HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2025

[Page 828]

Sixty-fifth General Assembly

First Session

1:00 P.M.

SPEAKER

Hon. Danielle Barkhouse

DEPUTY SPEAKERS

John White, Marco MacLeod, Tom Taggart

THE SPEAKER » : Order. We will begin the daily routine.

PRESENTING AND READING PETITIONS

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

CLAUDIA CHENDER: I beg leave to table a petition. The operative clause reads:

Therefore we, the residents of Nova Scotia, call upon the Government of Nova Scotia to proclaim the Coastal Protection Act and complete the associated Regulations to ensure consistent enforcement of the provisions set out in the Act.

I have signed the petition, as per the rules. It has 2,142 signatures.

THE SPEAKER « » : The petition is tabled.

PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS

STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS

GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Energy.

HON. TREVOR BOUDREAU: I beg leave to make a number of introductions.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

TREVOR BOUDREAU: In the Speaker's Gallery today, we have several recipients of the province's Low Carbon Communities Program grants. I would ask that they please rise as I introduce them so they may receive the warm welcome of the House.

[Page 829]

From the Annapolis Valley Regional Centre for Education, Casey Conrad; from Halifax Regional Fire & Emergency, Phillip Dugandzic and Corey Beals; from Hope Blooms, Verónica Gutiérrez; from the District 13 Recreation Planning Commission, Andy Thompson; from Tomorrow's Legends, Bill Kachafanas; from the Cape Breton Regional Municipality, John Phalen; from the Climate Focus Society, Sean Kelly; from Sociable Media Inc., Maria McGowan; from Dalhousie University, Stephanie MacPhee and Ahsan Habib; from the Municipality of Colchester, Joanna Burris; from the Union of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq, Wasuek Googoo; from Halifax Water, Kenda MacKenzie; and from the Nova Scotia Community College, Janine Meade.

I would ask all members of this House to join me in giving our guests a warm welcome. (Standing ovation)

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

The honourable Minister of Energy.

RESOLUTION NO. 36

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

Whereas Nova Scotia communities are leaders in developing their local natural resources to cut their bills for power, heat, and transportation, and every year the Low Carbon Communities Program supports them with funding to get clean-energy, low-carbon projects up and running at the community level; and

Whereas this year, 27 clean energy projects are being funded by the Low Carbon Communities Program for projects ranging from clean energy feasibility studies, designs, strategies and planning, education, engagement, and other initiatives for clean energy solutions across Nova Scotia; and

Whereas the recipients of this funding represent communities around the province that are doing their part to bring green jobs to their areas through local and innovative climate change projects;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of the House of Assembly recognize and appreciate the work that Nova Scotia communities are doing to boost the local green economy as they work toward a low-carbon future for our province.

[Page 830]

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

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

Is it agreed? It is agreed.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

The honourable Minister of African Nova Scotian Affairs.

HON. TWILA GROSSE « » : Speaker, before I read my Government Notice of Motion, I beg leave to make an introduction.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

TWILA GROSSE « » : It's a special honour for me to acknowledge the Black Ice Hockey & Sports Hall of Fame Society. The Black Ice Society is a Nova Scotia-based not-for-profit society that recognizes and showcases Black achievement in sport. Here today are its members: Dean Smith; Calvin Barton; and Kendrick Douglas. I ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. (Standing ovation)

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

The honourable Minister of African Nova Scotian Affairs.

RESOLUTION NO. 37

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

Whereas in 1895, the Colored Hockey League of the Maritimes was founded by African Nova Scotians, establishing the world's first all-Black hockey league and providing athletes of African descent with a platform to showcase their skills, determination, and love of the game, despite the racism and exclusion they faced; and

Whereas these pioneering players were not only exceptional athletes but visionaries who transformed the sport, introducing innovations like the slap shot and the goaltender butterfly style, which shaped the game we know today; and

Whereas the legacy of the Colored Hockey League extends far beyond the rink as a story of resilience, strength, and excellence that continues to inspire generations of athletes and reminds us all of the power of breaking barriers;

[Page 831]

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this Legislature recognize the 130^th anniversary of the Colored Hockey League of the Maritimes, honouring its profound impact on Canadian sports history and reaffirming our commitment to ensuring that the contributions of African Nova Scotians and people of African descent are never forgotten.

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

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

Is it agreed? It is agreed.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried. (Standing ovation)

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

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Speaker, I missed tabling a document. I'm wondering, would it be possible to revert back so I can table a document?

THE SPEAKER « » : Do we have unanimous consent to revert back?

Is it agreed? It is agreed.

[TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS]

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

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Thank you, Speaker. I'd like to table a document in relation to my member statement today.

THE SPEAKER « » : The document is tabled.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill No. 68 - An Act Respecting Certain Financial and Other Government Measures. (Hon. John Lohr)

Bill No. 69 - An Act to Establish a Nova Scotia Community Assembly. (Lisa Lachance)

[Page 832]

Bill No. 70 - An Act to Support Nova Scotian Businesses and Workers. (Hon. Derek Mombourquette)

Bill No. 71 - An Act to Eliminate the Payment of Taxes on Tax. (Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin)

Bill No. 72 - An Act Respecting Used Vehicles Sales. (Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin)

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

NOTICES OF MOTION

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

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

HON. DAVE RITCEY « » : Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction before beginning my statement.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

DAVE RITCEY « » : In the gallery, I am honoured to introduce Mike Knowlton, Keith Gillis, and Dr. Henry Smit from BIKE Truro. Joining them also today is my constituency community outreach coordinator, Mike MacDonald. Mike, Keith, Henry, and Mike, I would ask that you please rise and accept the warm welcome from the members of the Legislature. (Applause)

[1:15 p.m.]

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

The honourable member for Truro-Bible Hill-Millbrook-Salmon River.

BIKE TRURO: COM. SERV. - THANKS

HON. DAVE RITCEY « » : I rise today to recognize and express my sincere gratitude to BIKE Truro, a dedicated team of four volunteers who work tirelessly to maintain and groom the Railyard Mountain Bike Park at the southern end of Victoria Park.

With more than 40 kilometres of trails, the Railyard offers some of the best and most accessible fat biking and mountain biking in Nova Scotia. These passionate local biking enthusiasts are on a mission to make Truro and its surroundings a premiere fat bike and mountain bike destination. From advocating for improved trails to organizing the exhilarating short track race series, their efforts ensure that the Railyard remains a year-round haven for cyclists of all skill levels.

[Page 833]

Their commitment and hard work make a lasting impact on our community, and I thank them for their dedication.

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

PROTESTERS: SPECIAL INTEREST RALLY - THANKS

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : I want to take this time to recognize all the rabble-rousers and professional protesters and people with special interests - like parents and senior citizens and teachers and doctors - who are outside today to let us know about the special interests that they have. People who are interested in democracy - I know this from the signs that I was reading - freedom of the press, affordable energy, public consultation, labour rights for workers, and climate justice.

I just want to say that a couple of the signs that I read were very important, and I would like to quote from them. If I need to table the photograph of them, I will. "No consultation, no warning, no mandate. Now who's putting the no in Nova Scotia?" That was one - that's my favourite. Another one says, "My mom says we're all special," which is pretty great too.

Speaker, people are showing up today to let this government know that they want transparency and they want democracy in this province. We are very grateful they're here.

THE SPEAKER « » : Before I recognize the next member, you will have to table - not the signs - pictures tomorrow. You have tabled a teacup, so I don't put it past you.

The honourable member for Inverness.

ASH WEDNESDAY: CHRISTIAN CELEBRATION - RECOG.

KYLE MACQUARRIE « » : I'm not sure what the member meant by "professional protesters," but I'll continue to read my member's statement.

Today I rise to celebrate Ash Wednesday, a sacred day observed by many Christians as the beginning of Lent, a six-week period of reflection, fasting, and prayer leading up to Easter. It is a time when Christians around the world gather in church services to receive ashes on their foreheads. These ashes, prepared from the burned palm leaves of the previous year's Palm Sunday, are a powerful symbol rooted in biblical tradition and serve as a reminder of human mortality, God's boundless love, and spiritual renewal.

For many, this day marks the beginning of personal sacrifices, daily devotions, and acts of charity as we prepare for the joy of Easter. It is a time to contemplate our shared humanity, responsibilities to one another, and the values of humility, compassion, and forgiveness.

[Page 834]

As we recognize the importance of Ash Wednesday, let's take a moment to honour the diversity of faiths within Nova Scotia and the universal values they inspire.

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

PROTESTERS: SPECIAL INTEREST RALLY - THANKS

SUZY HANSEN « » : I rise today to show my love for the folks who are using their voices loudly to fight for democracy and to fight for the interests that have special meaning to them. I hope that folks in here would listen. It's very, very loud. They're speaking loud and clear. They have travelled from across the province to be seen and heard.

This would be a great opportunity to have a conversation and consult folks. We were out there talking to folks, and they talked about how these policies are so deranged that Joseph Howe is rolling in his grave. They also said that they liked their FOIPOPs "frivolous" and "vexatious." They also like their journalism honest and courageous.

Speaker, if there is an opportunity, this is one right now, to speak to the people and listen to the Nova Scotians who are right outside our door.

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

VOLUNTEERS: MACDONALD MEMORIAL LEGION - RECOG.

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : Today I want to recognize an outstanding group of volunteers at the Macdonald Memorial Legion. It's a cornerstone of our community, and they host many events from Remembrance Day to New Year's levees to card games and arts - the list goes on.

In appreciation of their unwavering dedication, I was pleased to award the King Charles III limited edition commemorative pins to volunteers, who are always there to serve our community, especially annually on Canada Day for pancakes. The recipients include Cathy McCulloch, Jocelyn Field, Pam Young-Blaikie, Joanne Richardson, David Smith, Dave Corbin, Donnie Gabriel, Christine Gabriel, Keith Johnson, Mary Marriott, Larry Marriott, Hailey Corbin, Ian Angus, President Claude Fraser, as well as the retired president, Larry MacDonald.

I ask the members of the House of Assembly to join me in thanking this group for the contributions they've made and lasting impact. I look forward to many more years of coming together to celebrate and support one another.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Yarmouth.

[Page 835]

PERRY, TREVOR: NEW COUNCILLOR - CONGRATS.

NICK HILTON « » : I rise today to congratulate Trevor Perry on his municipal byelection win this past Saturday. This evening Trevor will be sworn in as the newest councillor for the Municipality and District of Yarmouth. The residents of District 7 had a difficult decision: choosing between two very capable and respected candidates. As a resident of District 7 and the former councillor for the area, it's exciting to know we will continue to have a strong voice representing our area at the council table.

The Perry family name resonates in our community. It's synonymous with hard work, dedication, and volunteerism. Trevor's father, Tom, a longtime resident of Central Chebogue area, passed away in December. Tom was a pillar in our community, attending or volunteering at numerous community events and organizations. I have no doubt Trevor will continue that legacy of strength and support.

Although I can't attend this evening, I wish Trevor all the best and offer my full support as he starts this adventure. I look forward to working with Trevor and all of council to move the region forward. Congratulations, Councillor Perry.

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

LIONS CLUB: BUILDING SALE - RECOG.

KENDRA COOMBES « » : It's beautiful to hear the gorgeous sounds of democracy outside our windows today, I've got to tell you. I'm going to talk about another special interest group that's close to my heart.

I announce the unfortunate closure of the New Waterford Lions Club building with sadness. It is truly the end of an era, and the ushering in of a new day. The Lions Club members are selling the building to the Souls Harbour Rescue Mission.

Jules Gittens, the club's treasurer, who joined in 1974, said that with only five members in its current membership, and difficulty attracting new, younger members, it made more sense to provide the building to a group that could put it to good use. The Lions Club members are not done. They plan to continue holding meetings and supporting the community. I thank them for their continued community support. I welcome Souls Harbour Rescue Mission to New Waterford, where the need is tremendous because the poverty is high.

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

CRAWFORD, JOSH: FUNERAL DIRECTOR - RECOG.

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : I want to recognize Josh Crawford. Josh is a dedicated funeral director and esteemed pastor, serving at T.J. Tracey Cremation & Burial Specialists. He brings a wealth of experience to his dual roles, providing exceptional support to families during some of life's most challenging moments.

[Page 836]

As an ordained minister, Josh's deep connection to the Beechville community is evident through his active engagement and understanding of its diverse customs and culture. This involvement has endowed him with the unique ability to swiftly adapt his communication style to meet the varied needs of his clients, ensuring that each family receives personalized and compassionate care. Josh demonstrates an innate quality for empathetic interaction, patiently counselling families to help them navigate through their grief and make difficult, emotional decisions. His commitment to guiding families with sensitivity and respect is an invaluable asset to the community he serves.

I ask the members of the House of Assembly to join me in thanking Josh for kindness and compassion that he provides to the community every day.

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

RCL BR. 98: VETERANS COFFEE BREAK - THANKS

CHRIS PALMER: I rise today to recognize a wonderful initiative in our community, the Kingston Legion's weekly Veteran's Coffee Break. This gathering has quickly become a vital tradition, providing a welcoming space where veterans can come together, share stories, and support one another.

The Kingston Legion Branch No. 98 has long been a cornerstone of the community, and this weekly event is yet another example of its dedication to those who have served our country. More than just a cup of coffee and fresh baked goodies, these gatherings foster camaraderie, connection and a sense of belonging for our veterans. At each meeting, the Legion tries to have a Legion service officer and representatives from the local MFRC in attendance to answer any questions about Veterans Affairs Canada, issues, and programs for veterans. I attend as many of these as possible to hear concerns and needs of our local veterans and to provide information about provincial initiatives.

I want to commend the organizers, volunteers and all those who attend for making this initiative a success. Their commitment ensures that our veterans are recognized, supported and never forgotten. I ask all members of the House to join me in thanking the Kingston Legion for their ongoing dedication to our veterans and for continuing to uphold the spirit of service to the community in Kings West.

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

ARMSTRONG, LAURIE ANN: DEATH OF - TRIBUTE

KRISTA GALLAGHER « » : It is with great sadness that I rise today to announce the sudden passing of my grandmother, Laurie Ann Armstrong. My grandmother was a person who cultivated curiosity in politics. I went to many Progressive Conservative events with her and I will always remember her profound commitment to political engagement. Her wise words have always stayed with me and she often told me that she didn't care how I voted as long as I voted. Laurie Ann was deeply involved with politics, and she was overjoyed when I told her that I was running for this seat. I am proud to say that she got to see me take my seat in this House and represent the voices of my constituents. I often went to her for questions, and her passing leaves a gap in my life where I would have looked to her for experience and understanding.

[Page 837]

She was a woman with excellent wit and a great sense of humour, and she could keep up with my younger sister, who is the funniest person I know. She loved a good square, a cookie or a cake, hot weather, and a good romance novel. In September, my grandmother lost her best friend, Linda, and I believe that she never quite recovered from the loss. She will be greatly missed by her four children, Leander, Andrew, Daniel, and Melissa, her seven grandchildren, and many great-grandchildren. It would have meant so much to Laurie Ann to be acknowledged in this House and therefore I ask the members of the House today to honour the legacy of Laurie Ann Armstrong and her commitment to Nova Scotia politics. (Standing ovation)

THE SPEAKER « » : I'm sorry for your loss. Let's have a moment of silence in respect for your grandmother.

[A moment of silence was observed.]

Please be seated.

The honourable member for Pictou West.

AHEAD OF HAIR: 39 YRS. IN BUS. - CONGRATS.

MARCO MACLEOD « » : I rise today to recognize a strong, successful business owner in Pictou West. Eva Sutherland opened Ahead of Hair in Pictou 39 years ago and has expanded her hair salon to include skincare products, clothing, jewelry, and accessories. It was so successful that she opened a second boutique five years ago called the Seaside Treasure Trove, which she co-owns with her daughter, Kayla. Now Ahead of Hair and Seaside Treasure Trove have become a shopping destination. Eva has also started the Holiday Heartwarmers, a seniors-in-need program. She organizes and collects donations, creating Christmas gift bags to give to seniors who are living independently in our community.

Thank you, Eva, for growing a successful business and your wonderful contributions to our community.

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

NEW BABIES: IMPACT - RECOG.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : As the great Whitney Houston sang, "I believe the children are our future," and there is a veritable baby boom in Dartmouth North right now. I want to take a moment to welcome a number of cute-as-a-button humans to this world and to send congratulations to their amazing and presumably exhausted parents.

[Page 838]

In October, Guyleigh Johnson and Jamel welcomed Prince Myaire Johnson into the world. At the end of November, Florence Moon Babych made her appearance and has joined her super cool parents, Lizzy and Jesse, in family life. In December, Beverley Niamh Forsyth was born to Siobhan Wiggans and Walter Forsyth and is the apple of her sisters' - Sage and Saoirse - eyes. In December, Madeline Grace Gribbin Mitchell was born to her proud parents, Clare Gribbin and Matt Mitchell. Based on the strollers I see in the community on my walks, I think there are many more babies who have recently arrived.

At this time of global uncertainty and unrest, these sweet beings have brought light and love into the world with them. Welcome, little ones. We are so glad you are here.

[1:30 p.m.]

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

ROBERTS, JO-ANN: BOOK LAUNCH - RECOG.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Today, I rise to give congratulations to a woman named Jo-Ann Roberts. Last night, I had the honour of attending a book signing as she launched a book she's recently written, entitled Storm the Ballot Box. This book is an insider's guide to a voting revolution.

Many may know Jo-Ann as a former interim leader of the Green Party of Canada. She is also an award-winning journalist who is passionate about democracy, public broadcasting, and fighting climate change. She spent 20 years as a CBC Radio host and covered more elections than one can count. As I mentioned, she is a former interim leader of the Green Party of Canada.

Today, I'd like to stand and congratulate Jo-Ann Roberts and encourage everyone to get her book and read it, and to encourage and strengthen democracy here in Nova Scotia.

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

ASHBY LEGION: SUPPORT FOR VETS - RECOG.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Speaker, we all have Legions in our communities that do wonderful work, not only to support veterans in our communities but also hold a number of events. They act as places of gathering in good times and in tough times in communities.

I rise in my place to recognize the Ashby Legion in Sydney, which has a long history in our community of supporting veterans. It's one of the larger Legions on the island. They do a lot in the community. They build scholarships for students. In times of need in our community, the Legion itself has become a home in some of our worst weather events.

[Page 839]

I rise in my place to recognize the executive and the entire Legion community in Ashby for all they do to support Sydney.

THE SPEAKER « » : Just before I recognize the next member - when I call the Clerk up, it doesn't necessarily have to do with what you are talking about. I am still learning my job, so there's no need to pause. I'm not afraid of calling "Order." It's just to get some advice sometimes. I want to put that out there so that not everybody pauses.

The honourable member for Dartmouth East.

KIN CLUB OF DARTMOUTH: COM. SERV. - RECOG.

HON. TIMOTHY HALMAN « » : Today, I rise to recognize the Kin Club of Dartmouth and the positive contributions they continue to make in our community of Dartmouth East. The Kin Club of Dartmouth continually fills up the local community fridge for those experiencing food insecurity.

One of the Kin Club's most recent activities was in February, for Kin Kindness Month, when they sponsored free parking at the Dartmouth General Hospital for the entire day. It's heartening to see such a positive impact on the local community, and the Kin Club's dedication to spreading happiness is truly commendable. Their monthly community brunch at the East Dartmouth Community Centre is absolutely awesome.

I ask the House to please join me in recognizing the Kin Club of Dartmouth for their ongoing efforts and positive impact on Dartmouth. Their commitment to making a difference in the community is truly inspiring, and I wish them continued success in their future endeavours.

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

MCDONALD, DAVID: LEG. LIBRARIAN - RECOG.

LINA HAMID « » : I want to take a moment today to recognize how beautifully interconnected we all are on this planet Earth. When we take a moment to connect and talk to one another, have a conversation, and listen to one another, we realize how much we actually have in common, rather than what we don't have in common.

An amazing example of that, which I wanted to bring to the Chamber, that I found out last week, is that our wonderful Legislative Librarian, David McDonald, had managed the library of my alma mater in Qatar - not here - three continents away. I wanted to take a moment and say we all have more in common than what we don't. Let's take a moment and have a conversation about that.

[Page 840]

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

ELMSDALE DESIGN & PRINT: 20^TH ANNIV. - CONGRATS.

JOHN A. MACDONALD: Speaker, I rise today to recognize Elmsdale Design & Print as they celebrate 20 years in business. What started in 2005 with one computer, an old printing press, and a used vinyl cutter has grown into a thriving business. During that time, they've overcome two recessions, the challenges of COVID-19, and a flood that shut them down for two months. Today, they offer a wide range of services from digital printing to signage, apparel, and web design. To mark this milestone, they are launching an e-commerce store featuring Canadian, Nova Scotian, and other themed designs.

I ask the members of the House to join me in congratulating Tina and her team for 20 years of success. I'd like to thank them for their dedication to our community.

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

GALLAGHER, SÉAMUS: OH BABY EXHIBIT - RECOG.

LISA LACHANCE « » : I rise today to draw the attention of members and all Nova Scotians to the current exhibit at the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia: OH BABY by Séamus Gallagher. On until May 11^th, OH BABY combines photography, video, drag, speculative fiction, sculpture, and costuming. Séamus works from the belief that the various histories, narratives, and ideas can and must coexist - the camp and the critical, the past and the future, the natural and the other.

Séamus lives between Treaty 1 Territory, Winnipeg, and Kjipuktuk, Halifax. Their work has been presented in group and solo exhibitions at the National Gallery of Canada, the Locarno Film Festival, the McCord Stewart Museum, and the Museum of Contemporary Art in Toronto, amongst others. Séamus is the recipient of the 2024 William and Meredith Saunderson Prize, the 2022 Scotiabank New Generation Photography Award, the 2022 Nova Scotia Emerging Artist Recognition Award, and the 2019 BMO 1^st Art Award. They are back in Winnipeg finishing their MFA so couldn't be here today, so I ask all members to congratulate Séamus on this stunning exhibit.

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

OGLEY, PRESTON: ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS - CONGRATS.

JOHN WHITE « » : Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my good friend Preston Ogley on his outstanding academic achievements. Preston earned his Juris Doctor degree with a Certificate in Criminal Justice this past year. It was a journey he began at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie with the prestigious Alistair Fraser Scholarship.

[Page 841]

Before law school, Preston earned an Honours in Political Science at CBU. He graduated with a silver medal for his academic excellence, and he was on the dean's list every year. Preston earned distinction in his final year, and he received the Judge Allan E. Sullivan Memorial Scholarship for his exceptional performance in political science. In the third year of his law degree, Preston gained invaluable experience at the Dalhousie Legal Aid Service by representing clients in youth, criminal, and family law.

Preston's dedication and work ethic are absolutely incredible. It's an extreme honour for me to congratulate my friend, Preston Ogley.

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

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : Speaker, I request unanimous consent to revert to Tabling Reports, Regulations and Other Papers.

THE SPEAKER « » : Do we have unanimous consent to revert to Tabling Reports, Regulations and Other Papers? So be it.

[TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS]

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : Speaker, you will remember that I quoted from a sign outside in the protest earlier, so I'd like to table that sign for the benefit of the House.

THE SPEAKER « » : Normally, we accept photographs. Thank you. We're going back to Statements by Members.

[STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS]

The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

SPECIAL INTERESTS: SUPPORT - RECOG.

SUZY HANSEN « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize all of the Nova Scotians who came and showed their interest today outside the House in their own special way. My special interests are housing, clean air, children, environment, education, health care, coastal protections, communities, land, respect for its water, and so much more. Folks outside of this House are here because they care, and they all have a special interest in the lovely province that we call Nova Scotia. As MLAs, we should have special interests, and it should be in democracy. The work that we do here in this House is a responsibility that we have as members to protect democracy. Democracy is one of my special interests, and Nova Scotians are watching.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Richmond.

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

[Page 842]

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

TREVOR BOUDREAU: In your Gallery is Barry Landry, who would be very well known to many in this House. Barry is one of the most loyal and hard-working individuals, and I take great pride in saying that he's one of my best friends. I'd just like to say hi and wish him a warm welcome here in the House. (Applause)

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

That was just an introduction. They're allowed a member statement. Okay. They both stood at the same time. He was trying to be polite.

The honourable member for Clare.

COMEAU, NANCY: CLEANUP VOL. OF YR. - CONGRATS.

RYAN ROBICHEAU « » : Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge and congratulate Nancy Comeau for winning the 2024 N.S. Litter Cleanup Volunteer of the Year Award. Nancy is a highly active cleanup volunteer for Clare who always does it with great enthusiasm and a big smile.

From picking up litter and keeping our roads and beaches clean to organizing fundraisers to raise money and awareness for multiple sclerosis, Nancy is really making a big difference in our community. She also offers Indian head massages and teaches yoga classes, which promote health and wellness, and keeps people active and moving.

Thank you, Nancy, for everything you do for the community of Clare, and keep being a bright light of positivity wherever you go.

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

PROTESTERS: SPECIAL INTEREST RALLY - THANKS

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Speaker, I am inspired today by what is occurring outside our Legislature - outside the People's House. Democracy is a beautiful thing, and this is democracy in action. I love it. When I was out there talking to people, they said: It feels kind of like we're playing the hokey-pokey in here - the fixed-term elections are in, and then the fixed-term elections are out. The Auditor General is in, the Auditor General is out, the Auditor General is back in again; Georges Bank is in, then Georges Bank is out.

I would advise the government to start providing Nova Scotians with clarity. They are asking for it outside these doors. As I said, they are here. Nova Scotians are one of my special interests, as is democracy. They go hand in hand.

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

[Page 843]

COLE HBR. HER. FARM MUS.: AGRIC. SERV. - RECOG.

HON. LEAH MARTIN « » : Speaker, I rise to recognize an important place in our community: the Cole Harbour Heritage Farm Museum. Established in 1976 after moving the oldest remaining house in Cole Harbour, the museum has been educating visitors about our community's agricultural past for generations. Its buildings even date back between the years of 1780 and 1938, displaying what a traditional Nova Scotia family farm may have looked like. This museum also helps people develop an understanding of plants, animals, and farming today, thanks to its garden and its partnership with local farms to showcase sheep, pigs, and calves to visitors. Currently, the museum is closed for the season, but visitors will be excited to tour the museum once again when it opens in May.

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

VENUS ENVY: SUPPORT - RECOG.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Speaker, Venus Envy has long been a beacon of inclusivity and vital health information in Halifax. Earlier this month, they, along with the Glitter Bean Café, were targeted by harmful myths in the form of graffiti. I stand in my place in this House today to make it known that vandalism in any form has no place in our communities, and to remind our trans and queer neighbours that you belong here. Your lives and identities are valid. Love is stronger than hate.

I stand in support of queer-owned and -allied businesses. I encourage members of our communities to rally around places like Venus Envy, Glitter Bean, and others. Visit them and attend their events, but report anything you see that makes you uncomfortable. Nova Scotia is strongest when everyone feels safe to be themselves. Together we'll ensure love always drowns out hate. I call on all members of this House to stand with the community and publicly denounce transphobia and homophobia.

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

GABARUS VOL. FIRE DEPT.: DEDICATED SERV. - THANKS

HON. BRIAN COMER: Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge three very special members of the community of Gabarus. Fire Chief Ken Sherwood and firefighters Gordon Sherwood and Eric Hardy have recently completed 45 years of dedicated service with the Gabarus Volunteer Fire Department. There is a long tradition of community service within the Sherwood family. The local fire hall bears the name of Ken and Gordon's late brother, Phillip, who was also a dedicated firefighter in the community for many years.

In December, CBRM Fire Chief Mark Bettens presented Ken, Gordon, and Eric with the Nova Scotia Fire Services Long Service Award as a token of appreciation for the professional emergency services provided to the citizens of Nova Scotia.

[Page 844]

[1:45 p.m.]

I invite all members of the House to join me in thanking these three men for their tireless service to their community.

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

TOWN OF NEW GLASGOW: 150^TH ANNIV. - CONGRATS.

DANNY MACGILLIVRAY: Speaker, On May 6, 2025, the Town of New Glasgow will mark 150 years since its incorporation. New Glasgow is a beautiful riverside community with a storied history and a breadth of diverse heritages that enrich the community.

New Glasgow will celebrate its beginnings as a trading post, to status as a town, to a mercantile centre, to a shipbuilding and industrial leader, to its role today as a commercial service centre and a cultural and creative hub.

The year-long celebration will include many anniversary events, legacy pieces, and a great sense of community spirit. I'd like to thank all the volunteers and organizers who are working hard to make this a special year for everyone. May New Glasgow continue to flourish.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Inverness.

ADMIRAL LOUNGE & CAFÉ: 50^TH ANNIV. - CONGRATS.

KYLE MACQUARRIE « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize a true institution in the heart of Port Hood, the Admiral Lounge and Café. For more than 50 years, this beloved establishment has been more than a place to grab a meal or a coffee: It's been a community gathering place, a stage for local talent, and on occasion, a spot for spirited political debate that may rival Province House.

Charlie MacDonald, the co-founder and owner, has been at the helm since Day 1, steering the Admiral like a seasoned captain. Charlie is no stranger to public service, co-founding a vital and active community board, serving as a municipal councillor for a decade, and sitting right here in this Chamber as MLA for Inverness. It seems that whether in politics or business, Charlie has always been committed to serving our community.

On February 15^th, the Admiral Lounge and Café celebrated its 50^th anniversary, a milestone that speaks to its lasting impact on our community.

I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Charlie and his team on this incredible achievement and in thanking them for their dedication to our community.

[Page 845]

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

ST. MARY'S LIONS CLUB: CHRISTMAS GIFT DRIVE - THANKS

HON. GREG MORROW: Speaker, I rise today to recognise the St. Mary's District Lions Club, which for decades has run the Christmas gift drive for those in need.

