[Page 2406]

HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2026

Sixty-fifth General Assembly

First Session

11:06 A.M.

SPEAKER

Hon. Danielle Barkhouse

DEPUTY SPEAKERS

Marco MacLeod, Tom Taggart, Julie Vanexan

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

[The national anthem was played.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. The topic for the late debate for February 25, 2026 was submitted by the member for Timberlea-Prospect, and reads as follows:

Whereas the Government of Nova Scotia has run a $1.2 billion deficit while failing to make targeted investments in affordable child care and now acknowledges that it will fail to meet the March 31, 2026 deadline to deliver $10-a-day child care under the Canada - Nova Scotia Early Learning and Child Care Agreement; and

Whereas families are struggling with rising costs for groceries, housing, and power, and cannot afford further delays on promised child care relief; and

Whereas affordable child care strengthens our economy by increasing workforce participation, supporting businesses, and growing GDP;

Therefore be it resolved that the government immediately present a clear, funded plan in the upcoming budget to achieve $10-a-day child care without delay, so families can afford to work and our economy can grow.

We'll begin the Daily Routine.

PRESENTING AND READING PETITIONS

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

[Page 2407]

KENDRA COOMBES « » : I beg leave to introduce a petition. The operative clause reads:

Whereas since the . . . government was elected, Nova Scotians' power bills have increased by more $400 per year; and

Whereas the power company has applied for an eight per cent rate increase over two years, just months after their massive data breach saw the sensitive personal information of customers stolen; and

Whereas the . . . government made a decision to remove 46,000 Nova Scotians from the Home Heating Assistance Rebate program, costing them $600 a year, and cut $200 from the assistance offered to all those still eligible, making it harder for them to afford their bills;

We the undersigned, call on the Nova Scotia Legislature to pass legislation that will lower people's power costs rein in NS Power and reverse its massive and devastating cuts to the Home Heating Assistance Rebate Program.

I put forward this petition last sitting, and in this sitting, I was able to gather, in between, 24 more signatures. I've affixed my own, as per the Rules of the House.

THE SPEAKER « » : The petition is tabled.

The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier.

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a petition.

Whereas since the . . . government was elected Nova Scotians power bills have increased by more than $400 per year; and

Whereas the power company has applied for an eight per cent rate increase over two years, just months after their massive data breach saw the sensitive personal information of customers, including SIN numbers, compromised; and

Whereas the government needs to protect people's private information and help lower soaring power costs;

Therefore, We, the undersigned, call on the Nova Scotia Government to pass legislation that will lower people's power costs, and protect people's private information.

[Page 2408]

There are 52 signatures since the last sitting, and I've affixed my own, as per the Rules of the House.

THE SPEAKER « » : The petition is tabled.

The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier.

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a petition, the operative clause reading:

The . . . Government cut 46000 Nova Scotians from the Heating Assistance Rebate Program (HARP) and cut hundreds of dollars from Nova Scotians who remain eligible. In 2024 more than 118,000 Nova Scotians received help from the rebate and this year the . . . Government estimates it will only help an estimated 72,000 households.

We the undersigned call on the Premier and Cabinet through the Minister of Service Nova Scotia to reverse this decision.

There are 185 signatures, and I have proudly affixed my own, as per the Rules of the House.

THE SPEAKER « » : The petition is tabled.

PRESENTING REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

TABLING REPORTS, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Attorney General and Minister of Justice.

HON. SCOTT ARMSTRONG « » : Speaker, in my capacity as Attorney General of Nova Scotia, I hereby beg leave to table the 2024-25 Minister's Annual Report on Accessibility in accordance with the Accessibility Act.

My report outlines the significant progress the Government of Nova Scotia has made in implementing the Accessibility Act over the past year and celebrates the progress made towards achieving our collective goal of an accessible Nova Scotia by 2030. I look forward to our continued efforts towards building an accessible province for Nova Scotians with disabilities.

[Page 2409]

THE SPEAKER « » : The report is tabled.

The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Speaker, I beg leave to table a document pertaining to my member statement.

THE SPEAKER « » : The document is tabled.

STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS

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

HON. TWILA GROSSE « » : I rise today with deep reverence to honour lives whose courage and conviction help shape the strength and spirit of our communities. We mourn the passing of Dr. Geraldine Browning, a proud daughter of East Preston and devoted community builder. She helped guide institutions, including the Black Cultural Society of Nova Scotia and the Black Business Initiative. That strength and space is where history is preserved and opportunity grows.

[11:15 a.m.]

We remember Reverend Jesse Jackson, who visited Nova Scotia in 2009 in support of self-reliance and civil rights advancement. His presence left a deep mark not only within the African Nova Scotian community but across our province. He reminded us that dignity must be claimed, opportunity must be defended, and each of us shares responsibility for building a just society.

We honour Eddie Carvery, who for more than 50 years maintained a protest encampment on the former Africville lands, calling for recognition and justice for former residents. His unwavering presence ensured that Africville's story remained visible and that reconciliation remains an ongoing responsibility.

During African Heritage Month I travelled to Ottawa to help bring Nova Scotia's rich African heritage and living legacy to the national stage. I carried with me the stories, the strength, and the resilience of our communities and the enduring examples of leaders such as those we honour today.

These were giants. They planted seeds of courage and justice in difficult soil. Because of them, new generations stand taller and dream with greater freedom. Their work is not finished. It lives on in us.

On behalf of African Nova Scotian Affairs, I extend heartfelt condolences to their families and to all who were guided and strengthened by their lives. May we honour their legacy with remembrance and with action to continue the work of building a Nova Scotia rooted in justice, dignity, and belonging for all.

[Page 2410]

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

SUZY HANSEN « » : Speaker, I'm honoured to stand today to remember the impactful lives of leaders from our Black communities. It's always a sad time when our leaders leave us but celebrating them keeps their spirit alive. Each person had an enduring legacy and impact, and just a few short minutes could never do them justice, but I will try.

Let us remember Dr. Geraldine Browning. What a phenomenal woman. A daughter of the African Nova Scotian communities, educator, nurse, and advocate for human rights and social justice, Mrs. B always encouraged you to be respectful and pursue your education. She was a bright light for Nova Scotia and a trailblazer. She was a leader shaped by faith, service, and an unshakeable commitment to all people. She understood leadership as a responsibility to organize, advocate, and build systems that serve rather than exclude. Dr. Geraldine Browning was a lifelong champion for community and the people in it.

Let us remember Reverend Jesse Jackson, a civil rights leader who fought for the rights of Black people around the world. His powerful voice was one that made folks listen and changed minds. He was a transformative leader who changed the nation and the world.

Reverend Jesse Jackson came to Nova Scotia in 2009 and learned that Black people here and in the U.S. were fighting the same battles when it came to justice, marginalization, housing, and access to jobs and health care, sharing that same fight for equality and justice.

Let us remember Eddie Carvery, who was an active protester in the fight for Africville - his home, which he loved. For over 50 years, Eddie Carvery remained vocal and visible for the fight for his community, and his legacy will live on. The fight will continue for justice and reparations for the atrocities that our people faced from all levels of government.

Speaker, during African Heritage Month, and each and every day, we are reminded of their contributions to empower and advance Black people in this nation. Their actions individually shaped their communities and collectively empowered nations to continue to fight for justice and equality. These giants may not be here in body, but in spirit their legacy will live on forever in our hearts.

Honouring these Black leaders today reminds us that as a province, we still have a lot of work that needs to be done. The fight for justice and equality continues, even at this time when we are facing cuts for support for African Nova Scotian students and resources for African Nova Scotian families. This just further proves that the fight continues, and we will not stop.

[Page 2411]

They have laid the groundwork for this generation and the next, and the legacy that they have left will empower us to not stop doing this work until we have equity and equality for all.

On behalf of the Loyal Opposition and the Nova Scotia NDP caucus, we extend our deepest condolences to the families and communities here and abroad. These Black leaders showed us that excellence and humility can coexist and that change requires both strategy and heart. May their legacies remind us to serve boldly, to lead with integrity, and to remain accountable to the communities that raised us and the ancestors upon whose shoulders we stand. May we walk forward carrying their lessons, grounded in faith, guided in purpose, and committed to justice to all the lives that they have changed. Rest in power.

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

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : I'm honoured to rise in recognition of African Heritage Month, a time to celebrate the vibrant, resilient, and deeply rooted African Nova Scotian community that has helped shape our province for more than 400 years. African Nova Scotians have built strong communities, led movements for justice, enriched our culture, and strengthened our economy. Their contributions are woven into the very fabric of our music and faith communities, our Public Service, and our ongoing pursuit of fairness and opportunity for all.

As the minister acknowledged today, this has also been a time of loss. I was deeply honoured to know Dr. Geraldine Browning personally. She was a trailblazer, as my colleague mentioned - accomplished and compassionate, always generous with her time and encouragement. I will always be grateful for her kindness and for her example.

While I never had the opportunity to meet Reverend Jesse Jackson, his legacy was an inspiration for many. Many in the African Nova Scotian community would know of his visit to Cherrybrook in 2009 that left a lasting impression, inspiring conversations about equality, dignity, and collective action that continue to resonate today.

Most recently, the community lost a true champion with the passing of Eddie Carvery. For decades, he stood watch over the memory of Africville, not just as a place but as a symbol of resilience and justice and the ongoing need for reconciliation. We should all commit ourselves to ensuring that history lives on in his memory.

African Heritage Month is both a celebration and a call to action - to honour the past, to recognize the present, and to work together toward a more just future.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to say just a few words on this important occasion.

[Page 2412]

GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Health and Wellness.

RESOLUTION NO. 361

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

Whereas February is Heart Month in Canada, a time to raise awareness about the importance of cardiovascular health and an opportunity to focus on what we can do to improve our heart health; and

Whereas heart disease is the second leading cause of death in Canada, and 2.6 million Canadian adults over the age of 20 live with diagnosed heart disease; and

Whereas nearly 80 percent of premature heart disease cases can be prevented, underscoring the important role of prevention when it comes to heart and cardiovascular disease;

Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House recognize February as Heart Month and join me in reminding all Nova Scotians to learn more about heart disease, support those affected, and take steps toward prevention and early detection.

I ask for 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.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill No. 198 - An Act Respecting Certain Financial and other Government Measures. (Hon. John Lohr)

Bill No. 199 - An Act to Require Disclosure of Budget Impacts. (Kendra Coombes)

[Page 2413]

Bill No. 200 - An Act to Amend Chapter 3 of the Acts of 2018, the Cannabis Control Act. (Hon. Scott Armstrong)

Bill No. 201 - An Act Respecting Justice and Social Services. (Hon. Barbara Adams)

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

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : May I do a quick introduction before I introduce a bill?

THE SPEAKER « » : Yes, please.

IAIN RANKIN « » : In the West Gallery we are joined by a fellow Interim Leader of the Liberal Party in our country, just next door in Prince Edward Island. We have with us a longtime MLA as well, for Tignish-Palmer Road, Hal Perry is joining us today. If you want to rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. (Applause).

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome to the House. We hope you enjoy your time here before you go back to your own House sitting.

Bill No. 202 - An Act to Establish the Nova Scotia Child Care Organization and a Centralized Child Care Registration and Waitlist System. (Hon. Iain Rankin)

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 Lunenburg.

HON. SUSAN CORKUM-GREEK « » : Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction before I make my statement.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do. I think I know who you're introducing.

SUSAN CORKUM-GREEK « » : In the gallery I am pleased to introduce my longtime friend William Gerhardt, owner of William A. Gerhardt Property Improvement, and a cast member of the global sensation, The Curse of Oak Island. With Bill today are two of his employees, Anthony Schleihauf and Sourav Sourav, as well as their spouses, Carole Schleihauf and Hussandeep Sourav.

[Page 2414]

What I'm about to share with you is a story that speaks volumes to the value of workplace training. I would ask the individuals - there's also a small member of the family as well - I'd ask you to please rise and accept the warm welcome of the House.

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome to the People's House and we hope you enjoy your time here. Usually there's no noise allowed up there, but those babies are allowed to make as much noise as they want to.

The honourable member for Lunenburg.

SOURAV, SOURAV/SCHLEIFHAUF, TONY: HEROIC RESCUE - THANKS

HON. SUSAN CORKUM-GREEK « » : On the morning of December 31 - New Year's Eve - Tony Schleihauf and Sourav Sourav, employees of William Gerhardt Property Improvements, had just arrived on a job site in Bayswater, when they witnessed an extraordinary sight: an SUV sailing through the air and landing on the ice of a nearby pond.

[11:30 a.m.]

Grabbing a rope from the truck, the two men sprinted to the shoreline, even as the vehicle began to sink. Tony called 911 as they ran.

At the shore, they could hear a woman calling for help, but they couldn't see her. As Tony contemplated crossing the ice, she popped up. Meanwhile, a firefighter, passing by chance, stopped to help Sourav tie a broken road sign to the rope so they could cast it out to the woman.

Arriving firefighters pulled her to safety, and what do you think our heroes Tony and Sourav did after that? Well, they returned to their work, of course.

I ask the House to please join me in applauding these heroes. (Applause)

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

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

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

BECKY DRUHAN « » : Thank you. Joining us in the gallery are Ryan Vallee, music teacher at Park View Education Centre, and Trisha Pavkeje. If you could stand up and enjoy the welcome of the House. (Applause)

THE SPEAKER « » : Welcome. Welcome to the People's House. We hope you enjoy your time here. You don't have to stand the whole time.

[Page 2415]

The honourable member for Lunenburg West.

VALLEE, RYAN: MUSIC EDUCATION - RECOG.

HON. BECKY DRUHAN « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of Ryan Vallee, the music teacher at Park View Education Centre in Bridgewater. Music builds confidence, discipline, creativity, and connection, and since joining Park View in September 2024, Mr. Vallee has strengthened those opportunities in significant ways.

Guitar instruction has been expanded and further integrated into school concerts, with students rotating through guitar, bass, and drums over the course of the year. Under his leadership, the concert band is a more student-driven entity. Students are playing music that excites them, which has afforded renewed focus and pride in performance. Nearly half the band is now made up of Grade 12 students - an impressive shift.

After years without it, vocal music has returned to Park View. In only its second year, the choir has doubled in size, performing at the Remembrance Day ceremony, generating enough interest to become a credited course next year, making Park View the only school on the South Shore to offer band, guitar, and vocal music.

I ask all members to join me in thanking Ryan Vallee for bringing music to life for Park View students.

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

LISA LACHANCE « » : Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction relative to my member's statement.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

LISA LACHANCE « » : In the gallery today, we are joined by Dr. Jan Kwak, Mary Anne White, and Robert White. I would ask them to rise and accept the greetings of the House. They are all friends of Axel Becke, who I will introduce in a moment. (Applause)

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

The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

BECKE, DR. AXEL: DEATH OF - TRIBUTE

LISA LACHANCE « » : I rise today to honour the memory and work of Professor Axel Becke, who passed away on October 23, 2025. He was one of Dalhousie University's most impactful researchers and one of Canada's top scientists, whose groundbreaking work in quantum chemistry continues to shape scientific discovery around the world.

[Page 2416]

He was born in Germany in 1953 and came to Canada with his family at the age of three, settling in Halifax. From an early age, he showed a remarkable curiosity for science, nurtured by his parents who encouraged his love of learning. He went on to excel academically, winning the gold medal in Engineering Physics at Queen's University before graduate work.

His life's work focused on advancing density functional theory, a computational method that revolutionized how chemists and physicists model the behaviour of electrons in matter. Methods developed by Professor Becke are now used worldwide in many fields. He received many numerous honours. He's cited in the most-cited scientific works of all time in Nature, and he was a remarkable teacher.

Please join me in remembering the extraordinary legacy of Professor Axel Becke and his profound contributions to science and education.

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

COSSIT HOUSE MUSEUM: CLOSURE - REVERSE

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Speaker, I rise in my place because we learned last night that one of Sydney's oldest buildings and a museum is closing: the Cossit House Museum, which is a big part of the Old Sydney Society, which is celebrating its 60^th year this year.

The Cossit House was built in the late 1700s and is one of the oldest buildings in Sydney. It is also one of the first places thousands of tourists who get off cruise ships go to, as it is so close to the port. It's a big part of the historical north end.

Not only that, but the Old Sydney Society is losing 20 percent of its funding overall, and in their 60^th anniversary, it looks like they're going to have to close. We're hopeful that they can figure it out, and we're hopeful that we can find pathways, but I rise in my place to recognize the Old Sydney Society and recognize Cossit House Museum for welcoming thousands of newcomers who come to enjoy Cape Breton, enjoy Sydney, and enjoy Nova Scotia. It's a really sad day for the history of Sydney.

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

PINK SHIRT DAY: CENTRAL KINGS RURAL HS INIT. - RECOG.

CHRIS PALMER « » : Speaker, I rise again this year to mark Pink Shirt Day, a movement that began not in a boardroom or at an NGO but in the hallways of Central Kings Rural High School in Cambridge, Nova Scotia.

