. He could probably have a hot lunch plus two other lunches in his gym bag and require that. So not every child is going to be amenable for various reasons.

 

The encouraging part is that we are seeing the children who were involved in Phase 1 - there are actually still increases happening in those age groups. That’s encouraging. We’re normalizing a program. This is only year three. For the elementary school kids, this is their third year with school lunches. For the middle school kids, it’s only their second year, and for the high schools, it’s only their first year. Let’s see how this stabilizes out. We’ll keep making adjustments to try to bring more and more children into the program.

 

            ADEGOKE FADARE: It’s exciting knowing that that feedback works. We’ve heard that today, because you’re not afraid to be agile and nimble. We must always accommodate and be able to create a forum to be able to receive feedback. I think we’re hearing that loud and clear today.

 

            I don’t know how many seconds I have left...

 

            THE CHAIR: Twenty seconds.

 

[2:15 p.m.]

 

            ADEGOKE FADARE: Oh, so I can ask my question. I’ve been to schools trying to talk with kids, and I’ve gotten on-the-floor feedback. I think they’re really liking it, and I think that’s really good. I’ll wait for the next round.

 

            THE CHAIR: We’ll now move on to the Opposition parties, beginning with the NDP. They will each have six minutes.

 

MLA Gallagher.

 

            KRISTA GALLAGHER: I’m really enjoying the conversation today. It’s really good questions and nice conversation. I hear a great commitment from the department not only to do the big lift and get the program going, but I hear a great commitment to adapting and working with the program to make it the best it possibly can be for our kids. I respect that. I also just really love talking about food. (Laughs) I really enjoy it.

 

            A little bit earlier, we had a bit of a discussion around the 20 percent that the third-party vendors are expected to buy locally. As relationships between farmers and vendors deepen, is the department expecting the amount of local food making its way into the school lunches to increase?

 

I also heard Ms. Cooling mention a fresh food cart. I made a little note. I’m curious how much approximately is local food there. Also, is there an interest or a thought or a commitment to teaching seasonal eating running parallel to the food program? That was a lot of questions.

 

            THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Barbrick.

 

            TRACEY BARBRICK: I’m going to start, and then there are probably additions to this. I think the original RFP that went out provincially that included the 20 percent was a test balloon, if you will: How much locally can we capture with these local vendor relationships?

 

The current RFP is a five-year contract, and then we will do a renewal of that. I think the chance to revisit that portion will be informed by five years’ experience on “Could we up that? Can they secure a higher portion of local food?” I think the chance to forge those relationships locally with the specialist - the school food program lead with each region - around if we can go further with that will be a good thing to examine.

 

            Seasonal eating - somewhere in this binder, I have quite a long list of impressive education in children from P to Grade 12 around healthy eating and the ways in which healthy eating and economical eating is threaded through lots of different curricula. I do have a big, impressive list that is a couple of pages long, but suffice it to say, eating local and eating healthy is really a priority across lots of different curricula content. Seasonal eating goes hand in glove with the economics of eating, which I think is an important piece.

 

            In terms of local relationship vendors, forging relationships, I know that my colleagues - in terms of how you striate the work around this great big lift program - Amanda has provincial leadership around the provincial RFP, our menu selections, the feedback around that, continuous improvement, and the vendor management piece. Locally, the regional education directors, as well as your food leads, would be securing those local vendors. I expect my colleagues have a bit to add there about that local cultivation relationship piece.

 

            THE CHAIR: Mr. Jones.

 

            DAVE JONES: I can’t speak to the actual percentage in terms of local produce in the Valley. However, I’m pretty confident it’s well above 20 percent. We have standing offers with a number of companies. The two largest ones are O.H. Armstrong and Keddy Brothers, both from the Valley, and they procure much of their produce from the Valley. Our school food manager identifies them on the list: These ones are from the Valley, these are from Nova Scotia, these are from the Maritimes, so when they’re placing those orders, as much as possible, we are purchasing local. Our school manager supports our cafeteria workers in making sure that happens.

 

I can’t speak to the percentage, but I’m pretty sure it’s quite a bit higher than 20 percent.

 

            THE CHAIR: Ms. Cooling.