For more than 40 years, the St. Mary's District Lions Club in Sherbrooke has been raising funds to support their annual drive to assist local families in need during the holiday season. This past Christmas, they were able to raise more than $8,000 to help families bring a better Christmas to their loved ones. Money for this annual giving event is raised through bingos, community donations, and even the tips from the bar during various events held at the club throughout the year.

The Lions Club also had the RCMP and the staff from the Sherbrooke hospital come forward to assist in their most recent drive, and they were able to provide additional funding. Identified families are given a box of food for a full turkey dinner, a Christmas breakfast, gifts for their children, and items that are needed, such as Winter clothing, books, and even skates. If there is a need, they do their best to assist.

I want to thank the St. Mary's District Lions Club and their volunteers who work hard to bring Christmas joy to local families. It's their dedication and commitment to our community that continues to make every Christmas drive a success.

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

HON. TIM HOUSTON (The Premier) « » : Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

THE PREMIER « » : Speaker, sitting in the gallery today we have a couple of esteemed Pictou County councillors: Councillor Andy Thompson and Councillor Randy Palmer. Thank you both for your incredible community service over a number of years.

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

The honourable member for Pictou East.

PALMER, RANDY: THORBURN RINK SUPPORT - THANKS

THE PREMIER « » : Kraft Hockeyville nominations are now closed, and on March 15^th, the final four rinks will be announced. The Thorburn rink - the Ivor MacDonald Memorial Arena - is in the running for this. Bubbles and all the Trailer Park Boys are behind the Thorburn rink, and more importantly, the community of Pictou County is cheering on the rink. Kraft Hockeyville is an amazing competition that will award $250,000 to a successful rink for upgrades. It's an important thing.

[Page 846]

I want to give a shoutout to Councillor Palmer, who is an incredible champion for the Thorburn rink. He's one of those people who keep that rink going. I want to thank him for his commitment to our community, and I want to wish all the very best to the Ivor MacDonald Memorial Arena in the Kraft Hockeyville process.

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

VOLUNTEERS: BICENTENNIAL THEATRE - THANKS

HON. SCOTT ARMSTRONG: Speaker, I rise today to pay recognition to the Musquodoboit Valley Bicentennial Theatre, a non-profit, volunteer organization in Middle Musquodoboit. This beautiful, historic building operates as both a community centre and is a fully equipped 230-seat performing arts centre. With state-of-the-art lighting and sound system, the Bicentennial Theatre is truly a gem in the Nova Scotia arts scene. Performers and visitors who walk through the doors are in awe of the charm that awaits.

The prized possession in the theatre is the rare surviving piece of 19th century Canadian stage art, which served as the original stage curtain. Painted in 1892 and suffering from some water damage, this garden scene was restored, and since 2004 it now hangs just behind the proscenium.

Programming such as day camps, ballroom dancing lessons, and the Valley Voices choir are among the groups that use the theatre to its full advantage. Most recently I was able to attend Robbie Burns Night there, and I can tell you the haggis was the best I've ever eaten.

Congratulations to the Bicentennial Theatre.

THE SPEAKER « » : All right, the argument over haggis is over.

The honourable member for Cumberland North.

FRONTLINE HEALTH WORKERS: SUPPORT - RECOG.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Speaker, today I stand once again in support of our frontline health care workers. I am also encouraged and would love to see democracy in action that we are seeing outside this Legislature here today. It is a good reminder that each one of us is elected to represent the people who brought us here. Today, once again, I want to speak on behalf of our nurses, our doctors, and other frontline workers.

I have continued to share here in the Legislature concerns that they have brought to me and earlier today I did table a document entitled Information Transfer at Care Transitions. This is a policy that the nurses have had in place for a while but are being told right now by managers that verbal communication is no longer needed between nurses when a patient is transferred, whether it's from the ER to a unit or from ICU to a unit. Nurses are very concerned about patient safety, and I just echo their concerns here in the House.

[Page 847]

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

TUDOR, DAVID: COUNCILLOR SERVICE - RECOG.

HON. JILL BALSER « » : Today I recognize the outstanding service of Councillor David Tudor, who has served on the Municipality of the District of Digby's Council for the past 14 years. During these years, David has been a tireless advocate for the residents of Digby Neck, Long Island, and Brier Island, working relentlessly to improve the lives of families, businesses, and the overall community. Through his leadership and commitment, many significant projects and initiatives have been brought to fruition, enhancing the quality of life for all who call this area home.

Throughout his municipal career, David demonstrated an unwavering dedication to public service, navigating complex issues with compassion, and deep understanding of the needs of the residents. Whether advocating for road infrastructure improvements, food insecurity, or championing community programs, David always prioritized the voices of the people he served.

I would like to extend my deepest thanks to David Tudor for his remarkable contributions and tireless service, and wish him the best of luck on his new venture.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Shelburne.

BOXING ROCK: BREWING AWD. RECIP. - CONGRATS.

HON. NOLAN YOUNG « » : Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Boxing Rock Brewing Company for being awarded the Canadian Brewery of the Year in the 2024 Canadian Brewing Awards. More than 1,800 beers were entered from all across the country with the top prize presented to the brewery with the most awards and guess what? Boxing Rock won gold in the North American Style Amber/Red Ale category with their Temptation Red Ale. Their IPA was also awarded top prize in the American Style India Pale Ale and Puck Off received the gold medal in the North American Style Blonde or Golden Ale category.

Founded in 2012 by chemical engineers Emily Cowin and Henry Pedro, Shelburne's Boxing Rock has become a premier craft brewery in the country. I ask that all members join me in congratulating Boxing Rock for being named the Canadian Brewery of the Year.

[Page 848]

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

WILSON-BOWER, LISA: LISA'S FAMILY RESTAURANT - RECOG.

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD « » : I rise today to bid a heartfelt farewell to Lisa Wilson-Bower, owner of Lisa's Family Restaurant in Windsor. I also want to extend my congratulations and warm welcome to the new owner, Nova Scotia's very own executive chef Andy Thomson of Synergy Hospitality. Lisa, with her sister Heather by her side, has operated Lisa's Family Restaurant for nearly 20 years. With a welcoming atmosphere and exceptional staff, Lisa's is a local favourite.

Many consider Lisa's the restaurant of choice when celebrating their birthday, because your meal is discounted by your age. Their homestyle menu consists of many delicious choices and their peanut butter pie is to die for. Speaker, I'm certain that Chef Andy will preserve the at-home feeling you get when you eat at Lisa's. I ask that all members join me in congratulating Chef Andy and wishing Lisa all the best in her next chapter at Aunt Lisa's Ice Cream Parlour.

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

ROBERTS, MARILYN: COM. SERV. - RECOG.

TOM TAGGART « » : I rise today to recognize the outstanding volunteerism of Marilyn Roberts of Tatamagouche. Marilyn has been the first statistician for every hockey game played at the North Shore Recreation Centre for the past four years, including North Shore minor hockey Junior C games and the rural hockey league. Much of Marilyn's free time is spent at the rink. Beyond hockey, Marilyn was a founding member of the North Shore figure skating club, where she taught figure skating and power skating.

As if that's not enough, Marilyn has also been an active participant in numerous fundraising projects, working to make our community an even better place to live. I commend her commitment to the North Shore Recreation Centre and to the residents of the North Shore.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Queens.

DELANEY, R./YOUNG, J.: SPECIAL OLYMPICS PARTIC. - RECOG.

HON. KIM MASLAND: From March 8^th to 15^th the Special Olympics World Games will be held in Turin, Italy, and Queens County will be well represented. Rebecca Delaney and Jillian Young will join more than 1,500 athletes from all over the globe to compete in the games. Both have medaled at the national level and will now compete in snowshoeing on the world stage. Rebecca's mother, Susan Inglis, will join them as a member of the snowshoe coaching team. Susan was a recipient of the 2024 Coach of the Year Award and has volunteered with Special Olympics for 10 years.

[Page 849]

Speaker, please join me in wishing Rebecca, Jillian, and Susan an incredible experience and a successful and enjoyable World Games. I know you will once again make Queens County proud.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Lunenburg.

OXNER, DIANE: DEATH OF - TRIBUTE

HON. SUSAN CORKUM GREEK: On January 23^rd the great choir of heaven welcomed a beautiful Bluenose soprano. As music teacher, soloist, and choral director, Diane Oxner sang "Farewell to Nova Scotia" one last time. Diane was the first person to record that beloved anthem, as well as many other selections from the Helen Creighton collection, including my favourite, "The Sauerkraut Song." Be thankful that I am not allowed to sing in here.

Diane lived a full life, passing at the age of 96. She was born in Lunenburg, where her mother, Pearl, was a legendary music teacher. She attended Lunenburg Academy and later studied at the prestigious Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia. While marriage took her to Scotland for a number of years, Nova Scotia was always home.

Speaker, I ask members to please join me and all those whose lives were touched by Diane in extending our heartfelt sympathies to her family and friends.

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

FELKER, OLIVIA: LEGION YOUTH POSTER CONTEST - CONGRATS.

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : I rise today to congratulate Grade 12 Northeast Kings Education Centre student Olivia Felker, from Centreville, who has won second place in the Royal Canadian Legion National Youth Remembrance contest.

Olivia was awarded second place at the national level in the Colour Poster competition. She competed at the Legion branch level, the provincial competition level, and finally at the national competition at the Legion's Central Command in Ottawa. This award is accompanied by a prize of $500 and the poster will be displayed in Ottawa for a year. Part of the Poppy Campaign objective is to encourage youth to reflect on the sacrifices made to protect our freedoms.

Please join me today to congratulate Olivia Felker on her fine artwork and her second-place accomplishment in the Royal Canadian Legion's National Youth Remembrance contest.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. The time allotted for Statements by Members has expired. We will now move on to Oral Questions Put by Members to Ministers. The time is now 2:00 p.m. We will finish at 2:50 p.m.

[Page 850]

[2:00 p.m.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS PUT BY MEMBERS TO MINISTERS

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

PREM.: TARIFF RELIEF PLAN - UNVEIL

CLAUDIA CHENDER: Nova Scotians are worried about the Trump tariffs. They want to know that their government has a plan to help them through tough financial times. That plan seems to be a $200 million contingency fund. Yesterday, when we asked how that number was arrived at, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board said it was thought to be fair. Today, the Premier couldn't say how relief would be determined. We've had over a month, and our economy is at stake. What is the plan for foresters, mill workers, manufacturers, and communities, and who's going to make it?

THE PREMIER « » : Obviously, President Trump's illegal tariffs - the Trump tax - could have a devastating impact on Canadians, for sure. In Nova Scotia, we have a $200 million contingency in our budget. I'll tell you what, Speaker: If that turns out to be not enough, we'll put more there. We'll do whatever we can to support Nova Scotians.

This is also a time that we need to realize that for the long term, we need to make some adjustments. That's why it's really important that we establish free trade within Canada again. Nova Scotia is leading the way. That's why we need to address procurement. It's also why we need to develop our natural resources here in Nova Scotia.

CLAUDIA CHENDER: I asked about a plan for workers and who is at the table. I didn't get an answer. This afternoon, hundreds of Nova Scotians gathered to make their voices heard. They are worried about tariffs, and they are unhappy with the lack of answers and the overreach coming from this government, including the focus on evading accountability rather than preparing for economic pain.

While the government is full of praise for their response, Nova Scotians are losing trust in their ability to bring them together now when it's most needed. Are the hundreds of self-identified special interest groups outside also going to be thought of in our provincial response, or only the people who are on board with this government's surprise agenda?

THE PREMIER « » : This is a time for Canadians to unite, and Canadians coast to coast to coast are getting behind their governments. There are a few who are trying to not get behind their government, mostly in this Chamber, but the national news is showing that Nova Scotia is leading the way. We will continue to.

I'm on a committee with the Prime Minister and every single Premier in the country talking about the response. We're talking to manufacturers. We're talking to Chambers of Commerce. We will work with any Nova Scotian. Our government will be there to support Nova Scotians through this process. We also need to recognize that we need to develop our natural resources. Right now, 100 per cent of our natural gas in this province comes through the United States. Why is that member okay with all our natural gas coming from the United States and not standing up for Nova Scotians?

[Page 851]

CLAUDIA CHENDER: Government is here to express the will of the people and not the other way around. What Nova Scotians are concerned about is the cost of housing and utilities and groceries, and yet all this Premier can talk about - not during the election but after - is fracking.

Now is the time for unity. We have seen the people of this province pull together to support local producers and local small businesses because that is who we are. We come together as one province, and we take care of each other when times are hard. We all have a special interest in seeing our province succeed. Will this Premier please stop pitting Nova Scotians against one other by labelling anyone who disagrees with him as a special interest group?

THE PREMIER « » : For clarity, I've never labelled anyone as a special interest. The Opposition has done lots of that. Some have self-disclosed their special interest. My only special interest is in Nova Scotians, and that is why we need to develop our natural resources for the future economic security of this province. For the future energy security of this province, we need to do these things. The member opposite is intent on keeping Nova Scotia reliant on American energy. That's not okay with me. The member made her money in mining. She advanced mining projects, but now she doesn't want Nova Scotians to have the same opportunities that she was privileged to have.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

I missed you two cool kids in the corner. Sorry about that.

The honourable Leader of the Liberal Party.

PREM.: U.S. CONTRACTS LIST - PROVIDE

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : We're fighting for respect in here, Speaker. (Laughter) We're going to get the respect we deserve someday.

Yesterday in Question Period, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board told us that the Province does not have a list of contracts with American companies, despite the serious impacts U.S. tariffs could have on our economy. Without this information, it's difficult to fully assess the risks. While we aren't suggesting that the government tear up all contracts with the U.S., it is crucial that the government understand the full extent of these agreements. These contracts are integral to the business climate, health care system, and livelihoods of Nova Scotia. It's essential that the government knows exactly what we may lose if we don't make informed decisions. Will the Premier commit to compiling and tabling a list of American contracts in Nova Scotia?

[Page 852]

THE PREMIER « » : Along with the federal government and the Prime Minister, and along with Premiers from across this country and along with business leaders and concerned Canadians, we will continue to push for a no-tariff situation. That is where we need to get to. We need the tariffs removed, and there's lots of good work happening in that space. While they exist, we have a response. Nova Scotia came out quickly with their response, and it was multi-faceted. Part of that is disallowing American companies from bidding on provincial procurement processes. We will do that. That also involves understanding American contracts that we have in place now and looking at whether it's possible to cancel those or not. That work will happen.

The focus right now has to be on having the tariffs removed. That will continue to be our focus.

DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Understanding the extent of our province's economic ties with the United States is essential for preparing for the fallout of these tariffs. If the government hasn't even gathered a list of contracts, it raises questions about whether they have a plan to address these risks. The government has announced that they're reviewing American contracts. What contracts are they reviewing?

It's one thing to acknowledge the potential impact of tariffs, but it's another to ensure we have the necessary information to make informed decisions and take action. Having a clear picture of our exposure would help inform decisions to protect jobs in key industries. If none exists, how is the government assessing the risks these tariffs pose to our economy?

THE PREMIER « » : The risks to our country are well known. The risks to our province are known. Lots of media is written about the risks to Nova Scotia. The rating agencies have written about our response in the budget.

The Opposition can continue to say there's no plan, that we need another committee - we need to strike another committee on this. We are acting in the best interests of Nova Scotia, to protect Nova Scotians, to support Nova Scotians. If the member is missing that plan, he just needs to follow along more closely. A $200 million contingency, addressing alcohol on our shelves - meaning taking it off - these are significant things. The Cobequid Pass, dealings with American companies - we will do what is necessary to support Nova Scotians, and Nova Scotians know that.

DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Governments across Canada are working to understand the potential impacts of these tariffs, and Nova Scotia is no exception. Given that the government is assessing the situation, having a complete and detailed picture of our province's exposure would strengthen these efforts. Ensuring that businesses and workers have clarity on potential risks is an important step in preparing for any of the economic challenges ahead. Will the Premier agree to collaborate with businesses, workers, and all parties to help strengthen the government's response and provide greater transparency for Nova Scotians?

[Page 853]

THE PREMIER « » : I just don't accept the narrative that there's been no plan. I don't accept the narrative that there's no collaboration. We interact with Nova Scotians every day. Many of them give good suggestions on things we could do, and we act upon them.

I invite the Opposition to get behind Nova Scotians, to get behind Canadians. If they have some good ideas, they're welcome to submit. We're not waiting for a committee. We will continue to collaborate with the federal government. We will continue to collaborate with the premiers across this country. We will continue to collaborate with the manufacturing sector. We will continue to collaborate with the Chambers of Commerce. We will continue to collaborate with Nova Scotians. This is the time for Nova Scotians to unite. This is not the time for political theatre.

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

PREM.: INDIGENOUS CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT - RESPECT

CLAUDIA CHENDER: We hear about collaboration. Yesterday the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaw Chiefs sent a letter to the Premier, which read in part:

Last week's sweeping legislative proposal is another example of the provincial government choosing not to engage or consult with the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia prior to introducing significant changes in the mining sector.

They go on to say:

The Province also sits at several tables with KMK and the Assembly, where these changes should have been discussed, but were never raised or flagged for us.

Why didn't the Premier bother to speak with the Chiefs about a policy that impacts their land and constitutional rights?

THE PREMIER « » : I have great respect for our First Nations leaders. Tremendous respect. The minister and I will be meeting with them later this week to talk about some of these issues. I understand the realities of the world - the situations we're facing right now with these Trump tariffs, the tax, the President's actions. They're designed to hurt our people. They're designed to hurt our country. We need to respond to that.

We will consult as projects arise. There will be extensive consultation. There are forces beyond our control that require urgent action, and we are responding to them to support all Nova Scotians. We will continue to do that. We will work with our wonderful First Nations partners on that.

[Page 854]

CLAUDIA CHENDER: This is not about the courtesy of conversation. This is about respecting a Constitutional right to consult. It is concerning that this government did not take their Constitutional requirement to consult Indigenous rights holders seriously in this rush to legislate. Their letter made that clear.

Mi'kmaw rights holders were also among the hundreds of people gathered outside today along with doctors, environmentalists, property owners, rural Nova Scotians, and everyday people who happen to disagree with this government's "act first and ask later" approach. Does the Premier consider the Mi'kmaq to be just another special interest group?

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

HON. LEAH MARTIN « » : Wela'lin, Speaker, and wela'lin to the member opposite for the question. I stand here as a proud Indigenous woman here to help voices be heard that haven't made it to the table before. Sometimes they can be really loud voices, and sometimes they can be really soft voices in our community. I'm here to help lift all of those voices and ensure that they're all heard as we carry these conversations forward.

We've begun conversations; we'll continue conversations. Something else I'm extremely proud about is how strongly upheld the duty to consult is within this government. It shows up in all departments and is upheld in such a strong way. As projects come forward, we will absolutely consult.

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

RTA: MAKING EVICTION EASIER - EXPLAIN

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : In a time of extreme economic instability, this government wants to make it easier to evict renters by slashing the non-payment grace period from 15 days to three. And that means a single unexpected event, like a car repair or a late paycheque, can mean eviction and homelessness. The question is: Why is this government prioritizing landlord profits over keeping Nova Scotians housed?

[2:15 p.m.]

HON. JILL BALSER « » : I want all Nova Scotians to know that we do have a Residential Tenancies program that is intended to support both tenants and landlords in their time of need. That program works, and I encourage all Nova Scotians to make sure that they use it. For every member in this House, too, we have to encourage anyone who is coming to our offices to utilize that program. It's intended, again, to provide that balance. Yes, we know that in the last session, there were changes that were going to be coming to that program. It was also informed by other things, including the report that we commissioned around the compliance and enforcement unit. We are always going to make sure that this program is working the best for Nova Scotians in the best possible way.

[Page 855]

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : Speaker, I represent quite literally thousands of people for whom the Residential Tenancies Act is not working. The minister can repeat these talking points all she wants. The fact is that renters are struggling right now. This government will make them struggle even more when they make it easier to evict them with this cruel policy. I'll ask again: Why is the government choosing to put more Nova Scotians at risk of homelessness instead of standing up for renters who are already struggling to survive?

JILL BALSER « » : I thank the member for the important question. We want to make sure that all Nova Scotians are attached to a home that they love, that they care for, and that they deserve. I'm standing here very proudly again for the investments that we have made in housing and the changes that are happening. We're seeing an increase in our vacancy rate so that Nova Scotians have choice, that they have the ability to be able to move around. We want to make sure that we are going to continue to do that work.

We also know that, yes, these changes are coming, but if a tenant finds themselves in a situation where a landlord maybe provided an eviction notice, if they apply for the Residential Tenancies Program, that stops the clock on that eviction notice. That's another reason why people have to reach out to the program - so that we can do the best job that we can to help people. Speaker, if there are specific examples, I want to hear them.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

FTB: SUPPLY CHAIN ADVISORY COUNCIL - ESTABLISH

LISA LACHANCE « » : My question is for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. Trump's tariffs are now in place, and our industries, suppliers, and producers all need new markets. The federal government recently established a Supply Chain Advisory Council round table to guide internal domestic trade with representation from industry, labour, and public policy experts. This seems like a logical step that will provide greater accountability and transparency. Why hasn't this government done the same?

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : Speaker, I'm very pleased to talk about the situation of the Trump tariffs, which we are very disappointed to be facing. I want the member to know that the budget that we tabled has a number of provisions to address the tariff situation. In reality, it's an economic stimulus budget. We're investing capital - the largest capital plan in the history of Nova Scotia: $235 billion in schools, hospitals, houses and roads. We're giving a $500 million tax break to Nova Scotians. This was all done in line of sight of realizing that we needed our economy to be stimulated, realizing the threat of the tariffs was there.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Many industries and organizations that have long exported their goods to the United States don't have a seat at this government's decision‑making table. We have been missing out on innovative ideas that could help our province flourish. For instance, we could be making specific and meaningful investments in agriculture right now for the 2025 season. I know the minister is quite familiar with this. Farmers are planning now what to put in the fields, when to put it in, and how much it's going to cost, and is the cost going to keep increasing. We could be making a difference now. Why is this government not listening to those impacted most by Trump's tariffs?

[Page 856]

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

HON. COLTON LEBLANC » : We are listening. We are meeting with industry, with businesses, through my department and through Intergovernmental Affairs. We set up the tariff hotline survey. I want Nova Scotians to know that as part of our provincial response - actually, in fact before the threat of tariffs, there are programs available there, on top of the investments that the honourable Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has announced. There's over $130 million of programming through Invest Nova Scotia to support the initiatives that the honourable member opposite has highlighted - targeting export development, targeting innovation, targeting Nova Scotia Loyal. We will continue doing that.

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

FTB: CONTINGENCY FUND DETAILS - PROVIDE

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : Speaker, we support the government's commitment to create a contingency fund for tariffs and recognize the intention to support workers, families, and businesses. However, we're curious about how this amount was determined and struggle to get answers since budget day. Yesterday, British Columbia tabled their budget with a $4 billion contingency fund, which is four times per capita more than the $200 million contingency fund announced in Nova Scotia. Could the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board explain how the $200 million figure was determined for Nova Scotia, and whether the government is confident that this amount he is asking the Legislature for will be enough to meet the potential changes we may face?

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : Speaker, we recognize that other provinces are doing similar things with the contingency fund as well. We are confident that Nova Scotians, who have proven to be resilient in the past, will prove to be resilient. We will stand by our citizens. We will do more if necessary. Our province has survived floods, has survived hurricanes, and has survived many challenges in the past. We will meet this challenge head-on as a government, and we will work our way through it.

IAIN RANKIN « » : No member is questioning the resiliency of Nova Scotians, but this fund is less than the government is prepared to put down on the debt to pay for free bridge tolls in Halifax. I want to emphasize the importance of fiscal discipline, especially during the good times, to prepare for financial tough times. Given the government is projecting a $700 million deficit and routinely adds another billion of spending every year unrelated to tariff threats, we need to ensure that every dollar of the $200 million is spent with clear objectives. Can the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board say today with any detail at all how the government plans to spend the contingency fund, or is this a figure just pulled out of thin air?

[Page 857]

JOHN LOHR « » : I would remind the member that under our government, we projected four deficit budgets and delivered four surplus budgets. We have proven to be fiscally responsible. The economy of Nova Scotia is growing under our government and will continue to grow. I am confident that we will meet all the challenges. We will do what we need to do for the province of Nova Scotia in the face of these tariffs. If we need to do more, we'll do more.

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

DFA: SEAFOOD INDUSTRY - SUPPORT

LISA LACHANCE « » : Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Last week, when the member for Halifax Chebucto asked how this government will support the seafood industry through the huge challenges that Trump's tariffs will create, the minister said that he wrote a letter to industry telling them to connect with Invest Nova Scotia. I'll table that Hansard excerpt. Has the minister actually met with industry experts to hear what support they need?

HON. KENT SMITH » : Of course we connect with Nova Scotians and seafood industries all the time - countless meetings, in fact, with industry regularly, including when we were on the trade missions. Connecting them with Invest Nova Scotia was one of the steps we decided to take to try to help. We regularly see some major companies at our seafood expos. We wanted to make sure every seafood company had the same opportunity to export their product.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Nova Scotia exports over $2 billion worth of seafood, and the majority of that goes to the United States. Trump's tariffs mean that jobs and livelihoods are on the line in our coastal communities. Why has this government made no concrete assurances for Nova Scotia's fisheries sector?

KENT SMITH « » : I completely reject the premise that we're not doing anything to help out. There is a lengthy answer that I provided last week to talk about the trade missions that we lead regularly every year to either Europe or to Southeast Asia. I talked about the interprovincial bill that the Premier tabled to make sure we can sell our seafood across the nation instead of to the U.S. I talked about the $200 million in contingency. I talked about the $200,000 in extra money that's in my department's budget for marketing.

We're going to continue to look for new markets for our seafood, and we won't stop until we get complete it.

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

[Page 858]

GAD: AFFORDABLE HOMES - BUILD

SUZY HANSEN « » : This government has repeatedly claimed that building new homes is the solution to the housing crisis. It turns out that they're failing to take their own advice when it comes to affordable housing. Of the 16,000 affordable homes this government claims to have created, more than 8,500 are actually just temporary rent supplements. Will the minister responsible for housing tell us: Why is this government failing to build homes that Nova Scotians can afford?

HON. COLTON LEBLANC « » : We are creating the conditions to not only build over 42,000 new units in this province, but we're actually exceeding that. We're at 125 per cent of that target. We're going to continue putting the pedal to the metal, making groundbreaking investments. We know that our rent supplements are precious resources. Lots of talk about resources on the floor of the Legislature lately. What we need to do is maximize these rent supplements to ensure that the most vulnerable Nova Scotians are getting them.

As well, we're investing in public housing. We made changes to public housing to make sure that Nova Scotians who need it the most are getting into it faster, making sure that we can ensure fairness and equity for those who need it the most.

SUZY HANSEN « » : The 125 per cent was debunked yesterday, when I talked about the rent supplements, because rent supplements are evidence that there is a lack of affordable non-market housing on the market right now. There are folks in this province who are eager to build homes that are permanently affordable. Non-profits have told this government that they could start building these homes tomorrow if the support was there. Yet this government's funding and support for non-market housing remains piecemeal and insufficient. If the solution is more housing supply, why are we not supporting those who will deliver affordable housing supply?

COLTON LEBLANC « » : That reference is entirely false. The fact is that our government is the first government to come up with a housing action plan. We are making groundbreaking investments. Yes, they do take time. If only we could turn back time, back to when the NDP were in government, and make investments in public housing, make investments in rent supplements, and see the progress that our government is making: increased supply, increased vacancy, stabilization of rents. We are making investments in new affordable housing supply, over 400 per cent since 2020-21, increasing the number of units supported by 550 per cent.

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

ACSW: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC - ADDRESS

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : Yesterday, Lunenburg County's Finance Committee passed a motion after the recent intimate partner homicide in Bridgewater. They are asking the Province to support calls from the groups working to end gender-based violence for epidemic-level investment and support. We asked about this yesterday and we only got talking points in return. Again, I will ask: When will this government finally provide the epidemic-level, stable, core funding to truly address this epidemic?

[Page 859]

HON. LEAH MARTIN « » : I think when you think about epidemic-level response, we can't just boil things down to a simple budget line item; it's in how we respond to this issue. Not only do we have $103 million across government from all departments that goes to this effort, but we've entirely changed the way that we work as a system. I think it really negates the work of everyone that's going into this when we talk about underscoring that effort. Across all departments, we've seen efforts - Labour, Skills and Immigration to re-evaluate how much time goes to domestic time off for paid leaves. We've got Early Childhood Education; the Canadian Centre for Child Protection's national education program; GuysWork - that's in the school program for school-based Grades 6 to 9. The list goes on.

[2:30 p.m.]

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : All of those programs and that work is very important, but this question is about funding. It is in the Turning the Tide Together report. Recommendation 14-point-something is epidemic-level funding. In reality, there is no new money in this budget to address this epidemic, and the current level is simply not enough. There are many organizations that are still waiting for stable core funding, which would mean they would be able to count on it year after year - sufficient funding. My question is: Will the minister commit today to increasing the investment to address the intimate partner and gender-based violence epidemic?

LEAH MARTIN « » : The $7.7 million historic infusion that came just last year is the largest infusion in over two decades to the sector - absolutely incredible. That goes into $26.8 million within the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and $103 million across all sectors. We want to do more every single day, and we identify that. We are continuing to work in collaboration with the sector to find ways to continue to do that. We will always listen and look to apply every single inch of every single cent we can possibly leverage.

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

PREM.: COBEQUID PASS TOLL - REMOVE

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier released a statement promising limiting procurement for American businesses, which we welcome, as well as doubling the cost of tolls at the Cobequid Pass for commercial vehicles from the U.S. The Premier is speaking to media about inviting free trade within Canada. We welcome that. My question to the Premier is: Will the Premier be removing tolls on the Cobequid Pass for domestic and commercial vehicles from Canadian provinces and territories - from within Canada?