[Page 2417]

This is a well-known story in our province about two students who stood up for a classmate who was being bullied for wearing pink. They went home, bought 50 pink shirts, and they handed them out the next morning. That was it - a simple act. There was no budget, there was no campaign - just two young Nova Scotians who decided that enough was enough.

Fifty shirts in Cambridge - nearly 180 countries today. It's a reminder that courage does not always announce itself loudly and that the most powerful movements sometimes begin with the quietest decision to stand beside someone who is standing alone. I am incredibly proud of this amazing movement that had its roots in Kings West.

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

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

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

PAUL WOZNEY « » : Speaker, today in the gallery, I am pleased to welcome Sandra Mullen, President of the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union, and four members of NSGEU's Political Action Committee, who represent 28,000 NSGEU members from all regions of the province. I believe they're in the gallery behind me this morning. (Applause)

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

The honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid.

NSGEU: RALLY AGAINST CUTS - SUPPORT

PAUL WOZNEY « » : Speaker, today I rise to draw attention to what will take place outside of Province House, and to stand in solidarity with the NSGEU, whose more than 28,000 members are instrumental to the delivery of services all Nova Scotians rely on.

Today, the NSGEU is warning us that Nova Scotian workers will fund this deficit budget through the jobs and livelihood it sacrifices. There's an additional message for us to heed: All Nova Scotians will pay for this budget's deep cuts with a marked decrease in the quality and range of services available to support them. Austerity dressed up as protection threatens to tear apart the already tattered provincial systems we rely on. It will thrust even more families into uncertainty. The hundreds of Nova Scotians who are losing their jobs will struggle to find any relief through social supports because they're also on the chopping block.

[Page 2418]

The NSGEU's warning should be heeded by the entire province, but most of all by the members of government seated in this House. Cuts to frontline jobs mean cuts to the quality of life for all Nova Scotians.

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

SCHEIBLING, ROBERT:

PEGGY'S COVE AREA ARTIST OF THE MONTH - CONGRATS.

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : Speaker, I want to recognize local resident Robert Scheibling of Hubley, whose vibrant creativity earned him the title Artist of the Month at the Peggy's Cove Area Festival of the Arts this past summer. As a self-taught artist, Robert's journey is deeply rooted in landscapes and textures of Nova Scotia, where he draws inspiration from both his philosophical perspective and his distinguished career as a marine ecologist.

Robert's highly textured canvasses invite viewers to experience organic forms through unique blends, one shaped by curiosity and a profound respect for the environment. While Robert's instinctive artistry is self guided, foundational skills honed through NSCAD continuing education classes in painting and drawing have enriched his practice. He is known for experimenting with impressionistic and abstract representations, pushing the boundaries of texture and form to create art that is thought provoking and visually arresting.

I would like the House of Assembly to join me in celebrating Robert's achievements and distinctive approach, which continue to inspire and elevate the artistic community in Nova Scotia and beyond.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Yarmouth.

NICK HILTON « » : Speaker, before I begin my statement, I beg leave to make an introduction.

THE SPEAKER « » : Please do.

NICK HILTON « » : Joining us today in the gallery, I am pleased to introduce Wendy Eakins and Jessica Burke from the Thriving Twogether Society, along with Dax Eakins, a third-year Poli Sci student from Mount Saint Vincent University. I ask you to please rise and accept the warm welcome of the House. (Applause)

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

[Page 2419]

The honourable member for Yarmouth.

THRIVING TWOGETHER SOC.: COMM. IMPACTS - RECOG.

NICK HILTON « » : I rise today to celebrate an extraordinary organization from Yarmouth and the surrounding area. The Thriving Twogether Society is making a profound impact on the lives of individuals and families across our community.

Thriving Twogether is dedicated to empowering people through accessible mental health and addiction support, inclusive counselling, and harm reduction services. They meet people where they are. Their work addresses some of our communities' most pressing challenges, from supporting those affected by trauma, intimate partner violence and human trafficking.

In recognition of their remarkable service, Thriving Twogether has been named Canadian Non-Profit Organization of the Year, and will be honoured in a celebration in Toronto in June.

The compassionate work of Thriving Twogether's staff and volunteers exemplifies community care, courage and hope. Their commitment to mental wellness and recovery strengthens our community.

Please join me in congratulating Thriving Twogether on their well-deserved recognition.

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

ROACHE, DANICA:

FIVE SEASONS OF CHARLIE FRANCIS BOOK RELEASE - CONGRATS.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : I rise today to celebrate the release of Danica Roache's debut novel, Five Seasons of Charlie Francis. At the book release at Morley's, Danica was joined by Mi'kmaq authors Raymond Sewell and Tiffany Morris, and shared passages from her darkly funny novel about a mixed ancestry Mi'kmaq woman balancing academia, grief, love, and new motherhood.

The novel is simply stunning. I love the characters, their arcs, and their journeys. The writing challenges subtle and not-so-subtle racist tropes, even as it entertains and makes the reader laugh and cry.

A member of Glooscap First Nation, Danica Roache is a mixed ancestry writer living in Punamu'kwati'jk, which is Dartmouth North, with her partner and four kids. I was delighted to meet her in person this past summer, and ever since I have been a big fan.

It was recently announced that Vagrant Press has acquired the rights to Danica's second novel, The Bear Falls Community Cook Book, releasing in 2027 - fingers crossed.

[Page 2420]

Congratulations to Danica on her debut novel. I'm counting the days until number two.

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

PROFIT, KATE/MACINNES, MOLLY: PROMAC RENOVATIONS - RECOG.

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : I want to recognize two remarkable entrepreneurs from my area: Kate Profit and Molly MacInnes. These talented women met while working on a previous job and quickly discovered a shared passion. They decided to combine their unique carpentry backgrounds to launch their own business, Promac Renovations. For nearly three years now, Kate and Molly have demonstrated exceptional teamwork, creativity, and resilience, making their enterprise a true success story.

As women working in a male-dominated trade, Kate and Molly have faced their share of challenges, sometimes enduring comments like: "When do the men show up," or "Can you do as good a job as a man?" They've even received suggestions that are inappropriate as being told to wear bikinis to attract more people to their business. Despite these obstacles, they have persevered, proving that skill, professionalism, and dedication are what truly matter in this field.

One of my key accomplishments, and that of the previous government, was to expand skilled trade centres, and that's where they went at the Bay View High School - a skilled trade centre. It's particularly rewarding to now see two female entrepreneurs running a successful business in traditionally male-dominated trades, while supporting diversity in the industry. Their courage and determination serves as an inspiration to us all, showing that women can excel and thrive in any industry.

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

LOBO, FATHER SIMON: MINISTRY COMM. SUPPORT - RECOG.

ADEGOKE FADARE « » : Speaker, I rise today to applaud Father Simon Lobo of Saint Benedict Parish in Clayton Park West, who came to the parish in July 2015.

Over and above his regular duties, he also works closely with the outreach team. His decision to sacrifice 10 percent of the general collections of the Outreach program - roughly about $130,00 yearly - has allowed the team to provide resources, direction, and support to many different ministries that reach out within our community in rent payments and the likes.

Father Simon will soon be transferring from Halifax to Ottawa where he will begin his new role as a general superior for the Companions of the Cross community.

[Page 2421]

I would like to ask all members of the House of Assembly to join me in applauding Father Simon and his team for their continued dedication. I wish him all the best in his new role as a general superior.

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

[11:45 a.m.]

NSGEU: MEMBER SOLIDARITY - RECOG.

KENDRA COOMBES « » : I want to echo my colleague for Sackville-Cobequid and the solidarity that he expressed with the members of NSGEU. I also want to welcome the President of NSGEU and the NSGEU's political action committee. They are here due to job cuts being made by this government.

So far, this government has cut 77 public sector jobs, and we know more are to come. This government has spent recklessly and with nothing to show for it. Now, hard-working Nova Scotians are paying the price with job losses. Community organizations are also paying the price. Organizations working to help our most vulnerable are waking up today to cuts to their funding. More job losses from those cuts are to come, I'm sure. These cuts are unacceptable, and Nova Scotians should not be paying for this government.

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

NAPPAN RESEARCH FARM: ESSENTIAL SERV. CLOSURE - RECOG.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : I'm going to read a joint statement from 12 agriculture partners from across the Maritimes regarding the closure of the Nappan Research Farm. I tabled that document earlier:

The industry associations from across the Maritimes, representing more than 4,000 farms, are concerned by the announcement to close the Nappan Research Farm and the implications this decision has for agricultural research in Atlantic Canada.

We recognize the fiscal pressures facing the federal government and the need to assess investments. However, regionally relevant agricultural research is critical to the long-term performance of the sector. Research that reflects Atlantic Canadian conditions supports productivity, risk management, climate adaptation, and adoption of effective on-farm practices. This research must continue, regardless of location, to ensure farmers and industry have access to applied, region-specific knowledge.

[Page 2422]

I tabled this document. I don't have time to read it in its entirety, but this is a significant loss not just to Nappan in Cumberland County but to all the Maritime region. We need this government to help us fight for it to reopen.

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

TOURISM: WORKER LAYOFFS - REVERSE

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : I rise in my place just to recognize many of the workers in the tourism industry. We've seen and heard in the last number of days that deep cuts are coming. I used an example in my last member statement of Cossit House being closed. We're seeing the visitor information centres close; we're seeing museums being closed across the province.

I rise in my place to show love and support for those volunteers and people working and the students who will lose their jobs, who work there every summer, and to recognize how important our history is across this province. These were places that told the stories of communities, and now, they're going to be closed.

I rise in my place to recognize all the wonderful people who have been involved with those museums and other organizations that are seeing deep cuts. They go to work every day, or they volunteer every day to tell our story.

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

SANFORD, DALE: RETIREMENT - CONGRATS.

HON. JOHN LOHR « » : I rise today to recognize Dale Sanford's retirement on February 1, 2026, after 18 years of leadership at the Valley Hospice Foundation. The foundation operates as a fundraising vehicle and an advocate for hospice and palliative care in all settings in our beautiful Annapolis Valley. It is a welcoming place where compassionate care is provided when end of life is near.

Dale Sanford's commitment to the foundation has been present from the development of the vision, the capital campaign, construction, and the celebration of the fifth year of its opening. Dale's dedication has been unwavering from inception to completion.

Please join me today to congratulate Dale Sanford on her retirement from the Valley Hospice Foundation.

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

[Page 2423]

MCKINNON DANCE: HIGHLAND DANCE SUCCESSES - CONGRATS.

HON. BECKY DRUHAN « » : I rise today to recognize six outstanding Highland dancers of Bridgewater's McKinnon Dance, who competed last July at the ScotDance Canada Championship series in Ottawa, one of Canada's premier Highland dance events that brings over 1,000 Highland dancers from around the world for five days.

Each of these dancers - Mae Parsons, Clara Lemoine, Eadlin Fraser, Libby Fraser, Adriana Palao, and Maia Jordan - posted impressive results across multiple categories in serious competitions. Success in Highland dancing demands hard work, dedication, athleticism, and technical skill, and these dancers delivered. Behind their success is their dedicated teacher, Angela McKinnon, whose guidance and commitment have helped dancers achieve excellence.

A special mention goes to Maia, who qualified to represent Team Nova Scotia in the Canadian championships portion of the series for a second consecutive year. Maia placed sixth in fling and secured judges' placings in both the sword and reel - a remarkable achievement on the national stage.

Please join me in celebrating Angela and these talented young dancers for their excellence and vibrant contribution to our province's cultural heritage.

THE SPEAKER « » : To the member on the floor who is trying to tell me how to do my job, do I interrupt her member's statement or do I wait until afterward to tell people to please stay quiet? Okay. Thank you.

The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

MACSWAIN, JAMES: DEATH OF - TRIBUTE

SUZY HANSEN « » : Speaker, last year, our community mourned the loss of a multidisciplinary artist and NSCAD University instructor, James MacSwain, who passed away on September 6, 2025 - true to form, in the time and manner of his choosing.

James taught at NSCAD for 40 years, inspiring and mentoring countless students and colleagues. He co-founded both the Atlantic Filmmakers Cooperative and the Centre for Art Tapes, embedding himself as a crucial pillar and champion of Nova Scotia's cultural community.

Jim's mind elaborated into tentacles of animation, collages, experimentations, and queering of institutional processes. So much can be said about the wonderful journey of Jim's life, but most of all, Jim was a resolute defier of conventions who chose to be an artist and to be free.

[Page 2424]

James MacSwain's legacy will remain forever with our community and all who have crossed or followed his stardust path. Rest in power.

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

ANTI-BULLYING DAY: N.S. HEALTH PROTOCOLS - CONCERNS

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Speaker, today I rise to speak about a deeply concerning issue on Anti-Bullying Day. It is a failure within our health care system.

The Nova Scotia Health Authority's respectful workplace policy promises a safe, harassment-free environment for every employee. It requires that all reports of inappropriate or harmful conduct, including sexual harassment and assault, be taken seriously and acted upon. Yet I am aware of cases where credible reports of sexual assault were ignored and where lawyers advised leadership not to act.

Recently I attempted to access some of those records and was denied. These failures allowed predatory behaviour to continue for years, harming many women and eroding trust across our health system. Policy is meaningless without enforcement. We need mandatory training for management and to have a safe, transparent reporting pathway - one that protects whistleblowers and all victims.

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

BOTAVITA MARKET: LOCAL BUSINESS - RECOG.

HON. JOHN A. MACDONALD: Speaker, I rise today to recognize a wonderful locally owned and operated business that is making a meaningful impact in East Hants.

Botavita Market in Elmsdale is a wellness-focused market dedicated to curated goods that support both people and the planet. This thoughtfully run business showcases high-quality products while keeping affordability and sustainability at the forefront.

Customers can find locally and Canadian-made products such as Skye Glen Creamery dairy items, Snowy River Farms meats, and Liquid Gold olive oils, along with natural cleaning and beauty products - including convenient bulk options. Botavita Market also offers an excellent selection of supplements and vitamins and much more, all at price points that rival traditional grocery stores.

Botavita Market is more than a place to shop. It is a reflection of the values of the community: supporting local producers, caring for the environment, and prioritizing wellness.

[Page 2425]

I commend the owners and staff of Botavita Market for their commitment to East Hants and congratulate them on being a welcome and valued addition to the region.

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

BLAIR BEAUTY BAR: LOCAL BUSINESS - RECOG.

KRISTA GALLAGHER « » : Speaker, Blair Beauty Bar, owned by Natalie MacDonald, is a welcoming beauty salon known for its expert aesthetic services and inclusive atmosphere. Located on Quinpool Road, the team has a friendly touch that makes clients feel comfortable and cared for.

Blair Beauty Bar has earned a reputation for attention to detail and exceptional customer service, with reviews frequently highlighting the cozy environment and skilled service. As a relatively new small business in Halifax Chebucto, Blair Beauty Bar continues to grow and thrive.

A special recognition goes to Alanna, who received gold for Best Esthetician in the Coast's Best of Halifax awards - a testament to the appreciation from the local community.

Please join me in recognizing Blair Beauty Bar as a place where expertise meets friendliness and thanking the team for their service to Halifax Chebucto.

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

LANGILLE, EMELYNE: BURSARY EFFORTS - RECOG.

MARCO MACLEOD « » : Speaker, I rise today to recognize Emelyne Langille of Three Brooks and her fundraising efforts for the Noah Russell Bursary at StFX University. The bursary was established in memory of her best friend, Noah, and its goal is to help recipients return to school to finish their degree following an absence.

To raise funds, Emelyne has organized and hosted a summer washer toss tournament on Pictou Island for the past 10 years. The tourney offers a chance to catch up with friends and community members and compete for the coveted washer toss trophies. So far, Emelyne has raised $25,000, including $3,500 this past August, when the tournament also featured the band Haliwood, who played all night until the sun came up.

Emelyne, thank you for all your efforts. You are a true best friend and a true testament to the fact that all those little goals that you work towards add up.

[Page 2426]

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

SQUARE ROOTS: VOL. FOOD PROGRAM - THANKS

LINA HAMID « » : Speaker, I rise to day to recognize the remarkable resilience and generosity of Square Roots Fairview / Clayton Park. This food program is powered by a dedicated team of volunteers who have created a bustling hub of community spirit and mutual aid.

This past year, the organization faced a tragic loss of a cherished young volunteer, Fraser Lake. In his memory, the community established the Fraser Fund. This initiative honours his legacy of kindness by offering free produce bundles, no questions asked, ensuring that fresh, healthy food is accessible by everyone in our community, regardless of their financial situation. The dedication shown by these volunteers, even in the face of heartbreak, defines the very best of our province.

I ask all members to join me in commending Square Roots Fairview / Clayton Park for their commitment to food justice and for the beautiful legacy they continue to build through the Fraser Fund.

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

UNITED CHURCHES: NEW FAITH COMM. INITIATIVES - RECOG.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Speaker, there are big changes happening in the United Church community of Halifax. The congregations of St. Matthew's, Fort Massey, and Saint Andrew's have undertaken an intentional, thoughtful process to pool resources and energy, to continue to do the amazing spiritual and community leadership that they are all known for.