 

            KARYN COOLING: We use Armstrong as well, not local directly in Chignecto, but definitely local within Nova Scotia, which is great. As well, for our food managers, working in partnership with the vendor, they’re on speed dial. The partnership is deeply growing because the vendors are very proud to be part of this program as well. They want good quality food. They want to make sure they’re providing the freshest vegetables that we can be giving to our students. We continue to see that evolve, and it’s definitely all in support of local.

 

            THE CHAIR: MLA Gallagher, with 45 seconds.

 

            KRISTA GALLAGHER: Forty-five seconds? I think I can get it in. It was mentioned earlier about diverse foods. My colleague, MLA Paul Wozney, wrote to the minister raising this issue last year and I don’t think he heard back from the minister. I’m wondering if there are any timelines for these diverse meal offerings, like halal or allergies.

 

            THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Barbrick, with 22 seconds.

 

            TRACEY BARBRICK: I think the adjustment to menus over time and adding what’s referred to as gluten-friendly is a good example that by year two that started to come online. I think the exploration around the potential to have both high density enough and geographic areas across the province to be able to do those...

 

            THE CHAIR: Order. We will now move on to the Liberal caucus again, and MLA Druhan.

 

            BECKY DRUHAN: I just want to pick up on a couple of threads that have emerged. The first is in relation to the requirement to source at least 20 percent of food ingredients from Nova Scotian producers. You’ve spoken about the efforts around that, and I think that’s really exciting. The opportunity to maybe expand that in future years is also exciting. Sort of another angle on that, we have seen, since that target was set, American tariffs come online and impact trade. I’m wondering if there is anything that you can say about any changes in response to purchasing or procurement or acquiring food that have been - any changes that have been made as a result of those tariffs.

 

            THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Barbrick.

 

            TRACEY BARBRICK: Monitoring local portion will be important because I think what is likely happening - we haven’t changed, because it was a five-year RFP that had the local portion identified, and changes in those kinds of RFPs are tricky. I think what is likely happening, without being able to provide any data or evidence around it, is if the vendors can access more local content that reduces any impact to costly food. Pineapple is a fair example. There’s not much pineapple in Nova Scotia. I would assume how that is playing itself out is the food costs from outside of Nova Scotia and Canada would get more expensive, and they would be managing within their envelope to maximize their ability. I can’t provide anything around that, but I’ll make an assumption.

 

            BECKY DRUHAN: The next question I want to ask is around access. We know the ordering process requires families to order in advance, and there are very good operational reasons for that and planning reasons for that, but it does mean that on any given day, if a student presents with a need for a lunch, that that particular system doesn’t necessarily capture them. I know from comments that have been made and from conversations I’ve had that there are some workarounds for that that schools are implementing. I wonder if you could share more about how schools across the province are able to support and address those needs that might emerge the day of for individual students.

 

            TRACEY BARBRICK: I’ll just tell you about a few of the things that I’ve heard, and I know again locally my colleagues would have more. We know there are, for instance, resource teachers and counsellors who have some children in their school who are maybe concerned that food is not getting ordered for them. In some cases, they’re going on with the child and placing an order for them or placing a couple of extra orders to make sure there’s extra food. I heard Mr. Jones comment earlier around having some extra meals on hand for those circumstances, so I know they have some of those examples. I’ve heard about them in different rooms I’ve been in, but they might have something more specifically local.

 

            THE CHAIR: Mr. Jones.

 

            DAVE JONES: On one of my recent visits to a school, I asked the principal what it looks like in terms of the extra meals we need to order. Last year, he needed to order some extra meals just to make sure every student had one. His response was that it’s twofold. Number one is that we’re getting much better in terms of communicating to families that it’s important to place the orders. Communication, communication, communication. I think many families forget to place their order, and as that’s gotten better over time through communication, it means that fewer orders are needed. In addition, schools are still ordering a couple of extra meals to make sure that every student has a meal.

 

In that particular school, they’re doing a great job of taking that number of extra meals that the school orders, that are required to make sure that every student has a meal, from here down to here because of better communication with families to make sure they get their orders in. Of course when that happens, it means we’re more accurate in the number of meals that are available on that day, which then translates into less waste. It solves a number of different issues when we communicate with families and work with them to make sure they place orders for their children.

 

            THE CHAIR: MLA Druhan.

 

            BECKY DRUHAN: How much time?