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

[Page 860]

HON. FRED TILLEY » : I am very proud of this Premier's response to the tariffs from the U.S. - the first province in Canada to ask all the other provinces to participate. I would say that everything is on the table as we look at what we can do to benefit Nova Scotia. It's Nova Scotia and Canada that we have to look forward to.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : We would certainly see the Cobequid Pass tolls are an interprovincial barrier for trade within Canada. My other point is that Cumberland County is the gateway to Nova Scotia. We know all too well about interprovincial barriers that cause economic hardship: the Student Loan Forgiveness Program that the government continues to not provide to Nova Scotia nurses who study outside our province; the Non-resident Deed Transfer Tax that, instead of removing for fellow Canadians, we are actually doubling; and provincially inspected meat that is not welcome from other provinces.

My question is: Can the minister commit today to consultation with residents and business owners in Cumberland to ensure interprovincial barriers are all removed so we can truly unite with fellow Canadians . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

May I ask whom the question is to?

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : My apologies. It was to the Premier.

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

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : This morning, I tabled the FMA, and in that was a provision on the Non-resident Deed Transfer Tax. I want to let all members of our province - all people in the province - know that this intended to give Nova Scotians a leg up when purchasing a property in our own province. People from other provinces who want to move here - we welcome them, and we want them to be part of our province. As far as someone buying a cottage, coming here from another province: This is a similar provision - although it's done differently - to what the province of New Brunswick does and similar to what - although done differently again - P.E.I. has done for a long time.

We want Nova Scotians to know that we want them to have a bit of an advantage when competing for a property, vis-à-vis other people who would want to buy a cottage.

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

SLTC: SENIORS POVERTY - ADDRESS

KENDRA COOMBES « » : There are 23,000 seniors living in poverty in this province. The majority are living alone. This is putting our seniors in incredibly vulnerable positions. As public policy expert Christine Saulnier explained: "You're facing these high rental rates on your own, or trying to make ends meet on your own. And we know that that is difficult at the best of times. At the worst of times, it's even more difficult." Can the Minster for Seniors explain why this government is leaving seniors across Nova Scotia in such dire need?

[Page 861]

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

HON. COLTON LEBLANC « » : We recognize the importance of supporting our seniors. About 69 per cent of folks living in public housing are seniors. That's why we recognize that we need to improve the public housing system and maximize our portfolio, ensuring that the most vulnerable Nova Scotians can get into public housing even faster, recognizing that yes, there's a wait-list, but we also have to recognize that are program changes that have to be met.

Another initiative that we're supporting seniors with is our Home Adaptations repair program; 70 per cent of folks we are assisting are seniors. We know that we have to do more. It's a highly subscribed program. We'll continue to invest in that program.

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Yet there's a list to get on the list for housing. Nova Scotia shamefully holds the title for the province with the highest senior poverty in Canada. Instead of taking meaningful action to lift seniors out of poverty, this government opened a Pallet shelter village for seniors who can no longer afford their homes. Why is this government okay with seniors in our province not having homes?

COLTON LEBLANC « » : We are taking this issue very seriously. We are investing in public housing. I struggle to understand whether the Opposition, including the member opposite, supports more public housing or doesn't support more public housing. We have a wait-list, yes. We're actually trying to shrink that wait-list. We're actually trying to maximize what we currently have. We're building more. We're supporting seniors with rent supplements. I know the Opposition is opposed to the Seniors Care Grant, but guess what? Members on this side of the House and that side of the House are supportive of it.

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

RTA: RENTERS - PROTECT

SUZY HANSEN « » : My question is to the Minister of Service Nova Scotia. Rents have skyrocketed for the last four years, and with the tariffs imposed, life will get even more expensive. It's never been more important to protect renters, and ensure people can afford their homes.

People like Sophia Lindfield, a university student and renter in Halifax, are worried about how they're going to continue to afford their increasing rents. Sophia said, "My rent for a one bedroom currently costs 80 per cent of my monthly salary. It's slightly under the market average. It's also a fixed term, so the cost has been going up every year. Next year with the increase, I likely won't be able to stay in the apartment."

[Page 862]

My question is: When will we help people like Sophia and close the fixed-term lease loophole created by this government's rent cap?

HON. JILL BALSER « » : I would like to have that conversation with the member around the specifics of the case that was brought forward. I know that in the last session, yes, we talked about the rent cap. We know that there had been many discussions on the set number that we're seeing. Yes, we increased that rent cap, but it was a provision in place to also protect renters.

We also know that we need to have a system that provides balance, especially in this time where we're seeing increased costs. Yes, with the tariffs on the minds of Nova Scotians, we need to make sure that they know there is a Residential Tenancies program there to support them. Again, I would encourage any Nova Scotian who has any question about whether they're signing a fixed-term lease, or whatever lease they happen to be signing?

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

SUZY HANSEN « » : The balance the minister is talking about is actually about whether or not someone has a roof over their head. We also heard from Ursula Calder, another Halifax area renter, who wants to see restrictions on fixed-term leases. Ursula wrote: "Every year I get very anxious when it gets close to time to re-sign the lease, as I know if my landlord chooses not to re-sign us, it will be almost impossible to find another place to live within our budget."

Ursula and Sophia are not alone: 66 per cent of Nova Scotians experienced a housing challenge in the past year. With tens of thousands of Nova Scotians worried about their rent, and tariffs set to make life more expensive, will the minister consider closing the fixed-term lease loophole and cutting the rent cap from 5 per cent to 2.5 per cent?

JILL BALSER « » : Again, I want to thank the member for bringing this forward. I do want to have that conversation on the voices of many Nova Scotians that we're hearing during this difficult time. Whether, again, it's folks who are concerned about rising costs of rent, that's another reason why they do have to reach out to the Residential Tenancies Program.

We want to make sure we're also providing the conditions to make it favourable for building housing right now. I know the Minister of Growth and Development is talking many, many times about all the investments we are making to make sure that we're creating the environment that is supporting all Nova Scotians in their housing needs. We're going to continue to make sure that Nova Scotians are attached to housing, that they find permanent housing, that they find homes they love, and that they continue to thrive in our province.

[Page 863]

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

OSD: HOMELESSNESS - REDUCE

LINA HAMID « » : Homelessness in Nova Scotia has more than doubled under this government's watch. Shelters are full, encampments are growing, and three people have died this Winter while living outside. Just yesterday, a fire broke out at an encampment in Halifax. Why has this government failed to take meaningful action on homelessness?

HON. SCOTT ARMSTRONG: Well, good news: We are taking aggressive action to bring people who are unattached to homes from outside to inside - a 1,300 per cent increase in housing for them, and 700 new supportive-housing units. We're on track - actually, we're ahead of schedule to get up to 1,085 new units. Our government is getting things done. The Opposition wants to strike committees and talk about things. We're taking action and getting the job done. We'll continue to support people as they are outside.

I'd like to say, as to yesterday: Thank goodness no one was injured. Our service providers are working with everybody who's outside. We have a spot for them. If they would just contact us and we could contact them, they'll come inside. We'll have a place for them.

LINA HAMID « » : Current investments in housing and shelter are welcome, and yet they are a drop in the bucket compared to what is actually needed. In fact, this government is actively making things worse by refusing to close the fixed-term lease loophole and by making it easier and faster for renters to get evicted. When will this government commit to establishing a homelessness task force to take real responsibility for and action toward fixing this crisis?

SCOTT ARMSTRONG: There it is: They want to strike a committee. We're going to build housing and get these people inside. All you have to do is look at the actions of the Minister of Growth and Development: 273 new units in the last 18 months. On February 13^th, he announced 242 new units and $136 million in investment - a total of 515 new units. This government is working together across 10 departments. We're supporting people through a very difficult time. We're going to have places for them to go inside. We're going to keep getting the job done while they want to talk about it.

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

DPW: J-CLASS ROADS - REPAIR

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : J-class roads are critical to many rural and suburban communities, but many are in poor condition due to a lack of consistent funding. Last week in Estimates, the minister indicated that the government is spending just $2 million for 1,300 kilometres of J-class roads in the province. This is woefully inadequate, given that many of these roads haven't been paved since before the last service agreement.

[Page 864]

As the government looks for ways to support the Nova Scotia economy as it is impacted by tariffs, one action they can take is to advance capital spending to support jobs. Does the Minister of Public Works agree that the Province must assist municipalities and take on greater responsibility for J-class roads?

HON. FRED TILLEY « » : J-class roads are a very important part of what we do on an annual basis. Yes, there's a $2 million allotment there that is generated from requests from municipalities to work on. Our team is working with municipalities every year and negotiations are under way with municipalities to look at what can be done to improve the work on J-class roads in Nova Scotia.

[2:45 p.m.]

IAIN RANKIN « » : I appreciate the answer. The Province is moving to take on more municipal infrastructure, but since the government is seeking more power over municipal infrastructure, they have left J-class roads in purgatory with barely any budget and no plan to repave them.

A previous Liberal government invested $10 million in paving J-class roads and that allowed municipalities like Kings County to do millions of dollars of projects that were non-TCA asphalt to asphalt paving. Now we are back down to $2 million to cover new paving and maintenance together. Does the minister agree that it is time for the provincial government to assume full responsibility for these roads which they own now, and invest real dollars to improve the infrastructure?

FRED TILLEY « » : Some of the things that this government has done is double the gravel road program, double the RIM program, and invest $500 million this year in road infrastructure in Nova Scotia. For the work of the Road Builders Association in Nova Scotia, there is close to 10,000 employees directly and indirectly making their living from road building.

At the end of the day, we are talking on one hand about investing and on the other hand about deficits. This government is investing in Nova Scotia, investing in workers, and investing in roads, and I am very proud of that.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.

PAUL WOZNEY « » : Speaker, last week the Premier commented that he didn't know if a single bill had ever been amended through what was once called the Law Amendments Committee. Well, we checked and found out that in fact more than 300 bills have been amended through that process since 2000. Will the Premier acknowledge the facts and correct the record?

[Page 865]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. That doesn't fall within the executive mandate in the Premier's portfolio. I ask you to either move on or rephrase your question. The question is out of order. We can sit here for two minutes, if you'd like. Okay. Winner winner chicken dinner.

The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

PREM.: HATE SYMBOLS - CONDEMN

LISA LACHANCE « » : My question is for the Premier. The 2SLGBTQIA+ community in Lunenburg County has faced months and years of increasing numbers of hate symbols being plastered in public spaces in their communities. People in the community are scared as threats seem to be mounting to their safety. Will the Premier stand and confirm that the "no" in Nova Scotia is a no to transphobia and homophobia?

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Justice.

HON. BECKY DRUHAN » : I can absolutely confirm that there is no space for hate in Nova Scotia. Every single Nova Scotian deserves to live in a place that is free from hate, free from inequity, free from racism, and we absolutely stand behind and with the 2SLGBTQIA+ community in condemning these actions, condemning those remarks, and condemning the symbols. We work hard across government to ensure that we have safe and inclusive spaces. When those incidents happen, the Department of Public Works works with the Department of Justice to make sure they are removed and that the perpetrators are brought to justice.

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

The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : May I make an introduction?

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : I'd like to draw the attention of the members to the Gallery opposite, where we have a couple of very special guests today. We have my daughter, Françoise Labelle, here; Françoise's bestie, Anaïs L'Ecuyer-Steele, and then Anaïs's mom, Andreane L'Ecuyer.

I just want to welcome them to the House. Anaïs is the president of the student council at École du Carrefour in Dartmouth. She is very interested in politics, I would say. Both Françoise and Anaïs campaigned with me on the doorsteps this past election. Anaïs is really good on the door. You are not allowed to borrow her. I think she has committed herself to my elections in the future.

[Page 866]

Please give them all a warm welcome. (Applause.)

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

OPPOSITION MEMBERS' BUSINESS

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

LISA LACHANCE « » : I ask that you call Private Members' Public Bills for Second Reading.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS FOR SECOND READING

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

LISA LACHANCE « » : I ask that you call Bill No. 62, Rent-to-own Starter Homes Act.

Bill No. 62 - Rent-to-own Starter Homes Act.

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

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : I move that Bill No. 62 be read a second time.

I rise today to speak on Bill No. 62, the Rent-to-own Starter Homes Act. This program that is outlined in the bill would address a serious gap in the housing market for Nova Scotians who are looking to purchase a home. With the tariffs from our neighbours in the south now in effect, it has never been more important for government to invest in Nova Scotians and in homes that they can afford.

As we all know, rents have skyrocketed in recent years, with more and more Nova Scotians spending the majority of their take-home pay on their home. In January of this year, the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Halifax was $2,000. Rents like that make it almost impossible for people to save for their own home. For over 300,000 Nova Scotians who rent, the dream of home ownership is completely out of reach.

Speaker, an Angus Reid Institute poll last year found that Nova Scotia, along with B.C. and Ontario, led the country on the number of people who feel that they can't afford a house in their community or have given up altogether on the idea of home ownership.

I just referenced the election campaign in the Fall. I can't tell you, Speaker, how many people I talked to about this. Either they were in that situation, they were renting, and they were saying to me that they can't imagine ever owning a home in this province, or they were homeowners whose adult children were facing that situation. They were very concerned about what we were doing, as a province, to support their children who were looking to buy homes.

[Page 867]

I have to tell you that I talked about this idea, and people loved it because they actually saw it as a proposal that made a lot of sense and that would actually work for them, for their children.

In our province, one-third of people said they don't believe they will ever be able to buy their own home. That's a lot of people. The Rent-to-own Starter Homes Program would create more pathways to home ownership for Nova Scotians. In our communities, neighbourhoods and even our own families, we know people who are at the point in their lives where they'd like to buy a home and set up their lives in this province that we all love.

I am lucky enough to be a homeowner. I can't tell you how many times a week I thank God, I thank my lucky stars, and I thank my father - I'll tell you why in a second - that I own a home. I see the rents increasing around me. More and more people are coming into my office. The rents they are paying for apartments in not-safe areas that are falling apart, that have leaky roofs and leaky windows - they're way more expensive than the mortgage payment that I pay.

When we see the rents and the markets going crazy like this, all I can do is think: Oh my God, I'm so happy that I was able to buy a home. I'll tell you how I was able to buy a home. It's because my father gave me $20,000 to do it. I come from a middle-class family. I know that many people do not have that kind of money, that kind of family. I wouldn't call our family wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but my father was able to offer that as a gift to me. I would never have been able to buy a house had that not been the case. When my daughter - who is here today - was six months old, we moved from a one-bedroom apartment on Agricola Street over to Windmill Road. That's where we set down roots. We had a yard for the kid to play in. We didn't have a yard in our apartment on Agricola Street. We had a teensy-weensy little deck, which had a nice maple tree. That was nice.

I'm serious. It was not until my father was able to give that gift to us that we were able to buy a house. We're actors. God love the arts and the artists of the world, but it doesn't pay a whole heck of a lot of money, even when you work three jobs, you bust your butt and you get film work to pad your income, or you work at the university to pad your income. It's impossible to cobble up the down payment.

I remain grateful that I live in a house where my mortgage stays relatively stable, at least for five years at a time. I'm recognizing, humbly, that this is not a luxury that is afforded to very many people right now.

Home prices, like rents, have increased substantially over the last few years. By the way, the home I bought cost $192,000. That's also a big difference from any home that will fit three people in it. The median price of a single-family home now in Halifax increased 8 per cent to $575,000 in early 2024. Outside of Halifax, home prices are also seeing historic increases. Last year, the average asking price for a home increased 24 per cent to nearly $350,000 on the South Shore and $325,000 in the Valley. Overall, home prices across Nova Scotia are around 65 per cent higher than pre-pandemic.

[Page 868]

[3:00 p.m.]

I'll tell you another little story - a quick one. That home I bought for $192,000 - we ended up moving from that home to the one we're in now because we outgrew it with a second child. We sold that home to a young family, and they lived in it during the pandemic. The home I bought for $192,000 - I sold it for less than I paid for it - then it resold for almost $400,000. Right after the pandemic, that house was sold again. That is how quickly prices have gone through the roof. It's extraordinary.

With rent-to-own starter homes, we would build a starter home - I want to get into the crux of this program. I want to make sure everyone in this House and everyone in Nova Scotia understands what this program is. This is not a rent-to-own program for a home that you're already renting from a private landlord, although that's a great idea, too. With rent-to-own starter homes, we would see the province build starter homes on government-owned land quickly using locally prefabricated construction.

I keep talking about myself here, folks. I'm going to do it again. The home I live in now is a post-war prefabricated home. They're all over lots of places in Nova Scotia. In the area of North End Dartmouth, where I live, you can see them. They're like little storey-and-a-halfs. Some of them have little bump-outs for the porch, some of them have little add-ons in the back, but the basis of them is the same: a base floor, two bedrooms with no hallway at the top of the stairs. They're all over the place.

When I was campaigning in Pictou during the by-election, I noticed that there are areas of Pictou that have very similarly structured homes. I can only assume that those were quickly built, prefabricated homes, possibly workers' homes. In any case, it makes sense: They're quick to build, they're cheap to build, and they're solid. This is what we would like to see. We would like to see a new program of prefabricated construction on government-owned land. The homes would then be rented to families making less than $100,000 a year.

Nova Scotians who qualify would be able to rent one of these homes and then build their equity toward home ownership. Renters would enter into a five-year agreement with the Province, and the rent paid would be no more than 30 per cent of their income - rent geared to income with the equity building towards the home ownership. With this program, Nova Scotians will know monthly rental payments are investments in their future and not someone else's.

These would build up in communities across the province, because the cost of buying a home is out of reach for too many, whether you live in Bridgewater or Amherst or Sydney or in the HRM. Rents have gone up hundreds of dollars a month since the Premier became the Premier, and wages are not keeping up. It doesn't need to be that way.

[Page 869]

This government doesn't seem to get it. Many young people will just not stay in this province if they can't afford a home. I will say, because I know one of the objections to this or one of the comments will be, What has to happen is everyone needs a good job - I agree with that, but there are many young people right now with good-paying jobs in this province, and they can't afford a home.

I will go back to the many people I met on doorsteps in the past election, the people who live in Crichton Park whose kids grew up in Dartmouth North, in Crichton Park, and who would love to see their children be able to buy a house close by, put down roots, have some grandkids. This is the dream for a parent of adult children. Yet we can't see that possibility for very many people.

As I said, we've done this before. We've built thousands of homes like this to accommodate a growing province, and we need to do it again. We need to create a province where young people can afford to live and where they can see a future for themselves, where seniors know that they can retire in dignity, where families can raise children in stable, sustainable communities, and where people are able to build the life they dream of in the province that they love. We urge this government to support this legislation and act to address the crisis in affordable homes so that the Nova Scotians who want and need to build their lives here can.

With that, I will take my seat, and I look forward to hearing comments from the other side.

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

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : I'm pleased to comment on Bill No. 62. I think it's a novel idea to put forward in the Legislature to look at a rent-to-own starter home project. I think it really is speaking to the increasing need to address the housing crisis in our province with an all-hands-on-deck approach and bring forth various streams of getting Nova Scotians housing. If we believe that housing is a human right, which I do, I think this is a novel way of looking at partnering to build prefab homes.

These are the kinds of homes that take, in my understanding, eight weeks. Fairly soon, they can be built on scale. They're well built these days as well. Looking at the parameters of who qualifies, it really does target those who would need it the most, with household incomes under $100,000. I certainly share the consternation about home ownership being increasingly out of sight for Nova Scotians.

I worry that those who are able to buy a home are, at some point, just going to be those who inherit wealth from family. Those who aren't as fortunate, who are on their own, have to come up with not only tens of thousands of dollars - as home costs are now increasingly over $1 million, we are talking about down payments for Nova Scotians of upwards of over $100,000 just for the down payment. Then, of course, the qualifying process to come up with a payment, which is increasing every year for mortgage payments. This is a targeted way that I think is worth considering.

[Page 870]

I will say that when looking at other provinces that have looked at this, Prince Edward Island has a similar type of program that was announced just a couple of years ago. In their program, they didn't require that government be the one that builds these homes. I think that it would be worth looking at beyond just government as being tasked with building homes like this, that we look at partnering with non-profits, especially since the public housing that was announced is working out to $563,000 per door - significantly higher than what non-profits can build homes for. They can build homes for $359,000 per door.

I am still talking about non-market units, but if we can look at partnering with AHANS and Adsum for Women and Children or others that have expertise in housing, it could be much broader and not just reliant on the government to lead an initiative like this. There are lots of different companies that build different types of homes that are cheaper than a normal type of residential build. There is one in my constituency - Dow & Duggan Log Homes - that was disappointed that they weren't involved in some of the government contracts that went out to build small homes and tiny homes for shelters.

I just want to comment that whenever we are looking at projects like this, that they should be trying to get the best value for money when spending this kind of money, but the spirit of the bill looking at targeting those who are first-time home buyers, people who are renting now, and the fact that rents have skyrocketed over the last number of years, I think it is a good idea worth putting forward. With those few words, I will yield my time.

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

JOHN WHITE « » : Speaker, I rise today to address the bill on rent-to-own homes. I just want to say that home ownership is an incredible, incredible benchmark in someone's life and we have to realize that everybody getting into this are at different levels, and we have to realize that the housing issues we are facing are absolutely across the spectrum. The Province is dealing with the entire spectrum from one end to the other.

We have a housing plan, and I just want to say very loudly and clearly that it is working. It is working and I will go through the entire speech I have here that will address some of the parts of it that are incredible numbers by any statistic that you look at. Our government has already seen more housing projects across the province because of the hundreds of millions of dollars - hundreds of millions of dollars - that we invested so far.

In addition to this, we have cut miles of red tape - cutting red tape in housing, as we did in health care, supporting the workforce. We've reduced costs. We've made it easier to build, and to get more Nova Scotians in their own home faster - more, faster. We have seen a remarkable 3.8 per cent year-over-year increase in housing starts for centres with populations of over 10,000 people and that's only since January, and this is March 5^th, I believe. That is a pretty incredible increase already.

[Page 871]

Our work doesn't stop there: 663 first-time home buyers were already able to purchase a home through the Down Payment Assistance Program since 2023. This is making important progress towards our goal of assisting 1,200 first-time home buyers over five years. That is over 50 per cent already. Since implementing the Action for Housing plan in 2023, we have made significant progress toward achieving our ambitious five-year targets. This level of investment provides a foundation for critical infrastructure, resources, and support necessary to tackle the housing crisis head-on to build sustainable long-term solutions.

To date, we have laid the groundwork to create over 50,000 new household units, which is already 125 per cent of our original five-year goal. Speaker, 125 per cent of a five-year goal - I know the minister has quoted these numbers several times, but perhaps it takes a few more times for it to sink in. I'm proud to read these numbers off: 125 per cent of our five-year goal, and we're one year in.

This accomplishment reflects the collective efforts of all involved: government, industry partners, and the communities we serve. In particular, the Executive Panel on Housing in the Halifax Regional Municipality has been key in supporting initiatives within Special Planning Areas, facilitating and developing nearly 50,000 housing units in these priority areas. This represents a substantial proportion of the overall goal, underscoring the importance of targeting, planning, and collaboration to address the unique housing needs in high-demand regions.

The Land for Housing Program, another critical component of the Action for Housing plan, has been pivotal in accelerating availability of housing units. This program has already approved over 1,100 new housing units on provincial land, and 45 per cent of these units will be designated as affordable housing. These efforts align with a broader goal of making housing more accessible to people at all income levels and creating more inclusive communities.

Moreover, the government's support has enabled the development of 3,500 affordable and supportive housing units, addressing a growing demand for housing that provides additional support services. These units are designed to meet the needs of individuals and families facing barriers in accessing stable housing, offering critical support to those dealing with issues such as mental health challenges, disabilities, and substance use.

In parallel, the rent supplement program has provided direct assistance to over 12,000 households, helping to stabilize families and individuals who are struggling to afford rent in the current market. This program is a vital tool in ensuring that no one is left behind as we work to expand housing options across the entire spectrum.

In addition to expanding housing opportunities, we have also prioritized the development of skilled labour to support the construction and maintenance of these new housing units. One of the key steps in this effort has been increasing the standard training ratio for apprentices, which is now set at one journeyperson for every three apprentices.

[Page 872]

Speaker, many in the House know that I'm a skilled trades teacher at Glace Bay High School. One of the things that pushed me into running for government and getting involved in politics is that my students looked at me every day and asked me what they needed to work out west. That was the motive before. That's where people were going. I felt that we were shipping out our young people, our brain power, more than anything.

I'm proud to be in a government that has recognized that these young apprentices graduating from trade schools need to access their hours. They have to increase their licence. Although we face a great challenge in housing, I'm glad to see that we're not only addressing housing needs but are able to see the opportunity to increase the training of apprentices so that in the future we can avoid this by having tradespeople out there ready to go. It would be an awful shame if we didn't take advantage of having these trades increase their licence. The change ensures that there is greater mentorship and hands-on training for the next generation of skilled workers, helping to meet the increasing demand for construction professionals as the housing sector continues to grow.

Nova Scotia's on the grow. By all standards, we are growing. Although we face challenges from the south right now, we also face incredible opportunities. To see our youth getting ready for that, to face that opportunity, I'm more proud of that than anything else that we've done in this government. This comprehensive approach to housing development, supported by strategic investments and target initiatives, underscores our commitment to creating a more sustainable, affordable, and equitable housing landscape for all residents.

The progress our government has made so far sets a strong foundation for the continued success of the Action for Housing plan over the coming years. As part of our ongoing efforts to support Nova Scotians and make home ownership more attainable, the PC government has worked tirelessly to improve and expand the Down Payment Assistance Program.

Since its inception in 2017, this program has seen impressive year-over-year increases in the number of approved applications, underscoring its vital role in helping first-time homeowners across the province. In June 2022, we took further action to make this program even more accessible by nearly doubling the household income eligibility threshold.

[3:15 p.m.]

We increased the maximum value of the home being purchased to $570,000 in HRM and East Hants; $375,000 in West Hants, Annapolis Valley, and the South Shore; and $300,000 in Yarmouth County, Cape Breton, and northern Nova Scotia. This important program provides first-time home buyers who have a total household income below $145,000 with a 5 per cent down payment loan, interest-free for their home purchase.

[Page 873]

What makes this program even more beneficial is its long-term, affordable repayment structure. The program currently offers a 10-year repayment plan, with the average loan amount being just over $15,000. This results in manageable monthly repayments of approximately $127, allowing families to achieve home ownership without being burdened by steep upfront costs.

The success of this program is clear. Approvals under the Downpayment Assistance Program have continued to increase - 373 first-time home buyers have been approved in the 2024-25 fiscal year, with a $5.7 million investment. This growth in program uptakes shows the tangible impact our government's actions are having on the lives of hard-working families, enabling them to own homes quicker.

Our PC government remains committed to ensuring that home ownership is within reach for Nova Scotians now and into the future. We are actively exploring options to create additional programming for first-time homeowners, with a focus on launching a new loan guarantee program. This initiative is aimed at making home ownership more accessible for those entering the housing market for the first time. We are collaborating with various partners to develop this new program, and we'll provide more details once the work is complete, and the program is ready to roll out.

In Nova Scotia, rent-to-own initiatives were introduced in the 1980s as a way to support low-income households. However, these programs were eventually cancelled due to a lack of success. As eligible units were sold off and mortgage rules became more relaxed in the 1980s, home ownership became more attainable through traditional means, reducing the demand for rent-to-own options.

Currently rent-to-own programs are not widely available through provincial governments across Canada. However, Prince Edward Island is piloting a small rent-to-own initiative. The program is being carefully monitored to assess its impact and feasibility for broader implementation. This pilot program may provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of rent-to-own models in supporting lower-income households, offering lessons for potential future programs in other provinces.

I am extremely proud to stand as a member of the PC government and speak to the amazing work being done on the housing file. There's still more to do, of course. These efforts and programs represent the beginning of a generational investment in housing that I am confident will benefit Nova Scotians for years to come.

We have a commitment to fixing health care, and that plan is working. We are committed to growing the economy, and that plan is working. We are committed to finding housing solutions for Nova Scotians, and that plan is working.

Speaker, when we talk about the Action for Housing Plan, I don't know if it's clear but it's basically into three categories. Increasing housing supply - we want to use provincial land and infrastructure to create housing. We want to increase skilled workers to build homes now and well into the future. We want to reduce red tape. We want to update our housing laws. We want to invest more to build more for people. We want to pilot new approaches to help individuals and families.

[Page 874]

I see that my time is running out, so I'll have to go quicker. We want to grow and sustain affordable housing. We want to grow the community housing sector. We want to repair and upgrade affordable housing to help people remain in their homes. We want to make publicly owned housing more accessible for people and climate-friendly.

We want to innovate, test, and scale projects to create welcoming communities. We want to deliver programs that people need, dedicate funding to Indigenous people and people of African descent. We want to help move people experiencing homelessness for housing. We want to simplify and promote programs.

We have completed or substantially completed 20 per cent of our initiatives, and we have made progress on 80 per cent of the initiatives.

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

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Today I rise to speak to Bill No. 62, the Rent-to-own Starter Home Act.

We are providing this government with a solution to the housing crisis that we are in because we need every tool in the toolbox to solve it, and because home ownership is now becoming unattainable for so many. Whether you own or rent in Nova Scotia, housing has become one of the most expensive places in the country. Our market is one of the most expensive. When I talk to Nova Scotians, particularly in my area in Cape Breton, people tell me that one of their biggest concerns is secure housing for their families. One of the biggest things that comes through my office every single day is housing.

For some, that means their 20- or 30-something children are living at home, and both sides would rather that they not be. For others, that means their senior parents are being forced out of their apartments because of fixed-term leases.

In my office, I have constituents who are crying. They are afraid because their fixed-term lease is not going to be renewed, and now they have to find a place. That is a very frightening situation to be in. When they find out - when they try to get on the list for public housing - that there's a list for those in precarious situations, to get on another list for homelessness - but they have to wait until they're homeless to get on that list. Also, it doesn't come into effect until 30 days after their notifying that they are, in fact, homeless. This is the situation that my constituents and all our constituents face every single day.