Many of us share memories from these three communities. From sustaining faith to sustaining communities, all three congregations have upheld corners of Halifax. I think of St. Matthew's for the wonder of Bethlehem on Barrington and as the original home for the Out of the Cold Shelter. The Fort Massey congregation has been a long-time support of Phoenix youth programs and a special place for military members when they're in town. St. Andrew's is synonymous with Sunday suppers, Cubs and Scouts pancake dinners, and so much more.

The new faith community retains their shared commitment to be an affirming congregation. From their shared vision through inspiring worship, creative ministry, and compassionate outreach, we honour our rich traditions while stepping into the future.

I ask all members to join me in wishing this cornerstone of Halifax well in their next steps together.

[Page 2427]

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

CLARK, LINDA: CAMPAIGN SUPPORT - THANKS

BRAD MCGOWAN « » : Speaker, I rise to recognize an exceptional citizen and volunteer, Linda Clark. As a former small business owner with three children and three grandchildren, Linda has given much to our community. Linda was one of the very first visits I made when I sought the nomination, and I am so glad that I connected and now have a wonderful friend and supporter.

Linda was not only an early supporter but one of the most dedicated members of our campaign team. She spent the campaign running the office, ensuring that our message of doing More, Faster was shared with the community. Following our campaign, Linda became an active participant in our Electoral District Association. I will say that Linda's positivity and commitment to our campaign, and to me personally, has made all the difference. Thank you, Linda, and please know that I am truly grateful.

[12:00 p.m.]

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS PUT BY MEMBERS TO MINISTERS

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

The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.

PREM.: PUBLIC SECTOR CUT IMPACTS - EXPLAIN

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Speaker, this government claims their budget is about defending Nova Scotians, but in order to pay for their financial mismanagement, they are making a 30 percent cut to the public sector workforce over the next four years. Communities across this province will see at least 1,000 full-time jobs eliminated this year alone. Public sector cuts will impact Nova Scotians working in health care and education, where staff are stretched thin. The cuts will disproportionately impact women, who make up over 63 percent of the Public Service.

My question is simple: Who is going to defend Nova Scotian jobs and services from this government?

[Page 2428]

HON. TIM HOUSTON (The Premier) » : The people who work in the civil service, the people who provide services to Nova Scotians, they're good people. They're hard-working people. These are tough decisions, for sure.

The reality is that coming out of COVID, the civil service has grown quite significantly. It can't continue to grow forever. When we could invest more, we invested more, but the world reality is a little different right now. We have to, as a government, respond to that too.

The member opposite has put forward a number that's quite inflated, probably to try to scare people a little more.

There certainly will be cuts. A lot of the change will come through attrition as well, Speaker. We're managing the situation as best we can, but we certainly respect those who work in the civil service.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : I look forward to another session of PC math. Bluenosers - good people - are receiving layoff notices already. It didn't have to be this way. After five years of government, this province's finances are a mess, and the results people were promised have not been delivered. For the first time in 30 years, our credit rating has been downgraded, and this government's answer? Deep cuts to post-secondary institutions, our innovation sector, our cultural sector, L'nu Affairs, African Nova Scotian Affairs, Gaelic Affairs, inclusive education, the domestic violence court, and family resource centres, to name a few.

This government created these tough times. Why are they asking Nova Scotians to pay for it?

THE PREMIER « » : The world is uncertain. I wonder if the member thinks we created the tough times in B.C. as well, where they're raising taxes - major cuts in B.C. I wonder if the member thinks that this government created the challenges in Ottawa as well, which have major difficulties - or in New Brunswick, next door.

The reality is Canada - North America - is feeling the impacts of the global uncertainty that's taking place. We're doing the best that we can manage through this, Speaker.

The member did leave one cut out that I think is important: $700 million in taxes put back in the hands of Nova Scotians because they know what to do with it better than government does.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : That tax cut is a joke, Speaker. A big piece of that number that the Premier just quoted is the Your Energy Rebate that the NDP government brought in that they're repackaging and pretending is going to save Nova Scotians money. I know the Premier spends a lot of time outside of the province - 100 days last year. I'm here talking to Nova Scotians. This budget cuts $130 million in operating grants. Deep cuts to people and places across our province; libraries, museums, theatres, galleries, our film industry, our tourism infrastructure. This government isn't defending Nova Scotia. They're gutting it. This is only the first round of planned cuts.

[Page 2429]

What is the government going to ask Nova Scotians to do without next?

THE PREMIER « » : Maybe a little history lesson is in order for that one time the NDP was in government. Raised taxes, significant cuts to the civil service, wage freezes to the civil service for three years, Speaker. They left a mess in the power rate situation that we are still trying to clean up. A deal they cooked up on private jets, flying around with Emera executives.

Right now in this province, the austerity budget that the member is talking about has a $1.2 billion deficit. Spending is still up year over year. What would the member have us cut? The School Lunch Program that has delivered nine million lunches? Would the member have us cut investments in affordable and public housing for the first time in a generation? What about the medical school in Cape Breton? Does the member want those cut?

THE SPEAKER « » : Order, please. You know, a little appreciation when somebody is talking, no matter who it is. You like me sitting here screaming "toaster?"

The honourable Leader of the Liberal Party.

PREM.: PROGRAM CUT CONCERNS - ADDRESS

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : Speaker, the Premier has stood in this House and said that no frontline service would be impacted by his government's poor financial decisions, but we are already hearing from Nova Scotians who are anxious: parents who rely on student bus passes to get their children to school; volunteers who run food security programs who just learned that their funding is gone; an organization supporting Mi'kmaq and African Nova Scotians that doesn't know how they are going to keep their doors open - 287 programs have been cut by this government.

How can the Premier honestly say to Nova Scotians that they will not be feeling these cuts?

THE PREMIER « » : Listen, this budget has an impact on people. There is no way around that. They are not personal decisions, but they definitely have personal ramifications. We feel that. I feel that as Premier. I didn't run for office to cut things and take things away, but I also know that leadership requires discipline at certain points in time.

[Page 2430]

We are trying to focus the efficiencies - the cuts, whatever you want to call them - on administration and management to protect frontline services, to protect health care, to protect education, to protect housing. We are doing the best we can with a very difficult global situation, but we know that the future is bright for this province and that is our focus.

IAIN RANKIN « » : And if that discipline started a year or two or three or four or five years ago, we wouldn't be in this position where these are having impact on the front line. These aren't just arbitrary savings. These are programs that are woven into the fabric of people and communities. When funding disappears, there is real consequence. It means a senior skipping a meal, a student struggling to get to a class, or a community group that's scaling back services for those who are already facing barriers.

The Premier promised Nova Scotians that frontline services wouldn't be impacted. Will he now acknowledge that these cuts have real consequences and take responsibility for the impact that it is going to have on communities across the province?

THE PREMIER « » : There is no question that there are impacts on Nova Scotians. There is absolutely no question about that. We are doing the best we can to protect health care, to protect education, to protect Nova Scotians, and prepare Nova Scotia to find that financial stability for the future so we are better off in the future. But I know that when you cut funding, there are ramifications. I know it because I've sat in this House and watched that government leave 500 nursing beds empty every single year because they wouldn't fund them. I sat here and watched them disregard health care, cut health care, make Nova Scotians do without.

We came in and said we wouldn't do that. We are investing in Nova Scotians, and we will continue to invest in Nova Scotians at every opportunity we have as quickly as we can.

IAIN RANKIN « » : Nova Scotians deserve transparency on how the process went, to actually look at the programs that are being marked as "savings." There are 287 programs that didn't just disappear. Someone made those decisions, and someone decided which communities would lose support and which groups would be told there is no longer room in the budget for them.

Can the Premier explain what criteria he chose to cut these programs, and will he table that analysis so Nova Scotians can see exactly how these decisions are made?

THE PREMIER « » : This was something we worked with the civil service on, to ask them to look at programs within departments that bubble up through and to see what is possible. Every one of them is tough. None of these is easy. They are all tough, but we respect the civil service, we respect their insight, we respect their guidance on that. We continue to work through that and the member will have lots of time in Estimates to ask specific questions if he wants. We have done the best we can. We are trying to make sure that we are prepared as a province for the future where we can capitalize on the amazing opportunities we have in energy, Wind West, natural gas - all of these things. This is a time for Nova Scotians to come together to support Nova Scotians, and I hope we will finally see some of that come together.

[Page 2431]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.

PREM.: BIASED HIRING PRACTICES - EXPLAIN

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Speaker, the Premier wants to talk about leadership, administration, and management. Let's do that. This government appoints political insiders and friends to jobs that used to be and should be independent. They have used their majority to give themselves more power to handpick the head of Crown corporations, the independent Public Prosecution Service, and post-secondary presidents. Last week, the co-chair of the last PC campaign was made a provincial court judge after this government changed the process to give themselves more power.

This is not what Nova Scotians voted for and judging by my inbox, it is not what they want. Why is this government focused on increasing their own power instead of helping Nova Scotians?

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Justice.

HON. SCOTT ARMSTRONG « » : The selection process is an independent, nonpartisan process. There is an independent judicial advisory council that produces a list of qualified candidates and the government picks off that list. Judicial appointments in Nova Scotia are nonpartisan and this is an independent process.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Prior to this government, the government did not have a majority on that committee. They changed the rules so that they do. Yesterday, the Attorney General could not confirm whether or not that process had been followed. Yesterday, when asked about the political appointment of the head of the independent Public Prosecution Service, the Attorney General talked about what a good Nova Scotian the appointee is but could not confirm that the hiring process had been followed.

Appointing political insiders to independent positions in our justice system puts our rights, our protections, and the administration of justice at risk and we must treat that seriously. Can the Premier confirm that he understands and respects the independence of our justice system?

[Page 2432]

SCOTT ARMSTRONG « » : Well, Speaker, the Public Prosecution Service is independent. They have done a tremendous job supporting the criminal justice system here in Nova Scotia. Over the last several years, they have actually increased the number of public prosecutors by 30. That speeds up the court system - helps us to avoid Jordan delays. We are very satisfied of independence and hard work of the Public Prosecution Service.

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

SNS: HARP CUT CONCERNS - ADDRESS

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : We will keep looking for an answer to that question, Speaker.

People were shocked by this government's cruel choice to kick 46,000 Nova Scotians off the Heating Assistance Rebate Program last fall. We heard from hundreds of Nova Scotians who were counting on that money to heat their homes this winter. One retired couple from East Hants told us that their HARP rebate meant they did not have to worry about staying warm during our harsh winters. Without this support, they are making tough choices, like cutting back on groceries each week, to keep the heat on. Every constituency office in this province has heard these stories. Why is the Premier, who has overspent his budget year after year, taking support from Nova Scotians who need it most to pay for it?

HON. JILL BALSER » : Speaker, we know the importance that HARP provides to vulnerable Nova Scotians to help support them in colder months to help pay their heating bills. We know that there has been a change to the amount that HARP was. It was $600 and now it is $400, but are continuing to make sure that it is $400 for the most vulnerable Nova Scotians.

[12:15 p.m.]

When we have to make decisions like this, I want to recognize that there are other programs and other supports available to Nova Scotians at this point in time. That's why we have the Seniors Care Grant, the Property Tax Rebate for Seniors. There are other supports. HARP is just one program, and we can't look at it in isolation; we have to look at all of these things together.

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : The Heating Assistance Rebate Program was given to vulnerable Nova Scotians to assist them in affording heating. What the minister didn't say is that in addition to cutting the amount, 46,000 people who were deemed to be eligible previously are not eligible this year. That's 46,000 Nova Scotians who are not getting the assistance that they relied upon and that they need.

[Page 2433]

The Premier's priorities are moving further out of step with what Nova Scotians expect. Just this week, changes have come forward that will allow Nova Scotia Power to avoid fines if they don't meet legislative targets. This is a company that lost Nova Scotians' private information in a data breach and whose parent company posted $1 billion in profit last year. We need the Minister of Energy to have our backs.

Why won't this government start a full review and find solutions for the Nova Scotians facing huge bills?

JILL BALSER « » : I just want to remind Nova Scotians that HARP is still available for anyone who has yet to apply. I know that the member had mentioned that folks are coming to constituency offices and, of course, that is in my own case. When I think about the other programs and the other supports that are available to Nova Scotians, I think about a gentleman who came into my office. Although he did recognize that, yes, okay, HARP is not going to be the $600 that it was before, but that $400 is still meaningful for many people. So we need to encourage those who are still eligible to apply.

Something that he also said to me is: I hope that people also recognize that when they go to the hospital now, they don't have to pay for parking. Maybe those two things aren't correlated directly, but when we're looking at cost-saving measures, again, we have to look at this all in its entirety . . . (Interruption)

THE SPEAKER « » : Order.

The honourable member for Cumberland North.

DOA: NAPPAN RESEARCH FARM CLOSURE - ADDRESS

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Yesterday, I was in Ottawa advocating for Nappan Research Farm. I was presenting at the Agricultural Committee. Nappan Research Farm has existed since 1887, producing research that decreases input costs, increases productivity, and therefore overall increasing revenues for our agriculture industry. This closure is devastating not only to the people of Cumberland County, but to the entire Maritime region. The research that's done there is specific to our soil and to our weather.

Can the Minister of Agriculture share with this House his government's position on this devastating closure and loss of agriculture research to Nova Scotia and the Maritime region?

HON. GREG MORROW » : I agree. I was blindsided by the decision by the federal government to close this research station. It's very disappointing. It's very concerning, important work goes on at this research centre. As the Nova Scotia Government, we are investing heavily in the beef industry in this province. Nappan is an important part of that work going forward. I'd like to thank the member for Cumberland South for setting me up with individuals from the area to express their concern about the closure - what it means and what may be possible in the future.

[Page 2434]

In terms of where we stand, I have a letter that I sent to the federal Minister of Agriculture to express my concern and disappointment on the announced closure of the Nappan Research Farm. I'll table that.

THE SPEAKER « » : I'll ask that the Page give me the page. The document is tabled.

The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Thank you to the minister for sending that letter and thank you for advocating for the Nappan Research Farm. The public hasn't heard a statement, and neither have local employees of the Nappan Research Farm. There was a statement that I tabled earlier, which was a joint statement from 12 partners in agriculture, taking a very strong, unified voice against these closures. It was evident yesterday at this federal committee that the federal government is going to be looking to the Nova Scotia government and industry partners - private people as well - to possibly take over this farm.

Can the minister let us know: Can we afford to take this over, and if so, will research still be done at this site?

GREG MORROW « » : I would like to thank the member for Cumberland South for sharing my letter with his constituents and with people who are concerned and affected by this decision. I have been speaking to and meeting with people who are impacted and who are concerned for the future of this valuable asset.

It's still very early days. As I said in my initial response, we were blindsided by this decision. We had no idea it was coming. Early days, but we're willing to work with the community, work with our other Atlantic provinces, and work with the federal government to ensure that important work still goes on at this facility.

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

DOE: NSP ESTIMATED BILL CONCERNS - ADDRESS

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. Nova Scotia Power is sending outrageous bills. There's a resident in Dartmouth North whose estimated bills were hundreds more than they should have been. When she was assured by Nova Scotia Power that they had read her meter, she got yet another huge estimated bill.

When will this government stand up to Nova Scotia Power and start standing up for Nova Scotians?

[Page 2435]

HON. TIM HOUSTON: We have been clear from the start. We're opposed to the rate increase. We're disgusted by Nova Scotia Power's actions around the cyberbreach. We filed a very significant statement with the process that is before the independent energy board right now. We know the Opposition are big fans of independence, so we will respect that board process. We filed a very detailed filing in that case there. We will stand up for Nova Scotia at every opportunity, as we have, and we'll continue to do so.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : The Minister of Energy could stand up for Nova Scotia right in this room and introduce some legislation that would address some of these issues. We haven't seen that yet.

The fact is that these bills are still going out, and my constituent isn't alone. Too many Nova Scotians are giving up too much of their hard-earned money, even though Nova Scotia Power has admitted that these bills are not correct. But they're still sending them out, and they're still sending people to collections if they don't pay the bills, even though they said they wouldn't and the bills are wrong.

Tim Allenby in Dartmouth recently told the media that his power bill is higher than his most recent paycheque, and I'll table that article.

Does the minister really think it's okay for Nova Scotia Power to rake in profits while their billing is out of control?

TIM HOUSTON: It's not okay. We have been very clear on that, Speaker. We will continue to be clear on that. The board is making a decision right now. We have filed on that. It is an independent process. We will respect that independence as we always do in matters of government.

We have to think about why our energy prices are so high. There are a couple of reasons for that. Some of them go right back to the NDP, which cooked up some pretty terrible deals with the executives of the day at that time. We're still trying to work through those. Obviously, we need to diversify the grid. That's why we're pushing for development of onshore gas, offshore gas, oil, wind - diversifying all these things that the NDP can get behind right now and come together to support Nova Scotians for the long term. They have the chance.