 

THE CHAIR: One minute, 12 seconds.

 

            BECKY DRUHAN: Great. One thing I’m curious about: the student advisory councils and the work we did with them when I was with the department, and then the input that other advisory committees, particularly the minister’s student advisory committee, provided on the development of the School Lunch Program was incredibly important and helpful to me as a minister. I heard directly from so many students, teachers, staff, and families about really specific needs and really specific successes.

 

A few of you have already mentioned the kind of feedback that is being provided from the system, but I’m wondering if you can speak at all specifically to the SACs and the minister’s advisory committees or councils as to what input they may be providing on an ongoing basis to fuel that continuous improvement.

 

            THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Barbrick, with 15 seconds.

 

            TRACEY BARBRICK: Those advisory committees - we certainly have done progress reports on meal uptake and changes in meals culturally over time...

 

            THE CHAIR: Order. Sorry. That concludes the Opposition round of questioning. We’ll move on to the governing PC caucus with MLA Fadare with 12 minutes.

 

            ADEGOKE FADARE: Just wanted to say again that I’m really happy about this program and the success. It’s just really impressive.

 

I want to ask a question. We’ve seen today that there’s a lot of good relationship or collaboration with the regional councils and the department, so I’m just curious about how you have been able to adapt this program in such a way that it’s able to work with different regions, different schools - because we have different school sizes. I know, for example, in my own area we have over 950 people in some schools.

 

How have you been able to adapt this lunch program to be able to maintain what we call consistency, in terms of quality and in terms of various communities that exist? I would love for you to be able to speak into that context.

 

            THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Barbrick.

 

            TRACEY BARBRICK: There’s a fairly consistent staffing model that’s been supported within the department and its connection to the regions throughout this rollout. If Amanda could have a minute, she could walk you through the staffing within the regions and the staffing within her team, and how they work together to make sure this big lift has happened in the way we envision in the continuous improvement piece.

 

            THE CHAIR: Ms. Northcott.

 

            AMANDA NORTHCOTT: One thing we’ve learned is that, like you mentioned, all the schools have different infrastructure, different staffing models, and different production models. Where the flexibility is in the program is to meet the service model, whether that is on site - meaning that schools have kitchens on site and they’ll be able to cook the food on site, and serve it to the students. Where the infrastructure doesn’t exist, we have the off-site model, which is that the food is produced off site and is delivered to the school. That is where some of the flexibility is within the program.

 

There are also things we’ve had to standardize to make sure we are continuing to have that standard quality or some of the standard components of the program, let’s say. Staffing is one of those things. When we were supporting the regions in their staffing, we were looking to other kinds of experts in food service, including health, to how they staffed their kitchens based on volume. One of the things was around seven staffing hours per 100 meals with flexibility based on the infrastructure that’s in place at the school. That is one thing that we have that consistency with flexibility built in based on infrastructure in schools, because we know that they’re so different.

 

[2:30 p.m.]

 

            Other things that we’ve had to - we do standardize our nutrient requirements. We have the standard Nova Scotia School Food and Nutrition Policy. We build around standard recipes and our standard menus based on this. The pay-what-you-can model is a standard model that every family can expect and those types of things. It’s finding the standardization and the consistency and the high program standards where we can and building them into the contracts as well, but then having the ability to be nimble for the service model to meet the school-level infrastructure that’s in place.

 

            ADEGOKE FADARE: You talked earlier regarding when this program was kicking off, there were a lot of investments to help with plumbing, electrical, and all that. Just curious about this side, because I know there are a couple of schools being built. Are we looking at some of that in terms of lessons learned to be implemented in some way in some of the structures?

 

I’m also wondering about some of the lessons that we’re learning from different communities. Are we sharing that across with all of the communities, all the regional education centres? Sometimes we receive information, we have success in some stories, but we localize it. I’m just wondering: Are we able to do transfers of knowledge? Is that happening? Are those lessons being transferred?

 

            TRACEY BARBRICK: I think the capital infrastructure investment has been pretty shocking to me as I look down the list of commercial fridges, commercial stoves. You might have had a kitchen in a school, but it was with a residential stove that was put in there 40 years ago, never contemplating commercial-scale lunch production. I think the opportunity to retrofit existing schools and kitchens has really been afforded through some of the capital funds that have been provided.