Hundreds of thousands of families who rent are spending well over a third of their paycheque on housing each month, leaving them stuck with the tough choices of how to make ends meet each month.

[Page 875]

Rents have gone up under this PC government, and people's paycheques are not keeping up. That means it's harder than ever to save to buy a home. But it doesn't have to be this way. There are smart new ideas to help people get into their first home and on a pathway to home ownership. Sometimes what is old is new again when it comes to rent-to-own.

The rent-to-own starter home program proposed by our caucus would give renters a new pathway to home ownership in Nova Scotia. Nova Scotians who would live in these homes would rent from the province for up to five years and would know that their monthly rental payments are investments in their futures and not someone else's.

These homes can be built quickly and economically by using prefabricated construction, as we have already seen in many parts of this province. Non-profit housing providers are building this way and getting new affordable communities built and open in less than two years. We have done this before - building thousands of homes to ensure there were homes people can afford - and we need to do it again.

We have already heard that following the Second World War, hundreds of homes were built in our province to create housing opportunities for returning veterans and their growing families. Nova Scotian renters are feeling hopeless today. A third of Nova Scotians have little hope of being able to afford a home in their communities. Today, home prices in Nova Scotia are seeing historic price increases, and more people are having trouble affording the basics, like groceries, power, and fuel. Now, with tariffs in effect, people have additional concerns about their jobs and new economic shocks.

The Progressive Conservative government doesn't seem to get it. Many young people will not stay in this province if they can't afford a home. Nobody would stay in a place where they can't afford a home - a place to live. It's a human right. It's a basic need. Yet here we are.

The only answer we have from this government on housing is that we need to build more homes. While we absolutely do need more homes to be built, the type of home and the cost of these new builds have to be considered. Who does it help if people are looking to buy and can't afford homes that are for sale? Think about it. Someone's looking for a home, but they can't afford to buy the homes on the market. It's unattainable to them. We have to build homes that people can actually afford.

[3:30 p.m.]

Rent-to-own starter homes would open a new pathway to home ownership for people looking to build their lives here. Built on government-owned land - we can quickly build homes by prioritizing prefabricated construction. Nova Scotians who qualify would be able to rent one of these homes and build equity toward home ownership. Available to families making less than $100,000 a year, these homes would make a huge difference for young people across the province.

[Page 876]

I was one of those young people. My partner and I were renting, and we wanted to own a home. We looked at the market, and we knew we could buy a home, but we would be in debt. The property taxes alone could probably kill us. What we found was a private rent-to-own partnership that we did with a family member. I am one of those people who is renting to own their home. That would be the only way that I could have done it without significantly going into debt.

That's why I think this is a great idea. Creating hundreds of rent-to-own starter homes over the next number of years would mean families can raise their children in stable, sustainable communities, and people can build the life they want in the province we all love. With that, I move to adjourn debate on Bill No. 62.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is to adjourn debate on Bill No. 62.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

The honourable House Leader for the Official Opposition.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 65.

Bill No. 65 - Homelessness Task Force Act.

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

LINA HAMID « » : Today I rise to speak about Bill No. 65. We wish this bill was not necessary, but the reality of the crisis that we're in is clear, and direct solutions are needed. In Halifax alone, there are more than 1,100 people experiencing homelessness, and this is just folks who are on the by-name list. That's 1,100 people without a consistent, safe place to sleep; 1,100 people who do not have the dignity of safe, stable housing; 1,100 people who wake up every morning wondering if they will be right back to that same spot that night; 1,100 people in a constant state of mental, emotional, and physiological fight or flight.

This number has more than doubled since this government was elected in 2021. Data for rural homelessness in Nova Scotia is sparse, but it's believed that hundreds more people are experiencing homelessness outside of Halifax. Additionally, homelessness is stigmatized. Those Nova Scotians are our neighbours, our constituents. Homelessness is also dangerous, even more so during this time of year. Late last year, in the span of five weeks, three people who lived outside died outside. I cannot think of a more avoidable way to die, directly attributed to this government's inaction. Each death is a tragedy and a reminder of the failures in policy that have led so many Nova Scotians to live outside in the first place.

[Page 877]

Yesterday, a fire broke out in one of Halifax's many homeless encampments. Last month, a fire destroyed the abandoned Bloomfield School site. Encampments, and all the dangers associated with them, have become far too common. Nova Scotia should be a thriving province for everyone. Encampments should not exist, and yet they do.

In just the few months that I've been MLA, I've heard from dozens of constituents who are concerned about where they're going to sleep next month. That is why I'm talking about this bill. A homelessness task force's membership would include government representatives, municipal and provincial advocates in areas of housing and homelessness, health care and social service workers, legal and justice workers, law enforcement representatives, individuals who have lived experience with homelessness, and representatives from social groups that work with folks experiencing homelessness.

I understand that the idea of bringing together another committee or council might seem unnecessary; however, this task force will create accountability that will ensure that we are not simply reacting with temporary band-aid solutions, and there are people on the ground who are directly connected with folks living in those encampments or who are experiencing homelessness to be able to bring their concerns forward.

This legislation will require the government to track the problem, monitor the impact of policies and solutions, and ensure that resources are aligned with the real needs that are being heard on the ground. It will bring together experts, frontline workers and people with lived experiences. Real solutions require input from those who understand the crisis best.

This government has endorsed policies that contributed to the increase in homelessness, such as failing to address the fixed-term lease loophole that allows landlords to evict renters so they can raise rent for the next tenant and reducing the grace period for those who cannot make rent from 15 days to only three.

Meanwhile, we see tent encampments growing across the province, shelters stretched beyond capacity and people turned away with nowhere to go.

If the data was tracked properly and monitored, poverty reduction and housing strategies and listening to folks on the ground who are supporting people who are experiencing homelessness, as well as those who are experiencing homeless in the first place, we wouldn't be in this situation.

The task force will ensure real oversight of this government's homelessness response. It will require the government to publicly report on homeless numbers, provide updates on progress on solutions and tell us what the next steps are going to be. Because we've seen too many reports and experts' advice ignored and too many promises broken, we need this task force in place to ensure there is accountability, transparency and action to address the crisis.

[Page 878]

If this government would like to take serious action about addressing the massive issue on homelessness in this province then there wouldn't be any opposition to this bill.

Nova Scotians deserve better. The 1,100 people experiencing homelessness in Halifax deserve better. This legislation is just a step forward for real action, real accountability and real solutions. Again, it's not about setting up another committee, setting up another council, it's about getting together the stakeholders, people who are on the ground experiencing it, those people who are on the ground supporting people who are experiencing this, as well as government representation, to ensure we are taking proactive rather than reactive steps to decrease the number of folks sleeping outside.

We do urge this government to support this bill. I thank you for your time.

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

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : I'm happy to rise on my feet to support my colleague with this bill that establishes a homelessness task force to monitor and address homelessness in the province. It's one of those conversations you wish you were never having but the reality of the situation that we've seen, really in my experience in the greater CBRM area since COVID, is really sad. It's tough, and it has been hard on families. We've seen it around our communities and we've seen it in the statistics we're seeing when it comes to the level of poverty in this province. The province is really struggling right now in a number of metrics when it comes to not only the economy but also supports that we provide for people, with this being the worst.

I think one of the ways that I see this bill being a positive step is that not only does it allow us to have people on the ground to support folks - because there are wonderful people on the ground now who are doing a lot of this work. I do want to give them a lot of credit. We have them in all our communities who are out supporting our most vulnerable, supporting people who are without a home and are in our community. I think for all of us, regardless of political stripe, there are angels out there that do this work quietly each and every day to support people. I want to thank them.

With the bill - the task force - they're looking to include the provincial government, the municipal government, representatives, advocates, health care and social service workers, legal and justice workers, representatives from social service groups, law enforcement representatives, and individuals who have lived experience with homelessness.

This is happening. There are some great groups that have been doing this work around Sydney. I think what this bill does is it helps validate their work in the sense that they have a full commitment from the provincial government. There may be resources that the provincial government can help above and beyond what government services and supports do now.

[Page 879]

There is a key component to this. As I said, there are advocates in communities that are doing this work now, when it comes to supporting the strategies, collecting data on homelessness. There's been a number of big sessions in the Greater Sydney area around this. Because we've seen such a surge of population at home, with that comes more people that are facing challenges.

COVID was really when it for me. I really started to see some of the challenges around homelessness skyrocket in the community. Again, there are some great advocates who are there looking at housing supports, looking at construction around supporting people to give people a roof over their head. It's been good. This bill for me, as I said, solidifies the work that these organizations are doing. It provides an official task force to help support them in the work. Hopefully it will put some resources behind it as well.

I'm happy to stand in my place to thank my colleague for bringing this forward to support the bill that's being brought forward by the NDP caucus, but ultimately to thank the many, many advocates across Nova Scotia who are doing this work each and every day, to support the folks that are facing a homelessness challenge, and support them to try to have a roof over their head and ultimately have a better life. I'm honoured to get in my place to say a few words in support of the bill.

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

HON. BRAD JOHNS « » : As the Ministerial Assistant to the Minister of Opportunities and Social Development, I'm pleased to be able to stand here today and say a few words in regard to Bill No. 65, the Homelessness Task Force Act. Before I do, I want to thank the member across the way for bringing this forward.

We all know that Nova Scotians deserve a home. They deserve a safe place to live. That's all Nova Scotians, including those who are currently experiencing homelessness. I think that this is one of the driving forces that are behind the considerable efforts and the resources that this government has devoted to this issue.

[3:45 p.m.]

I want to very quickly tell my personal story of my experience with homelessness. About 10 years ago when I was on regional council, I received a call from a constituent who was concerned. There was a lady who was living down at Sobeys in her car, and she was moving back and forth between Sobeys and Superstore so that nobody would come and bother her. I went down, and sure enough she was living there. I reached out to her. We talked, became friendly, and I actually opened my home and had that person live with me for six months.

I think I have a unique perspective when it comes to homelessness. One of the things that certainly came out from that was - I think it's things that are reflected through things our government has done - is that people experiencing homelessness, it's our sisters and our brothers, our mothers and our fathers, it's our aunts and uncles. I think any of us are just a step away from actually experiencing homelessness. Any of us could be there. I think that's something our government has taken on when it's viewed this issue. I think the other thing is that each story is unique, each person is unique, and the requirements they have are unique as well. I think this government's efforts have really been trying to address the issue while recognizing the uniqueness of each person.

[Page 880]

Since this government took office, there has been a more than 1,300 per cent increase in the investments in this area. I want to say it again: 1,300 per cent increase. Currently, there is $130.5 million in this year's coming budget to be able to address this issue. The Opposition wants to say we don't see this seriously, that we're not addressing it. We are. We do see it. Since we came into government - recognizing that in 2021, when we came in, we ran on an issue of health care. At that time, homelessness really wasn't the issue it eventually became. When you stop to look at what this government's done over the last couple of years to try to address homelessness - I just want to lay out a few things.

In July 2023, two supportive housing options opened for urban Indigenous women and children at risk of homelessness in HRM. The department has provided the Mi'kmaw Native Friendship Centre more than $1 million in annual funding for safe housing, which has room for nine women, and a fourplex in Bedford. In July 2023, government invested $720,000 in the North End Community Health Centre and Upward Mobility Kitchens East, which provides meals at The Bridge, Shelter Nova Scotia, and Out of the Cold Community Association locations in HRM.

In October 2023, the government provided funding to create new Winter shelters and enhanced shelter-diversion supports and to establish a formal emergency weather response for vulnerable people. It also invested in operational supports by providing land in HRM to establish innovative shelter solutions. This province invested in a tiny home community in Lower Sackville, as well as annual operating funding for that community. In November 2023, government announced a new site in Halifax which supports 32 women and gender-diverse people who are sleeping rough in HRM.

March 2024: A new community hub opened in Amherst and affordability of six affordable housing units. We've opened up support groups in July for 22 supportive housing units in Waterville and Kentville. The list keeps going on. In October 2024, we saw the first tiny home community open in Lower Sackville, providing housing for up to 70 people, with fully furnished units and wraparound services.

I go back to what I said earlier. When we were elected in 2021, this wasn't the issue it eventually became. I have never seen - and I said this to the Premier - I can honestly say, I have been elected for a quarter of a century, representing people in Sackville. I've never seen government move as quickly to address an issue as what I saw Premier Houston move. To think that an issue came up when we came in in 2021, and by 2024, there were housing units - the small housing community in Lower Sackville was opening its doors to accepting residents living there in less than, basically, three years. It is unprecedented that I've ever seen government move that quickly. I commend the Premier for taking that stance and for recognizing the importance and moving it forward.

[Page 881]

Of course, I want to recognize our current minister, Minister Armstrong, who's committed to addressing this issue. He's meeting weekly with his staff and with community groups, being updated on the issues around homelessness. Of course, government can't do this alone, and I certainly recognize and thank the member for Sydney-Membertou for pointing out some of the community organizations that are working. Without those community groups, government would be - I mean, that's what's helping. It is the collaboration. It is working together with community groups and other municipalities.

Government cannot do this alone. We're so pleased that the government representatives from the departments of Opportunities and Social Development office, G and D, Health and Wellness, the Office of Addictions and Mental Health, Public Works were all working, first of all, in government across many departments but also with municipalities across this province and those valuable partners that are at community level. I know that the former speaker mentioned some.

We have AHANS, of course, the Affordable Housing Association of Nova Scotia; 902 Man Up; Adsum for Women and Children. There are so many other groups that are around. I remember my personal experience, once again going out with City Centre Ministry about 10 years ago. There was a pastor - he's passed away now - Gerry Leet. I remember going out with Gerry and meeting some of the people on the street and being able to help out.

Without these groups, government just wouldn't be able to do what they're doing. They're so integral. They're there already, and they are working with us. Those service providers have that expertise and experience to lead this work. They also have something that's important, and that's the trust, respect, and confidence of the people whose needs we're trying to meet.

Similar to the former speaker, I, too, want to thank those organizations for their dedication and their co-operation and working alongside government to help create innovative solutions that are helping to meet the needs of Nova Scotians. They're trying to also improve the way that we track, measure, analyze, and keep that data. I want to thank them.

Speaker, I'm so pleased to tell you that the reason I feel that Bill No. 65 is not needed - a task force on homelessness is not needed - is because of the collaboration that's happening now. We are working together with so many different groups and so many people. I think that this approach is working. There are more than 700 new supportive housing units, bringing it to a total of more than 1,000; more than 200 new shelter spaces, with a total of over 550; 200 units across 6 shelter villages. The implementation of a new rapid response protocol for extreme weather events ensures that our most vulnerable citizens are protected during extreme and severe weather conditions. In fact, last week - I think it was last week - we just opened a $1.1 million investment at St. Patrick's Church where HRM, Souls Harbour Rescue Mission and the province came together collaboratively and opened up spots for 25 men. It can actually be expanded to accommodate 40, if it's needed.

[Page 882]

Ironically, what this bill is asking for is something government is already doing. We're already there. We're doing it without the need of a task force, so I question that. As I already said, OSD is already leading a cross-departmental action unit. That's 10 departments. We're working with government to drive immediate and long-term solutions for homelessness. We're working collaboratively with municipalities and with service providers across the municipalities.

I understand why the member for Fairview-Clayton Park brought this bill forward. I thank her for being concerned, showing her concern, bringing it forward. I want to assure her and all members of this House that this government is taking action on homelessness, and all the items included in this bill we're currently doing. There's always more we can do. But I think that when you look at what we have done to address this issue over the last number of years, what we continue to do, financial investments we're making, the partners we're working with, we're making great progress.

THE SPEAKER « » : Before I recognize the next member, just a reminder that people are not to name members.

The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Speaker, I'll just speak for a few minutes in support of this bill that the NDP have brought forth today, an Act Respecting a Homelessness Task Force. Until there is not one person in this province living on the street or without a home, we need to do all that we can to end homelessness in this province. When I read through this bill, I say, Why not? What can be the harm?

I remember the very first time I came across homelessness. It was in the city of Toronto. My husband and I went there for a conference. It was a long time ago. I couldn't stop thinking about it for months after I came back home. I couldn't understand how - I was naive. I was very young. But I had never seen homelessness before, and I remember walking in downtown Toronto and there were people sleeping on the grates. I didn't know if they were alive or dead, and everyone was just walking around them. I was just haunted by that - haunted by that, Speaker. We really didn't see much of that here in Nova Scotia - certainly not in Cumberland County. I had never seen homelessness.

When I first became an MLA, I did meet several people here in Halifax. What's interesting is that some of the people I met - I would just chat with people on the street - were from Cumberland County. They lived here in the city on the street. They came to the city because there were services here. There were shelters, and we didn't have anything like that back home.

[Page 883]

I often tell people back home this story. There is a myth, I believe - a misconception of people in small communities that when there's a shelter opened in our own communities, the people who are coming are from away. You know: Why are they bringing people from Halifax or Moncton to Cumberland County to our shelter? They're not. They're actually bringing people from Cumberland County back home, because they maybe were trying to get into a shelter in Halifax or Moncton. They're our own people. We've had a lot of education, certainly over the past three years in particular, back home.

I just want to share a little bit of a story, just to give the member from the NDP who tabled this bill a little bit of hope. What I would encourage is, if the government doesn't pass this bill, to still find a way to make this happen. Find a way.

Back in Summer 2022, I was contacted as MLA by some stakeholders. They actually worked for the government, but they were nervous. They said: Make sure what we tell you is confidential. We don't want to get in trouble. They were very scared that people whom they worked with were going to die that Winter due to exposure. They said, We know that you get things done. We need you to find a way to make sure no one dies in our community this Winter.

So I organized a meeting. I invited all kinds of stakeholders from our community. On September 7^th, we had a meeting with 49 people. When we started that meeting, I had sticky notes on everyone's desk, and I asked everyone to start the meeting by writing the name of someone they loved on the sticky and then to set it aside.

[4:00 p.m.]

Later throughout the meeting, when we started talking about helping those who may be homeless in our community, I asked everyone to turn over the name that was on a sticky. I said: Whenever you talk about someone during this meeting, I want you to imagine you're talking about this person whom you love. The whole tone of the meeting changed, because people were not speaking in any way in judgment. There became an overwhelming concern for any person who may be living unhoused in our community.

Speaker, I share this as a story of hope. What happened from that meeting is that there was a commitment that led to weekly meetings. We formed a committee - community leaders - and they kept it going. The Legislature was back in session and I had to come here, and they kept the meetings going every week. It led to what's called the Winter emergency temporary shelter. Of course, what happened soon after that was Hurricane Fiona. My assistant at the time - her name was Hannah Landry - she actually used to work for the NDP as a researcher here back around 2013. When Kait worked for the PC caucus, Hannah worked for the NDP caucus here, and then she went on and worked in Alberta with the NDP Government.

Hannah worked with a community leader, Aidan Kivisto, and we urgently - within 24 hours - organized a hurricane shelter for that weekend for anyone who was homeless. We contacted the Department of Community Services, and they gave us every penny we asked for to make that shelter happen that weekend urgently. The community came together and brought food. The Lions Den donated space, and we had volunteers who ran that shelter that weekend.

[Page 884]

From there, Hannah Landry, who worked for me, Aiden Kivisto and I created a budget for a Winter shelter. We gave it to the Department of Community Services. I want to give them kudos because every penny of funding that we requested for that Winter shelter was given to our community. We appreciated that. They knew the work we were proposing was needed. It was never questioned; it was only supported. I really want to thank them for that.

This community group - WETS we called ourselves, Winter Emergency Temporary Shelter - works in collaboration with an organization that had been together for probably about six years. They call themselves Cumberland Homelessness and Housing Support Association. They had been meeting for about six years with the goal of getting a shelter going.

We went to them and said: Look, we've got the money, we've got the community stakeholders that have been working together, will you work with us? They wanted us to help them get an accountant, which we did, and we made it happen. That led to a successful partnership, which led to a shelter opening that Winter.

It was not without challenges, because no one in the community wanted to rent to us. No one wanted people who were homeless living next door. We had some challenges, but eventually we found a church building that hadn't been used since the pandemic, and they rented us the space. We turned it into a shelter and made it happen.

That led to the Town of Amherst then funding Cornerstone - this Cumberland Homelessness and Housing Support Association. The Town of Amherst made a decision to provide funding for them to have an executive director. I believe it was around $100,000. That was a turning point. Cornerstone now had this incredible employee, Ashley Legere. She is still there. She is simply a rock star. Her advocacy and her work with those living unsheltered in our community is just incredible. She deserves every accolade.

She works with law enforcement. She works with mental health. She works with the YMCA, she works with our office, she works with everyone and has been an incredible leader. That has led to the transformation of a vacant building that the town owned and turned it into a permanent shelter in the town. As the former speaker with the government mentioned, they gave funding for six affordable housing units. That's actually part of the shelter. There are six private rooms so that if someone comes into the shelter and needs housing, there's housing there.

We still need more because that's not permanent. It's just meant to be temporary. We still need more affordable housing in our community. I know partners through the YMCA under the leadership of Trina Clark are working on that, and there are plans in place for more.

[Page 885]

I wanted to share this, Speaker, to let the member know that even if the government doesn't pass this bill, this exact thing can still happen under her leadership or under the leadership of others. There are a lot of amazing people in each one of our communities who want to help and want to assure that no one dies from exposure.

There's definitely more work that needs to be done. A few months ago, I came here to the city for a meeting at a church downtown here with Can't Buy My Silence. I was shocked on University Avenue - all the tents and the people living there. It's heartbreaking to see. I do think that whenever we see someone living vulnerably - if there's someone not being cared for who is vulnerable in our communities - we all have a responsibility to do everything we can to take care of others.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I do think that until we come to a point in time when there's no one living unsheltered or homeless in our community, we should always be open to bills such as the one tabled by the NDP.

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

LISA LACHANCE « » : Today, I am also going to stand and speak in support of an Act Respecting a Homelessness Task Force. I will say that, in many ways, I agree with the member opposite who talked about how it's a shame that we have to have this. Why do we have to have this? I guess I would say first and foremost, this rise in homelessness, the rise in investment that this government has had to allocate - all of this could have been prevented.

The reason you had to increase your budget time and time again is, in fact, because of the government's policy failures. I didn't know much about the implications of the combined rent cap/fixed-term lease loophole until I became an MLA. I will tell you that after that, there is really not a week that goes by where we don't hear from folks who are caught in this. We've tabled time and time again their stories. We've tabled time and time again the information on how much rent is actually increasing in our communities. I have seen this unfold year over year, where there have been lots of people who had housing, and then because their rent became unaffordable, lost that housing, and many of them became homeless.

Because I am in Halifax Citadel-Sable Island, many folks here would be familiar with the number of the encampments that have been built up, and some of the stories of folks. I heard from my constituent, a senior woman. She and her husband were about to lose their apartment in my riding, and they ended up on University Avenue. There was a CBC article, or several, about their experiences. They were in their 80s in a tent. That could have been prevented. They had housing. They'd always had housing, and they were 80. They had reached out to everyone for help to say that their rent had become too expensive, and because of the fixed-term lease loophole, they were then homeless. This happens time and time again.

[Page 886]

We're not simply making up these stories. They're the real lives of real people. Again, it would be great if we could take the funding that has been spent addressing homelessness and just spent it on keeping people in the homes they have. The least expensive way to keep people housed is to keep them in the homes they have.

I also think it is important to recognize that because of this housing crisis and because of the increased amount of visible homelessness in all communities in Nova Scotia, there is not a community that I've seen untouched, from some of the smallest villages in the Annapolis Valley to towns, to cities, and in between. When I talk about the impact this has, we've heard from folks working in gender-based violence and intimate partner violence. They have been getting calls from folks seeking shelter. They don't have it to offer, and so people are staying in situations of danger and violence because they can't find the space to go to that is secure and affordable.

We know that lots of folks with children are also in this situation where they're stepping forward out of a situation where there is violence in the home, but they don't have a place to go, and it often leads to challenges in terms of being able to keep the family together. Of course, parents want to avoid their children entering into care. I tabled a letter in the last session - and I can find it again to re-table - from Phoenix Youth Services here in Halifax. It talked about - not just once but a number of times - that they have had families come to the youth shelter with their young person and said, We are losing our housing, so can you at least take my young person because they will be safer here than with us on the street?

I think it is really important. I do think we don't know the full scope of the situation of homelessness in the province. I do think there's a huge amount of value in people being able to work together to share lessons learned. It's also about creating capacity so that all the amazing partners who have stepped up and doubled, tripled, quadrupled their operations, if not more, respond to the homelessness crisis. It gives folks a chance to also make sure, across populations, how we are supporting different groups of people. Is there enough safe and secure shelter for folks who are queer or trans, for instance? We need to be thinking about youth, former youth in care, and seniors. We need to be thinking province-wide.

A task force would really facilitate a lot of those important conversations. We have the Halifax Point in Time Count survey last completed in 2022. That's an important tool for us, for policy makers, for service providers, for all Nova Scotians, but we don't have the same amount of data from rural areas. This is the other thing - to have the homelessness task force be able to bring together folks who are working in smaller communities and across the province who are providing housing to folks who are homeless and start tracking rural homelessness.

If we don't know the problem, we are not going to be able to fix it. We need to understand the problem better. We need to know what's working. We need to know where the gaps are. Everybody tosses around terms, and "homeless" is one term, but I think that really hides the complex context, history and experiences of people, and also what they face moving forward. Again, that's the kind of information we get from the Halifax Point in Time Count survey, which talks about the fact that there are . . .

[Page 887]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. I'm noticing that there's a lot of chatter in the room. I ask that everybody respect the person who is speaking.

The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : I will say too that I know lots of members in this House have stepped up and supported people when they needed support in various ways. In terms of my family, since 2021, we have had a youth come to stay with us on a temporary guardianship. We have had asylum seekers who were living in shelters come stay with us.

I think the other thing about the task force that's really important is about getting into the complexities. I wanted to speak to the experience that I had with the member for Halifax Atlantic when they were first appointed Minister of Community Services. At that time, the effort was on to clear out the Grand Parade encampment. The sense had been that people had been offered things, but that didn't seem to get through in the community. There were actually a couple of volunteers who had gotten to know everyone in that encampment. Then working with them and with other service providers with the minister at the time, I was able to advocate for each individual case. Each individual situation was so different. People were young. People were old. People were working. People weren't working. People had not been homeless for very long. People had been experiencing precarious housing for a decade. Some people had health issues.

One-size-fits-all doesn't work. That's why when you see things like: There's a shelter open, so go to it - that doesn't work for a lot of people. I could go on and on. I'm just hoping that everyone else can walk through what I would walk through in my head in terms of persons with disabilities, folks who are couples, trans folks who might not feel safe in a mainstream shelter. There are lots of scenarios. It's complex. It requires all of us to be working together with community-based organizations, with first voices so that we can learn from those. That's why a task force, I think, would take us far in terms of understanding homelessness now in Nova Scotia and responding to it.

I guess what I would say is that if the government doesn't like the idea of a homelessness task force, there are other things they could do to stop homelessness in this province and to limit homelessness. That's keeping people in the homes they already have. That's real rent control. That's ending the fixed-term lease loophole, that's not having a rent cap that distorts the market, and that's paying attention to what we're tabling time and time again in terms of the rent increases being unsustainable for many Nova Scotians.

As we enter this difficult economic time, the challenge for people to be able to afford groceries, heat, and their home are only going to grow. There are lots of things we can do. Let's try to keep people in the homes they have, let's keep people safely housed, and let's come together and establish a homelessness task force . . . (interruptions).

[Page 888]

With that, I will adjourn debate on Bill No. 65.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is to adjourn debate on Bill No. 65.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

[4:15 p.m.]

The honourable House Leader for the Official Opposition.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Speaker, would you please call the order of business Motions Other Than Government Motions.

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

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

LISA LACHANCE « » : Speaker, would you please call Resolution No. 22.

Res. 22, Housing Security: Need to Improve - Recog. - notice given Feb. 28, 2025. (S. Hansen)

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

SUZY HANSEN « » : I have heard a number of solutions today. As a Province that encourages solutions so they can help fix the problems we're seeing, it's interesting to hear the members of the government clap and applaud investments but do not clap and applaud for the eradication of homelessness and do not clap and applaud for renters on their way out, being evicted from their homes because they can't afford it.

We need to start thinking about where our hearts lie. What we're talking about are solutions. As my colleague for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island said, there's not a one size fits all. This is why there's a broad range of solutions that are being put forward in hopes that this government will take a look, listen, and really learn from the information put forward.

As I rise today to speak about the immediate need to protect the renters in this province, I don't need to tell you that we're living in uncertain times. Those folks who are unhoused know what it's like to live in uncertain times. Those folks, who at the end of every month worry about whether they can pay their rent, are living in uncertain times. In these uncertain times, Nova Scotians deserve a government that will stand up for them.

[Page 889]

Like I said earlier, the clapping for investments - it blows my mind to think that we would think about money over people. People's lives are at stake right now, and we are clapping about the investments this government is making, but we're not clapping about the numbers going down, because that's not happening. We're not clapping about the amount of Residential Tenancies hearings that people are going through each and every day of our lives in this province, or that they're worried about what their next plan is going to be to be able to live. Some of those folks are looking at the unhoused option.

In times like these, housing security should be a top priority. We haven't even seen a bill on the table about housing and how we're going to make housing better for Nova Scotians. With tariffs now in effect, Nova Scotians are facing job losses, economic instability, and a rising cost of living, yet we don't see any legislation that talks or speaks about any of these things for Nova Scotians and the reality they live in right now. Instead of taking action to ensure stability and affordability, this government has chosen a different path, one that puts renters at greater risk rather than providing them with the stability they need.

In Halifax Needham, my office hears every day from renters who are, frankly, scared. I talked about the rental prices, and the Minister of Growth and Development said that these rental prices online can fluctuate - or this, that, or the other. The reality is that the rental prices are high. Yes, there are some houses available, if you can live two and three people at a time and two, three, or four people can pay the rent. It is scary. They're scared of what the next rent increase will bring. They're scared to seek justice against landlords who break the rules. They're scared they will no longer be able to afford a place to live.