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

EECD: CHILD CARE COST DISCREPANCIES - EXPLAIN

PAUL WOZNEY « » : Yesterday, the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development stood and claimed loudly that families are spending $12 a day on average for child care. I don't know who is telling that story, but we know, based on studies and facts, that parents in Halifax are paying double that amount. Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Quebec all made $10-a-day child care happen.

[Page 2436]

How much longer will Nova Scotian families be forced to wait for $10-a-day child care?

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : I want to thank you for the question, Speaker. The average is $12 a day. On top of that, we've reduced rates right across the board by 50 percent. We've also created close to the 9,500 spaces, and we will hit the 9,500 spaces that we've agreed to.

We've gone above and beyond what any other province has done. We have given pension and benefits to all our valued employees. No other province has done that. In fact, all those things combined, when I talk to my counterparts across this country - we are the envy of Canada.

PAUL WOZNEY « » : Speaker, families paying more than double $10 a day for daycare at a time when five Canadian provinces have $10-a day-daycare are not envious of this province. Affordable, accessible child care isn't a luxury; it's a necessity. A woman in my constituency told me she would have to leave her good-paying job if she couldn't find child care. That keeps me up at night, and it should keep the minister up too. After all, he was part of the government that signed the child care deal, and now he is the face of the government that is abandoning it.

When will this government deliver $10 a day child care to Nova Scotia families?

BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : I will remind the member that he is part of the party that voted against child care. He voted against pre-Primary, Speaker. He voted against the lunch program. Every time we've stepped up to help child care and families in this province, that member, that party, has voted against it.

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

DOJ: ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES - EXPLAIN

HON. BECKY DRUHAN « » : We are fortunate in Nova Scotia to live in a democracy with a government that is responsible to the people. We are not subjects of a dictator or an absolute monarch. Instead, power is divided so no one person has too much control.

The Legislature makes law, Cabinet carries out law. Courts interpret and apply law, and, together with the police, they enforce it. The Attorney General's Office occupies a unique role in the protection of our democracy. It carries responsibilities and obligations that go beyond partisan politics and differ from the role of other ministers.

[Page 2437]

Can the Minister of Justice explain for Nova Scotians and members of this House his responsibilities as Attorney General?

HON. SCOTT ARMSTRONG « » : I want to thank the former minister for the civics lesson. My role as Attorney General and Minister of Justice is to make sure that the justice system in Nova Scotia supports everyday Nova Scotians, to make sure they are kept safe as we build a justice system that is for all Nova Scotians, protecting victims, and making sure criminals are held responsible.

As Attorney General, I have to work with all departments, making sure that any legislation put forward follows the Constitution. We provide legal advice. I ensure that the government follows the Canadian Constitution and other legal requirements.

There is a dual role, as the former minister says. I think that we are standing up and supporting both sides of the role of Attorney General and Minister of Justice, as represented by . . . (inaudible)

BECKY DRUHAN « » : Well, the minister got some of it right, but he missed a big part. The Attorney General is the constitutional guardian of the rule of law, as he described. It goes further than just compliance with the Constitution though. The Attorney General is entrusted with protecting the integrity of our justice system, courts, and public prosecution, as well as police.

The Attorney General's duty is to our province and to Nova Scotians. That comes with an obligation for the protection of the independence of courts and law enforcement ahead of political objectives.

My question is: To the minister's knowledge, has the Premier or anyone on the Premier's behalf ever sought to influence or direct a police investigation or incident response? What has the minister done to ensure that the independence of police is fully protected from political interference?

SCOTT ARMSTRONG « » : Speaker, there has been no illicit contact. The independence of the justice system is sacrosanct in the province of Nova Scotia. This Premier and this government and this Attorney General respect that.

I take offense to the fact that there's some sort of accusation in the former minister's question that something untoward is going on here.

[12:30 p.m.]

[Page 2438]

We conduct ourselves with integrity. We conduct ourselves with honesty. I stand before you, Speaker, as someone who will always support an independent and effective justice system in Nova Scotia.

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

DHW: DEDICATED CHÉTICAMP AMBULANCE REQ. - RESPOND

ROD WILSON « » : Speaker, five years into this government, some Nova Scotians are more worried about if they will have health care when they really need it. People in Chéticamp and Pleasant Bay are worried what will happen when they have an emergency. That's because the ambulance that's been stationed in their community has been pulled away more often to other parts of the province, leaving the community without an EHS truck and crew.

Last week I received a letter sent to the minister and MLA for Inverness asking that Chéticamp have a dedicated ambulance in its community. This is an urgent and a very reasonable request. Today I ask, will the minister and the MLA for Inverness respond to this request in a very urgent time?

THE SPEAKER « » : Before we go on, just for future notice, only ministers can respond to questions for now.

The honourable Minister of Health and Wellness.

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : Thank you, Speaker. We work very hard with the EHS system to make sure that there is an integrated response. We know that it is a dynamic system, but in some communities, we have a couple across the province, where there is a static truck that sits in order to support residents.

Not long ago, it was during that big February storm, we met with the folks from Cape North. We work very diligently. We look at MFR services that are in the area. We look at a variety of different things. We'll continue to look at the system. That letter was just received. We'll work after the House, to understand what the needs of the community are and see if there is a solution and see what the current level of service is there.

ROD WILSON « » : Very recently, Roland Chiasson from the Chéticamp area had a heart attack. The nearest ambulance was 40 minutes away according to EHS. Brave volunteer firefighters and first responders responded. Luckily they had a defibrillator available and used it to save Roland's life. This raises the question, when will the minister be able to tell the people of Chéticamp that EHS services will be there when they need it?

MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : I think the member brings up an important point. In fact, in that instance, we had medical first responders who did actually respond to somebody in distress in the community. Response times are coming down across the province. We do need an integrated system. It includes medical first responders, MFRs, it includes dispatch, it includes EHS, PCPs, ACPs. It also includes the incredible team that works in dispatch with the physicians, emergency room physicians to support.

[Page 2439]

There's a variety of emergency services, all of which are moving towards emergencies throughout our province on a daily basis. We've implemented incredible change, put thousands of hours back in ground ambulances as a result of some of the investments and initiatives we have, and we will continue to do so.

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

DOE: EGREGIOUS POWER BILLS - ADDRESS

LINA HAMID « » : Speaker, a few months ago, a woman in my constituency opened her power bill and saw a charge of $3,000 for a two-bedroom apartment. This is over 10 times higher than her usual bill. She tried to contact Nova Scotia Power and couldn't get through. When you're being asked to pay thousands of dollars for a basic service, the least you should be able to do is expect answers. Why won't the Minister of Energy take action and bring Nova Scotia Power under control?

HON. TIM HOUSTON « » : Speaker, that's not acceptable. We know that. Those bills are happening all across the province. It's just not acceptable. We've been very clear on our position on Nova Scotia Power. We're very clear and very active in the rate increase application that is before the Nova Scotia Energy Board at the moment. We've filed a very detailed response. I hope the board sides with us, and not only disallows the rate increase they're going for but holds them to account on a number of other issues.

We will continue to do what we can to support Nova Scotians, but it's absolutely not acceptable what's happening right now for sure.

LINA HAMID « » : The Minister of Energy should be able to do more than just write op-eds and letters.

An older man contacted my office after getting a power bill that was higher than it was supposed to be. He couldn't get a clear answer from Nova Scotia Power, so he ended up paying it anyway because he was afraid of it going into arrears.

Why is the Minister of Energy letting Nova Scotia Power get away with this?

TIM HOUSTON « » : There is an independent energy board, formerly the UARB. They make decisions on this. We all have an opportunity, but we have to respect their independence. Where we could act, we did. We certainly took significant action in 2023 when Nova Scotia Power had accumulated over $100 million in the fuel adjustment mechanism. We worked with the federal government and worked with Invest Nova Scotia to help defer that and mitigate that cost. Otherwise, power rates would have gone up by 10 percent just at that moment - 10 to 15 percent. So when we can act, we do act.

[Page 2440]

There is a lot of work to be done, but we have to respect the independence of the board. We need to diversify the grid. That's why I encourage the member to get behind us on the push for developing our own onshore natural gas to help diversity and bring rates down.

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

EECD: CHILD CARE COST REALITIES - ADDRESS

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : The minister says the Province has achieved an average of $12 per day child care. This is far from the experience that we hear about from families who are still paying, in many cases, $20 to $30 per day. The government data shows that in 2021 families were paying $36 to $46 per day on average for full child care. By the end of 2022, that average fee was down 50 percent to $18 to $23 per day. Since the government has not announced any further reductions, the government business plan released this year cites a 50 percent reduction, but for some reason, the minister keeps saying $12 per day.

My question to the minister is: Will the minister give us the full story about how the department calculates the $12 per day average, and will he table the math in the House?

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : I want to thank the honourable member for the question and the individual who signed the original contract. If only he could have foreseen the 10 percent inflation per year - construction inflation per year - then maybe we wouldn't be in this situation.

What I will say to the member is: Right now, he's right. It's not $12 - it's $12.13 per day, per average. I'm no mathematician, but what average means is some pay less, some pay more.

As a Province, we put over $433 million into the child care program. We have taken what they started and made it better by adding wages and benefits to professionalize the sector, to draw more people in, and to keep them working in the sector.

DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : Isn't all that in the original agreement? So you didn't do anything different. You just extended the agreement that was in place.

The reason why I am asking this is because the math doesn't make sense. As of 2023, the province had 29,000 children, aged zero to five, in child care. The government business plan says that 5,800 of those children receive a subsidy. That means the vast majority of parents are paying well over $12.13 per day for child care. This is one of the most important files the minister has. It helps families afford to put food on the table, it helps our economy grow, but we need to understand the real data.

[Page 2441]

My question to the minister: Is he including the pre-Primary children when he uses the $12 per day figure, or does he simply not have an accurate understanding of the situation?

BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : I'm a little confused because I don't know if you know, but at one point I sat on that side of the aisle, and that member touted the pre-Primary program as free child care. It's affordable child care.

We've invested over $309 million in pre-Primary and $433 million right across the spectrum when it comes to child care. We know there's more to do. I tried to meet with all the Liberal MPs not too long ago. Three of them answered my call. Maybe the member across could help us get child care on the minds of his colleagues in Ottawa.

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

CCTH: ART ORGANIZATIONS CUT - DEFEND

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : This government has no respect for the hundreds of Nova Scotians working in the arts who are just trying to build a good life here. The cuts to the arts in this government's budget are so severe, it will mean the money they had already promised arts organizations, money that these groups are counting on and have already committed, is being yanked away.

Nova Scotians clearly can't take this government at their word, but even so: What can the minister say to defend these ruthless cuts?

HON. DAVE RITCEY » : Again, I reiterate these are difficult times. Difficult decisions happen. Some programs might change, like my colleague just mentioned. We're still committed to supporting arts and culture and building stronger communities right across this province, including the Nova Scotia Film and Television Production Incentive Fund, which we did not cut, thank you very much. The Film Fund is still in play, and we'll continue to invest in the Film Fund: 117 productions, $240 million in local communities.

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : The Film Fund, which was never budgeted properly in the last five years, and in fact, the Screenwriters Development Fund - the money that goes to local filmmakers to develop their scripts - is cut, 100 percent cut. This government had departments prepare for 10 percent cuts, and the Department of Communities, Culture, Tourism, and Heritage was the same. Now, Arts Nova Scotia is seeing their budget cut by 30 percent, triple what they expected. The Publishers Assistance program is gone; the Artists in Schools program is gone; the Artists in Communities program, totally gone.

[Page 2442]

The arts and culture sector contributes $1 billion to our economy every year. Why would the government cut programs that actually make money for the province?

DAVE RITCEY « » : We continue to support and invest in arts and culture in this province. Library funding: $16.4 million. It's been $16.4 million for the last five years. That has not changed. Last year, tourism generated $3.7 billion in our province. We are saving Nova Scotian families $1,400 a year by reducing taxes.

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

DHW: C.B. HEALTH PROFESSIONALS' ACCESS CONCERNS - ADDRESS

ROD WILSON « » : Recently, I spent four or five days in Cape Breton speaking to health care providers across the island, meeting with doctors, nurses, and lots of Cape Bretoners. Many of the health care professionals described access to health care as the worst they've seen in their career.

Recently, when I was in Sydney, I learned that once the Cape Breton Regional Hospital emergency department hits its capacity and people are waiting 12, 14 hours, they're leaving to drive to communities like Inverness and Port Hawkesbury. As one described it, it's an ER scavenger hunt, and the app is not helpful because often they get there and it's hours outdated.

I ask the minister: Is this acceptable? Not to me, but to the Cape Bretoners who are looking for care and were promised care five years ago.

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : There have been significant investments in health care not only in attachment but to access. We have a number of access points - 80,000 per month, in fact - for people to access. In addition, there are a number of urgent treatment centres across this province. There is virtual urgent care, there is virtual emergency care.

To my knowledge, the Inverness emergency department has not closed. It has never closed. We continue to work in Strait Richmond and other areas across this province. As the member would know, it takes a very specific education and training to be able to work in an emergency department safely. We need to ensure that we continue to recruit and invest. We have a very competitive LFM model for rural care. We'll continue to do those things in order to support rural and urban Nova Scotians in accessing care.

[12:45 p.m.]

[Page 2443]

ROD WILSON « » : The scavenger hunt for emergency care across Cape Breton has been compounded by the closure of the emergency room in Baddeck. People in Victoria County in Cape Breton don't have the luxury of accessing emergency care when having symptoms of a stroke. Virtual care is not the appropriate care at that time. Even by an ambulance, it can take over an hour to reach the appropriate emergency department. Time is crucial. As we say in emergency, "time is tissue."

When will this government reopen the ER in Baddeck and help service the local community that must get care when they need it?

MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : In Baddeck, there is an urgent treatment centre that is used on a regular basis by individuals.

As I told the member in the past, EHS care starts with 911, and as the good doctor would know, everybody who's having stroke symptoms should bypass Baddeck because they need to go to Sydney for Code Stroke, have a CT scan within four hours, and ensure they get the care they need at a stroke unit.

There are emergency departments across this province that should always be bypassed. That's why we have an integrated emergency health system. We are working every day in community to understand the needs of individuals. We are working with local MLAs to understand the needs as well. We'll continue to do that.

If the member opposite has some colleagues, perhaps he could convince them to come to work in some of these rural sites.

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

DHW: NSHA AND PHYSICIAN DISPUTE - ADDRESS

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Health and Wellness. The reality is there are physicians in this province right now who aren't able to do the work that they want to do. Two of those are at the Cumberland Regional Health Care Centre. They have been providing pain clinic services to people experiencing chronic and acute pain - one of them for over 17 years.

There has been a dispute between Nova Scotia Health Authority management and the physicians. Nova Scotia Health Authority managers thought they would be able to move the pain clinic outside of the perioperative area. These pain clinic patients were getting injections directly into their spine and cannot be moved outside of this area.

Can the minister please let us know if she is willing to intervene here?

HON. MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : We certainly understand that the pain clinic is an important asset. We want people who are experiencing pain to have the care that they require.

[Page 2444]

There are ongoing discussions with the physicians and the Nova Scotia Health Authority. I would not intervene in that case. We keep track of what's happening. We understand that there are ongoing conversations. We need to understand the assets in the community. We need to understand the facilities and where the barriers are. Any way we can move those, we will. But this is an operational issue, and I know that the Nova Scotia Health Authority and the physicians continue to try to find a solution.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : I implore the minister to get involved here, because patients are suffering needlessly. These are people who had full-time jobs who now are home in bed because they cannot get the care.

The Nova Scotia Health Authority is important, but this is an example where they're not being effective. The Auditor General recently reported that admin costs have gone up for Nova Scotia Health Authority and the department and direct patient-care money has gone down.

We have a problem, and this pain clinic is an exact example of that. Will the minister step in? She is the minister for the Department of Health and Wellness, and patients are suffering needlessly.

MICHELLE THOMPSON « » : I am aware of the issue that's happening with the Amherst pain clinic. I keep an eye on things. It's not for me to go in and negotiate the dispute between the Nova Scotia Health Authority and clinicians. My understanding is that both have the same goal. I think those two entities need to find some common ground.

If there is a role for the department in terms of a variety of different policy things, we're happy to do that. But I can't go into the operations of an organization and start dabbling. I expect all of the individuals to work towards a resolution.

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

OPPOSITION MEMBERS' BUSINESS

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

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

LISA LACHANCE « » : Would you please call Resolution No. 353 for second reading.

Res. No. 353 re Restore HARP - Debate - notice given Feb. 23, 2026. (S. Leblanc)

[Page 2445]

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

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : I wouldn't say I'm pleased but I am honoured to speak to Resolution No. 353, which is about the cutting of HARP. I think it's very important that we, as a House, take some time to consider the impact of the cruel cuts this government has made to the Heating Assistance Rebate Program, HARP.

Last fall this government decided that instead of helping Nova Scotians facing rising power rates, they would take 46,000 people off HARP. They took $600 away from Nova Scotians who truly needed it and who would have gotten it just a year before. The people who still qualify were getting $200 less than before.