 

New schools now, like buildings often do, you move in one direction and then you move in another direction over time. I think there was a movement away from kitchens in schools, and now, of course, we’ve accepted that lunch is an important part. We intend to continue to deliver lunch programs, so schools now are being built with kitchens back in them and built at a commercial grade to ensure that we can do that. It makes the school more adaptable for one.

 

It’s the older schools that had to be retrofitted, that had moved away from lunch provision. Also, that extended into some of the other applicants that were successful in the RFP. They might have had a really good business case and been selected as a vendor, but they might have needed some help to get into a larger-scale kitchen, and that was provided as well. In the early days, that scale-up really made its way through the sector pretty broadly, and we’ll continue to evaluate. Now with every school delivering school lunches, and over time, as schools are built a little bit differently and full kitchens are there, the model may adapt with it over time. It’s been pretty incredible to have 373 schools now having the ability to deliver lunch.

 

THE CHAIR: We’ll move on to MLA Sheehy-Richard.

 

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD: This has been such an exciting conversation. It makes me really happy to know that there are so many choices on the menu. I’m hungry, actually. In the last few minutes, I’ve always wanted to recycle. It’s something I feel very strongly about. When you mentioned the blue containers and the black containers, I’m curious to know, have you had any chance to check the data on that? Is it a cost savings? Not only is it better for the environment and a new industry and a new model, but what are you learning so far from highlighting a potential future program? That was where I was hoping to get some more detail.

 

THE CHAIR: Ms. Northcott. The deputy minister was looking at you. (Laughter)

 

AMANDA NORTHCOTT: Currently with that pilot, it actually sits with the vendor. As part of our contracted services, they actually procure the packaging to provide for the lunch program. It’s part of their meal cost. The financial information right now is actually with them. We certainly are in conversation with them about: “Did you see a cost savings? What was the cost savings? How much do these reusable containers cost?” I think that’s all part of us now looking at what happened last year with the pilot and seeing how it could be applied more provincially with the lunch program, and would there be a cost to it or if it’s feasible operationally.

 

            MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD: I feel like as we move into the EPR system, too, with the extended producer responsibility, it’s also such a learning experience for kids to understand where each piece of garbage goes. As we find out different ways to process it and running out of space to put it, it does excite me to follow up more on that later. I wasn’t actually aware of that pilot.

 

            Again, just circling back to the amount of work that you’ve done - both of my centres for education have been - you mentioned all of the committees that we’ve been to, and you’ve been a champion and leading the program and working collaboratively. It was a big lift. I can’t even really believe that it’s been accomplished, when I think of the variety of schools across the province and the kitchens and the fact that, like I mentioned, the old elementary school came full circle into now producing mass quantities of food, not just for our students in school but for other local procurement. It’s huge for agriculture and for building the economy. That’s what we grew on, this kind of thing.

 

            Back to the local producers - when you think of what we ate before, and we’re trying to grow a beef industry - is there any talk of perhaps having like, the sloppy joe, but in a - is that one of the menu items on there? You triggered me to think of back to the school days when we had the chicken burger and the sloppy joe and the hot dog. Are those some options that the kids have thought of, or is it totally different menus? (Laughter)

 

            THE CHAIR: Now I’m really hungry.

 

            Ms. Northcott.

 

            AMANDA NORTHCOTT: We’re actually surprised that the sloppy joe has not come up in the student engagement sessions. I’m not sure if sloppy joes aren’t being eaten at home anymore or what the case is. It is one that we thought might come up, the sloppy joe, but it has not. I think there have also been some concerns with the messiness of a sloppy joe, potentially, especially for that offsite delivery. A sloppy joe is probably something we could do onsite and do it pretty well. It would be a little bit more difficult to do the sloppy joe in that delivery model where it would have to travel to schools. The sloppy joe has not come up yet with the students, at least.

 

            THE CHAIR: We’ll pass it on to MLA Boudreau with one minute and 45 seconds.

 

            TREVOR BOUDREAU: Oh, like this is going to happen. (Laughter)

 

            I go back to stats and I think - I was talking a little bit about the money and the affordability side of things, but that’s really secondary. That wasn’t the reason. We were talking about getting nutritious meals to students. It’s about when students are well fed, they can perform. They can do what they’re in school to do. I think that gets me back to thinking about the idea of stats on all this.