The government said, We want to have safe homes for everyone; we want to make sure everybody has a home to live in. Yet we don't see any movement on that action. There were many options put forward about a task force, something that's tangible and can help guide us to do the right thing for those folks. We were talking about rent-to-own homes, which is not something that is not doable. You can do it and do other things, as we've heard. You can do more than one thing. You can chew bubble gum and walk. When we think about options and solutions, these are those solutions that we're putting forward.

In Halifax Needham - and I'm going to give you an example, because the minister spoke about the Residential Tenancies and how they work. I've been here in this space, and Residential Tenancies was new to me - similar to my colleague over here - when we got here. I'm telling you: it has blown up exponentially in the amount of calls, the filing of paperwork, helping with the hearings that our office has to do every single day to help folks stay in their units.

Yes, there is a process. Well, let me tell you about a process that a senior who is 70-plus years old had to go through all of last year. It wasn't a one-time thing, because this senior was living in a unit that was affordable. It was under $1,000, and they were living there all by themselves. They were old. They had some health issues but not enough that they couldn't live on their own. It was actually doable.

[Page 890]

The landlord wanted to raise the rent, and the landlord did raise the rent, unbeknownst to the senior. The senior was saying, They want to put me out. The senior came to our office and said: They want to put me out because they're saying I'm doing X, Y, and Z. We did the Guide Form J. We did all of this. There was a form to evict - all these pieces.

This 70-plus-year-old woman won every hearing she went to. It wasn't one, two, or three - it was more like seven hearings this woman had to go through. Every time she won a hearing, the landlord filed another form to stress this woman out to the point where the woman had a heart attack because the landlord came to her house to give the form - or whatever the paper is that they've got to give to them - and they pushed their way into her house and harmed this person. The woman was scared for her life - 70-plus years old.

Yes, there are processes in place, but processes in place that can cause people to be scared to speak up, processes in place that cause people to be fearful for their health and their own personal well-being, processes in place so that if the year goes up - luckily this person's not on a fixed-term lease. If they did sign a fixed-term lease under some sort of guise, this person would be out, no questions asked.

When I tell you that these are stories we hear all the time - and this is just a snapshot - it is not just in Halifax Needham. It's across the province. Nova Scotians are struggling to find housing they can afford. Rents continue to skyrocket while wages remain stagnant. Even with the rent cap in place, loopholes like the fixed-term lease allow landlords to push tenants out and jack up rents. Instead of helping Nova Scotians stay in their homes, this government wants to make it easier for landlords to evict renters.

Cutting the nonpayment grace period from 15 days to just three will have devastating consequences. This change will mean renters will have almost no time to recover from an unexpected expense or financial setback. This move will push more Nova Scotians into homelessness at a time when we should be increasing protections, not dismantling them.

The Residential Tenancies program is failing renters. Regardless of what we hear from this government, the reality is that it is failing them, or else they wouldn't need to utilize it as much as they do, and if they had to use it, it wouldn't be at a detriment to people's health, security, and well-being. Too many renters are being forced to live with unsafe conditions, illegal fees, and landlords who refuse to follow the rules.

I spoke about the senior earlier. I told you she won every single time a hearing happened, and it was multiple times. The landlord had overcharged her, so she couldn't recoup it from the landlord just by saying, Hey, you know what? You owe me $700. Guess what they had to do? They had to take the landlord to Small Claims Court and file all that information in order to get the money back. If they get the money back.

[Page 891]

Tenancy enforcement is crucial. I don't understand why we just don't do the right thing. The government spent $300,000 on a report that told them they should create a residential tenancies compliance and enforcement unit. The unit would ensure that bad actors are held accountable.

Instead of acting on expert advice, this government tried to bury the report and purposely ignored its findings. They are directing folks to fill out a Guide Form J to go through these processes, which to me is absolutely mind-blowing.

This is not leadership. This is not governing in the best interests of Nova Scotians. The reality is that renters have always faced uncertainty. Now with the added burden of economic instability and rising costs, they will struggle even more.

This government has an opportunity to do better, to provide some much-needed stability for the thousands of Nova Scotians who need it. As we enter a period of deep instability - and we all feel this every single day, especially now that we've heard the news - renters need meaningful protections, not policies that will make their lives harder. They need a government that will stand up for them, not one that prioritizes corporate landlords over working people. I think what world do we live in when we're faced with a problem and the answer by this government is clapping and patting each other on the back for funding, when everyday folks are struggling, and people are hurting and trying to make ends meet?

That's why New Democrats are calling for real, tangible solutions - a key word, solutions - like real rent control that prevents excessive increases and stops landlords from using loopholes to drive up the costs; a ban on exploitive, fixed-term leases that allow landlords to evict renters and hike rents; and a massive expansion of non-market housing, like public housing and co-ops and other models that prioritize people over profit. I know folks will say this is what they're doing, but 40 units in four years is not doing a whole lot.

As I said before, people across this province are living in fear - fear of rent hikes, fear of eviction, and fear of not having a place to call home. This government has a choice: They can continue down a path that puts renters at risk and forces more Nova Scotians into homelessness, or they can do the right thing.

Solutions have been put forward. All they have to do is choose 1, 2, or 3. We are always willing and available to have conversations about what that might look like if it is complicated for folks to understand. They can take real action to protect renters. They can invest in housing security and ensure that every single person in this province has access to safe, affordable housing.

To us the choice is very clear: We must stand with renters and strengthen their protections, rather than take them away. We must ensure that housing is treated as a human right instead of a commodity. This is at the heart of the notice of motion that I was speaking about today. We are calling on this government to devote the time needed to debate this dangerous plan to strip away renters' protections. We urge this government to reverse course and listen to the experts. Listen to the people of this province and walk back the harmful policies they are considering.

[Page 892]

Nova Scotians deserve a government that stands up for them in times of uncertainty, not one that makes their lives even harder in this time of uncertainty. It is time for all of us to stand up for real action, real protections, and real solutions. It's time to provide stability to renters in these deeply unstable times.

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

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD « » : I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to the member opposite's Resolution No. 22, addressing housing insecurity for renters across Nova Scotia. To say that we are taking away rights is absolutely false and not true at all, first and foremost.

[4:30 p.m.]

I want to thank the member opposite for giving me this opportunity and the interest she shows in the Residential Tenancies Program. I'm very happy to be able to stand and share some of the good work that's been happening under our current minister's portfolio as well as our previous minister in this portfolio. It has already been a topic of many discussions on the floor in the Legislature and it's such a very, very important topic to discuss, I agree.

This afternoon's debate gives me opportunity to speak of that good work. I just mentioned the Residential Tenancies team, a dedicated team within Service Nova Scotia that is doing the hard work, that is working in the best interests of both. May I remind the House of the tenants balanced with the work of the landlords. There are two components in this and to paint such a negative picture of our landlords, I just want to take a moment to acknowledge that in rural Nova Scotia we have some pretty stellar, exceptional landlords offering very affordable rents. We have to take all that into consideration, not just what is happening in and around the member's community that she sees. We have to think about other parts of Nova Scotia as we talk about this important topic.

A key message that you also hear from the Minister of Service Nova Scotia is how important it is to ensure that every decision made works in the best interest of both parties - both the tenant and the landlord. I am pleased to be able to show you some of the ways that the Residential Tenancies Program is working and how it is not fair to portray it in any other way. Instead of empowering our renters with knowledge and the rules that are in place to protect them and empowering them to let them know their rights as an MLA should, they are being led to believe that there are no safeguards. It is simply not true. It's more negativity and fearmongering that we are putting to our tenants during very uncertain times.

[Page 893]

The existing dispute resolution process with the Residential Tenancies Program does resolve issues. It is full. It offers appeal processes. It offers both landlords and tenants to feel and be heard. If they are not satisfied with the resolution, it can be appealed many times until a resolution is found that is fair and just. We have introduced many initiatives to reduce hearing wait times and I am proud to say that we in Nova Scotia have among the shortest wait times in the country. In fact, we are hearing cases within a three-week period. I think that is something we should acknowledge. A big change and a lot of work has been done in a short period of time.

We have also adopted guiding principles - principles that underscore enhanced supports for landlords and tenants and they're consistent with the desired outcome of an enforcement unit. They negate the need to spend more resources on a task force, or a - I've lost my thought here - rather than investing. We'd rather invest that funding into the resources - into this team at the Residential Tenancies Program. The principles have been incorporated into modernizing the program. Working at ways that we are taking active steps, we are creating a scheduling process for hearings that are responsive to high-priority cases. What this means is offering an option to resolve disputes without a hearing when, in fact, it is an emergency situation, offering more accessible and online information so that tenants and landlords both know their rights to service, to lead a program such as online submissions for resolving matters related to damage deposits, and to increasing education of the awareness and outreach, as well.

It is worth repeating that Nova Scotia has one of the shortest Residential Tenancies hearing wait times in our country. Wait times in some provinces can be as high as six months with a compliance enforcement unit. A three-week wait time is much better than a six-month wait time when we are using enforcement units in other parts of the country. The Residential Tenancies Program is communication, and once you reach out to the program, it immediately stops any eviction notice. It puts a full stop to any type of eviction notice and I encourage members to have their constituents reach out to the program to make sure that they know their rights.

I also understand that some people are concerned to reach out for fear of backlash from a landlord involved in a dispute. The Residential Tenancies Act is legislation that protects against retribution. I ask all members in this House - on all sides, of all parties - if you have constituents who are having issues with their landlord, call the program.

Reducing the eviction timelines for nonpayment of rent brings Nova Scotia in line with the rest of the country. Many provinces have shorter eviction timelines than this. A tenant will still have the opportunity to pay their rent. Just because they're late and the landlord sends it in, they can still pay the rent. We're not saying that just because they haven't paid their rent and they're late, they don't have the opportunity to then pay the rent.

We think about programs that are a partnership with the member opposite - the honourable Minister of Opportunities and Social Development, who has a program - a diversion program. Our non-service providers work with tenants who are having issues paying their rent. If they're late for the unexpected emergencies that members opposite talk about, they can reach out to their service providers. Our family resource centre in Windsor works with us and works with our tenants all the time. Tenants who are facing maybe an eviction notice because of late rent can reach out if they need assistance paying their power bill so they can then use that money to pay their landlord on time. Just because a notice to evict has been given due to nonpayment of rent doesn't mean there aren't options to work with service providers in the community.

[Page 894]

We also have a rent supplement program. To be negative about that program is so disappointing. It's a program that we've invested nearly $74 million into. It provides 8,900 rent supplements to Nova Scotians to keep them housed and to keep them in their units. It's an increase of 400 over last year.

Creating more housing so tenants have a choice - that's critical, that tenants have a choice of where the Residential Tenancies work - and we are managing them. The rent cap is a temporary solution; it is while we're building the housing supply - increasing our housing supply, increasing our affordable housing. We also need to make sure landlords can maintain a current supply in Nova Scotia. We need to balance - and I know they don't like when we say this, but we do - the landlords' rising expenses. They are not immune to the higher interest rates we're all seeing. They're not immune to the higher heating costs. They're not immune to the rising Nova Scotia Power bills.

I think of a small landlord in my community who is struggling. He is hanging on by a thread. He houses six different senior couples in a residential unit that he bought as an investment property. He is a great landlord. He has $600 per month rent. However, he is now paying out of his own pocket for all the inclusions that he included in that lease that he had no recourse for other than the 5 per cent rent cap. He is also working with those same seniors who now need accessibility to enter their units. He is renovating those units. He is investing that money into that affordable unit, but he is at that point, if the rent cap soon doesn't go, he will have to make the tough choice: Does he sell the building to some other landlord who is not going to offer those same types of rent, or do we balance and support our small landlords in rural Nova Scotia who are the backbone of our housing? That is something we need to stand for.

Our government is taking action and making significant investments to build more housing. Actions include the 515 new public housing units. It's the first investment in public housing in decades. That's an important note. That wasn't started last government. It wasn't started the government before that. We have started that investment. We are paving the way for 51,000 new affordable units - to get more supply so tenants have a choice.

I'm going to skip over some because I don't want to run out of time, but I have to speak - I'm so proud of the $6.9 million increase in the Secondary and Backyard Suite Incentive Program. I'll tell a story about how that program is changing lives in my community. I have a senior who happens to be a family member, recently widowed at the loss of my father-in-law. We are building a secondary suite onto her home. Do you know what that means? She will be able to stay in her home as a widowed senior, looking out over the garden that her husband, my father-in-law, had so much pride in.

[Page 895]

Meanwhile, my nephew, who has three small children, is moving into the homestead. What that will do: That trickle effect of that one program is providing housing for my mother-in-law in a unit she can afford; it is providing housing for a small family that's growing and busting out of their own home; and now the home that they are in is going to go up for rent, making it another unit within West Hants. Programs are working.

I also want to tell a small story on my own street. I think of the HST that we reduced and our very first - and it came with some controversy - eight-unit apartment building erected in West Hants. It's a big deal. It is all senior housing, 55-plus. Do you know what that means for my neighbour up the street? That means that she can put her four-bedroom home - she's a widow as well - on the market. That home sold.

Last night on social media, I saw the young couple. The owner, the young man who bought that home, played hockey with my son. He and his fiancée now, through government programs, through first-time buyer programs, through HST removed off large developments, we see a young family being homeowners in my community, on my street. That is freeing up housing supply. It is putting the senior where she needs to be, in the right housing at the right level of her spectrum. That is not necessarily in a spectrum that everyone can afford, but it's in a spectrum that she can afford. To see the pride of that young family, holding that Sold sign up, makes me so happy to see that investments in our programs are working.

Housing starts: As I just said. I can talk about the numbers; they're up 38 per cent. We're seeing vacancy rates. Look around HRM. You're looking around these units. They're offering two months' free rent. They're offering low-income rents. They're offering incentives. Refer your friend to my unit and receive a $500 incentive. There are all kinds of ways where you can see that the supply is working. You're looking at large landlords now feeling like they need to be: Ooh, we have some competition on the market. It's not hard to see when you travel in. In my West Hants community, I can see cranes in the sky. Coming into the HRM, you certainly see cranes in the sky.

We're building housing, and the Residential Tenancies Program is working. I can't urge enough that members opposite, instead of putting fear in there, work with their constituents. There is the Legal Information Society of Nova Scotia. We have to educate tenants to read rental agreements. We have to encourage tenants to know their rights - that is on all members in this House - to question what they are doing before they do it, so that they don't find themselves in precarious situations. The moment that the damage deposit goes into the hands of a landlord, that is the start of a lease. We have to make sure both that the tenants understand their rights, as well as supporting our small landlords.

I just want to finish in my short period of time: We will continue to work in the best interests of both our landlords and our tenants. The Residential Tenancies Program - modernized as it is - and the work that the honourable minister is doing, is important work, and it is something to be proud of.

[Page 896]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The Leader of the Official Opposition.

[4:45 p.m.]

CLAUDIA CHENDER: I have some notes here but I do want to take a little bit of time and respond to the comments from the member. I want to start by saying that about a third of the people who live in our province are renters. They don't all live in the HRM. They live in every corner of our province, and they have a special interest in remaining housed. So the idea that renters feel that the Residential Tenancies Program is working is false. I will tell you why. The ministers will get up every time we ask a question about the fixed-term lease loophole, the rent cap, rent control, and they'll say, I wish the members would tell people about Residential Tenancies. Speaker, it's literally all we do.

I challenge any member in this House to talk to us about running workshops with the Dalhousie Legal Aid Service, with housing organizations, to tell people how to navigate the Residential Tenancies system. We do it all day long. Our CAs are more knowledgeable about Residential Tenancies than almost anyone in the province, yet all we hear are challenges. That has nothing to do with the people who work there. It has everything to do with the fact that we have a system that is not responsive to the needs of the people it is supposed to serve.

If the minister wants to respond to my remarks, I would invite him to stand up and do so when I am finished.

THE SPEAKER « » : I think there's a lot of chatter in the room. It's not just one person. I ask that everybody just respect the person who is speaking.

The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.

CLAUDIA CHENDER: Thank you, Speaker. The member made an offhand comment that my colleague, the member for Halifax Needham, was focused on members in her constituency and their issues, but there's a larger province, and that's true.

I have visited Harvest House in Windsor, and I've met with Open Arms in Kentville. I've met with Open Doors folks on the South Shore. This is not an HRM problem, and we are acutely aware of this.

I think it's really important, again, that we remember what we're talking about here. I'm so frustrated because there's this idea that it's not a problem. The first step to dealing with a problem is acknowledging that it exists. We heard the member stand up and say: Our plan is working, we're seeing things, we have rent supplements, the Opposition is fearmongering. What we're actually doing is bringing the concerns of our constituents that we have in our offices every single day onto the floor of this Chamber.

[Page 897]

There are good programs. The Secondary and Backyard Suite Incentive Program is a good program. That's a great example of how, when we create affordable housing, it has an impact that actually reverberates through lots of different families and residents - when we can move people through housing in the right way.

There are non-market housing programs in whatever the department that was called Housing is called now. They are good programs but they're insufficient. When we talk about housing, when we talk about anything, what we hear is: We invested X amount of money. Our response is always: People's experiences are not reflecting that investment yet.

I really want the government members to hear us when we talk about this issue. What we are saying is that it's a big problem. In particular, I want to talk about this idea of the small landlord. There are lots of small landlords in my community and I know a lot of them. I know that they are having challenges, and I know they feel frustrated by this dialogue a lot of the time.

I also know that the systems we have in place right now - the rent cap, the residential tenancies system as it exists - aren't working for anybody. It's not working for renters, it's not working for landlords, it's not working for anybody. This is why this government commissioned a report to set up an enforcement branch as a first step - because it was something that in general, people seemed to support throughout the housing ecosystem. They spent $300,000. They commissioned a report that told them it's a good idea. We need proactive enforcement. It will cost about $1 million a year. Yet they decided not to do it. We have no real rationale for why not.

Back to this idea that the Residential Tenancies system works: You have to be able to acknowledge that there is a power imbalance between someone who owns a property or properties and someone who rents a single dwelling. That's the basic. There's often a much more dramatic power imbalance with people who, if they lose their housing, have nowhere else to go. If we don't have proactive enforcement, it requires someone to assert their right, if they have it under the Residential Tenancies Act in a legal setting. Not only that, but you have to go to Small Claims Court to enforce that, and it's incredibly difficult.

Back to the small landlord, Dal Legal Aid actually put something out today that says that they did an analysis. It shows that, in fact, most of those claims in Small Claims Court aren't against small landlords. More than half of them are against large corporate landlords. Not only that, but they're for small amounts. So this idea that we have all these bad tenants running around - sure, there's always disputes, and there will be fault that lies on all sides, but the reality is that people are getting evicted.

People are getting evicted, and what this government has done in changing the Residential Tenancies Act is make it easier for people to get evicted. We have been standing here until our faces turn blue asking for rent control, and what do we get? We get an easier eviction regime. It's absurd on the face of it.

[Page 898]

That is so challenging for people right now. The tariffs have been imposed. We face an economic downturn. That economic downturn is going to hit families. The most expensive item in a family budget is housing, and we see zero action to support people's capacity to retain and pay for that housing.

Rent control would help, because you wouldn't be tied to an arbitrary cap. You would be able to apply to make the apartment more accessible, per the member's example. You would be able to apply if you needed a new roof. You would, with those extraordinary expenses, be able to raise the rent to cover your costs. You would have a system that works for everyone. No one would probably love it, and that's the hallmark of a great system. It's fair. The system we have right now is not fair.

The evidence is in the number of rent supplements we have. When this government talks about the affordable units they have created, a supplement is not a unit. It isn't. It's a subsidy. It's a subsidy from government, and it's not money well spent because it's money that evaporates. It doesn't turn into equity. It doesn't secure a place. It is important. We need them right now, but we need them because we haven't built enough housing.

To the question of the vacancy signs and the incentives, I would argue that it's because we have overbuilt housing that is too expensive, which is what we have been saying for a long time. The incentives are on units that are $3,000, $4,000, or $5,000 a month. I'm sure they're really nice. I'm sure for the people who can afford them, they can get a deal right now. That's not the housing we're focused on. We're focused on housing for everyday families right across this province. The vacancies for those kinds of units are still disturbingly low.

I just want to be clear. I have heard the new minister talk about the investments in housing and homelessness. Those investments are appreciated. I think there are some good initiatives. I don't think people should live in Pallet Shelters forever. I think that has to be transitional. I think we have to have a plan on the other side of that. I think it's better for people to be indoors than outdoors. I think the tiny homes are a really good idea.

I think we need a lot more manufactured housing that can go up quickly, that people can live in. But the facts are that rents are stubbornly high, that we still have tents across our municipalities and our villages and people sleeping in cars and under bridges. The idea that that's only happening because people are stubborn and don't want to go inside is not fair. We've had that discussion. People want a home, if it's a cot or a tent where you get left alone. I respect some people's choices that they don't want to sleep in a cot in a multi-purpose room.

We have work to do, and this is the point that we're making. We have work to do, and given the economic headwinds that we are facing, given the demonstrable and objective challenges that we have in our housing ecosystem, given the fact that it is now easier to evict people, it is crucial that this government reverse this decision, particularly around evictions. As my colleague said, we have a number of suggestions of how to go forward, but right now we need to make sure that people stay in their homes - Number 1, period. Because no matter what happens, whether we're all billionaires because of the fracking, or whether Trump pulls the tariffs tomorrow, or whether we have other economic development or not, the reality is that right now people are having a hard time staying housed, and right now, the best hedge against the economic challenges coming at us are to help them stay housed. That is what we are asking of this House.

[Page 899]

We are asking this because we believe that having safe housing is a right and not a privilege. So we are asking the government to actually take action to ensure that people stay housed. With that, I move to adjourn debate on Resolution No. 22.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is to adjourn debate on Resolution No. 22.

Is it agreed? It is agreed.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

The honourable Official Opposition House Leader.

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Speaker, that concludes Opposition business for today.

THE SPEAKER « » : There has been a request for a five-minute recess.

Is it agreed? It is agreed.

We will recess for five minutes.

[4:58 p.m. The House recessed]

[5:19 p.m. The House reconvened.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Speaker, pursuant to Rule 5C, I move that the hours for March 6^th be not 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., but instead be 1:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

THE SPEAKER « » : There has been a request for the hours for Thursday, March 6 to be from 1:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

[Page 900]

The motion is carried.

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

The honourable Government House Leader.

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

PUBLIC BILLS FOR SECOND READING

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 12.

Bill No. 12 - An Act Respecting Advanced Education and Research.

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

PAUL WOZNEY « » : This piece of legislation is another one of those ones that we only encountered with a moment's notice before it was introduced. That leaves us, as the Opposition, in the position of having to triangulate the intent behind and the motivation for a piece of legislation.

As a critic, one of my first questions when I look at a piece of legislation is: What is the question that this legislation is the answer to? Yesterday, the Auditor General of Nova Scotia released her report on university funding in Nova Scotia and flagged a number of concerns with the current approach to funding Nova Scotia's universities.

There are three principal categories of findings in that report. I'm not going to read them all, but those three umbrellas are a concern that universities are funded largely by unrestricted operating grants.

The lack of controls and guardrails around the money that government gives to universities to operate - any time we have substantial amounts of government funding being divested, it's in the public interest to ensure we are getting good value for dollar, and there needs to be proper accountability and transparency. The Official Opposition spoke to that need in any number of respects in this sitting of the House.

The second piece of the Auditor General's report flags a concern that the government, over the past five years, has spent $250 million on addressing health care through universities, and the fact that this quarter billion - more than a quarter billion - in spending lacks protections for public funds. Moreover, it also lacks a plan to assess the outcomes of spending.

Government has invested lots of money - I'm not going to argue that point - but there's no clear measuring stick for whether this spending is translating into progress, change, or benefit for Nova Scotia. There's a lot of money being spent; it's difficult to assess whether this money is translating into impact for the people of Nova Scotia.

[Page 901]

The third umbrella speaks to the fact that the department doesn't adequately monitor the financial health and sustainability of universities. When we look at the Auditor General's report, and we look at the content of the bill - I'm not suggesting there was any kind of leak - it appears there was a sense of some of the notes the Auditor General might strike in her report, in her findings, and the legislation in some respects is an attempt to address some of the concerns flagged by the Auditor General.

We can further surmise this intent because we've heard the Minister of Advanced Education, in his remarks, talk about: We are going to fully accept the findings of the Auditor General, and addressing them in the actions we're taking in this budget and other steps.

To my earlier question: What is the question that this legislation is an answer to? Is there a problem that this legislation aims to fix? I think we reasonably have an answer to that question.

The Auditor General, in asking the question - what is the fix to this problem? With the amount of money that's being spent without guardrails, a lack of understanding or ability to measure whether substantial government spending on health care is delivering impact, and a lack of government attention on the financial health and sustainability of universities, what are the fixes?

The Auditor General proposes five questions that focus on what a fix might look like. When we think about what this legislation is trying to achieve, there were five questions the Auditor General asked:

·       "How does the Department of Advanced Education plan to hold universities accountable for the public funds they receive?" We can see some of those notes present in Bill No. 12 as proposed.

·       "Will the Department of Advanced Education impose expectations or restrictions on the significant operating grant funding universities receive annually?" We can see those notes present in the legislation.

·       "How will the Department of Advanced Education assess whether health education funding is effective?" That's a question that's unanswered by this legislation.

·       "How will the Department of Advanced Education define and assess universities for financial health and sustainability?" That's a question this legislation is effectively silent on.

·        

[Page 902]

·        

·       The last question is a really interesting one that the Auditor General raises. She asks: "Why is the Department of Advanced Education not applying the full weight of the Universities Accountability and Sustainability Act?"

Now, for reference, that's not a nod to the proposed changes under Bill No. 12 to the Universities Accountability and Sustainability Act. It's a nod to the fact that we have on record a current Statute passed in 2015: the Universities Accountability and Sustainability Act.

The Auditor General, in her report, raises questions about the department's failure to exercise the powers it has under a current statute. When we look at the question Is there a problem and is this legislation a fix to it?, I have to scratch my head a little bit. Is the answer to a department that doesn't exercise its powers under the law that already exists giving itself additional more sweeping and far-reaching powers when it hasn't exercised the powers that it already has? I have to question that.

When we move on here - we think about what are the powers that the government currently has under the Universities Accountability and Sustainability Act, well, between 2019 and 2024, the Auditor General in her findings flagged that one of the powers that the department had was to implement a memorandum of understanding between the government and Nova Scotia universities that has a very robust mandate to address the concerns that are present in the legislation.

I think it's worth spending some time looking at what this MOU empowered both the government in partnership with universities to achieve during the life of the MOU. I'm reading from the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Province of Nova Scotia and the Nova Scotia Universities 2019-2020, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24. I'll be happy to table this afterward.

At the end of the preamble, it says:

The Universities and the Province therefore agree to work together through a Partnership, as described in Clause 1, to continue collective and institutional commitments to efficiency and effectiveness, and financial sustainability of the sector. Further, the Parties agree to ensure alignment of shared priorities of government and universities.

We'll move on here. It says:

1.     The Universities agree to continue to participate in a Partnership with the Province to provide leadership to achieve the implementation of the MOU.

[Page 903]

(1)   The Partnership Committee includes all university presidents and several deputy ministers, co-chaired by the Deputy Minister of LAE and the Chair of CONSUP. This Partnership Committee will meet at least three times per year.

That meant that this committee, collaboratively struck between government and universities, during the life of the agreement should have met a total of 15 times to turn its mind toward the work of the partnership, with a focus on financial sustainability and continued alignment on shared priorities of government and universities.

In subclause (2), it further establishes that this broader committee established a steering committee that had representation of both university presidents and of the Department of Labour and Advanced Education, which was later renamed the Department of Advanced Education. Labour was removed from the title.

This steering committee, intended to be the boots on the ground of the work in between meetings of the partnership committee, was co-chaired by the deputy minister of Labour and Advanced Education and the Chair of CONSUP. When we look through the rest of this MOU, we see in this legislation words like "priorities." We look at the rationale provided for this legislation: a desire on the part of the Minister of Advanced Education to have a greater say to ensure alignment with government priorities. Yet, built into the MOU that's possible, that was in place between 2019 and 2024, it delineates priorities to which both parties agree. It's a substantial list.

The parties agree to the implementation of an MOU work plan to achieve the following priorities: funding for universities; transparency and accountability; campus infrastructure renewal; maintaining and improving accessibility; tuition policy that maintains accessibility; transparency with respect to the goods and services auxiliary and ancillary fees are applied against; educational quality; partnerships with Nova Scotia's Mi'kmaq and Indigenous peoples that work toward fulfilment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's Calls to Action for post-secondary education in alignment with Universities Canada's principles on Indigenous education; collaboration, research, and innovation; and improved student experience with specific emphasis on enhancements to the overall health and well-being of students.

When we look at a piece of legislation that says the minister needs to have greater oversight and input on priorities, I scratch my head. Under the existing legislation, there does not appear to be any substantive barrier to governments and universities reaching agreement on mutual priorities to guide the work of universities and government to ensure the long-term viability, sustainability, and excellence of post-secondary education in the sector.

[Page 904]

[5:30 p.m.]

This MOU identifies roles for the Province in terms of funding. It allows universities to identify critical financial pressures. It identifies that both parties agree to working towards transparency and accountability. As a matter of fact, the parties agree on paper that transparency and accountability are the hallmarks of an efficient and a sustainable sector. Clearly this indicates an appetite both on the part of government and on the part of universities to be transparent about the spending of public funds on post-secondary education and accountability for progress - that when government spends money on universities, that it translates into outcomes for students and in other areas that university work has in Nova Scotia.

It also acknowledges that the Province will meet with each university to review their financial reports on an annual basis. It speaks to an open-book process or approach, where the universities recognize the government provides substantial funding for their operations in exchange - it's not a quid pro quo, but it's an understanding that because government is a major financial contributor, that there is going to be financial transparency, that government is going to be able to see the universities' books and how its funding fits into the overall financial health of universities.