Speaker, I don't know about you, but my heating bill didn't go down $200 last year. In fact, it went up. That is why this program is a vital lifeline to Nova Scotians. It certainly has been in my constituency of Dartmouth North.

When I talk to the people who come into my office, they tell me how hard things are right now, how expensive their housing is, how much their power bills are up. Then you add on groceries and medications and everything else and there's nothing left to fill the oil tank to keep the heat on. These folks are not asking for too much, just a bit of help to get through the winter.

Speaker, I like to think I live in a Nova Scotia that cares, and that we help each other out in hard times. That is the Nova Scotia that I know and love, and it's certainly what it's like in Dartmouth North. This fall it was devastating to me to have to tell people that the help they thought they were going to count on wasn't going to be there.

I know that many of the issues facing our province are big and complicated, but this one is very simple. We used to give people who needed the help a few hundred dollars to help them get through, but this government has made the callous choice to cut that.

Seniors will feel the biggest impact from these cuts. Nova Scotians who have worked hard their whole lives can't even depend on keeping their home heated this winter. For many seniors, their incomes are fixed but their costs certainly aren't. They are still paying for their homes and their food and their medications, and as we are constantly hearing, all those costs are going up. One senior I heard from in my office is still working because they have no other choice. This government is sitting by while the cost of everything goes through the roof.

They were grateful to get the rebate last year but this year they are being left in the cold, literally. On the day the government announced this cut, a woman came into my office in Dartmouth North to apply for the grant. This woman is a retired health care worker. She worked hard in her career taking care of other Nova Scotians and she looked forward to a simple life in retirement. She gets CPP, OAS, and a modest pension from her work, but with costs rising like they are it just isn't enough to get by any more.

[Page 2446]

She came to rely on HARP to make sure she could pay for her heat, as many people did. This year when she came in, her income was $2,000 more than was allowed so she had to go home empty-handed. Nothing about her situation has changed. Her costs haven't gone down; in fact, they have gone up. Her income hasn't gone up but this government took away that help anyway.

Next door in Dartmouth South, we heard from a woman who was cut from the program this year. The kicker - she now makes $20,000 less than she did last year. If it was based on this year's income, she would qualify but because it is based on her income last year, she does not. Can any of you imagine not only taking a $20,000 pay cut but also losing the support you had before that happened? It is difficult to even think about it.

Speaker, governing is about choices. The budget that we are debating right now is about choices and this government made the choice to leave 46,000 Nova Scotians in the cold while padding - and I do not mind saying it - their own ministers' budgets and leaving thousands of Nova Scotians to make tough choices on their own. Governing is hard. Times are very, very tough right now. People are in positions they never imagined. They thought they could get a job, have a family, build a good life in this province. They thought that if they elected this government it would help, but for too many, it really has not.

This government needs to consider how these cuts are affecting families and children. In a province that already has the highest child poverty rate in Atlantic Canada, these cuts are punishing working families. One woman who lives in Falmouth told us her heating costs are so unaffordable her family could not keep the heat on. Think about that for a minute. Think about what it would be like to have kids in the house and to tell them that they have to be cold and suffer through the cold because they cannot afford to keep the heat on. On a day when her kids were home from school, she said they spent all day huddled under a blanket in her room. They only got up to get a piece of bread which was all they had to eat that day. That sounds very dramatic, but these are the stories we are hearing from people all the time. This is the reality for many Nova Scotians.

This is not the life that she wants for herself, but even more so, it is not the life she wants for her kids. She says things are so bad she wonders if the life she is giving her kids is worth it or if she should not have had them at all. You have to be in a pretty dire situation to think things like that. I do not want any mother, any family to feel that way, to get to that point. But this government's choices are giving people no help when they need it the most and that is why the government must immediately - it could happen today - reverse the cuts to the HARP. This cannot wait. Nova Scotians have waited long enough for this government to make things better and have gotten little. This change, one they will feel right away, would make a huge difference and that kind of difference means hope. Hope enough that you will be able to build a good life here in our province. Hope that your family will have what they need. Hope that things will get a little bit easier - not harder and harder.

[Page 2447]

I think that Nova Scotians deserve that hope and I think this government needs to seriously think about this program and reinstating it at least to the level it was last year. That is what this resolution is asking for and I hope that the government will support it. Thank you very much.

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

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : I am honoured to rise in my place to talk on the resolution. I rise once again to say, and I have said it multiple times, it did not have to be this way.

Since the government has been in power, it has spent recklessly and now the cuts are here. The cuts are here and we are seeing it, we are feeling it. The letters are coming in. The protests are starting outside. People have been really impacted but we are talking specifically on HARP today.

[1:00 p.m.]

On the subject, the cuts to the program like HARP, which supports tens of thousands of Nova Scotians in the depths of winter, have been devastating, especially today as our province continues to dig out from the latest storm and faces more cold weather ahead.

I rise today to support this resolution, and I do so with a clear sense of urgency about the pressures facing households across the province. It is clear this resolution is about priorities. It is about whether, in a time of rising costs and economic uncertainty, government decisions are aligned with real day-to-day experiences of Nova Scotians.

We know those experiences. We hear about them in our constituencies every day: families watching their power bills climb month after month, seniors on fixed incomes trying to stretch every dollar a little further, working people who are still being forced to make impossible choices between heating their homes and putting food on the table.

Against that backdrop, the government has decided to remove 46,000 Nova Scotians from the Heating Assistance Rebate Program and reduce the grant amount for those who still qualify. The Premier and his ministers have spoken about the need to make cuts, but the burden of those cuts is falling on those least able to carry it. The government is choosing to cut programs for vulnerable Nova Scotians.

[Page 2448]

We all know that the cost of energy is the top concern. It's putting enormous pressure on families across Nova Scotia. The Minister of Energy knows this, and we all know it as well, but not everybody feels that pressure equally. Restoring the Heating Assistance Rebate Program is a necessary action. The program is targeted. It's practical, and it delivers support directly to those who need it the most at the exact moment they need it.

The government will likely say that they did not cut the program. They simply chose not to top up the program's funds this year. I would say to Nova Scotians who will no longer qualify or are seeing their rebate decrease, this is a cut, and this is why the resolution matters. Public policy should be judged not by its intent but by its impact, and the impact of removing tens of thousands of Nova Scotians from the Heating Assistance Rebate Program during the cold winter while energy costs rise is clear. It increases financial stress. It reduces household resilience, and it disproportionately affects those already vulnerable.

Supporting this resolution is about more than a single program. It is about reaffirming that government has a responsibility to act when basic necessities like heating one's home become a source of hardship. It's about recognizing that this government's cuts are about choices, and it is about ensuring that when we speak about affordability, we do so in a way that is grounded in real, tangible support for people who need it the most.

This government has made irresponsible choices, and now Nova Scotians are paying for them. As I said, it didn't have to be this way.

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

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : I stand in support of this resolution tabled by my colleagues in the NDP caucus. I want to share a few comments about what I am seeing from the people I represent in Cumberland North. I am seeing more and more people come to my office than I have seen before, and there is a common theme - a lot of them are our seniors.

Just last week I had a beautiful woman come in who worked all of her life, and she was crying. She looked me in the eyes and said, "What am I supposed to do? I don't have enough money to pay for my food and for my power bill to heat my home."

This resolution that my colleagues have tabled - real people are being impacted by the cuts. I do think we have a responsibility to do all the things like growing our economy and providing strong government services to the taxpayers, but morally and ethically we also have a responsibility to ensure those living in poverty are cared for. I think that is a moral aspect for all governments.

I think back to the Robert Stanfield days. He was a former PC Premier of Nova Scotia and the first Premier of Nova Scotia to bring forth supports for those living in poverty here in Nova Scotia. He was a strong leader and one of the first Premiers from the Progressive Conservative lens who really showed strong moral ground when it came to taking care of those in need.

[Page 2449]

I do ask that this government reconsider the cuts to the HARP program, keeping in mind that these are affecting people who were already struggling, but now struggling more in need.

Another example that we're seeing is the increase in food banks. These are often the same people who are unable to afford the heat for their homes. This winter has been cold. We're also seeing an increase in our food bank usage. For the first time since I've been an MLA in 2017, our food bank leaders have told me that they are seeing seniors coming to the food bank. About two years before, they never saw seniors because the seniors got Old Age Security and GIS. Most of them were able to pay their bills. Most of them were able to afford to feed themselves and heat their homes. We're not seeing that now for a certain percentage of the population.

I do ask this government, when they're looking at their spending decisions, to consider those in need and to reinstate the Heating Assistance Rebate Program. I support this resolution tabled by my colleagues.

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

DAMIAN STOILOV « » : This government has significantly increased the impact of HARP, a program that historically reached fewer than 50,000 households each year. This year's HARP rebate is estimated to reach 72,000 households in Nova Scotia. That's an additional 26,567 households receiving the rebate than had been in 2020. We have provided HARP rebates to more than 450,000 Nova Scotians since 2021.

This government was the first to increase the HARP rebate amount in over a decade. We increased the rebate. It had been $200 since 2009. HARP is now a permanent $400 a year to help vulnerable Nova Scotians. This government has invested over $350 million in the HARP program in over a decade. The government has increased and invested over $350 million, and that's three times more than the combined amount invested by both Opposition parties in the 12 years that they ran the program.

HARP is one of the many programs that we deliver to help support those who are in need the most. These programs include the Seniors Care Grant, the Property Tax Rebate for Seniors, Your Energy Rebate, and the Targeted Housing Benefit. We also contribute $800,000 a year to the Salvation Army's Emergency HEAT Fund. This is all about a total program to help folks in not just one initiative.

This year's HARP program is also now accompanied by affordability measures like reducing the income tax, indexing tax brackets, keeping the HST cut and provincial tax rebate on utility bills. These measures will save Nova Scotian families over $1,400 a year, keeping more money in Nova Scotians' pockets. In addition to these measures, we've continued to invest in making life more affordable for Nova Scotians, investing $100.4 million this year for the school food programs, investing $77 million to increase the number of active rent supplements to 10,500, increasing support for people on income assistance, and indexing it to inflation.

[Page 2450]

We invested $288 million as well in over 3,000 affordable housing units and increased disability support so that 2,900 people and families receive more each month. We invested $4 million through the new Feeding Communities Fund to help families access healthy food, and froze tuition for Nova Scotia post-secondary undergrad students until 2027. Since 2021, we have helped more than 172,000 seniors with costs of services they need, like snow removal, heating, medication, and grocery delivery through the Seniors Care Grant. We created a pathway to increase minimum wage to $17.00 by October 2026.

More than 40,000 Nova Scotians now also receive care and support in their homes through the government-funded Home Care program so they can access the care they need, regardless of their income. We have invested heavily to make up for more than a decade of underspending that has led to one crisis after another in health care, housing, and affordability.

Past governments reduced financial deficits while allowing real-world deficits to grow. We have made major gains, but it's now time to look at sustainability. That includes making sure that programs and services are delivered in ways that best serve Nova Scotians in aligning programs and services so they are in the right place to deliver the right outcomes.

This government is focused on investments that build and sustain communities for generations to come. Generating more revenue and more jobs for this province is critical for programs like HARP to help some of our most vulnerable pay their heating costs. We create good jobs, grow the economy, and maintain and enhance programs in government by developing our abundant natural resources responsibly, which we will do.

This government will continue to focus on the strategic priorities that will drive our province forward, harnessing our natural resources to grow our economy, empowering our people to build our future and communities, rebuilding health care for a healthier Nova Scotia, and building a financially sustainable and resilient province. Defending Nova Scotia means empowering our people, our businesses, and our communities. It means making smart financial decisions at all times and being thoughtful and strategic. We will continue, as we always have, to support our most vulnerable so they have opportunities to thrive. HARP, by the way, is open until March 1^st, and we encourage all those in need to apply.

[Page 2451]

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

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Speaker, I rise to speak to my colleague's motion.

Nova Scotians work hard and they look out for each other, but this government isn't looking out for them. People don't ask for much - just a fair shot to build a life here at home. But right now, that fair shot feels out of reach for too many people.

Since this government was elected, Nova Scotians are paying hundreds of dollars more each year for power. Their services haven't improved, Nova Scotia Power isn't any more reliable than they were in 2021, but this government has let costs grow out of control. That's why we are here today.

Now, I think I just heard my learned colleague on the government side say that this government has invested in HARP - increased HARP - before they cut it. This government increased the number of people eligible - I believe my learned colleague say - before they cut it. Those are not stats I would be wanting to bring to this House after you've cut a program.

The decision to kick 46,000 Nova Scotians off the Heating Assistance Rebate Program, right before winter, was cruel. There is no other word to describe it. It's cruel.

[1:15 p.m.]

This decision is having real consequences for real people. In my constituency of Cape Breton Centre-Whitney Pier, I hear from people every day. In fact, I just tabled recently 186 people had signed a petition on HARP. That's 186 people from the last time I also tabled a petition. People are mad. They're angry. They're scared.

I recently heard from a single mom in Cape Breton. She has a good job with the Nova Scotia Health Authority. This woman pays her taxes. She pays for utilities. She pays for her insurance, groceries, her child's extra-curriculars. This woman is doing everything right, but it's still not enough. Now that support from HARP has been ripped away, she is facing tough decisions this winter. Does she heat her home? Does she feed her child?

These cuts have left thousands of Nova Scotians asking these questions every day. This government is making those choices harder and harder.

Another woman reached out to me, a government worker with the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. She qualified for HARP in the past, but not this year because she makes too much money now. She doesn't make enough to afford her power bill, mind you. Somehow, she makes too much to get the help from HARP. Her income hasn't gone up, but her power bill has. Her grocery bill has. Her housing costs have. Now she's terrified about how she will keep her home heated, not just for herself but for her elderly father, who lives with her.

[Page 2452]

Speaker, this is what happens when programs don't keep pace with reality, when governments make cuts while costs for everyday Nova Scotians skyrocket. Now, this government is doing what it likes to do, patting itself on the back for defending Nova Scotia. Who are they defending? They're not defending the single parent lying awake at night, wondering how they will afford their power bill. They're not defending the senior on a fixed income who had their heating support clawed away through no fault of their own.

It's a slogan. It's a slogan that's wrapped up to keep those members warm at night, but it's leaving Nova Scotians in the cold.

Nova Scotians gave this government the benefit of the doubt. They understood that our province was facing challenges. They understood these problems are complicated. They waited patiently for solutions that never came. Five years in, they are still not seeing a difference in their lives, Speaker. The power bills keep rising. Their rent keeps climbing. Home ownership remains out of reach. Emergency rooms are either closed or leaving people to wait for hours.

The HARP was not going to solve all these problems, but it helped. Now families cannot get that help. These problems are not inevitable. They are the result of choices, and this HARP cut is just one of the choices this government made that are leaving Nova Scotians behind.

The Premier himself has said that power bills are one of the biggest concerns facing Nova Scotians, so much so that he made himself the Minister of Energy; yet he has not taken action to lower power bills. He is not holding Nova Scotia Power accountable. Instead he cut off a lifeline to help Nova Scotians afford their heat and that is why this motion matters. This is about restoring the support so folks can have at least some help to deal with the rising costs. It is about recognizing that heat is not a luxury in Nova Scotia; it is a necessity.

The stories that we hear in our offices every day can be gut-wrenching. People giving everything they can, putting blankets up to block the wind, going without so that they can afford heat. I had a senior who came into my office who I, through conversation, found out that they were putting their heat on just high enough that the pipes did not freeze. I heard this story time and time again: "Just enough so, you know, my pipes don't freeze and I keep . . ."

They were telling me what they did, that in their kitchen they keep their cabinet door opened so that it gets to the pipes. The same in the bathroom, the doors never close in order to make sure that the heat gets to the pipes. They have a closet where there is piping and they keep that closet door open so that the heat can get to those pipes. So, they are putting on blankets and jackets all to keep warm because they cannot afford their power bill. They cannot afford to heat their homes.

[Page 2453]

No one should have to choose between heating their homes and feeding their families; and yet they do, every day. No one should have to be punished for working hard and doing their best. If this government is going to continue to ignore rising rents and power bills, then restoring the Heating Assistance Rebate Program is the bare minimum that they can do. That is why I support this motion.

I would ask my colleagues across the aisle to think about their constituents. I know their constituents are contacting them because I am being contacted. There is no MLA here who can actually say that they have not heard about HARP from their constituents. I do not believe so. It is impossible because it affects every one of our constituencies.

I ask my colleagues to support this motion. I ask this government to restore the program HARP to where it was, to help the most vulnerable Nova Scotians. Speaker, with that I move to adjourn debate on Resolution No. 353.

THE SPEAKER « » : Is the House ready for the question? The motion is to adjourn Resolution No. 353.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

The honourable Official Opposition House Leader.

LISA LACHANCE « » : Speaker, would you please call the order of business Private Members' Public Bills for Second Reading.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS FOR SECOND READING

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

LISA LACHANCE « » : Would you please call Bill No. 191.

Bill No. 191 - Legislative Budget Officer Act.