 

We might not even get to a question on it, but we know that food security is, at a macro level, a very important part about student learning. I was going to ask the two executive directors: Are we seeing positive changes in student outcomes related to the food program? I’m putting you on the spot, but I just try to think of the positive outcomes that we would be seeing from this.

 

            THE CHAIR: Mr. Jones.

 

            DAVE JONES: I’m not sure that there are any stats that will identify that. I think the research is crystal clear. In terms of actually seeing it on the ground, I think that will take a little bit of time. We’re just rolling out. It’s only year three. The evidence is clear around mental health and physical well-being and being ready to learn. I don’t have any stats, but I’m pretty confident that students are getting a good nutritious meal each day and that’s making a positive difference.

 

            THE CHAIR: Ms. Cooling, do you want to add to that? There are nine seconds. Sorry.

 

            KARYN COOLING: Just anecdotally - again, we don’t have the quantitative to be able to provide that right now, but qualitatively, absolutely. We’re getting feedback directly from staff, schools, even family members speaking of that in an anecdotal way.

 

            THE CHAIR: Thank you. That was a phenomenal conversation. Thank you very much. We’ll allow - if you’d like to provide a closing statement. Any closing remarks? We’ll maybe begin in the reverse order this time.

 

Ms. Cooling, if you’d like? Then Mr. Jones, and then the deputy minister.

 

Ms. Cooling.

 

            KARYN COOLING: I would just like to say thank you for the opportunity to be here today to speak about the lunch program. It’s been incredible to be able to share stories. Thank you.

 

            THE CHAIR: Mr. Jones.

 

            DAVE JONES: I’ll say the same thing. I really appreciate the opportunity to come and talk about the program that’s happening in the province and in the Annapolis Valley. It’s been great, and I’m looking forward to it continuing. Thank you.

 

            THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister Barbrick.

 

            TRACEY BARBRICK: Thanks. What a gift to be here to talk about this after I read three sets of Hansard around people talking about the importance of a universal lunch program, so yay me. (Laughter)

 

Thank you very much for the conversation. It’s very exciting to know that every child in this province has access to a healthy lunch. Thank you.

 

            THE CHAIR: Thank you very much. We will now take a short recess to allow our guests to leave and then we’ll come back from some committee business. We’ll stand in recess for three minutes.

 

            [2:41 p.m. The committee recessed.]

 

[2:44 p.m. The committee reconvened.]

 

THE CHAIR: Order. We’ll bring our committee back to order. We do have some committee business to attend to. We’ll begin with an NDP motion that has been put forward by MLA Hansen that was received this morning.

 

MLA Hansen.

 

SUZY HANSEN: I wanted to put forward this motion:

 

Whereas missing even one meal can affect a student’s ability to learn; and

 

Whereas grocery prices have increased by nearly 30 percent over the last five years, pushing more families to either cut back or rely on food banks;

 

Therefore be it resolved that the members of this committee agree that the School Lunch Program should be protected by legislation, and that any reduction in the availability of free school lunches in this province should be matched with a 20-percent reduction in the salaries of the governing members who hold Cabinet positions.

 

[2:45 p.m.]

 

THE CHAIR: Is there any discussion? MLA Boudreau.

 

            TREVOR BOUDREAU: I want to thank the member for sharing that motion with us beforehand so that we actually had a chance to look at it. I think all members here would agree, and I think all members of the Legislature would agree, that it’s important to protect and preserve the School Lunch Program. Certainly as a government over the last three years we’ve very much committed to that: $33 million dollars in 2024-25, $82 million in 2025-26, and $102 million in the last budget, which was a difficult budget. But I think I’d like to make an amendment to the motion.

 

            Be it resolved that the members of this committee agree that the School Lunch Program should be protected and that any vote against a budget containing funding for the School Lunch Program should be matched with a 20 percent reduction in the salaries of any member of the Legislative Assembly casting such a vote.

 

            THE CHAIR: There’s an amendment. Any discussion? MLA Hansen.