We also see in this MOU that government and universities agree to a standardized template so that the department has an apples-to-apples way to look at financial reporting by different institutions. Maybe it seems stating the plainly obvious, but I think this is a notable aspect of this MOU. The fact is, the government recognizes, and the universities recognize, not all universities in Nova Scotia are the same shape and same size with the same scope. We have very large universities and very small universities. Nonetheless, they agree. They understand that reporting on finances needs to occur in a reasonably consistent way for the benefit of the department, and also to ensure that the public has assurances that their dollars are being spent in a responsible and, frankly, impactful way.

The MOU contains a number of other things. It talks about infrastructure renewal. It talks about tuition policy. It talks about auxiliary and ancillary fees. It talks about educational quality. It identifies the need to maintain accessibility. It talks about collaboration, research and innovation, and student experience.

When we look at Bill No. 12, we see what the minister presenting this bill offers by way of rationale for a need to change four distinct pieces of legislation. That's what Bill No. 12 effectively does. One of those is the Universities Accountability and Sustainability Act. I have to ask, with the way that the current legislation is framed, why give in the robust commitment to collaboration on the part of universities and the government? There needs to be a hefty overhaul of the minister's role in advanced education, especially in the administration of, especially in greater control or greater power to impose priorities on universities and the need to be inserted into the fiscal oversight and even operational control of post-secondary institutions of Nova Scotia. There's already very robust ability of the minister to have this oversight that this legislation proposes is missing or inadequate in some way, shape, or form.

[Page 905]

I'm not quite sure why this legislation is necessary when one of the compelling findings is - when we look at the Auditor General's findings on university funding - the major concern isn't that universities are falling short in what they're doing. In the Auditor General's reports, her lens is very focused on what the government - through the Minister of Advanced Education and the department - is and, more specifically, is not doing with the powers that it already has under current statute.

When we look at what this legislation aims to change, it raises some questions for us. Bill No. 12 aims to amend the Community Colleges Act. By so doing, it would provide for increased ministerial authority to play an oversight role in Nova Scotia Community College's operations and funding. I submit that the minister, as a major funder of operations at NSCC, already enjoys tremendous oversight of NSCC operations. Through funding programs on an ongoing basis, there are reasonable strings attached to that funding, such that NSCC has to report back about whether or not those programs are functioning and delivering the desired impact.

Any time this government awards new funding to NSCC for programs that don't yet exist, built in there is oversight over how those programs are being developed and deployed and whether or not they're working as intended.

The changes to the Community Colleges Act would provide the Nova Scotia Community College with degree-granting capability. This raises questions. Elsewhere in Canada, there are colleges that grant degrees in provinces that also grant degrees. Speaker, you might imagine that to the layperson, hearing that both institutions grant degrees, there's an assumption that those degrees are of the same variety or same level or same calibre. Elsewhere in Canada where community colleges or colleges similar to the Nova Scotia Community College grant degrees, there is a separate or distinct class of degree that they grant that are not equivalent, academically or professionally, to degrees granted by universities.

What remains unclear in this legislation is whether or not the Nova Scotia Community College, as a result of these amendments, would grant a new class of degree that does not already exist in Nova Scotia - it's possible that's the intent, but it's unclear - or whether this amendment would result in the Nova Scotia Community College having the capacity to grant degrees that are currently granted by post-secondary institutions that are universities. That raises some concern because that would introduce into Nova Scotia's post-secondary landscape competition that does not currently exist.

When we consider the landscape of post-secondary education in Nova Scotia at the moment, the Nova Scotia Community College and Nova Scotia universities offer different programming. Any time there's a question of new programs in this sector, careful consideration occurs within the sector over the impact of a new program at a certain level and the impact it may have on programming at other levels within the sector. Could a new program at NSCC potentially harm enrolment in long-standing, existing programs at university A, B, or C elsewhere in Nova Scotia? That's the conversation that already happens in Nova Scotia.

[Page 906]

Without clarity on the intent here, it's not hard to imagine how this newfound degree-granting power might be leveraged by the government to address certain pressures in recruitment and retention in key sectors. We've had lengthy discussion about recruitment and retention in health care. Without any editorial, we are aware in the Opposition that one of this government's mantras is "More, faster." Agree or disagree, that's part of what it believes this mandate is.

Is this degree-granting power for the Nova Scotia Community College intended to create a new Bachelor of Education program to graduate graduates who could take on teaching roles in Nova Scotia? For instance, would this ability to grant degrees at NSCC also result in the ability of NSCC to graduate nurses to address critical shortages when it comes to staffing nurses, in a number of respects, in our health care system? We're not sure that is the case because we haven't been briefed or read in on what the intent of this is.

One of the other concerns is that universities haven't been read in about what this means, either. When we think about universities in Nova Scotia that offer programs to train nurses - Acadia University, StFX, Dalhousie University - is there going to be competition for their programs now at NSCC? That's not a small question. Does the introduction of degree-granting powers at NSCC potentially destabilize and erode the current enrolment at degree-granting institutions that train nurses? That's a fair question.

When we think about institutions that have the capacity to grant Bachelor of Education degrees and qualify teachers in Nova Scotia - Université Sainte-Anne, Mount Saint Vincent, Acadia, StFX, CBU, NSCAD - all these institutions graduate qualified teacher candidates with a Bachelor of Education.

I've alluded, in previous debate, that tuition in Nova Scotia is 33 per cent higher than the national average. There is no school in Nova Scotia that's even-steven with the national average when we look at rate of tuition. When we look at that - if I'm an education student enrolled in any one of these institutions, and all of a sudden NSCC opens up a B.Ed. program, and the tuition at NSCC is $2,000 per year. Let's say it's even $3,500 per year or even $4,000 per year. That's still less than half what I'm paying to get a Bachelor of Education at one of the other degree-granting institutions in Nova Scotia.

This article of the proposed legislation stands to compromise the long-standing culture of the sector - to collaborate and give consideration - to destabilizing the long-term viability of any program or institution, where collaboration has been an important ingredient in the founding of new programs.

[5:45 p.m.]

For instance, the new program to train doctors at the CBU was undertaken with direct consideration to how this might impact enrolment in sustainability to the medical school at Dalhousie, noting that the med school at Dalhousie is the foundational degree-granting program for medical doctors in Nova Scotia and, frankly, the Atlantic region. It's not that you can't get an MD somewhere else, but this is the most important place for people to get that training in Atlantic Canada. The ripples aren't only in Nova Scotia; the ripples are also in nearby universities.

[Page 907]

When we look at this degree-granting power of the NSCC that would be established, it is raising alarm bells in the sector about how this could alter the landscape in the sustainability and the viability of programs that already exist, particularly for nurses and for teachers.

We understand that this degree-granting capacity - maybe it's not intended to graduate more teachers and more nurses, but it's not unreasonable to look at that as another potential channel to achieve that goal. Maybe the intention is to create a brand new class of degree that doesn't currently exist, and it would be non-competitive with the degree-granting programs that exist elsewhere in Nova Scotia. That's also possible.

That rationale and the limits of that have not been shared as part of sharing this legislation with the House. In the absence of that clarity or that surety, there is wide concern in the sector about how this one article may destabilize the sector at large at a time when we need nurses and teachers. There are already very innovative approaches being taken to do the more, faster approach to training professionals that we desperately need in our province.

The amendments to the Community College Act would also approve NSCC multi-year strategic operational and capital plans. I guess one of the questions I have there is: In what other spheres of government does a minister enjoy that kind of sweeping power over institutions under their portfolio?

Do I think it's bad for the NSCC to have a multi-year strategic operational capital plan? No, I don't think that's bad at all. I see a lot of merit in that. But for the minister to either have a lot of say or to have veto power over that, being separate from the Board of Governors of the NSCC and the work on the ground, that's a curious power to award a minister.

It's not clear to me whether or not the NSCC's current ability to develop and to deploy a multi-year, strategic operational capital plan is in some way insufficient or is some way a barrier to the minister being able to provide input on those plans before they are finalized by the NSCC.

The second piece of legislation that would be amended by Bill No. 12 is the Research Nova Scotia Corporation Act. I draw to the attention of the House that of all the problems with university funding flagged by the Auditor General of Nova Scotia, nowhere does the Auditor General make a peep really about Research Nova Scotia. Of all the problems that exist, Research Nova Scotia ain't one.

[Page 908]

We look at this legislation and it says it would expand ministerial authority to facilitate increased funding accountability of public funds. It's no secret to this House that I have a close relationship with the leader in Research Nova Scotia. I'm minding my Ps and Qs, but this individual has been in the past and is at present a recipient of Research Nova Scotia funding.

I happen to know because of the grant-writing process that Research Nova Scotia is viewed by the research community in Nova Scotia that it may not be perfect, but boy howdy, it's a good thing. It's really well done.

The ability of Nova Scotia to grant multi-year, sustained funding for ongoing research is a dream for many researchers who typically live in a world where funding happens on a year-to-year, hand-to-mouth, grant-to-grant basis. Lots of times you get a grant to get started, and whether or not you are going to get that grant to keep it rolling in Years 2, 3 and 4 is always an open question.

Research Nova Scotia is an innovative approach to funding multi-year funding. It has already turned its mind to the question of how researchers are accountable for the funding that they receive. As a matter of fact, researchers who are recipients of Research Nova Scotia funding already are subject to annual reporting. Let's say there's a research project with a four-year horizon. During Year 2 of the project and through their inquiry, it becomes clear that the project that's currently constituted really isn't going to deliver the desired impact, and there is a legitimate reason to alter the project and to work with government to seek approval for those changes so that the research funding actually arrives at some kind of meaningful impact for the province of Nova Scotia, recognizing that the money belongs to the people of Nova Scotia.

That capacity is baked into the current process, so when we look at the question of, Is the minister's increased authority or response to it a deficiency in the current process?, again, while it's not perfect, based on everything that I know by talking to researchers in the sector, this is not a problem that bears fixing, really.

We also look at the Research Nova Scotia Corporation Act. Amendments would simplify processes for government appointments to the board of directors. This is kind of a theme in this piece of legislation. This would not be appointments to university boards; it would be appointments to the board of Research Nova Scotia, which is a separate, arms-length body, and that board has a duty to oversee the disbursement of public funds to fund research and innovation.

I'm also aware that above and beyond board scrutiny and the fiduciary duty to dispense research funds that support research that's going to be meaningful, that connects to priorities of the Province, all these research proposals are evaluated by relevant, scientific expertise that's arms-length from the board. There is a whole other layer of scrutiny that goes into these proposals to ensure that the science behind the research proposed is sound and can be trusted to return good results.

[Page 909]

We look at this - the people who sit on this board require a pretty specific set of expertise. You can well imagine that there would be applications about research of every kind imaginable - some in the social sciences, some in the health sciences, some in the hard sciences, some in arts, some in ocean sciences. Research is very, very broad, so it would require people with a really robust understanding of what it means to be a researcher as opposed to an expert in any particular area of research. Curiously, the legislation would give the minister the power to bypass the Governor in Council process that's currently in place.

I happen to sit as a member of the Human Resources Committee of this House and I have to say, as someone new to that work, I am deeply impressed with the rigour of the Governor in Council process. A couple mornings ago, I met with colleagues from the Liberal caucus and the PC caucus, and we reviewed a number of recommended appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. The legwork and the groundwork done to ensure that people with relevant expertise and qualifications were appointed to those positions was commendable and remarkable. It was exceedingly thorough.

I question whether replacing the Governor in Council process to appoint people to the Research Nova Scotia board is in the best interests of the work. Are we going to get the best scrutiny and review of research proposals by appointing public servants? I appreciate that there are plenty of public servants with some degree of research experience, but they may or may not. Their experience and expertise may not rise to the level or the standard that people appointed to the board in the Governor in Council process are subject to.

The one last thing I want to flag is about the Research Nova Scotia Corporation Act amendments proposed by Bill No. 12. As I've already indicated, the Auditor General doesn't flag any concerns about fiscal accountability in Research Nova Scotia. What it does flag is the kind of spending that we see in this year's budget. On Page 3.5 of this year's budget document, under the Advanced Education portfolio, under the Programs and Services line, split out are two lines of note. One line is Research and Innovation Funding - the 2024-25 estimate is $7,446,000. The 2025-26 estimate is identical.

I asked the Minister of Advanced Education a question about this in Estimates. Given the government's lofty goals for resource extraction, renewable energy, ocean sciences, on and on - that's going to require a lot of innovation and creativity that don't currently exist in the province - one would think that this government would be committing greater resources to research and innovation, not amounts identical to last year. We all know that the $7,000 we spent last year bought way more than the $7,000 that we're spending this year. Inflation creep harms our purchasing power.

We've got a stand-alone number for Research and Innovation Funding, and that really is the meat and potatoes of the funding that goes to Research Nova Scotia. Two lines later, we have a number that's called Targeted Funding. The minister drew my attention to the number and said, There's lots of money that we're devoting to research, but it's under a different line. That means that a lot of the money that the government is devoting to research - and I just draw to the House's attention that Research Nova Scotia's $7,446,000 is a much smaller number than the targeted funding number - is discretionary. It's at the will of the minister and other departments: $41,415,000.

[Page 910]

I'm not arguing that we should not be investing in research. However, this is the kind of spending that lacks the guardrails that Research Nova Scotia operates within that the Auditor General is raising concerns about in her report. When we give money without appropriate guardrails and parameters, that's where we run into trouble, according to the Auditor General. We see in the budgeting process for this year a replication of that kind of thinking. Rather than put that money into the budget for Research Nova Scotia - with a very robust checks-and-balances system in terms of evaluating proposals, in awarding funding, in imposing reporting requirements on funded applicants - the government is giving itself licence to hand out money for research priorities that are not subject to that same rigour. That is the very thing that the Auditor General raises justifiable concerns with.

I want to move on to the Universities Accountability and Sustainability Act and look at some of the proposed changes there. The first bullet point is that it aims to increase the power of the minister. I have to go back again to some of my earlier comments about the current statutes and the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General's report is rife with examples that point to the minister not exercising the authority that's theirs under current legislation.

In my interactions with the minister at other times in this House, it seems to me that this has given cause to great offence on the part of my honourable colleague. I want to defuse any sense that this is a personal attack on the current minister. I understand the current minister was only appointed a short time ago. I understand that the title of Minister of Advanced Education has been held by a number of individuals prior to the one who holds it now. I understand that when the Auditor General points to deficiencies in the exercise of the minister's power. That's not a shot specifically at a particular individual. It speaks to a deficiency in the way that individuals who have held that office have exercised the power of that office.

I want to depersonalize the critique because it's not about a person; it's about the way that the power that office has has been discharged. To be clear, I took a look at how many ministers have actually held that title during the time that the current statutes were in place and that the memorandum of understanding that ran from 2019 to 2024 were in place. Over that time, the Auditor General's comments don't apply to the member for Halifax Atlantic.

[6:00 p.m.]

They apply to the current Minister of Advanced Education. They apply to the former Minister of Advanced Education, who remains in the Progressive Conservative caucus in this House. They apply to the former Minister of Labour and Advanced Education, Lena Metlege Diab, and they also apply to . . . (interruption).

They are no longer are in the House. I understood that was not unparliamentary. It also applies to the performance of the former Minister of Labour and Advanced Education, Labi Kousoulis. I would point out for the benefit of the House that the current statutes were brought forward and passed under the stewardship of former minister Kousoulis.

[Page 911]

When we talk about the deficiencies of the exercise of the powers of the Minister of Advanced Education, we're talking about a number of individuals over a period of time. I trust that will allay any concerns in the House that I'm being partisan or trying to needle any individual. We're talking about an issue or a dynamic here, not a person. I hope that I've made that clear to the House.

There doesn't appear to be, based on the Auditor General's findings, any inability of the minister to exercise authority over any of the concerns of this legislation: oversight of finance, to put in place barriers and guardrails for operating grants for universities; to attach requirements around equity; to ensure that universities are turning their minds to accessibility for reasons of varying ability; to address the needs of underrepresented and underserved populations such as African Nova Scotians, Indigenous peoples, gender-diverse individuals, even women in the sector of post-secondary education.

There is no dearth of ability of the minister under current statute to address the concerns that we see pointed out or flagged as concerns with Bill No. 12. Again, I'm puzzled why, with such considerable power that has not yet been used, the answer is to change the law and put even more power into the hands of the minister when so many tools have stayed in the toolbox. I'm not quite clear on why that's necessary.

The Universities Accountability and Sustainability Act amendments propose to align the Act with the current approach for university bilateral agreements. I understand bilateral agreements are what comes after the memorandum of understanding I've spoken about earlier in my comments. There was a five-year MOU, we came to the end of that, and rather than enter into another MOU, there was this one-year trial where bilateral agreements, as a replacement for an MOU, were struck. These bilateral agreements were signed with each university, whereas the MOU was signed with all of the universities as parties to that MOU.

There's a difference in the approach taken, and I take to heart that the Auditor General has suggested that bilateral agreements hold the potential to enhance accountability and transparency for the funding that government invests in post-secondary education. I am certainly not saying that bilateral agreements are a dumpster fire and have to go. I understand their purpose. I understand their relationship to MOUs used in the past and I understand that bilateral agreements have the potential to serve as an important instrument of accountability and transparency, and measuring impact for public funding of post-secondary institutions.

I do question whether or not entrenching something as new as bilateral agreements, specifically in legislation, is wise or prudent. I want to explain why. I come from a background with the Nova Scotia Teachers Union. Similar to this body, we have layers of rules. Obviously our constitution and bylaws are paramount; everybody has to live by those. Beneath that, there's a set or rules called the Operational Procedures. The Operational Procedures are the purview of the Board of Directors of the Nova Scotia Teachers Union. Below that, we have locals, and they all have their own constitutions and their own operational procedures.

[Page 912]

It seems like a lot of rules for one organization, but the levels - the tiers - of those rules allowed our union to function effectively by putting the right rule in the right place to allow us autonomy to do what was best for our members. Hierarchy isn't without merit. When we look at legislation, regulation, policy, and other ways for governments to structure policy and program, I question whether entrenching bilateral agreements in legislation is wise, and I want to say why. Bilateral agreements are not yet well-founded, long-standing, well-tuned machines. They are not without their clunks.

We're in the early days of using them to govern post-secondary education and to put some parameters around how funding is spent by universities. I think they're a worthy project. I'm not questioning that, but the problem with legislation is that once you write it in the legislation, it's the law, and nobody gets to duck. Everything is fine until you discover that the law says you have to do something, and it doesn't make sense to do it that way anymore. The only remedy to that law - you can't say, "Well, we're just not going to do it," or "We'll wait until the next sitting in the House," or "We'll do it in a way that's inconsistent with the law until we come back to the House."

You can't do it because it's illegal. It's the law, and you got to live by it, like it or not.

In this case, how could we fix a problem with such a law? We'd have to have an emergency sitting. Depending on when that is, that may not be easy. There may be an impact on quorum to be able to do the business of the House that's legitimate. In this case, bilateral agreements are new enough and lack enough water under the bridge for us to say that they are reliable, responsible, and flexible enough for them to live in the law.

We don't need to entrench bilateral agreements in legislation in order to use them, create them, or modify them or for them to be agreements that hold parties to account. They don't currently live in legislation, but we're already using them, so I wonder whether this is the right thing in the right place. I don't question the spirit of bilateral agreements, I don't question the intended impact of bilateral agreements, but I do question whether this is the prudent place for them to live.

The government already has the capacity to negotiate these and to amend them when they see fit. If the government makes them the law, it's very difficult to change the way they're negotiated or even change the agreements themselves during the life that they're negotiated for. That may impose constraints on governments and universities from being responsive to needs in the sector at a time when we need to be nimble, pivot, and respond to things.

One of the major concerns with the Universities Accountability and Sustainability Act amendments that are present in Bill No. 12 concerns something called the revitalization process. For the benefit of the House, the current statutes allow for the process of revitalization.

[Page 913]

In a paraphrased way, revitalization under the current statute is a process that's triggered by a university when it has dire concerns about its own ability to remain solvent and deliver programs in the long run. In triggering this process, it has access to government support and protections to continue operations, define ways, and restructure so it can continue operations well into the future.

That's a good thing. No one would want to see a university fold up shop in a short period of time and see students relying on that university for training left without an option to graduate.

We wouldn't want to see faculty and staff at universities delivering valuable services to communities suddenly without employment without much notice. This revitalization process is an important one.

The process in statute at present isn't without concern. It does provide universities with potent powers that potentially impact on things like collective agreements, wages, and working conditions for staff at universities as a lever to achieve financial stability. That's what revitalization is. There are already concerns about it. It has never been used in Nova Scotia, but nonetheless, it is a significant power whose exercise could have dramatic, negative impacts on universities, their students, their communities, and their staff.

The amendments proposed under Bill No. 12 would take revitalization mostly out of the hands of universities and put it into the hands of the minister. I've used the term "sword of Damocles" before, but I'm going to use it again here because it's not entirely incompatible with the concern being raised.

In the MOU I read earlier, one of the things that governments and universities mutually agreed to in the preamble was recognition that universities take great pride as autonomous, independent organizations, and that independence needs to be respected. To hand the power to declare a university insolvent - to hand the power to one individual to decide what changes will happen at a university to establish fiscal stability and longevity, and for those hands to not be the hands of the university that knows its programs, its services, and knows its community best is a great concern to university communities.

The temperature on this is pretty close to max - a lot of worries about how this power could be wielded. It's one thing to say this great power would be wielded with care and respect if it were ever needed. Universities have heard the minister in interviews and media recently talk about his concern that universities already - there are some universities that are close to insolvency in Nova Scotia. That's a warning shot for some institutions in Nova Scotia. They don't agree that they're close to insolvency.

They do agree that there are long-term viability issues that they are willing to work on with the government to address. To hear a minister suggest that universities are already close, in his mind, to the position of insolvency that's a trigger for this immense power is of great concern to universities across the province.

[Page 914]

It also says that forthcoming draft regulations will allay concerns about secrecy and the lack of transparency about how the minister might exercise these powers. In the absence of drafts that everybody can see, read, know, interpret, and dialogue about, any opacity about this kind of power gives reason to resist this kind of power on principle alone. Giving people incredible powers of change without knowing under what conditions it could be wielded is of great concern.

The fourth piece of legislation that would be amended by Bill No. 12 is the University Board Governance Act. Once again, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, of all the things the Auditor General identified as needing remediation in her report on university funding, not a word, not a drop of ink was spilled by the Auditor General on the need to reform university governance.

Bill No. 12, puzzlingly, aims to set guidelines on the establishment, composition, and appointment processes of university boards of governors to ensure standardization and alignment with best practices, which are undefined. The department has not provided to universities, at any point, a reference for what it means by alignment with best practices, where they come from, or who came up with them.

Universities completed internal governance reviews in 2023 under the previous MOU. It's unclear whether any of those findings, which were available to the minister and the previous minister, were part of the thought process of changing the legislation that gives the government such sweeping powers over university governance.

[6:15 p.m.]

I flag for the Speaker and the House that universities already have representation from government on their boards in every case right across the province. This amendment would give the government power to install up to 50 per cent of the entire composition of every board of governors in Nova Scotia. It also gives the minister the ability to, at their sole discretion, appoint public servants to those roles completely apart from the Governor in Council process that's vetted by the House HR Committee. That's a lot of spots and a lot of employees. It's very difficult to see how the minister could furnish that many qualified people with reasonable connection to the day-to-day of those universities, their histories, their cultures, their programs, their values, and their priorities, such that they could function effectively as board members.

It also, puzzlingly, mentions that students will be represented on boards of universities. I've had a look at this, and I can report that every single board of governors for a university in Nova Scotia already has student representation written in. Not all boards of governors have those members selected by the same process, but every university has some process that involves either electoral politics that are independent of the university, or a by-students, for-students election, or a rigorous nomination and vetting process that's approved by the university senate and the board. There are already very robust processes in place to appoint students.

[Page 915]

This legislation poses a number of amendments, most of which appear to be odd solutions to the problems raised in the Auditor General's report. It's not looking for massive overhaul of university board governance. It's not looking for massive overhaul of the Research Nova Scotia Corporation Act. It's certainly not looking to give way more powers to the minister in the discharge of their duties within the confines of the department. They already have that power.

In offering remarks on Bill No. 12 at second reading, I look forward to further debate to see how the government justifies these changes in advance of third reading.

THE SPEAKER « » : I may be mistaken, but I think you quoted the MOU. All the documents that you have quoted, please table. In the beginning you quoted a government document. That does not have to be tabled, but the MOU does.

The honourable member for Sydney-Membertou.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : I'm just going to take a few minutes because I want to hear - I want to see this get to the public portion. I do have some concerns around the bill, but I also think it's important that we hear from stakeholders on this one. As I've heard, there are some people in support of this and some who have more questions. In this case, I would rather hear from them first before I get into a long conversation about this tonight. There will be other opportunities to do that.

Just to highlight some of the things from me, it does, as my colleague said - he did a great breakdown of the bill. He actually did an hour early on in his career as an MLA. I give him credit. He actually did a very good job of breaking down the bill, so I'm not going to repeat too much of that. I do want to hear from university presidents on this to see where they're at because as my colleague said, there are some changes around the board structure when it comes to the board composition. I also have concern around government's ability to move quickly to fill all of those positions if this becomes law, because ultimately, there will be a lot of appointments that will come with it.

The big piece for me is the academic freedom. That's really where I hear lots of concern from faculty across the province. We get into these situations with bills where ultimately, politicians become the ultimate decision makers of policy that people would use in a certain setting. This was the same argument when we were talking about expanding the minister's ability in the Department of Health and Wellness to access people's personal records.

The argument then was that politicians would have access to people's personal files - not directed at our current minister. In the future, how do you control that information? How do you protect it?

[Page 916]

It's very similar here in the university setting. I'm hearing from faculty across the province who are indicating to me that they have some concerns around academic freedom and the ability to do research freely and how they will be funded across the province.

I'm not going to say too much more than that, because I really want to hear the public side of this. I'm sure there will be lots of stakeholders who will come forward from the administration side and the faculty side. We know that.

I just wanted to get on the record on that. There will be other readings.

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

LISA LACHANCE « » : I just want to stand and share some additional questions and reflections from our caucus.

Firstly, I would like to start by saying it actually was disappointing not to hear from the minister as he opened second reading on this bill. There's a lot in this bill, and I hope that we'll hear some more answers before we end debate at this stage.

My first reaction to this is to share that yet again, this process - while there are many ways for government to engage with the post-secondary sector - Students Nova Scotia; Canadian Federation of Students Nova Scotia; CONSUP, which is the Council of Nova Scotia University Presidents; plus all the presidents' offices - yet again, this piece of legislation was tabled and brought forward without any consultation. There has been a great deal of uncertainty in the sector. People did not know that this was coming forward in this form. I think that's a shame.

I don't think anybody is a special interest, but I don't think universities are special interests. I don't think student organizations are special interests. There were lots of ways in which the stakeholders in the sector could have been consulted. I think the government made a very deliberate choice not to - again, very disappointing.

I would also say, though, that it tracks in terms of their record on post-secondary education. I would say that since 2021, this government has not treated the sector well, nor managed its relationship with the sector. The government came in and immediately started to create quite a bit of uncertainty in how universities would partner and be managed within the provincial context. It was announced that there was not going to be an MOU.

Then originally, universities were asked very quickly to undertake some extensive governance studies. Lots of folks weren't actually clear about the purpose of this, but of course people jumped because they're being asked by the provincial government to do this work. People put a lot of effort into that, and that information was submitted. I would say there were crickets. There was not a lot of feedback given to the sector about what government thought of those, what they were using them for.

[Page 917]

Honestly, fast forward to January 2024. It wasn't until January 2024 that the bilateral process was actually announced. From 2021 to 2024, there was a sense that there were changes coming in the sector, but what were they? What would they look like? All of that is really challenging, especially during that particular period for post-secondary institutions.

It was, I think, about 2021. That was still a year affected by COVID in the post-secondary education sector, so courses online, various openings and closings, that sort of thing. It was also, of course, a time of an increased housing crisis, which affected - I'll just wait.

THE SPEAKER « » : I looked up. There were two groups of people speaking. One was whispering; one was not. The one who was not stopped speaking. I'm not calling anybody. The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : The housing crisis was obviously really affecting students. We know that. We've heard that. All of a sudden, students were facing the use of more fixed-term leases, increased rent, and of course, an affordability crisis. It was the inflationary period. Again, students and universities were facing increased costs. For students, that meant how to afford groceries, how to afford books, how to make ends meet, how to have enough work, but not too much work so you're not able to complete your studies. On the university side, just as we all saw, costs increase radically. They increase them every way in universities in terms of supplies and inputs.

Of course, there was the change announced by the federal government for international students. It's in this context that I would say our post-secondary education system has been left in limbo; understanding there might be changes but not knowing what they are. Then, of course, just the disappointing process of then having this bill dropped in their laps without having a chance for consultation.

I understand the minister indicates that all the university presidents have his cellphone number and he's open to a conversation any time. It's awfully hard - and I'm sure we've all been familiar with this experience - it's really hard if you don't know something is happening to know to ask about it, unless you're psychic, but I'm saying that's a rare skill. It probably was very hard for the university presidents to be like: Oh yes, maybe I should call the Minister of Advanced Education because I wonder if there's a bill coming - especially expecting that government would have the courtesy to contact them.

In terms of also not treating the sector well on the student side, there was broad, in-depth consultation on a student housing plan. For folks who are new in the House, we have to understand that it went on for a couple of years, and student organizations responded. They are organized. They did the research. They talked to students. They presented document after document to government members and to all members. There were still promises that there was a student housing plan coming, and then it morphed into: We're doing action, we're not going to bring forward a plan. Again, part of the pattern of government engaging folks, undertaking stakeholder engagement, and then just not being accountable for it - not reporting on it, not delivering.