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

LISA LACHANCE « » : I am happy to rise today and talk about the need for this proposed bill. I think I want to give some folks in the room maybe a bit of a history lesson. For some people maybe it will be a reminder, for others it might be news. We've been concerned about how this government has been spending, out-of-budget spending, so-called additional appropriations, since the beginning.

[Page 2454]

It is true that they are currently provided for in the Finance Act. Actually there are two different provisions in the Finance Act: additional appropriations and special warrants. Special warrants have not been used; arguably they probably should have been in a number of cases, but they haven't been used.

When the Finance Act was revised in 2010, this provision was put in place. What it allows for is governments to respond to emergencies. During the NDP government I believe it was $50 million the first year; it's $60 million the second year.

We did see some spending increase throughout the Liberal time and expenditures for things like COVID were part of additional appropriations. Not until we get to 2021 and this government do we see the types of expenditures skyrocket. If I'm not mistaken, I believe in the first budget of this government additional appropriations totalled 13 percent of the actual budget.

What does this mean? This means that no one is getting a good look until it has happened at the expenditures of government. It means that budgetary pressures, which I am sure feel real in most cases, are coming forward one by one and being considered by Treasury Board and issuing an Order in Council one by one, without being given the chance to look at the whole.

It's this type of out-of-budget spending that has led us to where we are today, with the largest deficit ever projected in our province. With multi-year deficits projected there is no path to balance. We've had our credit rating downgraded for the first time since 1993 and our debt servicing costs are tripling. So $1 billion in debt servicing costs are predicted in this budget. Because we've had our credit rating downgraded, it's possible - because that one was out of cycle. S&P Global was so concerned that they showed up in Nova Scotia to actually say we're so concerned about what's happening in your deficit and your projected growth that we're signalling now that there is a problem. We'll hear from others in the future.

A legislative budget officer would help guide government, any government, all governments, in making sure that we have the transparency and accountability needed over public finances at a time when we are running the largest deficit, we're blowing past the original goalposts in our net debt-to-GDP ratio. This an important ratio. It is considered probably more important than simply looking at debt, although debt is quite impressively $35 billion by 2030. But the net debt-to-GDP ratio blows past what was considered the safeguards for Nova Scotia of 40 percent. In this year alone, we're at 39.4 percent and by 2029-30, 45.4 percent.

[1:30 p.m.]

[Page 2455]

Just to note, if you're following along in your budget documents and having a look at Chart 3.4 - the projected net debt-to-GDP ratio - I think there's been some effort to show that the long-term care accounting was not anticipated and thus it's maybe not real. Anyway, there's a dotted line in that graph. You can ignore that. The real line is the top line on the graph.

Just recently, the minister stood up and said: I just tabled a schedule of additional appropriations. I guess I wanted to ask folks if they think this is enough detail: Additional appropriations from the Department of Advanced Education for $5,856,000, primarily due to increased program expenses in the student loan program. That at least helps people understand, somewhat, the targeted area.

For the Department of Energy: $5 million. Five million dollars doesn't sound like the financial accounting rigour has been put into that number. Five million dollars sounds like it could be $4 million. It could be $6 million. Why don't we say $5 million? Five is a nice round number.

If the Minister of Energy wants to stand up and talk to us about what that $5 million means, that would be very welcome. Again, I am happy to hear more detail from the ministers in this room.

The Department of Natural Resources - there's actually an additional appropriation of $34 million. So since the December fiscal update, another $50 million has been spent outside of the budget process.

A legislative budget office would be tasked with taking a look at what's happening and making sure our accounting practices are, in fact, meeting public sector accounting standards, and would take into account the recommendations around amending the Finance Act and what people do in other provinces.

All of this is really important because Nova Scotians need results. For a lot of Nova Scotians, deficit, debt, net debt-to-GDP ratio - a lot of that maybe isn't part of what they're thinking about in their daily lives, but what's happening is that we're not seeing the results we need for Nova Scotians. The OAG has signalled concern with this.

With out-of-budget spending, what we've also seen is contracts without competition and money without contracts. I don't know about you, but I would say that that's not sound fiscal management - to be sending money to organizations without a contract in place. They're not asking for outcomes and results; thus, Nova Scotians have no idea if they're getting value for money.

We just discussed the HARP. Nova Scotians don't know - if they're struggling to heat their homes and feed their children this winter - why that's happening. How else could it have been financed so people could have a fair shake in this province?

[Page 2456]

I wanted to just refer back - in 2024, the OAG tabled a report on the value for money of overbudget spending. This was simply a random sample of expenditures. I think it's quite damning in terms of the fact that for the majority of the grants that were handed out, there were no cost estimates, and there were no results required. Often, they were put out without anything to do with an audit. That was hundreds of millions of dollars - and that was just a sample.

I'm happy to table that, although I'm sure we have it here.

The other thing that a legislative budget office would do is provide some guidance and rigour to look at how government is also making cuts. As we've been sitting here, I'm assuming that people are getting the emails that I'm getting - other members. I just received an email, for instance, confirming that the Dalhousie Social Work Clinic, which is just right here on Fenwick Street, had its funding from OSD reduced by $25,000. I mean, this is an outstanding government program.

First of all, social workers are being brought under the Registered Health Professions Act. That's one of the things that was tabled today in bill briefings. Social workers are health professionals. This is a health professional training facility. This is where bachelor and graduate students of social work can go to get their co-op experience and their work experience. It's the type of initiative that I and the member for Halifax Chebucto visited recently. It's the type of initiative where folks walk in and there's actually help around coordination.

So again, I criticize this government's approach and reliance on: Don't worry about that program because there are other programs. I don't know who among us have spent their lives trying to access and apply for different types of support. It's exhausting, it's confusing, and I don't think it leads to the type of safety net that it should.

One of the things that the Dalhousie Social Work Clinic does with the health professionals it's training - let's go back to that - is actually help out with coordination for folks. Folks who come in and have a variety of needs are met with social workers and social workers in training who can help them sort out, over the medium term, what services they're eligible for, how to access them, and start putting civility back in their lives.

It is exactly the type of program that we need in this province right now. It multiplies the effects of every other program. It increases the effects and the results - and it's being cut. So again, when we think about spending reviews, there's a whole process around that that should be followed in terms of direct coordination, and really looking at the roles of government, what needs to happen, who else can do it, that sort of thing.

Again, a legislative budget office would be able to look back at government and see how that process was structured, and would also be available to help government look forward as well. That's one of the main differences between this and the Auditor General. So the legislative budget officer can look forward, looking at budget assumptions before money is spent, analyzing fiscal risks and sustainability.

[Page 2457]

With respect, I would suggest that this government needs some help with understanding fiscal risks and sustainability, and evaluating the financial implications of various proposed policies. As well, the legislative budget officer can go further to look at costs of proposals, and to evaluate the costs of proposals and alternatives to inform legislative debate.

So if the question is, "Let's reduce HARP by hundreds of dollars," or "Let's give $30 million to Dalhousie to funnel through to private sector developers," the legislative budget officer might put a lens over that, which would say, "Actually, if your goal is energy sustainability or addressing energy poverty in this province, you should probably invest more in HARP."

I think that we're in an atmosphere where this Legislature is sitting less and less. I'm sure most of you have spoken to colleagues in other provinces and territories. We're kind of a laughingstock because of our lack of calendar, our lack of process, and the limited amount that we meet. No one can believe that from other jurisdictions. So we need this type of initiative to support government in making the best decisions for Nova Scotians.

Budgets are about choices. The fact that we have rising child poverty, as indicated by the Nova Scotia Department of Finance and Treasury Board, Economics and Statistics Division - which has noted that child poverty has doubled in the last two years, folks - that's a symptom that lots and lots is not working.

When we're in the situation where we have the largest deficit, where we're cutting the Public Service - but also for Nova Scotians, what are the impacts? I think child poverty is incredibly serious. I don't think you're building for the future of Nova Scotia if you're ignoring the increasing rates of child poverty in this province. I really would encourage each and every MLA to know what your rate of child poverty is in the various postal codes within your riding because you need to understand what is happening out there. It's so important to be thinking about results for Nova Scotians. Nova Scotians work hard. Nova Scotians have given this government the benefit of the doubt.

It's true. We had a pandemic - and the thing and the that - but at this point, Nova Scotians are thinking, five years in, stop blaming other governments. You're right. The world has changed. So the world that you're operating is the world that you're accountable for. Now we're actually facing a dismal fiscal future with very limited projections on how we're actually going to grow the economy. We need someone to help this government out to analyze fiscal risks, fiscal sustainability, and results for Nova Scotians.

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

[Page 2458]

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : Speaker, I rise to speak in support of a bill that is very similar - almost identical - to something we brought forward literally the same day, I think, as the NDP caucus. Maybe great minds think alike. But I think it's needed, especially at the juncture that we are at now with the Auditor General, the business community, and now the community groups that are being cut raising their concern.

The Opposition - I'll just speak on behalf of our party - has been talking about this since the government introduced its first budget back in 2021. They did inherit - when the actuals came it in that budget, my only budget - a surplus, despite the starting point of a $580 million deficit, I believe it was, with a huge economic retraction and spending that was needed to go to support small businesses that had to close and other community groups and others that were impacted by COVID-19. Just imagine if something like COVID-19 or another major disruption hit our province right now to that extent. It would be very difficult - nearly impossible - for us to find support without massive support flowing in from the federal government. We already get most of our revenue - over half of our revenue - from the federal government. We were able to brace for that impact to our economy back in 2021, but what has changed from 2021 until now is a massive amount of spending.

Now, we can argue about how much that spending was needed and the quality of where that spending went, but to get a true objective analysis, we could have something like a parliamentary budget officer that would actually analyze things and even analyze bills as they are being introduced to the House to see the impact on our economy, on communities. The Auditor General can only go back. This more of an opportunity to look forward, to look at economic projections, which the Auditor General is no longer able to do. She actually asked to not do that because the revenue projections over the last number of years have been so far off.

This is needed primarily because of the problem the Auditor General has pointed out, amongst others, that the overspending has been $6.7 billion in the last number of years. She actually pointed out that that's 80 percent of the overall overspending in the last 10 years. That's important because that shows that that part of spending has been taken to a whole new level.

The few years before that - to come up with the other 20 percent - was during COVID-19. Yes, we did have to make quick decisions to spend without coming into the Legislature. Those decisions were needed.

That's different from this government getting surprise revenue and spending it as fast as it came in. The Premier said that yesterday - that he would continue to take revenue and spend it. The Minister of Finance says he doesn't apologize for the overspend. That's what's resulting in these really challenging decisions that the government is making.

This would actually look at providing some evidence behind these kinds of challenging decisions. There are always going to be challenging decisions for governments to make. All the governments in my memory since I have been around and following politics have made tough decisions.

[Page 2459]

[1:45 p.m.]

I do want to point out the government of the 1980s. I have referenced it a number of times, and people are thinking back to those times - not only for spending, for patronage and other issues as well, but particularly on spending. During that time, there was a massive increase to the government debt. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but when that government came in, also a PC government, it was overall $2 billion or $3 billion total debt. When they left office, it was something like $10 billion, in their two or three terms.

The track record that this government is going to leave behind harkens back to those times. They will double the net debt in their time in office - not their money, not even today's voters, but the next generation of voters will have to pay by either having their own services reduced or higher taxes. This government has escaped scrutiny because they haven't had that tax line increase, whether that's HST or other taxes.

People are feeling the pain in increasing services across the province. They are seeing taxes going up, especially here in Halifax. Property taxes are set to go up significantly, and 30 percent of those property taxes are provincial revenue. That provincial revenue is increasing to pay for education.

This budget officer would provide an independent view on things, which if we had something like this in the past could have prevented where we are today.

What does our economy look like today compared to 2021? Last in the country. Our productivity legs behind other places in the country.

The debt-to-GDP measurement, I'll just touch on that briefly. Sometimes it's worth going back to when parties tried to get along and work on something together.

I know people don't like when I raise the Ivany report. The last time I raised it, the goals that were online mysteriously disappeared the next day. They're probably very sensitive about the debt-to-GDP.

That wasn't something that the McNeil government or others said we want at 30 percent. That was something worked on by people who know a lot about economics and why that was important; 30 percent was the target - not easy to reach.

Operating deficits were very hard to try to grapple with at that time. This government said, "Okay, we're going to spend. We're going to reject that advice, and we're going to set a guardrail of 40 percent because as long as we're staying within that category, we're at least able to be somewhat credible in terms of our economy corresponding with spending."

[Page 2460]

Now we have a budget - it was only weeks ago that we asked finance officials if that was still the guardrail, and they said it was. Then literally a week or two later, we have a budget that basically shows a forecast of blowing through that.

I think it's important to highlight because we are a province. If you just compare us to other jurisdictions in the country, it might not seem that high. Others who have commented on debt-to-GDP would point out that our debt combined with our federal portion of debt puts us the highest in the country, something like 90 percent debt-to-GDP.

That's bad for investment, especially if people say we want to set up businesses and opportunities in Canada. They're not going to look to the Province of Nova Scotia first, with that kind of track record.

That's what speaks to why we need to have an independent budget officer, to rein in spending in an evidence-based way - not coming up with a list of a whole bunch of grants that this government has said that it won't impact frontline services.

In their savings in this budget, the FTE reduction, which is getting a lot of attention, is about $100 million over the four years. That's $100 million out of $900 million that they're going to try to find. Where else is that going to come from? They have admitted some places it's going to come from, but it's going to be very difficult.

There's no way that there is 20 percent to 30 percent attrition. There's no way that you have vacancies of 20 and 30 percent at NSCC, the Nova Scotia Health Authority, and the regional centres for education, and all of these organizations that are super important to our economy. That means huge layoffs and that means services. Services are going to be impacted.

That's the whole reason why you should be financially prudent with decisions and you use evidence-based - we didn't get here by accident. The government overspent. They simply overspent and are proud of these decisions - not proud enough to put their chief marketer's face on this budget anymore, but they act like they just came into government.

You hear of past governments coming in and then saying: "It was so bad. It was worse than we thought. We're going to have to make some tough decisions." Then they would cut, coast, and spend. That's what people are accustomed to, but this government acts like they are completely immune to where we are today financially. They're still acting like the opposition in some ways, pointing back to history six, seven years ago, decisions that were made - or even longer than that, in the previous NDP government.

It's time to take responsibility for the spending that has happened over the last number of years. More spending does not necessarily result in better outcomes. Some spending has ended up in the right places; it has to. There are really smart people working in all of the departments who are proposing all kinds of things that are good, but you didn't need to rush to say yes to all of them at the same time. It should be about balance. You can't do everything for all people all the time. Politicians, of all people, should know that. There are lots of asks in government.

[Page 2461]

The rails were off for the last number of years, and now decisions that are much more drastic, that I don't think are even achievable without massive impacts, didn't need to happen. Fiscal responsibility was never mentioned in a budget address until this year. Fiscal responsibility isn't the end in itself; it's how you achieve things, bold things. You would never be able to create a big social program in this province like pre-Primary right now - never.

Say what you want about past governments and former Premier McNeil and the decisions he made to hold the line on certain things. Not all of those were the right decisions; there were some tough decisions. I've said publicly that the film tax credit was not a good one, especially because the new program that was created, actually the government spent more on, put more money in. At least there was something that came out of it that was socially good for the province.

That kind of initiative would never happen today. There's no money, nothing. How are we going to take advantage of other opportunities to grow the economy, whether it's Wind West or a massive injection of military funding that could come into our province? Are we going to be able to build the kind of ports and support massive infrastructure? Who's going to pay for that? We don't have it. The cupboards are bare; there's no money left.

This bill speaks to an opportunity to have a budget officer who can actually put some kind of competence in this government's mismanagement over the last number of years. It's time this government starts to take advice from other people who aren't on the seventh floor across the street; that even ministers should be listened to, maybe a little bit; that we actually sit in the House a little bit more and give credit to people who have worked hard in their community to be elected; to propose ideas; to think beyond a project that might just happen in 20, 30 years.

I think there's a lot that could happen in this House to work together more. I think this government needs all the advice it can get right now, because we're in one of the hardest positions that we've ever been in as a province. With those few words, I'll take my seat.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Clare.

RYAN ROBICHEAU « » : This government believes in fiscal accountability. We believe Nova Scotians deserve to know how their money is being spent, and we believe that this Legislature should have the tools it needs to scrutinize the budget, the estimates, and public accounts.

[Page 2462]

We have an Auditor General. We have a Department of Finance and Treasury Board with a dedicated economic staff. These offices already do this work. The Auditor General examines the public accounts and reports to this Assembly. Finance and Treasury Board produces fiscal forecasts, economic analyses, and revenue estimates, and has done so for many years with deep institutional expertise and established data relationships.

What this bill proposes is a second opinion, a parallel analytical capacity producing its own fiscal forecast and presenting it alongside the work that's already being done by people whose full-time job this already is. And let us not forget the Auditor General is already an independent officer of this Legislature, already reporting findings to this Assembly. If the concern driving this bill is that our oversight is insufficient, well, that's a criticism of the Auditor General and her office, and that's not a position that we would agree with. The answer is certainly not to create an entirely new office that duplicates significant portions of it.