 

            SUZY HANSEN: Yes, I have a discussion on this particular amendment. I appreciate the fact that here we are, we’re having this discussion, but as we know, with the budget cuts in the previous sitting - not this sitting, but in the previous one - that nothing is really set in stone. You’re not saying protected by legislation. I would like for us to have it legislated what that looks like in the House so it can come forward for all of us MLAs to be able to debate it in the House. The issue with not having it in legislation, is that it never comes forward, which is why it says those who hold Cabinet positions are the folks who are actually making the decisions, and not those folks who are sitting in the Legislature at the time. We get it at the same time as a lot of folks get it in the House when it comes forward and it’s already decided on. That’s why I put it forward as this particular piece in the motion.

 

            THE CHAIR: Any other discussion on that amendment? We will vote on the amendment.

 

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

 

            The amendment is carried.

 

Now, we will vote on the amended motion.

 

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

 

            SUZY HANSEN: Can I have a question on the amended motion?

 

            THE CHAIR: I’m sorry, okay. Discussion? MLA Hansen.

 

            SUZY HANSEN: Can the member read out what the amended motion is, so that we can actually be clear on what it is that we’re asking?

 

            THE CHAIR: Yes, this is the one that we just passed, we just approved this amendment. Go ahead, MLA Boudreau.

 

            TREVOR BOUDREAU: Be it resolved that the members of this committee agree that the School Lunch Program should be protected and that any vote against a budget containing funding for the School Lunch Program should be matched with a 20 percent reduction in the salaries of any member of the Legislative Assembly casting such a vote.

 

THE CHAIR: Is there any other discussion on this? MLA Hansen.

SUZY HANSEN: Can I take a moment so I can actually read it and absorb it? Because right now I just want to be able to be clear.

 

THE CHAIR: You’re asking for a recess?

 

SUZY HANSEN: Yes, I’d love a recess.

 

THE CHAIR: I’ll give you a two-minute recess.

 

SUZY HANSEN: That’ll be great, thank you so much.

 

[2:49 p.m. The committee recessed.]

 

            [2:50 p.m. The committee reconvened.]

 

            THE CHAIR: Order. We’re back in session for our committee. MLA Druhan, I think you had a comment you wanted to make on the discussion.

 

            BECKY DRUHAN: I’d just like to clarify for the record what it is that the government has now proposed that we’re voting on. I’m going to read it again: “Be it resolved that the members of this committee agree that the School Lunch Program should be protected.” I’m going to pause there and say, 100 percent. Absolutely agree the School Lunch Program should be protected, but it doesn’t end there. It goes on to say: “and any vote against a budget containing funding for the School Lunch Program” - let me pause there. Every budget that will be tabled going forward from now on in Nova Scotia will have to contain funding for the School Lunch Program. They’re saying any budget, really, going forward.

 

To be clear, government is saying: “any vote against a budget containing funding for the School Lunch Program” - any vote against any budget this government passes going forward - “should be matched with a 20 percent reduction in the salaries of any member of the Legislative Assembly casting such a vote.”

 

            Let me be clear. If this government seeks to pass a budget in the next sitting that cuts libraries, that cuts cultural programs, that cuts programs for students with disabilities, that cuts any other disadvantaged folks, that provides funding for contracts that are given to friends without proper procurement, any MLA who votes against that budget, our committee says should take a 20 percent pay reduction.

 

I just want to make it clear what this supermajority government has proposed and what it is that we’re voting against. To be clear, every budget going forward will have to contain funding for the School Lunch Program, and it is the government’s position on this committee that no MLA should be able to vote against a budget, even if it has all those other damaging impacts, without getting a 20 percent pay cut.

            I want to be real clear on the record, so that when I vote against this horrible, horrible motion, the government doesn’t turn around and try to portray it as me voting against the School Lunch Program. Just to be real clear here. They’ve already got cuts baked in. Wanted to make it real clear what this is about.

 

            THE CHAIR:  MLA Hansen, did you have a comment?

            SUZY HANSEN: Yes, and I also want to say that it doesn’t say “containing funding cuts for the School Lunch Program”; it just says “funding.” That could be any funding, whether it’s a cut or not to the School Lunch Program. I think to be honest, can I make an amendment to an amendment?

 

            THE CHAIR: The amendment has passed. We already passed the amendment. You can make an amendment to the passed amendment. MLA Hansen.