[Page 918]

In Nova Scotia, students have the highest tuition fees in Canada. We are so lucky that that hasn't been a complete barrier for us to have Nova Scotia students and students from across Canada who want to come here and study. But I think the tide is turning when we don't have housing, when things are expensive, and there's been no movement from government to address tuition rates. In this government's first session, they used some one-off payments to students as just a way to do some year-end spending. I will say that, of course, money in the bank is helpful, but one time it came in March, and I can tell you that any student who is struggling and has been struggling financially, by March that academic year is over. Then it came in January and, again, those decisions have been made. You've paid tuition or you haven't paid tuition for the second semester. Of course, it's welcome but not actually changing the experience - not changing the narrative for students to have stability.

[6:30 p.m.]

This government and the previous government's reluctance to provide sufficient operating increases is not only about deferred maintenance. It's also really jeopardizing a university's commitment to accessibility in all kinds of different ways - both in the built environment and in the universities' ability to provide student support services. Those are being cut all over this province.

We are the province with the highest rate of disability in the country. I am sure we want our young people who share that rate of disability to be able to go to school, to be able to access the supports they need, and to be successful. Cutting students' services because there's not enough money in the operating budget is a cut that has a long-term effect.

The other thing I note about this bill is that it continues the habit of this government - it was well-established in the first session - of consolidating power in the hands of ministers. There was some point during the last session where it felt like we were just making sure that every minister got a Crown corporation that went under it, and they had control of it. In this sense, I guess we're just continuing that cycle in terms of consolidating, I would suggest, undue power in the hands of the minister.

There is lots of language and concern around aligning education, study, and research with government priorities. This is actually an age-old question and challenge, and I have seen it from both sides. I guess I would say that what this bill makes it sound like is that government is going to drive those priorities, which I think is problematic for a couple of reasons. One is that our universities - it's hard to argue that they are publicly funded institutions by this province, because most universities are funded by the province to the tune of about one-quarter of their budget.

Publicly and provincially assisted? Absolutely. There are other people in terms of donors, research funds, and other institutions that all work together to make sure that the university has 100 per cent of the budget.

[Page 919]

I said that I've seen it from both sides, in terms of knowing from being in government and wanting to be able to access the best research or what's happening in different areas. I'm sure we've all had that sort of question. Sometimes in here, I'm sure the Legislative Library receives a number of the same requests where we all ask, How does that work in the other provinces? So they're all preparing that kind of research.

We want to understand what's happening in other places and what research says. We want evidence to underpin our policies. Researchers want that too. People aren't sitting around doing research. They want their research to have an impact. I can say that from having worked at Dalhousie and worked closely with faculty from across the majority of faculties at Dalhousie University, for instance, and working with researchers across the country, people want to do research that has an impact on their communities. They want to make things better, just like we all do. There are lots of ways to enhance the link between them that are different and probably much more effective than putting language in this bill that really puts too much power in the hands of the minister. It's a real overreach of government into the post-secondary sector.

I guess the third point of mine is academic freedom. We do need researchers. We need folks to be testing ideas, exploring, to have curiosity about how things might work. I could think of a thousand examples from Dalhousie University alone of when that researcher started out if we knew that it was research that we needed for government now. Jeffrey Dahn in battery storage is a great example. When he started - I'm not sure what questions he started with - I'm not sure, because he started 15 or 20 years ago, that it would have been viewed as a government priority, but it sure is now. We need that research now. We should be really proud that it's happening in Nova Scotia.

I have other examples. Work done - and I think I've tabled some of this before - on 2SLGBTQIA+ seniors in long-term care. We've had an enormous amount of good research happening in Nova Scotia that provides very specific guidance on how those environments could be made more inclusive.

Maybe it's easy to think - it's not how I think - you look at a university's syllabus, and you look at what's going on, and there are courses here, there, and everywhere: What good is that doing for the province? My argument is that it's doing a lot of good for the province. It's doing a lot of good in terms of creating evidence for the things we want to do in health care, education, oceanography, the knowledge economy, IT. I mean, it goes on and on.

I'll table this letter. This was also helpful for me, because it predates my time. When the Universities Accountability and Sustainability Act was first tabled in 2015, there was one person who did speak about concerns that really echo what my colleague for Sackville-Cobequid and I have been talking about in terms of intellectual freedom, intellectual property, and the overreach of government into university decision-making.

Here are a few of the quotes from that person:

[Page 920]

The framework for a crisis actually exists within this bill.

I think that's also touching on the ability for the minister to direct a university into a revitalization plan. Again, it's not clear. Perhaps the minister can talk a bit more about that, but I think this creates a great deal of uncertainty among post-secondary leaders.

The second quote from this person:

. . . giving up your intellectual property objectives or the freedom of intellectual property, and that's something we should be very careful of.

These are risks when we say that the government of the day - whatever day that happens to be, whatever government that happens to be - is going to dictate the terms of the revitalization plan in terms of making sure that the universities are doing things that meet that government's objectives. That's a dangerous thing particularly when you consider that it can be triggered by the government itself to begin with.

Finally, one more quote from this person:

There is great potential in universities creating quality research, and I don't think anybody in this Chamber wants to see that potential diminished . . . I don't know that there's a role for government to be reaching into that system and dictating where that research should be going. I think that's something that's better left to minds more creative than many of the members in this Chamber.

That speaker was the Premier in his former role as MLA for Pictou East, speaking on the predecessor to this bill, the Universities Accountability and Sustainability Act, but clearly reflecting on a number of issues that my colleague and I have raised here.

Where would we be in our communities without universities and colleges across Nova Scotia? It is an amazing feature of our province - our little, tiny province - that we have so many post-secondary education facilities and institutions. When I think about when I was a teenager living in Canning, the impact of Acadia University and Wolfville was kind of amazing. There was arts and culture, and an environmental group I could get involved in. There were all sorts of things happening that, if that town didn't have a post-secondary institution, probably wouldn't have been happening. There wouldn't have been a big theatre or sporting facilities and sporting options. Antigonish is the same.

I think there's some analysis that's been done, but there's like a 200 per cent return on the financial impact of having StFX in Antigonish. CBU is changing the landscape in Sydney. Then, of course, Halifax. In my riding, I have six post-secondary institutions. The essence of our city, of our province, has been that we have welcomed this type of investment and activity in the knowledge economy, and that changes all the time.

[Page 921]

Our treasured IWK Health Centre: What would it be without the Dalhousie Faculty of Medicine, the Dalhousie Faculty of Health, and the researchers who are available to go and do work with the staff at the IWK, for instance? Really, it's doubling the impact of spending in our health care system by having researchers also involved in that work.

I know that in Cape Breton, that's emulated in terms of the nursing program. There are lots of folks doing research with Nova Scotia Health and with Eskasoni. There are lots of things. The impact is strong. I don't think anybody would disagree, but I really think that this sector has not been treated well by this government.

This bill is a continuation of that, and I'm really hoping we're going to hear from the minister about the background and rationale, and perhaps why people weren't advised about it before it was tabled.

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

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Speaker, I'll stand and just speak for a few moments about Bill No. 12. I would like to share just a few comments.

NSCC being able to provide a degree: I would like to see more details be shared on that before being asked to vote on this. What is the degree that's being proposed? Is it a nursing degree, for example?

University governance is not something that institutions are used to having government have control over. The province is running a $700 million deficit. Why do they think it's right to tell institutions when the government itself is running such a huge deficit?

I do believe Bill No. 12 is a piece of legislation that does threaten the very foundation of academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and good governance for Nova Scotia's post-secondary education system. More importantly, this bill does fundamentally disrupt the governance structures of our university by sidelining the diverse stakeholders who make up the boards currently and replacing them with greater government control, greater ministerial control.

University boards are not just made up of a handful of bureaucrats. They're composed of students and faculty members, alumni, business leaders, as well as community representatives. Each board brings a unique perspective that ensures balanced decision making. These institutions have long been governed collaboratively, allowing students and faculty to bring a critical voice in shaping the policies that directly impact them.

I will add that this government has a history of removing boards and removing community voices. For example, in health care, they have removed all of the boards, centralizing power in the Premier's Office.

[Page 922]

Bill No. 12 does threaten the balance by reducing the influence of community stakeholders, while increasing the power of government-appointed officials who may have little connection to the institutions that they're being tasked with overseeing.

I'm also concerned, Speaker, that there are many boards in the province that have government-appointed personnel, and for a lot of these boards, the position has gone vacant sometimes for years. For example, up in our area, the library board was supposed to have two provincially appointed government members. Those seats both went vacant for several years, making it difficult for them to have strong board governance. I am concerned about that happening with our university boards.

The government claims that Bill No. 12 is about accountability and sustainability, but again, I do have to ask about accountability and sustainability when this government has tabled a budget that has a $700 million deficit - three-quarters of a billion dollars - at a time of great financial uncertainty with the Trump tariffs, as well as exponentially growing debt for the province.

Under this legislation, the Minister of Advanced Education will have the power to dictate the financial and governance structures of our universities, control the composition of their boards, and even withhold essential operating funds if a university does not align with the government's priorities. Some would argue that's not accountability, it's control.

It is also deeply troubling that the minister will now have the authority to force universities to develop revitalization plans and if these institutions fail to meet the government's undefined criteria, their funding can be withheld. What this means, in fact, is that any institution that does not fall in line with the government's political agenda could face financial uncertainty, and it does undermine the stability that our universities need in order to grow and thrive.

Bill No. 12 also imposes unnecessary constraints on university governance. It replaces a system that values diverse perspectives with one that prioritizes government oversight and it tells students that their input is not necessary. It tells faculty that their expertise in running academic institutions is no longer valued. It tells communities that their involvement is irrelevant. This is top-down and heavy-handed, and it serves the interests of those in power, not those who are actually working and learning in the institutions.

The concerns I raise today are not just from this side of the House. They come from faculty associations, student groups, and academic organizations across the country that have sounded the alarm. For example, the Association of Nova Scotia University Teachers has shared just this week - and I'll quote and then table this, Speaker - that they are acknowledging the Auditor General's report that confirms that the department is "not effectively funding, monitoring, or holding universities accountable for public funds." They fear that enacting Bill No. 12 will take accountability too far the other way. Again, this is the Association of Nova Scotia University Teachers. They say:

[Page 923]

'Financial accountability is imperative,' says ANSUT president Scott Stewart, of the $1.9 billion in operating funds that universities have received in the past five year. 'But going from little accountability to unilateral control by one person does not seem the best solution. There needs to be middle ground, and one that considers that the importance and specific traits of the collegial governance model by which universities are administered. Yet there is only a passing reference in the AG's report, and nothing in the Universities Accountability and Sustainability Act, that even mentions the fact that universities need to consider both sides of a bicameral governance model to achieve the mission of the university.'

I will table that. Also, the Canadian Association of University Teachers has condemned Bill No. 12 as unacceptable interference, and I will table that as well. I will just read a couple of lines:

The Nova Scotia government has proposed sweeping new powers that would violate university autonomy, according to the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT).

Last week, the provincial government introduced Bill 12, An Act Respecting Advanced Education and Research. The bill would allow the Minister of Advanced Education to withhold grants if a university does not satisfactorily show how it is meeting the government's 'social and economic priorities'.

'The government's actions represent unacceptable political interference in the internal education affairs of universities,' said David Robinson, executive director of CAUT.

I will table that.

Nova Scotians value education. We have a lot to be proud of here in this province with our universities. We also value independence in research and academic inquiry. Nova Scotians value institutions that are run by experts and by students, not just by politicians. If the government truly wants to support our post-secondary institutions, then let's invest in them, not control them. Let's ensure students and faculty and community members have a real seat at the table and not just a ceremonial one. Let's foster an environment where institutions can make decisions based on academic excellence, not political pressure.

I do want to acknowledge the Auditor General's report that was made public this week. I do support the Auditor General's report, but I want to just make a point. The Auditor General made a couple of recommendations, but I didn't see anywhere in the Auditor General's report that she recommended that the government take over governance of our universities. The Auditor General made recommendations that said:

[Page 924]

We recommend the Department of Advanced Education identify and evaluate new operating grant funding allocation options. A new allocation model should specify what factors are considered in determining the funding level and should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis.

The Auditor General also recommended "the Department of Advanced Education work with universities receiving public funds to develop financial indicators and benchmarks to assess the financial health and sustainability of universities." I see that as more part of a strategic plan and having KPIs, and that's very different from changing the governance structures for our universities.

I also want to mention I'm really pleased to see in the AG's report, looking at whether or not the money that's been given, has it been truly assessed? Specifically, the AG says it's "unclear if nursing seat expansion, despite $65 million spent, is adding more nurses to the provincial workforce," and "$119.4 million in health education grants unspent by universities as of September 2024." There's definitely accountability that needs to happen, but I would recommend the minister take the AG's recommendations, specifically in developing financial indicators and benchmarks, but not interfering with the governance structure of the universities. I'll table this document.

I urge this House to amend Bill No. 12. This is not a bill about sustainability; it seems to be a bill more about political control. In a province that prides itself and has a long history of academic excellence, we cannot afford to let the government compromise the very integrity of our higher educational system.

THE SPEAKER « » : If I recognize the minister, it will be to close the debate.

The honourable Minister of Advanced Education.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Just a few words. There's going to be lots of time to debate this bill, lots of opportunities to debate it. I just want to address a few things. It was implied here in this House that the AG had leaked, or somebody had leaked the AG report to the government, attacking the integrity of the AG's office. That is simply not true. Nothing was leaked, and the word "leaked" was used.

I've sat here in this House for a week and listened as the Opposition fought tooth and nail for the AG - great. Now what they're saying is that there's a report there. She agrees with the report and specifically mentioned the report in her press conference and said, This piece of legislation is going to deal with the issues. She actually referenced the bilateral agreements, which actually had a holdback in it.

The last two years had a holdback in it. She referenced it as a good thing and that these are things that are addressing the issues that were long-standing. Yet the Opposition says, Don't listen to the AG. We just heard them say, Do this that the AG says, but don't do that. Which is it? I literally met with the AG and said, We are going to do every single one of your recommendations.

[Page 925]

We asked her about it: What can we do? She said, Bill No. 12 is a great start. To imply that we're going to tear down the universities or interfere - simply not true. It's clear - I've said it over and over in the media, in this House, everywhere: We want the universities to be sustainable. I want them here for my children and my children's children. If they want to go to Dalhousie University, NSCAD, Acadia University, Atlantic School of Theology - I want it all here. It's one of the things that draws people into this province. It's one of the things that we're known for, our post-secondary education.

To correct, we do not fund universities one-quarter, we fund them one-third. To also say that we are not doing our part - I heard them say "this government" - I'm paraphrasing, Speaker - is not doing anything for the universities, they're barely doing anything - but $2.5 billion over the last five years. There are a thousand organizations that would love to have $2.5 billion over the last five years. We value our universities.

I've said it over and over. We don't want to get to a point where they're so far in debt that it's an impossible hole to climb out of. The AG's report referenced that - $400 million of debt. That's not even repairs and upgrades and things that need to be done to the institutions.

The other thing I have not heard about in any of this debate, or any question from that side, is students. I haven't heard anything around students. I haven't heard anyone stand up and speak for half an hour on students.

We want to protect these institutions so that when a youth decides to go to CBU for a program, it's there. You want to talk about interfering and what they're allowing to teach? Absolutely not. Again, if they're listening, I will say this over and over: Whether it's a degree from StFX or Acadia or Saint Mary's University or NSCAD - I use NSCAD a lot because my wife was the first graduating film student in NSCAD's history. You know what? I value that - outstanding.

I have a friend who's a lawyer and her first degree was in Shakespearean literature. We want our children and our people to be educated.

I also heard them say about interference in the NSCC. I hate to break it to you - we don't interfere, but NSCC is 100 per cent funded by the government.

Let's get our facts straight. Guess what, Speaker? All those years that the NSCC . . . (interruption). If the member for Sackville-Cobequid wants to get up and speak, he'll have lots of time. I did not interrupt or chirp him.

THE SPEAKER « » : A fair statement.

[Page 926]

The honourable Minister of Advanced Education.

BRENDAN MAGUIRE: The Nova Scotia Community College has been around forever. When I was a young lad graduating from high school, it was there. Governments don't interfere with them. This government has been around for five or six years; the Liberal government was there for eight years; the NDP government was there for five years. None of them interfered in it.

What we want is sustainability. We also want to make sure that we have a workforce ready to go. We need health care workers. We need to make sure that those seats are filled.

I'll let you in on something. If you read the bilaterals - the last bilaterals, which the universities agreed to - they said that 97 per cent of their health care seats needed to be filled. Guess what, Speaker? They did it.

The bilateral agreement said, Hey, you know what? We need you to help out with housing. Guess what, Speaker? They did it. The Auditor General talked about accountability. We have amazing organizations. Our post-secondary institutions, I believe, are the best in the world. You don't have to look further than - I'll use NSCC as an example. When I was a kid, it was a little spot there across from the old Queen Elizabeth High School.

Speaker, the member over there is doing this.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. There is some conversation in the corner. We were doing so well here.

I'd ask for the group over there to listen and stop yelling across the floor at the member who has it.

The honourable Minister of Advanced Education.

BRENDAN MAGUIRE: I will be meeting with the presidents again tomorrow and having these discussions. I have said it before, and I will look directly into the camera for everyone to see in TV land: This bill is the meat and potatoes. The regulations are going to be built and made with university presidents and faculty.

I - we - want you to be around forever. Every degree is important. It doesn't matter if it's an arts degree, a humanities degree, a science degree, a teaching degree; they're all important. They enlighten our civilization. The universities are stepping up. I'll stop. I could go on forever. The universities have stepped up. Thank you to CBU. Thank you to Mount Saint Vincent for their education programs - and Acadia. They're going to draw people into this province. They're going to allow more children right here in our backyard to get educated and become teachers faster because they recognize the urgent need for teachers in this province.

[Page 927]

[7:00 p.m.]

This is not about controlling universities. The members can say whatever they want. This is about making sure they're sustainable, they're nimble, and they're ready to adjust.

They're facing down the barrel of fewer international students. That is a huge revenue loss. CBU adjusts, and they create a new teacher program. Mount Saint Vincent adjusts, and they create a new teacher's program. Guess what's going to happen? People are going to come here. It's going to recoup some of that lost revenue from international students. My promise to the universities, my promise to NSCC, and my promise to post-secondary is we - I am going to work every step of the way on these regulations with you to make sure that you're sustainable, you meet the workforce, and on top of it, you open minds and you draw people to this beautiful province. (Applause)

With that, I move to close second reading of Bill No. 12.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is for second reading of Bill No. 12.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

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

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 36.

Bill No. 36 - Free Trade and Mobility within Canada Act.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Premier.

THE PREMIER « » : I move that Bill No. 36, the Free Trade and Mobility within Canada Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker, these are very uncertain times. Nova Scotians and Canadians are worried. They're worried about their jobs. They're worried about the jobs of their loved ones and family members. They're worried about their business. They're worried about the impact of the illegal Trump tariff, the illegal Trump tax, and the impact it will have on their lives and the province's economy in general. There is a lot of concern about these tariffs, for sure. I share the concerns.

I was actually prepared tonight - I thought I might get a chance to be in Estimates tonight and stand for four hours and answer questions from any member in this Chamber about the tariffs. We actually received a letter earlier today from the Leader of the NDP requesting that I would appear. That's a real break from tradition. Obviously the NDP had their chance to pick who appears, but they asked us if we would have the Premier appear. Of course, Speaker, I said, absolutely I'll appear. I'm willing to stand in the Chamber for four hours longer and answer questions. But when we said, Yes, we'll show up, I think maybe we called their bluff a little bit, because they said, No, no, we don't want the Premier there.

[Page 928]

The NDP will have to decide if they have sincere concerns about the tariffs or if they're more interested in political theatre. This is not the time. This is not the issue for politics. This is the time for Nova Scotians to unite. This is the time for Canadians. (Applause)

We are only focused on one thing: supporting Nova Scotians. There are a variety of ways we are prepared to do that. If we need to do more, we'll do that as well. I'm going to talk about some of the ways tonight, but I do want Nova Scotians to know that in the budget that is before the House - there's not a lot of chatting about this budget. We don't really talk a lot - all of the Opposition's questions have been to try to undermine the confidence of Nova Scotians: talking about the Auditor General, misrepresenting some things that were in the bill there, talking about the FOIPOP, talking about everything except the budget. I know why that is, because it's a good budget.

Within that budget is a $200 million contingency. We are ready to support Nova Scotians. There were a lot of questions like, Well, how did you calculate that number? What are you going to do with that? I would tell Nova Scotians that it is the initial estimate of what we believe is necessary, but if more is necessary, there will be more coming. You know how we will do that, Speaker? Additional appropriations, because when we see the need to invest in Nova Scotians, we invest in Nova Scotians. (Standing ovation)

Bill No. 36, the Free Trade and Mobility within Canada Act, or as I like to call it, the "Good Enough for Canadians Act." That's exactly what this is. This is the first of its kind in Canada. I am extremely proud that Nova Scotia, that our government, is leading the way. We are knocking down interprovincial trade barriers. Those barriers hold back Nova Scotians. They hold all Canadians back, and Nova Scotia is saying "Enough." It is time to get rid of those interprovincial trade barriers.

This piece of legislation is bold, and it's long overdue. It's a bold move, for sure. But being bold has been the hallmark of our government, now into our second mandate. We take bold action. We take bold action when it needs to be taken. We act quickly, and we act in the best interests of Nova Scotians. We will never stop doing that. I will never apologize for standing up for Nova Scotians. I will never apologize for our government feeling the same sense of urgency that Nova Scotians feel. We move because Nova Scotians want us to move.

Now, there are others who believe that there should always be yet another committee, and we can always use at least one more study. How about a task force, Speaker? All of those things are nice for other people. This government puts Nova Scotians first and moves. We act.

[Page 929]

We're not perfect all the time, but we're not like those who pretend they are. We accept that we're not perfect, but we don't let that be the cause of inaction. We will continue to act. We will continue to listen. We will continue to change course. We will continue to move. That's what Nova Scotians have a right to expect from their government.

I'm very pleased with the actions we've been taking on free trade. I'm very pleased with the response that we put forward on the tariffs. This province, Nova Scotia, is receiving national recognition; on the national stage they're talking about Nova Scotia. They're talking about Nova Scotia in a very positive way. We might not see that locally too much, but nationally Canadians recognize that we are moving, and we are supporting Canadians and supporting Nova Scotians.

This is an important bill, but it is only after we pass this bill that other provinces can really exactly follow the lead. They want to see this bill pass, and then there are a number who will follow right away. Especially our good friends in Ontario, the biggest province in the country. When I pitched this to the leadership in Ontario - especially to Premier Ford, who's been a good friend to Nova Scotia on this issue, but is a good friend to the smaller provinces and smaller jurisdictions, and has been. That's why I have so much admiration for him. At the Council of the Federation, when the premiers meet, Premier Ford is always the first one to say: What about Atlantic Canada? What about the North? Because he cares about the country, and he always puts the country first. When I pitched this to them, the only thing he said was, Count me in. Count me in.

There will be others. But we feel the sense of urgency to lead this. We feel there is no time to waste. Through all the twists and turns, President Trump has been very clear on one thing: He intends to inflict pain on our country. He wants to hurt Canadians, and we will stand up for that. While others will say, Stand up another day, after the committee work is done, stand up some other time when the task force has reported back, we believe in standing up right in the moment that standing up is necessary.

Canadians know that hockey can teach us a lot of lessons. If we stand united against these unfair tariffs, we will teach President Trump one of those very important hockey lessons. When you try to run a Canadian into the corner, you're going to get some elbows in your face. We will defend ourselves. We will protect one another. That is the Canadian way. That is the Nova Scotian way. That's the Bluenoser way. I'm proud of that.

[7:15 p.m.]

That's why on February 1^st, Nova Scotia was the first province to announce retaliatory measures. We were the first ones. We said: If you do that, this is what we're doing. That was on February 1^st, and almost every day since, we've said the same thing. And still amazingly, I hear elected members of this Chamber even today saying: Well, where's the plan? They should follow along.

If they were concerned about the impact on Nova Scotians, if they were concerned about Canadians, they would at least know what the plan is, and then maybe say they don't like it. But to say there's not one just shows you're not even tuned in enough to care. We care, and we will continue to. Because we care, that's why it's so important that in Nova Scotia, we make necessary changes that can at least insulate as best we can, that can at least mitigate the damage that these illegal tariffs will do to Canadians, to our friends and neighbours. So we can, at least, insulate ourselves against the whims of a short-sighted president.

[Page 930]

That's why this bill is so necessary, because it can help mitigate the impact of the tariffs. It will help us diversify our markets. It will open up incredible markets for us across this country. It will reduce red tape and costs that the businesses experience when they try to expand. It is a step. It is one step in a big journey, but it's an important step that can help our economy continue to thrive through these times.

The passage of this bill, and with other provinces and territories coming on - there are a number that feel the same urgency as we do, and there are some that still don't feel that urgency, but we're working on them because Canadians are demanding that that urgency be felt.

With this bill, this is the first step to make sure that trade within Canada is truly free - actual free trade in our country. That's what we're talking about. That's the path that Nova Scotia is leading the way to - free trade in our country, and Nova Scotians expect that.

Even more than the free trade aspect of it, as we pass this - as other provinces and territories across the country join us with similar legislation or similar intent, for sure - as a nation, we will be more and more united. We will show more resolve against these tariffs.

I believe that this type of legislation can ignite a spirit of confidence, purpose and strength in Canada. This legislation, the leadership from this province - they're talking about this from coast to coast. The Prime Minister, on a call this week, said that this is the type of initiative we need. People are noticing. Maybe we'll hear from the Opposition that it's not quite good enough for them, but I will tell you, it's good enough for a vast, vast number of Canadians who are saying thank you.

In fairness to my friends opposite, I was encouraged yesterday when the member for Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier and the member for Timberlea-Prospect spoke about setting aside political differences and pulling together in the face of the adversity we're facing. I want to thank those members for their words on that. That is the type of spirit of co-operation that we could all use a little bit more of. I look forward to hearing some of that a bit later tonight.

Bill No. 36, the Free Trade and Mobility within Canada Act, lets other provinces and territories know that Nova Scotia is open for business. This Act does away with the artificial barriers that have kept us from expanding and growing domestic markets.

[Page 931]

Speaker, I could give you pages and pages of examples of where there are foolish, ridiculous regulations in place that stop businesses from really reaching their potential within our country. I'll share two. One is a medical device manufacturer based in Nova Scotia that sells only to the United States because they don't have the time or energy to deal with the foolish differences that they encounter in all of the provinces and territories. In the United States they deal with only one entity for the entire market, the FDA. In Canada, they would have to go by province and territory. They said it hasn't traditionally been worth it to them. That's a real shame.

Of course, the wine and spirits discussion is one that's well known. Imagine for one second that we live in a country where somebody could make a pizza for sale and if they put meat on it, that pizza is just fine for Nova Scotians, but if they want to sell it in New Brunswick, they need a whole other level of inspection.

Imagine a country that has that type of ridiculous law, that would suggest that the Government of Nova Scotia would put their citizens at risk - because that's what it is suggesting. How can it be good enough for Nova Scotians but not good enough for New Brunswickers, Quebeckers, Ontarians, for any other province - only Nova Scotia? Is there anyone in this Chamber who would put a Nova Scotian at risk? It's not going to happen. If it's good enough for Nova Scotians, it should be good enough for New Brunswickers, and that's the case.

I only use New Brunswick as an example. I actually had a big discussion with a manufacturer in that province on that, but it's the same for every province. If you put meat on it, you need a whole other inspection, and it doesn't make any sense.

With the passage of this bill, we are ready and willing to do business with other Canadians who are ready and willing to partner with us. It's a two-way street. We cannot get in a situation where we accept products from another province or territory, but they won't accept ours. This is two-way street. We have at least one willing partner immediately, which fortunately happens to be the biggest province in the country. More will follow.

We are ready to accept the testing and rigour that go into goods and services in other jurisdictions because we can trust them. They can trust us, and we can trust them. That's what this legislation is saying. We are ready to accept the certifications of professionals in good standing who may happen to have been trained in other provinces. If it's good enough for another province, quite simply, it's good enough for us. It's one country. We are one country, and this is the time when we need to resolve this.

We know this bill makes sense. It makes sense for Nova Scotia. It makes sense for other provinces to join in, especially at this time, when our closest ally has turned on us. This is the time. Businesses and industry have told us that this bill will make a difference. I know some people don't like to hear that something's good for business. But you know what businesses do? They employ people. They employ your friends, your neighbours, and people in your community. They allow people to provide for their families. I don't think "businesses" is a bad word. I think we need more employment and better jobs, and that will come only from people employing Nova Scotians.

[Page 932]

We've been told by those job creators that this will give them a fair shot at getting better market access in other provinces. All of that will make us less reliant on the United States and allow us, as a government, to serve more Nova Scotians as our economy grows stronger and better. We can provide more services to Nova Scotians, and we can do more for them. It's good for Canadians because it will help them sell their goods and products in other places.

In this time, when the country is watching, we are showing leadership. We can do it united, or we can do it divided, but I assure you, we will do it. (Standing ovation)

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

CLAUDIA CHENDER: There's lots to respond to. We support Bill No. 36. We think interprovincial trade is important and a good idea. I look forward to the Premier hearing all the good ideas we have to share. He always says that he's ready to take them. We did ask for the Premier in Estimates. We asked for the Premier in Estimates because when we ask ministers of this House about the work that has gone on to form our tariff response, we are given the answer, time and time again, that it's being run through Intergovernmental Affairs and the Premier's Office, so we thought we would ask the Premier.