The bill's proponents have not identified a specific failure in what the Auditor General or the finance department currently do. If that evidence exists, let's hear it. Let's talk about that rather than creating a new bureaucracy that works alongside the one we already have. The bill points to the federal parliamentary budget officer and Ontario's financial accountability officer as models, so let's take a look at those models honestly.

The federal PBO operates with roughly 40 staff, and even with 40 people, it cannot keep up with demand. Come election time when platform costing is required, the office has to triage. It makes hard choices about what gets done and what gets set aside. That is the federal government with a budget in the hundreds of billions of dollars and a public service spanning a continent.

The Financial Accountability Office of Ontario has around 25 to 30 staff. Ontario has 15 million people, and Nova Scotia has around one million, as we all know. If you scaled the FAO proportionately to our population, you would be talking about one or two analysts, and yet the mandate in Bill No. 191 is, in key respects, broader than Ontario's.

To execute this mandate credibly, you need a team of economists with graduate level training and experience from public finance. You need data systems, institutional relationships, and a critical mass of expertise, competing with the Department of Finance and Treasury Board and the Office of the Auditor General and the private sector for the same small group of people. This is a proportionality argument. It's not an argument against fiscal oversight. It's an argument that the right tool for Nova Scotia is not a scaled-down version of the federal institution designed for a fundamentally different context.

[Page 2463]

Let me be direct about what today's concerns add up to. This bill has structural flaws and even setting those flaws aside, the cost benefit does not hold up.

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

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill No. 191, an Act Respecting the Office of the Legislative Budget Officer, and I have listened to the arguments of my colleagues closely. I was interested when the former Premier mentioned that 80 percent of the out-of-budget spending in the last decade has occurred under this government's watch. If we are making an argument about proportionality, that is deeply disproportionate.

We have blown through all of our guardrails. Our debt servicing surpasses the budget of many of our departments. This is going to be a huge challenge that successive governments will have to deal with, and that is the only explanation I can come up with for the reluctance to address this problem. It's not one that this government will have to clean up.

[2:00 p.m.]

I remember the budget bill that came in after COVID - in the middle of COVID. We didn't sit much. Attached to that bill were a few photocopied sheets stapled together totalling, I don't remember exactly, maybe between $200 million and $300 million in additional appropriations. At that time, we were clear that while of course extraordinary measures had to be taken - it was beyond argument that we needed to do everything we could to protect Nova Scotians, to support Nova Scotians, and to support our economy during that time - it is important also that we respect the function of this House and we give members from across this province who have been elected to represent their constituency the opportunity to understand and debate those amounts.

This happens in most other legislatures. In a situation with a majority government, it doesn't put that spending at risk. It merely institutes a layer of transparency. Two photocopied pages is not the same as a detailed budget.

That entreaty has been echoed by the Auditor General. I was speaking earlier today about the fact that prior to this government, it was the practice in this House to accept the recommendations of the Auditor General, full stop; to respect the expertise of her Office, to respect her role and function, and to agree with her recommendations and endeavour to carry them out. Not so now. Now we hear a government that disagrees with the independent prudent fiscal expert advice of our Auditor General, that at times has sought to denigrate or disagree with the detail of the decisions of her Office.

I think that is giving Nova Scotians some pause. The stories that I'm telling you illustrate what I guess is the analogy of the canary in the coalmine. These were the days when the Auditor General first started raising the alarm about this, when we first started raising the alarm about the ever-expanding spending outside of the budget - this is a government that was still posting deficits and recording surpluses, because they had an unprecedented amount of revenue to work with.

[Page 2464]

What we said, and what the Auditor General said, and what many of my other colleagues in Opposition have said for a number of years is that this is a dangerous path. If you can't put forward and defend a budget that actually includes all of your spending - or if extraordinary spending is required, bring it to the floor of the Legislature and defend it - we will get into trouble. Speaker, we are in trouble. As my colleague said, we have blown past the guardrails.

We have come in with new advice, as has the Liberal party, and as has at least one of the independents. We didn't work together. We all recognized that one of the core challenges that we need to come in here and address as the Loyal Opposition is to get this budget under control - to deal with this deficit, to deal with the debt that our children will be forced to deal with - because this government shows no signs of doing that in a way that is fiscally responsible.

We believe the best way to do that is, yes, to listen to experts. Experts are experts. I'm not an economist. If you put a 350-page budget document in front of me and ask me to read and analyze it in a day - which, by the way, I am in fact asked to do once a year, every year, in this caucus - I can't do it very well. I need staff. I need experts. I need to consult with people. I need to understand what it says. There are people who can do that, and we need - and many of them exist in the Public Service, as my colleague from the government pointed out. I would suggest that their expert advice must be, in some cases, being ignored because we had a government that just said that 40 percent of debt to GDP was the guardrail, and they're now blowing through that.

We had a government that said they were committed to fiscal responsibility, but they haven't shown any. We know that the independent public service is giving them advice, but they must not be taking it. So what we are endeavouring to do in this piece of legislation is create an accountability mechanism that will analyze budgetary choices before the money is committed. It doesn't mean that the government can't still go do stuff.

This is the thing that is quite frustrating in the context of such a large majority government. Nothing that we are recommending when it comes to fiscal responsibility - whether it's bringing the estimates forward, bringing the additional appropriations forward for debate, whether it is a legislative budget office - none of this stops the government from legislating and spending as they see fit. They have that power. The Ministers of the Crown have an enormous amount of power.

What it does is make those spending decisions public. It creates a layer of transparency. We think - and based on the questions that we get from Nova Scotians, we know - that Nova Scotians deserve this. The deficit and the debt - these words sound really abstract. They are an abstraction to me sometimes, when we're in here talking about it, but it's not abstract at all to the Nova Scotian families across this province because it's their money.

[Page 2465]

When we talk about the government's spending decisions, the government doesn't have money of its own. The government has Nova Scotians' money, and they have a sacred trust to spend that money wisely. They have the power to do that, but time and time again, Nova Scotians across this province have asked for the courtesy of transparency around those spending decisions. They want to know how you're spending their money, and that's more than a fair request.

As was mentioned, there is an Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer federally. When the federal government makes spending decisions or proposals - because of course, their legislative process lasts more than three or four days - the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer can analyze that. They can tell you whether we're getting value for money, and value for money is really what we're talking about here.

So we see the government fall back on the same talking point every time you bring up fiscal responsibility. What the government says is: What would you not have spent money on?

I agree with my colleague. If you're going to spend $6.7 billion extra, you're going to do a lot of things that make people happy. What we're talking about is: Were we able to do it, and did we get value for money? I point again to the Auditor General, who has time and time again raised alarms about this government's practices and whether or not they are in fact using our money wisely - whether they are getting value for money. We have a procurement process that increasingly is collecting dust. We have alternative procurements, where the government chooses its own preferred bidders who are often private companies that are enriched by million of dollars. They're providing important services, but are they providing them at the best price? We don't know, some of the reports of the Auditor General would suggest no.

A legislative budget office could help us decide that, could evaluate that, could in fact buttress some of the government's arguments when they say, "this was the only choice." We have a multi-billion-dollar health care redevelopment. It's a P3 project. We had a single bidder, an extraordinarily complex, and a difficult and decades-long-really project, and maybe that was the only way we could do it, but maybe not. We don't know. Nova Scotians don't know.

Are Nova Scotians happy that we're going to get a new hospital? Absolutely. It's required. This is the tertiary care hospital for the region, without a doubt - the same in Cape Breton. Are we spending people's money wisely? If my constituents ask me that question – "Is this government spending our money wisely?" - I can't answer it. I don't know. If we had an office like this, I could. I could say, "they made a political decision to do X, Y, and Z, even though it doesn't seem very good. But on this one, actually, it seems like this was the only way forward."

[Page 2466]

This is something that is a service for Nova Scotians and that Nova Scotians deserve. I have access to my kids' bank accounts. I know how they spend money. I try to help them understand how to do that. I give them feedback when I don't think they're spending it well. I think it's really important. We are spending Nova Scotians' money. My kids are spending my money. I want to know how they're spending it. When they get jobs, they can have their own bank accounts and they can make their own decisions, but right now, most of that money comes from me.

If my daughter decides to eat at McDonald's every day for a week - it has happened - she and I have a little conversation about fiscal responsibility. I'm making light of it, but it's a real analogy, folks. We are not spending our own money. We are spending Nova Scotians' money, and we owe it to them to be responsible and transparent and careful, to listen to the people who understand best what that means. In this bill, we have created a mechanism that would do that. With that, I move to adjourn debate - sorry. (Interruption)

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

KENDRA COOMBES « » : Our bill will create a legislative budget officer modeled after the federal Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Financial Accountability Office in Ontario. This kind of office would help create the transparency and accountability needed over public finances at a time when this government is running the largest deficit in Nova Scotia's history, hiding from scrutiny by spending out of budget, and limiting the Legislature's sitting days.

Five years into this PC government, and what do we have to show for it? This government has spent $6.7 billion over their budget. What do Nova Scotians have to show for this? Health care problems still persist, rising costs of almost everything, and now we see cuts to the public sector and job losses. People trusted this government. I shouldn't say that - people trusted that if this government took their problems seriously, things would start to get better. The difference people were promised still hasn't come to pass.

[2:15 p.m.]

This government has not delivered on what they promised. They have not been accountable for their choices. No government should be making decisions that impact our lives and our families and our futures without answering for their choices.

A legislative budget officer would create the transparency and accountability needed over the public finances at a time when the government is spending at historic levels, refusing to answer Nova Scotians' questions.

[Page 2467]

Let's talk about this. The government has run the largest deficit in Nova Scotia's history. This government's deficit is due to out-of-budget spending. For folks at home, out-of-budget spending would be: you create a budget, the budget is on the table, it has been finalized, then you decide to deviate from that budget and you start spending it on things you didn't budget for. This government has been doing it every year.

The 2025-26 budget that was presented in the Legislature last spring was projected to reach a surplus by 2028-29, but out-of-budget spending revealed later - by the way, this out-of-budget spending was not approved by the Legislature - showed the deficit more than doubling.

I think a year or two ago, I called this kind of thing "PC math." PC math was that they say we're going to have a surplus because of their budget, and we end up in a deficit because they just can't control themselves within that budget. They have to keep going out of that budget to keep on spending without any oversight, without a single accountability to Nova Scotians.

The Auditor General has criticized the use of out-of-budget spending that hasn't been approved by the Legislature. There has been a record total of $6.7 billion so far under this government.

S&P Global issued their credit rating downgrade - the first the province has received since 1993. I was a kid in 1993. I was fairly young in 1993, Speaker, but I am a kid of the 1990s; I grew up in them. So 1993 was the last time. My brother was just about two years old in 1993. That's how long ago that was since we've had a credit downgrade. S&P Global said the reason for it - they said the out-of-budget spending was a contributing factor to their decision in making that downgrade.

Every budget this government has tabled has dramatically underestimated revenues: $1.3 billion in 2022, $1.95 billion in 2023, $1.04 billion in 2024 and $1.38 billion in 2025. This highlights how difficult it is to trust the numbers that the Province is giving us from the Department of Finance and Treasury Board the Province, and undermines the government's argument that deep cuts in some programs are necessary.

Clearly, Speaker, independent agencies in Nova Scotia and Nova Scotians can't trust this government to stick to their spending plans or estimate revenues correctly. We need independent advice from a legislative budget officer.

An independent budget officer can work year-round to help legislators scrutinize the government's spending plans regardless of whether the House of Assembly is sitting or not. This will help tackle the lack of transparency created by this government's pattern of limited sitting days.

This government used to like to talk about how they were the most transparent government ever. Yet the five years that they have been in government, I have actually seen a lack of transparency. The out-of-budget spending is one of them. The refusal to come before the Legislature is another, limiting our sitting days. The attacks on our independent agencies is another.

[Page 2468]

This inability to be transparent and this inability to curb their out-of-budget spending is the biggest reason we're calling for this officer. Other legislatures have created independent financial analysis institutions that deliver more accountability to constituents: Canada's Parliamentary Budgetary Officer, Ontario's Financial Accountability Officer - in our Westminster system, the U.K.'s Office for Budget Responsibility. Even the U.S. has the Congressional Budget Office. This kind of office helps to empower the Legislature to do its job.

To remind everybody of what our job is here in this Legislature, it's to scrutinize the spending of public money and how it is spent - is it effective - and to ensure accountability. Legislative control over spending is only meaningful if legislators have the ability to exercise independent - key point here - forward-looking financial analysis, and not rely exclusively on selectively released information from the executive branch, through the Department of Finance and Treasury Board.

I say that the forward thinking is important because our Auditor General's role is to look backward and to see how the money was spent and how effective the programs were. That's for the Auditor General to do.

The Auditor General looking backwards and the budgetary officer looking forward, we need them both. The budgetary officer does not replace the Auditor General, nor would we want it to.

Together, they can complement each other to give Nova Scotians a complete picture of our public finances. The Auditor General's analysis primarily, like I said, looks backwards, and their role is to examine whether the money was spent as authorized, whether programs comply with legislation and policy, and whether the province received value for money.

The role of the legislative budget officer is to look forward, assessing budget assumptions before money is spent, analyzing risk and sustainability, and evaluating the financial implications of various proposed policies.

Importantly, the Auditor General does not assess policy alternatives or trade-offs. Nor do they assess the long-term sustainability of the government's budget. The LBO - legislative budget officer - can estimate costs of proposals and alternatives in order to inform legislative debate, as well as assess the overall long-term sustainability of the government's deficit and debt.

[Page 2469]

The Nova Scotia NDP's bill provides a role for the legislative budget office to cost election platform commitments similar to that of the federal Parliamentary Budget Office. Nova Scotians are looking for accountability. This is one of the ways that we can ensure there is accountability in how government is choosing to spend our money.

We need to know what the government is choosing to spend our money on. For example, in 2024, the Province gave $38 million to corporate welfare - to RBC as part of a payroll rebate program. We've seen a lot more spending issues with sole source contracts, and this is why we need to have a budget officer here.

My colleagues - I hope I haven't bored anyone too much. I hope I kept everyone entertained, and with that, I adjourn debate on Bill No. 191.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is to adjourn debate on Bill No. 191.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

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

LISA LACHANCE « » : Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 188.

Bill No. 188 - Nova Scotia Power Review Act.

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

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Speaker, I now move second reading of Bill No. 188.

We hear about power bills, and specifically about the power utility in our offices, as much as we hear about anything else. It's on the minds of many. Many people ask the question: Why are my bills so expensive, because we know that we are paying a huge amount for power? Why do I lose my power all the time? The fact that it's almost required in this province to have a gas generator, if you own a home and can afford it, is evidence enough of the failure of the utility.

We are blowing through our targets for reliable energy. They won't be penalized for those targets with the new legislative change that puts that responsibility with the Independent Energy System Operator, but the fact of the matter is we are in charge - in this province, in this Provincial House, in this Legislature - of energy. We have the responsibility to meet Nova Scotians' energy needs, and we can talk about fracking and offshore winds and all of the other plans and opportunities that we want to, but none of that exists now. What exists now is a utility that is not delivering for Nova Scotians, and I don't think that you would find many people who would disagree with that assertion.

[Page 2470]

The question is: What do we do about it?

Many election campaigns have been fought on breaking up the monopoly. Many governments have come and gone because of energy, because of this utility. But the truth of the matter is that the last major change to this utility was in 1992 when the then-provincial government of the day, in part - if we connect this to our previous debate - to deal with the unmitigated spending and resulting deficit of previous provincial PC governments, decided to sell the utility. I can only assume, but I think it's fairly common, of record, that a big piece of that decision was to get that debt off our books. Let a private company deal with that. They'll manage it better. We won't have the financial liability, but we'll regulate them in the public interest.

[2:30 p.m.]

The thing that didn't happen in 1992 was a regulatory review, a financial analysis - at least not publicly, not that anyone can locate. There have been lots of intrepid reporters, members of this Assembly, and others who have endeavoured to tell the story of why that utility was privatized, but I think it's because the government of the day was ideologically committed to privatization. They believed that was better for Nova Scotians, would produce a better result, and we could ensure that Nova Scotians' best interests were taken into account through a regulatory system.

It's fair to say, all these years later, that it's been a bit of a boondoggle. We do have a large company, Emera, that is headquartered in downtown Halifax, that employs Nova Scotians, but they don't really work for us. They work for their shareholders. That's how private companies work.

I just want to take a second to do a little reality check. Private companies work for their shareholders. Their job is to maximize profit. It doesn't matter what their mission statement, their vision statement, or their values are. No disrespect to many of my friends who work in this area. At the end of the day, a private company exists to maximize profit, and that is exactly what Emera has done. They have posted massive profits - not so much from us but mostly from Florida and other jurisdictions.