 

            SUZY HANSEN: Getting back to the amendment, I would like to amend this amendment to say - here we are: “Therefore be it resolved that the members of this committee agree that the School Lunch Program should be protected by legislation, and that any reduction in the availability of free school lunches in this province should be matched with a 20 percent reduction in the salaries of the governing members who hold Cabinet positions.”

 

            THE CHAIR: There’s an amendment to the amendment. Comments? We’ll vote on the amendment to the amendment.

 

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

 

            The motion is defeated on the amended motion.

 

            We still have the amended motion on the table. MLA Hansen.

 

            SUZY HANSEN: I have a question to the amendment motion. Is that okay, Chair?

 

            THE CHAIR: Is it a discussion?

 

            SUZY HANSEN: Perfect. This amended motion does not actually speak to what the initial motion is talking about: protecting the school food funding. It actually goes counterproductive to what it is that we’re actually here to talk about.

 

My initial motion was to put forward a motion stating that there were protections in place for our students and the school food that’s available to them. We know how hard it took for them to bring this forward. It was heard today by many members who have been here and who haven’t, talked about how it had been here on a number of iterations through Hansard. I just want us to be very clear about what our focus is on. It’s for the children and their school food and making sure that the budget cuts, or not cuts, that may come forward don’t include the school food funding for our children in Nova Scotia.

 

Hence the amended piece for me that is presented by this member is counterproductive to what we’re actually talking about when we talk about school food funding for our students. If we all were in agreement of the fact that, here we are, this is a feel-good motion - we’ve heard how important it is for our kids to have a balanced diet and really good food starting school and for lunchtime. It’s really important for us to stay focused on what the process is.

 

If we felt like there weren’t going to be any budget cuts, then we wouldn’t have changed the amendment, because then there would be no worry about the fact that the funding would be lost at any point in the process in the next few years. With all of that said, Chair, I just really feel like I want us to be very clear about what this particular amendment is being put forward and what the role of the committee is. You do know, and I’ve been told multiple times, that the role of the committee is not to influence and not to make anybody else do the work; it’s to actually ask for information and to put forward things that we think would be beneficial.

 

I think that by putting forward this particular amendment, it actually is very counterproductive to what we all really want here: for our school food program to be upheld and to continue on as a staple, as a part of our education system.

 

THE CHAIR: We will vote on the amended motion. MLA Boudreau.

 

TREVOR BOUDREAU: I just wanted to make sure we’re all very clear. I think our government, and I think all members on this committee and all members of the Legislature have stated we’re in support of the School Lunch Program. We’ve invested $100 million this year. That’s an increase of $22 million in a very difficult budget session. Very difficult budget session. We’ll continue to support this program. We’re just seeing the benefits of it happening right now. I think with all programming, or with the vast majority of programming, it’s done through a budgetary process. We have Estimates, we have all of those things, and I believe that we have an opportunity.

 

If we’re going to continue discussion, I would ask for an extension of five minutes to the committee meeting.

 

THE CHAIR: There has to be unanimous consent.

 

MLA Gallagher.

 

KRISTA GALLAGHER: I can’t imagine that the government means this amendment. We’ve been here for the past few hours listening to all the work that the department has done. We all believe in feeding kids; we’re just asking it to be legislated so that governments after us can’t take the funding away. I can’t imagine. I’m trusting the good in the people. I can’t imagine that this amendment is meant what it says. We just want to feed kids.

 

THE CHAIR: MLA Hansen.

 

SUZY HANSEN: I want to remind folks that there have been lots of things that we would never have thought would be taken out of a budget. There were many things that I would never think that this government would remove funding for, like museums, libraries, scholarships, and science programs. I never would have thought that would have been something that the government would do after decades of funding or decades of support, or just really believing in all of those things. Yet we have seen that. We’ve seen it and we haven’t even had an opportunity to debate it on the floor.

 

As MLAs, we all hold a role that is representative of our communities, and when our communities expect of us to be representing them on the floor of the House. It’s not an aftershock of, like, “Oh, by the way, I just cut funding that I never told you about” that I want to be able to express my concern for but it’s already been decided because it’s part of a budget line that’s been taken away from Nova Scotians who truly believe in it.

 

            THE CHAIR: Order. The time for our committee is now over for the day. That concludes our meeting for today. (Interruption) Our next meeting is to be decided. Thank you.

 

            We stand adjourned.

 

            [The committee adjourned at 3:00 p.m.]