We were told - and I am responding to the Premier's comments - that the Premier will come tonight if we can expedite Bill No. 12. If we can send Bill No. 12 to committee, you can talk to the Premier. Bill No. 12 is an important bill that is before this House, and we have spent a long time talking about how much we get to bring the concerns of our constituents onto this floor. We did not want to start a precedent tonight of gambling away the voices of our constituents in order to have the honour of asking the Premier a few questions that he might actually answer, but it turns out it's fine because he's not going to answer our questions. He is going to cast aspersions. He is going to say we're not listening. He is going to say we're not with him, we're against him. He is going to say we're divisive. That's fine. That is the Premier's prerogative, if that's what he wants to say, but I think that Nova Scotians deserve the truth.

The Premier likes to say that we don't need task forces. We don't need committees. We should just go fast and break things. That's what they do in the tech world. We actually think that it should be - the job description of a leader is to be able to walk and chew gum, to be able to engage with people and take action in an expedited fashion.

With every bill in this House, including this one, Bill No. 36, interprovincial trade, I think there are amendments coming. Why? Because the conversations - a phone call would suffice - that had to happen in order to get this bill on the order paper didn't happen. So it has to be amended, just like all the other pieces of legislation that this government brings. Yes, the amendment happens. Yes, they love to take credit for that, but they don't deserve credit, Speaker. They should do their homework.

[Page 933]

We elect a government, particularly a government with 43 members, all of whom have a ministerial portfolio. With 43 members, this government cannot bring a clean bill to this House. Is that worthy of applause? (Interruption)

Yes, this government is getting national recognition. There are headlines in every national news outlet talking about the assault on democracy by this government. The Globe and Mail, The Vassy Kapelos Show, CTV, Power and Politics - every single one of them has featured Bill No. 1 - Bill No. 1, which I have to say the members were curiously silent on last night. I didn't hear the (miming applause). I didn't hear it. I'm so sorry if the member wants me to be called out of order because I'm not cheering and banging my desk at the appropriate time . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. Stop it. Order.

The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Point of order, Speaker. The member has no clue what I'm saying, and this continuous assumption and attack of people's character has to stop. (Interruptions)

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. The Leader of the Official Opposition is wrong in what the member for Halifax Atlantic was saying. This member was asking me a question. I ask you to retract that.

The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.

CLAUDIA CHENDER: I retract that, Speaker.

We've sat in this Chamber, and I have listened to the Premier in scrums constantly get up and say, You're with us or against us. You're stretching a problem or you're fixing it. You're a special interest or you're not. You're a Nova Scotian or you're not on the bus. That is not unity. That is not bringing people together.

If we want to get into a fight about who is bringing people together, we can have that. I'm sure we all have different views on that. At the end of the day, we are in this fight together. We are Nova Scotians. It is our job to ask questions of the government and their policies to make sure that they are in the best interests of all Nova Scotians. That is what we do. To be insulted about that, to be told that somehow we are creating division by asking the questions our constituents ask us to bring into this Chamber makes it very difficult to do the job. There were hundreds of people outside today because they don't feel like their voices are being heard. We cannot have a government for some Nova Scotians. We have to have a government for all Nova Scotians.

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. I have been timing the last speaker, timing this speaker, because you have to give a little bit of leeway, which is what I did and what I'm doing for you. You have to bring it back to the bill, which is the Free Trade and Mobility within Canada Act. The honourable member has only brought that bill number up - you've got to get back on it. Tie it in.

[Page 934]

The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.

CLAUDIA CHENDER: The Premier says that this bill is about unity, and we agree. As I said earlier when I was speaking on the bill, we suspect it might be amended and that is because there are issues around the labour mobility provisions in the bill.

The bill is a good idea. We are glad to see the bill coming forward. We do need to lower interprovincial trade barriers, but in the FMA today, we see a provision that is going to penalize Canadians who want to buy real estate in this province - 10 per cent. I think we need consistency on this front. I think if we want to be Team Canada, if we want to be one country, we have to do it, and we have to do it thoughtfully. I think we also have to acknowledge that the reason that interprovincial trade barriers have been around for so long and are so stubborn and so difficult to remove is that when they come down, the devil is in the details.

I appreciate this government's push to bring this bill forward. I think it's important and I think there's going to be a lot to unpack. I think there are going to be a lot of challenges. I think there are going to be a lot of industries that - I'm glad Ontario is now our best friend, I guess. This is a new thing, but Ontario can eat us up whole. Ontario's agriculture sector is much bigger than ours. Ontario's wine sector is much bigger than ours. We've had that debate on the floor of this House. These will be issues.

[7:30 p.m.]

We welcome interprovincial trade, and we will be asking questions about how it impacts Nova Scotian businesses, because those are important questions to ask. We need a culture of curiosity and questioning in this House, and we need speed, and we need to act. There is no doubt, but we need to go forward together. I think it's very challenging when we ask a question or suggest engagement that the response is: Oh, another committee. Oh, another engagement. Guess what? Other provinces are engaging with their sectors, and you know what they're doing? Quebec actually has a financial release package for their businesses that they're already rolling out. Manitoba has rolled out tax relief for their businesses already, a response to tariffs. We're still giving the EV rebate, as far as I understand, to Tesla. That's ridiculous. Why are we doing that?

Yes, we have started to act, but there's a lot further to go and we will continue to suggest those steps. We will continue to ask questions, and there will continue to be questions on interprovincial trade.

Originally, we were asked to expedite this bill - speed, speed, speed. I appreciate that this bill requires mirror legislation to be enacted in other provinces, but there isn't mirror legislation on the floor in any legislature in the country right now. If it passes this week or if it passes next week, it's not actually going to make any difference on it coming into force, because it needs a mirror piece of legislation to come into force.

[Page 935]

I think I heard a member across the way say it sends a message. The Premier sent that message when he went on Ontario television and spoke to the Ontario press corps about this bill last week. Unfortunately, we were late to the party - we didn't get to hear that announcement here - but the message has been sent. The bill will be passed, and we need to make sure it's the right bill. That doesn't have to take weeks or months - God knows we're never here that long - but it might take a couple of days to make sure that we've talked to the right people. That's okay.

If I had warning that this bill was coming or that we were discussing it, I think we'd have a lot more to say. As I mentioned, I will flag that there are some labour mobility provisions that I understand will be amended when the bill goes through future stages in this Legislature. I suspect we will support those if they're sensible.

Again, we're not going to curtail debate on Bill No. 12 to give the Premier the opportunity to give the speech he just made. He found his own opening. That's great, but on Bill No. 36 - it's a good idea. We support it. We definitely look forward to hearing presentations at Public Bills. Too bad we can't see an amendment there, but maybe we'll see an amendment in the Committee of the Whole House on Bills.

At the end of the day, I want to be very clear that we are all concerned about these tariffs. We are all concerned about our economic future. We are all concerned about the businesses, the sectors, the communities, the workers who stand to be impacted. We ask the questions we ask, and we bring the voices we bring into this Chamber to make our response better, to make our bills better, and to make our province better.

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

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Speaker, I'm only going to speak for a few minutes - pretty lively debate, passionate. I think some of those emotions are a combination of this bill and some other things that have been happening here tonight. That's okay. That happens in here. I've seen it for years.

I just do want to rise in my place on behalf of my colleague as well. We've been steadfast from the beginning - as a caucus and as two guys who had the ability to hold portfolios that were involved with resource development and have some experience around the economic development file as former members on the government side - to show our support.

We have lots of debates in here. We have lots of questions around how we get to where we need to be when it comes to this bill. We provide suggestions. If you'll notice, our bills - most of the bills that we've tabled this sitting are on the economy and there are ways that we think can help. On this bill, particularly, looking at doing geological surveys so we can find out where our best potential is for critical minerals across the province. It's important. I think the government should do it. The Mining Association of Nova Scotia thinks you should do it. We did it in the offshore.

[Page 936]

Back to this bill, of course: I'm just making examples of why I'm getting up in my place to talk about interprovincial trade.

There are things and investments the government is going to have to make along the way that will help support this bill. If we're going to be open for business, we need to be able to move product. How do we move product? You need good roads, you need ports, and you need good rail. That's why we're asking the questions that we're asking. That's why we're tabling the bills that we table.

If you noticed in Question Period today, for example, we were asking questions to get information. It's not a fight. Hey, we'll fight - we've fought for years, the Premier and me, and debated issues, and other members here, and members with the NDP. They asked me lots of tough questions when I was in Cabinet. But it's about information. If you notice, people want information. They want information.

We come at this very - middle of the ground, I guess, is kind of where I'm at. I think the government needs to be transparent about the $200 million. I don't think it's enough. I think you're going to be into spending more. You're going to make decisions like we made decisions during the pandemic. You're going to spend money. You need to support families. You need to support businesses.

This is an unprecedented economic time in our history which is still evolving. Ideally, we will wake up someday and the volatility that we see south of the border - maybe someone will come to their senses. I doubt it, but we'll see. There are things the government's going to be need to do, and I think we'll help them. We'll ask questions in Opposition, the member from Timberlea-Prospect and I, as we've done. And look at our bills. Look at the bills we've tabled. Look at the conversation and narrative that we've had around this particular bill.

We're not going to agree with everything the government has done. We absolutely haven't agreed on a lot of things in Bill No.1 this week. I call them unforced errors. And as a result, the government pulled a lot of them back. There's more you can pull back. But on this bill particularly, we're going to sit here and we're going to debate, and we're going to talk about a whole lot of things.

The government is going to make decisions around money, and I appreciate the comments. The member for Timberlea-Prospect and I are here to help. Use the experience that we have. Will we agree? We're not going to agree on everything, of course not. It's the Legislature. We're going to debate and we're going to call the government out on certain aspects of this as we move forward. Not to say, We gotcha. But to say, Try this. And maybe the government - we hope - will listen.

[Page 937]

Because regardless of what we talk about in here, my thoughts are to the people at Port Hawkesbury Paper, to the Michelins, to all the people who export product out of the province to the United States. They're probably not watching this debate right now, but they're having a conversation with family. And they need us all. They need us all to put the swords down, especially on this one.

So when I say that, we will come with suggestions. We will critique the government as they make decisions. But it's in the best interests of everyone, those families. Those families that are home right now worried sick if they're going to get a call in the morning to say the layoffs are coming. Because guess what? The sad reality is that many of them probably are.

So let's try to turn it down a little bit. Especially on this one. We're going to ask you questions; you're not going to like them all. Sorry, we're going to ask the government questions. They're not going to like all the questions we're going to ask. We're going to do media around this stuff. We did it today. We had questions around accountability on the $200 million. You should do it. It's important. Not because we don't agree, but you're probably going to spend more than that. This could be a hefty bill.

As you spend that money, we have a responsibility on this side to ask some questions, but also understand that this is going to be fluid. Let's all figure this thing out the best we can. I'll leave it at that. But the temperature went up like 1,000 degrees in here this evening, for a whole number of reasons.

When we go home tonight, and as I just said, think of the workers at Michelin. Think of the workers at Port Hawkesbury Paper. Think of the workers with the auto plant. We all have an example. Think about our fishers. Think about our foresters. All of those folks are having very challenging conversations with their families right now. We've got to step up for them big-time.

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

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : I want to stand and speak just for a couple of moments to Bill No. 36. I strongly stand in support of Bill No. 36, and thank the Premier for bringing this bill forward, and thank him for taking this step that hopefully every other premier and territorial leader in the country will follow in their footsteps.

This is a bill that I would say is long overdue. It's unfortunate that it took Trump tariffs to bring it forward, but here we are. Every day that goes by, I think everyone is just more and more astonished at what we're seeing south of the border. Many of us here probably watched his speech to Congress last night in disbelief. I think one thing that we can all see is that he's not bluffing. When he says he's putting tariffs on, and when he says he wants to take over our country and annex it, he's speaking the truth, and we need to take him seriously.

When looking at Bill No. 36, I absolutely support the spirit of this bill. I do have questions. I'd love to see more details of the bill. Who is working on this bill? Does the Premier have a team that is working specifically on interprovincial barriers? If yes, who is on the team? Would the Premier take the Opposition's advice on who would be good to be on the team? Because I can certainly make recommendations there.

[Page 938]

Some of my other questions are: Has the Premier spoken with the Council of Atlantic Premiers on these issues? I know the Premier has shared that he has spoken with the Premier of Ontario, which is great. But has he been speaking with our neighbours directly to our north and to our east, specifically New Brunswick, PEI, and Newfoundland and Labrador? Has the Premier met with Premier Holt? Has he met with the new premier of P.E.I., Premier Lantz, and the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador as well?

Can the Premier be proactive? My understanding when I read this bill is that we'll remove a barrier if they remove a barrier. The reality is when you are a leader, a lot of times you need to be proactive; you need to take the first step. Is the Premier willing to do that? Is he willing to say to New Brunswick that we will accept your provincially inspected meat even if you won't accept ours?

[7:45 p.m.]

Sometimes when you are a leader, you need to be willing to take that first step. The reality is our province right now does not accept provincially inspected meat from New Brunswick. We could take that first step. We could take the lead.

Will we accept licences from other provinces, like New Brunswick, right next door? P.E.I.? Again, why don't we take the lead? We don't actually need this legislation to make some of those changes. As the Leader of the Official Opposition said, many of those other provincial legislatures may not even be in session, so for them to pass a bill, in some of the provinces, may not even be possible right now. Can we take measures despite this legislation?

Let's get to work. What about our trade workers and their qualifications and accepting their licences? I mentioned earlier today the Cobequid Pass Highway No. 104 tolls. Why don't we take the lead, extend an olive branch and say, No more tolls for Canadian travellers? Yes, we're going to double it for commercial vehicles from the United States, but let's remove that barrier for other Canadians who are travelling here to Nova Scotia, commercial and domestic.

The non-resident deed transfer tax: let's stop that plan to double it. That sends the wrong message. It is contradictory, really, to the spirit of this Bill No. 36. Let's just stop that; let's pause that.

Let's look at public works. What are some of the barriers between our provinces that our truckers and other people are who are transporting goods between provinces are struggling with? There are all kinds of rules in the Department of Public Works that need to be worked at.

[Page 939]

Is there a team right now in our Department of Public Works that is looking at some of those interprovincial rules that cause barriers? I can tell you that I hear about it all the time, being close to the border.

Our nurses: I talked in this Chamber many times and I'll just mention it again, not just the licensure for nurses but the Student Loan Forgiveness Program. Nova Scotian nurses living, working right here in Nova Scotia but studying next door, in another province, are not eligible for the Student Loan Forgiveness Program, despite being Nova Scotian taxpayers. Again, that is another barrier.

I do believe we need to work together. Bill No. 36 is a bill that's very important right now. I echo the comments of my colleague from Sydney-Membertou, who just spoke, that all of us have a responsibility here to work together on this.

Our people, whom we represent. depend on us. I know here in the Chamber, there's a lot of "elbows up," as the Premier said. I want to say thank you to the Premier. A few weeks ago, I had one of my business owners who exports a large percentage of their products. Business owners are scared right now. Business owners do not want their businesses to suffer. They don't want to have to do layoffs. They don't want to lose their business. They are scared right now.

When I reached out to the Premier and asked that he call this business owner, he did. That showed me that he's willing to work together. I thank him for that. I'm sure he'd do the same for any one of us in here.

We need to realize who our real enemy is, and it's not anyone within this Chamber. Trump: He's looking at the world right now the same way he looked at his real estate business. He's looking to acquire. He looks at Canada as another acquisition. Greenland, the same. We need to show him that we are stronger than he is. We must stand together, be unified, make sure we take every action. My encouragement to the Premier and to the government and to all of us is to look seriously at every single barrier, big and small, that impedes trade, goods and services, and workers between any province in this country. Let us lead the way and encourage other provinces to follow.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is for second reading of Bill No. 36, Free Trade and Mobility within Canada Act.

All those in favour?

There has been a request for a recorded vote.

Ring the bells. Call in the members.

[7:51 p.m.]

[The Division bells were rung.]

[Page 940]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. The Clerk will now conduct a recorded vote. Please remain completely silent while the Clerks record your vote.

[The Clerk called the roll.]

[7:56 p.m.]

YEAS	NAYS
Hon. Brian Comer
Hon. Nolan Young
Hon. Kim Masland
Hon. John Lohr
Hon. Brendan Maguire
Hon. Tim Houston
Hon. Barbara Adams
Hon. Michelle Thompson
Hon. Fred Tilley
Hon. Dave Ritcey
Hon. Twila Grosse
Tom Taggart
Hon. Brad Johns
Marco MacLeod
Adegoke Fadare
Hon. Susan Corkum-Greek
Chris Palmer
Melissa Sheehy-Richard
Hon. Brian Wong
John A. MacDonald
John White
Brad McGowan
Kyle MacQuarrie
Tim Outhit
Rick Burns
Julie Vanexan
David Bowlby
Nick Hilton
Hon. Becky Druhan
Hon. Timothy Halman
Hon. Scott Armstrong
Hon. Jill Balser
Hon. Colton LeBlanc
Claudia Chender
Susan Leblanc
Lisa Lachance
Hon. Derek Mombourquette
Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin
Paul Wozney
Suzy Hansen
Kendra Coombes
Hon. Kent Smith
Hon. Tory Rushton
Hon. Trevor Boudreau
Hon. Greg Morrow
Ryan Robicheau
Damian Stoilov
Danny MacGillivray
Rod Wilson
Lina Hamid

[Page 941]

THE CLERK » : For, 50. Against, 0. (Applause)

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is carried.

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

The honourable Government House Leader.

[8:00 p.m.]

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 11.

Bill No. 11 - Administrative Efficiency and Accountability in Healthcare Act.

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

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : Speaker, I move that Bill No. 11 be now read a second time.

Modernizing our health care system takes many forms: investments in health care infrastructure, people, innovation, and technology. Sometimes we need to make changes that are perhaps more in the background, and that's what this legislation aims to do. With this legislation, we'll be repealing the Anatomy Act and the Emergency Department Accountability Act, and by amending the Health Services and Insurance Act and the Human Organ and Tissue Donation Act, we will continue to modernize the health care system.

The Anatomy Act is outdated. It comes from a time when there were concerns about the illegal procurement of cadavers for medical training. This Act is no longer required because we have the Human Organ and Tissue Donation Act. Amendments to this Act will ensure that those functions of the Anatomy Act will now apply in the regulations under the Human Organ and Tissue Donation Act.

[Page 942]

We will amend the Health Services and Insurance Act. This amendment is essentially housekeeping. This amendment provides clarity in existing language within the legislation for health care professionals. It will now be clearer that health care professionals can charge private insurers or federal government programs more than the provincial tariff rate where those higher payments are available and permitted to be used.

I'll give you an example using dental care. Some of the most commonly billed dental services include recall examinations, fluoride treatments, and X-rays. Under the federal Canadian Dental Care Plan, these services can be billed at a higher rate than the provincial tariff. This language in the amendment allows this change and provides more clarity. What's important to note is that nothing will change for patients. They will still be protected from paying anything out of pocket for insured services.

We're making one last change. We will repeal the Emergency Department Accountability Act. As the members of this House know, every year the Minister of Health and Wellness tables a report on the status of emergency department closures in the province. The report time period ends on March 31^st of the previous year but is tabled in December - a report with data that is at least nine months old. A report with data that's now available in real time to anyone is more current.

I mentioned the investments in innovation and technology at the outset of my remarks. Over the past several years, we've established public reporting dashboards on websites where the information within this report is available. It's available in real time. It's not lagging nine months or more. Nova Scotia Health has websites with up-to-date service interruptions and emergency department closure information. The Action for Health reporting and publicly available daily dashboard are full of data and metrics from our health care system, including ambulance response times and ambulance off-loads. Nova Scotians can even see predicted wait-times in emergency departments in the province by opening the YourHealthNS app.

These changes would support our work to create a modern health care system with legislation that reflects and responds to the realities of health care today. I look forward to comments from my colleagues across the floor.

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

ROD WILSON « » : I can talk, but I'm not going to be talking for an hour - reassuring everyone. I want to speak to Bill No. 11. I've got some comments and some questions. First, there are some really good aspects of this bill. I do like the updating of the Human Organ and Tissue Donation Act. As someone who benefited from the gifts of legacy in medical school, it's quite reassuring to see a 200-year-old bill be updated. Most importantly, what I really like in that aspect is the diligence and oversight in the reporting to ensure that those gifts are treated with the respect they deserve.

[Page 943]

Also, I like the aspect that's being measured and reported back on. I can only say again, as someone who's benefited from human donations in education, that it really is a gift of legacy. Also, the tissue donations for many medical reasons are another gift. I like the diligence and the oversight of those special gifts.

However, I do have to ask the question of why we're taking out the emergency report. Yes, there are some concerns in it. There's some success, but there are some struggles. The struggles with the increase in wait times - some unplanned, unscheduled changes. I would have to disagree that the app is replacing the data. I see it as a very separate data, and I'm pro-data. I see it more as aggregate data. For me, I think there's a benefit.

Also, thinking of my planning hat, when we know that Queens County is going to be closed on weekends for I don't know how long, I think this long-term could show us what happens to the population utilization when we close one emerg, even weekends. Where do those people go? That's not something that a weekly closure reports. I think that would be valuable in terms of planning. If we are closing one emerg for a weekend for whatever reason, where do the people go, and what resources do we need to support that change? Is it more EHS or whatever? I'm thinking as a bureaucrat.

I would say that I don't think it's outdated. I think it's a different type of data. I think it's got lots of value in that it shows us the big picture. I would suggest it shouldn't be discarded. I would suggest it should be improved. Yes, there are struggles in there with ER closures, scheduled versus unscheduled. It's not a very complex report. I actually think it could be improved upon in one way. My NDP friends are always thinking: What is he going to say about this? I refer and I have referred similarly to an Ontario Progressive Conversative government report released in January.

In terms of methodology - Dr. Philpott in that methodology speaks on the goals the government has to how many collaborative health centres they have. She speaks in that report supported by the Ontario government - how many placements, how many attachments will happen within this year versus that year. I applaud the government for doing that, because that's something that they're going to be held accountable to. It's a lofty goal, and I hope they succeed.

I think the emerg report - rather than just supporting closures, encounters, wait times, why not follow in the spirit of methodology that Ontario's using? Why not set goals for openings, not closures? In the next fiscal year, our goal is going to be open 80 per cent of the time compared to 60 per cent of the time. Then measure it to benchmark against that - very much like the discussions we've been having in Estimates. I think that data is also really important to those of us in health care and to communities.

I don't think it has to be discarded. I think it's a different set of data, and I would aspire to do better, not less. Also, let's be bold in taking goals and putting them out there, saying: Hold us accountable to this. Let's not just report closures; let's report openings. I think that would be really helpful and hopefully reassuring that this is what the benchmark the government has set is. This is where we made it. Keep it open.

[Page 944]

Again, I would argue that it's a different set of data. I would argue it's an opportunity to set really brave and bold goals and reassure us that there are goals, and benchmark our own performance - government's performance and the Legislature's performance - against that. Even if we take it away, what do we like to talk about in Nova Scotia? We like to talk about the weather and our health. We can take away the reporting mechanism, but it's not going to change people's experiences or their point of view.

Sometimes our point of view, when we use health care as a health care provider, when you're constantly being slammed, is not always accurate. Taking away a report is not going to change a constituent's point of view and their experience. It could actually speak to the experience. When our expectations aren't met, we're going to fill in the gaps. I would suggest that this data has an opportunity to fill in the gaps with facts. It's not the same as the emerg closures. I think there's an opportunity here, again, to enhance the report, not simply discard it.

I have to say that I'm still left with the perplexion of: Why take it away when there's an opportunity? I would argue to anyone that it's different than the app, and it shouldn't be an either/or. I think there's an opportunity here. I really am surprised, and again, say: Why not enhance it instead of discarding it? People's experience will fill in the gaps. Let's speak to facts. Let's make it a better report instead of disregarding the report.

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

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Now I've got to turn back into being an Opposition MLA for a few minutes. There are aspects of the bill, of course, that we like. But I remember a time when these data reports were heavily used by the Progressive Conservatives, who are now the government, to their advantage politically - and boy, oh boy, did they use those reports. Everything was doctor wait-lists and everything was ER wait times and "Those Liberals, they don't have control over anything." They constantly tabled report after report after report. Used them in elections. Referenced the numbers. Used them in their campaign materials. Used them when they first formed government. Talked about the despair and the awful government before them who couldn't fix those ER wait times. They'd table those reports, and they would table them over and over again. It was the previous government's fault.

Now here we are in 2025 - a new government with a supermajority and they're going to remove data. I live in a wild world in here. I've seen too much. I would never support the idea of removing data. As my colleague from the NDP said, people talk about lots of things. They talk about the weather. They talk about their children as well. I was reminded of that. I miss my children.

The more data that we can give to Nova Scotians, the better, so they can actually track the government on progress. The government will make investments, which they have. The minister will talk about those investments in Question Period - and she will in her remarks. But when I saw that they were going to start removing these reports, I just had to get up and say something. They were used so heavily by this government when they were in Opposition. It was like the Bible for them. It was. They used them all the time. All the speeches that the Premier gave about 70,000 people on a wait-list and chaos, and all of a sudden now we can't even determine how many are actually on the Need a Family Practice Registry because it's not to their advantage anymore. The ER wait times at the Cape Breton Regional Hospital in Sydney - it is a monstrous problem. They would table those documents - Look how bad this is, those terrible Liberals. QP was dominated by health care questions, if people remember back then. All the members who are in government now were asking the questions about the ERs in their constituencies, whether it was Queens, whether it was Sydney. That's what they did, I remember all these years later.

[Page 945]

[8:15 p.m.]

There will be other opportunities to talk about this, but I just had to get on my feet and state that. These reports matter to people, regardless of politics. People read this stuff; they talk about this stuff. This is the stuff that actually made this government a government, because they took the information and they made it a story and they made it a narrative, and Nova Scotians gave them the ability to run on it.

Then they spent a term saying they were going to fix health care and those lists skyrocketed. The wait-lists in the ER reports were coming out and the hours for the wait times were worse and worse. Now they are just not going to exist. Anyway, it's amazing how you can give a speech about one thing and then all of a sudden have to get up and talk about something else.

I'm going to stop there for now. There are going to be other opportunities to speak about this. For all the new members, many of you are part of a government that used this data that you are about to eliminate on a daily basis to get to where they're at, and now they're going to get rid of it.

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

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : I'll speak for just a moment to Bill No. 11. I do feel like the title is a little misleading because it's An Act Respecting Administrative Efficiency and Accountability in Healthcare. When you read that you'd make an assumption - or at least I would - that you are increasing accountability when, in fact, we are decreasing accountability by removing the Annual Accountability Report on Emergency Departments.

My colleagues have spoken about this at length. I am not going to say a lot more other than I do think the expectations for Nova Scotians and certainly the people whom I represent expect accountability and transparency by the government, and no one wants to see a decrease in that, Speaker.

[Page 946]

I did have some concerns about not so much the repealing of the Anatomy Act, but I am concerned that there's not enough information shared in legislation on what has been added in the subsection for the Human Organ and Tissue Donation Act. I did have some questions during the technical briefing.

We all know the Human Organ and Tissue Donation Act did change the laws in Nova Scotia that didn't require people to give permission, that they automatically become a donor. I did have some questions around donation of organs for ongoing medical research and stuff but I'm going to see what comes out of the Public Bills Committee and speak more at length on third reading.

THE SPEAKER « » : If I recognize the minister, it will be to close the debate.

The honourable Minister of Health and Wellness.

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : I thank my colleagues for their comments. I do believe that in its day, the Emergency Department Accountability Act had a time. It was in a time and place; it had a lot of validity. There wasn't a lot of data and certainly when we formed government, there wasn't a lot of real-time data that was available.

It is a lot of work to compile that report and when we look at administrative burden - and the data immediately is 9 to 21 months old at the time that it's tabled.

I wasn't here back then, to the member's point, but I do want to say that the years before I came here, the last few years before I was elected, the despair in the system was real. I just cannot say what it was like, so it wasn't a story and it wasn't a narrative. It really was a difficult time.

There have been a lot of investments in a number of areas. There's a lot more to do, but we feel that we're moving the needle. The data that's available now is actually real-time data. I'll just give some examples to the members' points, perhaps just to give you some examples of where it is.

In the Action for Health progress update dashboard, there is, under Solution Two, the percentage of ED visits by patients without access to a primary health care provider. We are looking at who is actually using emergency room services. Under Solution Five, the percentage of ambulance response times within benchmarks is available. The percentage of ED wait times within benchmarks and the percentage of ambulance off-load intervals within 30 minutes are all there.

There are times when we wish those numbers were better. We continue to invest and make improvements for those to improve as well. Those are available in real time.

In Action for Health on the daily dashboard, daily ED visits by site are available. So people are able to drill down and see what's happening in their communities, including a two-week trend of ED visits, triage levels, EHS response times, average EHS response times. There are a few more.

[Page 947]

On the Nova Scotia Health Authority's web page, there is a quick link to service interruptions, so people can understand if the emergency department in their community is disrupted - and also emergency department wait times, the average and projected wait times for people who are attending the emergency room.

The Nova Scotia Health Authority will continue to maintain a database of ED closures to assist with service planning. The role of the department is to monitor and regulate the operators in the province, both the IWK Health Centre and the Nova Scotia Health Authority. That data, that real-time data, while it is public facing, there's a myriad of other data that those folks who do data analytics and performance and accountability work watch on a daily basis. We get regular updates, and we're talking constantly about how we improve services.

I just want to assure members that I appreciate the time and place that this report was built in. I do believe that it's more important now that we have real-time data. It's public facing. It's on several websites. It's using not only the immediate time but also trending, to better understand how to improve services.

With that, I will close debate on second reading.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is to close second reading of Bill No. 11, Administrative Efficiency and Accountability in Healthcare Act.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

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

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: That concludes the government business for today. I move that the House now do rise and meet again on March 6^th from 1:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Following the daily routine and Question Period, government business will include Bill No. 68.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is that the House rise to meet again on Thursday, March 6^th between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

We stand adjourned until Thursday, March 6^th.

[The House rose at 8:23 p.m.]

[Page 948]