Nova Scotians are, to put it kindly, scratching their heads. How is it that we have handed over to this private company the sole ability to produce and provide power for us? As much as we try to diversify our grid - which is a good thing, by the way; wind power is the cheapest kind of power there is, we need more of it - the reality is that Nova Scotia Power owns our transmission system. The independent system operator is going to be able to figure out what comes and goes on that system. There are a lot of good, important questions we can ask at a future time about how that works and who they are, in fact, responsible to.

[Page 2471]

At least we know that Nova Scotia Power is clearly regulated, but that regulation isn't working, so we have introduced a bill that would review the situation we find ourselves in. No matter how many letters to the editor we write, no matter how many closing statements someone from the Department of Energy shows up to deliver at the end of a review hearing, the fact of the matter is that this government and the Minister of Energy have a huge amount of power over how this utility is regulated, and it's not working.

I can't say this any more clearly. It's not working. I challenge any MLA in this House to go back to their constituents and tell them that Nova Scotia Power is doing a great job. They're not, but guess what? The buck stops here. The buck stops with the Energy Minister, with the Premier. If we want them to do better, we must make them do better.

The question is: How? Well, there are some ways. When it comes to privacy and data collection, there is a lot more this government can do to strengthen those privacy protections to make sure that Nova Scotians are protected, but when it comes to affordability - when it comes to energy mix - we need to review the way that this utility is regulated. There have been some incremental moves in this way over the last almost decade that I've been here - larger fines, a look at environmental footprints - but nothing has fundamentally changed it.

What we purport to do in this bill is to strike a task force with the mandate of studying and looking at whether it's possible to achieve the public interest through regulatory change. In years past, we've talked about - I've actually heard the Minister of Environment talk about a lot these days about having an innovative regulator. It's a little bit of a head-scratcher, but here's a place where we might be able to use an innovative regulator.

There are other jurisdictions that have performance-based regulation. The shareholders get paid if Nova Scotians meet affordability and energy and reliability targets. That's something that would make sense to most people, but it's not the way it works now. Those shareholders get paid no matter what every year, like clockwork. They make their money. That doesn't seem fair. Let's look at whether we can change the regulatory system - that's us, it's a bill, that's why we think we need to be here more than a few days a year, because bills like this are what impact the lives and pocketbooks of Nova Scotians. Let's see whether we can change that regulatory system to make it work for Nova Scotians.

Let's look at the ownership structure of this company. There are many Nova Scotians - there are campaigns across this province to take Nova Scotia Power back into public hands. Should we? I don't know. I'm not an expert. I am not an expert in energy regulation, I am not an expert in complex financial transactions between large companies and provincial governments, but unlike the PC government of 1992, I think this government should do a study and look at it and let Nova Scotians know what they find out. Are publicly owned utilities more responsible to the people that they provide power to? Do they provide lower bills? Do they provide more reliable service?

[Page 2472]

These are questions that your constituents are asking. We know that right now, the Nova Scotia Energy Board is considering a joint application that this government knew about before it went in, by the way, that recommends an 8 percent rate hike to residential customers. Industrial customers aren't seeing a rate hike. Residential customers are seeing a rate hike - 8 percent. It might not mean much to a lot of people, but to 43 percent of Nova Scotians who pay more than they should by accepted national metrics for their heat, for their power, it means a lot.

We know that the last time the government intervened in an independent decision of the Energy Board, it didn't go well for them, and it didn't go well for us. Their credit rating was downgraded, their cost of doing business became more expensive, and as a result, our power is going to become more expensive. We don't want interference in an independent regulatory body in a post hoc way. What we want is for this government to show leadership on this file, to do the work that Nova Scotians are asking them to do, and to figure out how to make our energy system work for us now. Not in 10 years, not in 20 years, not in a generation - now. Help Nova Scotians to be able to afford their bills. Assure them that their power is going to be reliable. Give them confidence that the supplier of their energy and their power, that essential service that all of us need, is working for them.

This bill is designed to figure out that question, because it's not working. Let's do less grandstanding and more work, and let's figure out a way that we can deliver power to Nova Scotians that is affordable, that is reliable, and that is clean. Right now, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who feels like that's what they are receiving. That's what this bill is designed to do, and we look forward to the support of the House in moving it forward.

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

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE « » : I am honoured to get up in my place and have a conversation about something that has been so impactful on Nova Scotians negatively in the last year. We all stand united when it comes to trying to support Nova Scotians who have been part of the cybersecurity beach, the over-estimated bills that transpired, and holding Nova Scotia Power to account.

I will say we're pleased to have a conversation. We were actually the first caucus to ask for this review and we were the caucus that asked Nova Scotia Power to come to the Public Accounts Committee. We were the caucus that actually brought up the estimated power bills. A big thanks to the staff in our caucus office. We're blessed with really talented people who helped us plan the strategy around trying to support Nova Scotians when this transpired.

Particularly on this, we're all hearing from constituents who are worried about rising bills, unreliable service, and the continued fallout from last year's cybersecurity breach. We also know that in recent years Nova Scotians has experienced significant rate increases this under this government's leadership. Power has never been unaffordable.

[Page 2473]

Let me begin by saying something that all members on all sides of the House can agree on: Nova Scotians deserve better from Nova Scotia Power. The system isn't working, everyone in the room knows it. Everyone in Nova Scotia knows it. That's why all parties have come out calling for some sort of review of Nova Scotia Power, including the NDP, in the bill we have in front of us today.

I'm proud that our party was the first to call for such a review. In October of last year we held a press conference to call for a full independent review of Nova Scotia Power. In November the NDP joined those calls. In December the Premier wrote to the Energy Board asking the board to look into the following issues: the fairness and legality of Nova Scotia Power's estimated billing methodology; the adequacy of consumer protections, and communications during this period; the timeline and the contingency planning for restoring accurate billing systems; whether Nova Scotia Power should provide financial relief, credits, or bill-smoothing options to affect the customers; and whether Nova Scotia Power is subject to financial penalties. If so, maximum amounts should be levied.

We appreciate all members of the House joining our call, it's the right thing to do.

Speaker, supporting review is the easy part. The more important question is: What kind of review will actually deliver results? Not all reviews are created equal. The government's review is limited to the cybersecurity breach. Nova Scotians expect us to go further than that. The NDP review described this bill would create a politically-appointed task force to determine whether Nova Scotia Power should become publicly owned.

Our caucus has been clear, if we're going to conduct a review of Nova Scotia Power, it must be independent, expert-driven and credible from Day 1. Only our party has called for the independent Energy Board to act quickly to appoint a panel to review Nova Scotia Power's management, identify cost savings for Nova Scotians and ensure that our power system becomes more reliable.

Nova Scotians deserve better than processes directed by government behind the scenes. We deserve a process that is thorough, transparent and grounded in expertise. The power to order such a review already exists in the Public Utility Act. I am not sure why the NDP would not use this, or use it in this bill, opting instead for a taskforce appointed by the Premier. It's another suggestion from the NDP that sounds good at first blush but doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Like their plan to use taxpayer dollars to pay 10 percent of Nova Scotia Power bills. We say if your power bill goes down by $10 because your taxes go up by $10, you are not saving anything.

While the spirit of the bill is good, the NDP get the details wrong. This is a file where we can't afford to get things wrong. Because this this file matters too much to Nova Scotian families and we hope both the government and the Opposition heed our calls for a cost-savings review.

[Page 2474]

The Minister of Energy could call the Energy Board tomorrow, tell them to appoint independent experts and start such a review. Nova Scotians deserve accountability from Nova Scotia Power. They deserve transparency for their government and they deserve a modern, reliable power system that they can afford.

[2:45 pm]

Those are some of my comments. As I said, we all, in some capacity, have asked for a review of Nova Scotia Power rates, and rightfully so. We argue that it should be independent. With this bill, as I said in my notes, they can already do this under the Public Utilities Act, but we don't want it politically appointed. We want it done by the energy board. We want it independent.

As I said, I'm proud of our caucus. We were the first ones to call for it. We were the first ones to bring this up. We were the first ones to talk about the review. We were the first ones to bring Nova Scotia Power here to public accounts. We were the first ones to start talking about the overestimation of bills. For two members, we fight the good fight for the people and are very fortunate. The member from Timberlea-Prospect and I spent a lot of time on the energy file in different capacities when we were in government, and we will continue to do whatever we can to support - anything we can to support Nova Scotians having reliable service and reliable information when it comes to their power consumption. The one thing - and we will be talking about this in Estimates - is: What other options are out there to help Nova Scotians save money on their power bills?

I talked about this before. There have been some great programs that have been around. I think about - heat pump programs help. Energy efficiency helps. We're going to dive into some of this stuff. I'm a little concerned about the cuts in the budget, that it's going to impact a lot of these programs that people would utilize. We'll get that out of investments when the time comes, but we need to look at this. If we want to do a full - if we want to make it independent - look at the tools that the government can use but also look at the programs that have left, and should be back, that Nova Scotians can utilize because you can save way more than 10 percent on your power bills. With that, I appreciate the opportunity.

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

MARCO MACLEOD « » : Speaker, no one here is happy with Nova Scotia Power. There has been a cyber breach, power outages, and missed performance targets. Still, they have asked for a rate increase. Their actions are out of touch with the needs of Nova Scotians.

[Page 2475]

This government has been clear from the start. We are opposed to any power rate increase while Nova Scotians are struggling with the cost of living. Our priority is to protect ratepayers, and that's what we told the Nova Scotia Energy Board, an independent body tasked with impartial regulation of our utility, which brings me to the bill we're debating here today.

The preamble of Bill No.188 - Nova Scotia Power Review Act - outlines alleged benefits of a public electrical utility. In other words, the Opposition wants our government to purchase Nova Scotia Power. They want us to spend more. Yesterday, we heard that we should be spending less; the day before, spend more. We're going back and forth.

People are tired of Nova Scotia Power, but this bill is not the solution. Let's talk about some real solutions. In April 2023, our government formed the Clean Electricity Solutions Task Force. Their role was to explore how best to modernize our electricity system through infrastructure and regulatory environment. The goal was more affordable, reliable green energy. As a result of their work, government went on to implement two big changes to our system. The energy board was formed - a stand-alone, independent energy regulator. Our legislation directed that board to factor affordability and climate goals into their decision‑making, something not considered under the former NSUARB. At the same time, the Nova Scotia Independent Energy System Operator, or IESO, was created. Their work is ramping up now.

New procurements for our grid and other decisions about its operation are now made only because they're in the best interest of Nova Scotian ratepayers. As our electrical system changes, so does Nova Scotia Power's role in it, with these responsibilities shifting to other parties.

We're not building a grid that pads Nova Scotia Power's bottom line. We're putting ratepayers first. All this to say that a great deal of work has already gone into evaluating our electrical system and how it functions.

We have the Clean Power Plan charting a course to affordable clean energy. We have immense interest from the private sector to create jobs that help build this new energy economy.

Our province finally has a second company licensed to sell power directly to customers, Renewall Energy. That kind of competition is exciting. They're setting up to deliver service later this year. Customers can already sign up on their website.

We have the assets that make Nova Scotia a competitive location for energy companies. We have an awesome regime of wind, both onshore and offshore, the best tides in the world, strong solar capacity, and 200 years' worth of natural gas right underneath our feet.

[Page 2476]

Speaker, the energy transformation that we have been talking about in this Chamber is happening now. There is and there can be complaining that goes on, folks who don't believe in it, but I choose to believe in this opportunity for our province. More energy, more companies working to deliver it to customers - we can tap into our own potential to allow our ratepayers to experience the benefits.

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

PAUL WOZNEY « » : I rise today to speak in support of this bill. It's very hard to listen to the previous speaker and the picture that was painted of how wonderful things are when it comes to the state of the provision of electricity, affordability, its compatibility with climate goals.

If we listen to the portrait just painted, concerns about the current state of Nova Scotia Power are filed under the bin of complaining, to which I just have to say that's an unfathomable perspective for this government to put forward on this issue.

Nova Scotia Power is not working for Nova Scotians, functionally or philosophically. If there's any member who doesn't understand that Nova Scotia Power is failing Nova Scotians, I invite them to use their government health benefits and seek some therapy. I question the reasonableness of any member who suggests Nova Scotia Power is A-okay and working for Nova Scotians and that the present and the future are bright and that the people who have complaints are merely naysayers.

Nova Scotians face rapidly rising power bills and a growing frequency of power outages. They continue to deal with the aftermath of the single largest cyber breach in Nova Scotia history, the scope of which remains unclear but could include every single person who has ever held an account with Nova Scotia Power. The sum total of this government's response has been for the make-it-happen Premier and Minister of Energy to express a lot of disappointment in a lot of detail and to offer a lot of respect for the independence of the NSUARB.

This is a government that loves to crow about its supermajority and how it will not fail to act in Nova Scotians' interests, and yet not one single piece of legislation to hold Nova Scotia Power to account for its abysmal performance and the major negative impact it's having on Nova Scotians fiscally and on the province economically is not cutting it, and that's why we are proposing this bill - An Act to Initiate a Regulatory and Ownership Review of Nova Scotia Power Incorporated.

This legislation does one simple and one reasonable thing. It asks if the current system is serving the public interests, and if it isn't, what should we do about it? We already know the answer to the first question. Nova Scotia Power does not serve the public interest, so let's work on answering the second.

[Page 2477]

Nova Scotians already spend far more on energy for their homes than Canadians elsewhere in our country. For a huge number of Nova Scotian households, these costs are unmanageable. They are a constant source of stress and fear. Nearly half of Atlantic Canadians say they are within $200 of being unable to pay their bills each month. That's not a complaint; that's a fact. That means so many Nova Scotians who live one unexpected expense away - like a ridiculously out-of-control power bill - can push a family into crisis.

Instead of relief, Nova Scotians are getting increases and the Premier feels that rather than enacting legislation that holds Nova Scotia Power to account, that respecting the autonomy and the independence of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board is more important than legislating accountability for a utility that is out of control and failing our province.

This government has been in power for five years. The record will show that over those five years, families' power bills have gone up on average by $400 every year. During that time we've seen things deteriorate to the point where Nova Scotians can't trust Nova Scotia Power to accurately bill them for the power that they actually use. They get bills whose estimates of their use isn't a match to what's on the meter and sometimes it's quadruple or more their actual usage. Power bills aren't worth the paper that they're printed on when it comes to accuracy.

People can't trust Nova Scotia Power to actually be on when they need it. Outages are more frequent, the restoration of power takes longer, and many Nova Scotians are feeling the impact of this. Power outages aren't a mere inconvenience. For Nova Scotians without medical coverage, the storage of medical necessities like insulin is extremely costly and when their fridge is out for more than 24 hours, they have to throw away entire batches of medication for which they have no recompense, and they have to go back into their pockets for life-saving medicine that they cannot survive without.

People can't trust Nova Scotia Power to not force overpayment of wildly inaccurate bills through collections right now. That's happening. Despite the power utility saying, "we're not going to force collections on people whose bills are being contested," that's exactly what's happening to hundreds of Nova Scotia ratepayers.

[3:00 p.m.]

This is like a Sword of Damocles hanging over families and their credit rating and their ability to borrow and access finances to support their families. Nova Scotia Power says, "we're going to get what you owe us," even though the amount that they claim isn't what families owe. All of this is happening while Nova Scotia Power continues to post massive profits.

[Page 2478]

This bill isn't just about rates. It's not just about outages. This bill is about who this utility exists to serve. Once upon a time, Nova Scotia Power existed as a publicly owned utility. It existed to make energy affordable and reliable for Nova Scotians. At present, however, that story is over. Nova Scotia Power is a corporation. It's designed to generate profit. Its major goal, while it provides power - unreliably, with inaccurate billing, to a province full of people who rely on it - its job is to create profits and generate returns for shareholders. Affordability and reliability be damned.

The Progressive Conservative Party privatized Nova Scotia Power in 1992. Many ministers love history lessons, so let's go there. The Progressive Conservative Party transformed an effective public utility into a monolithic, privately owned, for-profit monopoly. Today, the make-it-happen Progressive Conservative government, backed by the largest majority in history, insist on sitting on their hands while Nova Scotians pay the price for that choice.

More than 30 years after their decision, Nova Scotians are dealing with skyrocketing bills, frequent and preventable power outages, and an unaccountable utility generating unchecked profits. Aside from displaying an impressively furrowed brow and expressing a lot of disappointment, the current Minister of Energy continues to let Nova Scotians deal with the fallout of that choice.

I want to talk about reliability for a minute. Perhaps these punishing bills wouldn't sting so much if Nova Scotians could depend on their power being on. A constituent in Sackville reached out recently. He works remotely in information technology, and his job and work depend on reliable electricity. He experienced 14 power outages in the last year. That's more than one a month. Some of the outages were so long that even his backup battery-powered internet ran out before his lights came back on and he could do his job.

This isn't just inconvenient. This affects people's livelihoods and their time with family, their ability to go about their day and carry out even the most basic functions of life. Nova Scotians should be able to trust that the company they pay for electricity will deliver the service they're paying for, but that trust is gone.

Nova Scotia Power has failed to meet basic reliability standards for eight consecutive years. Last year they were fined a million dollars - a slap on the wrist. There was at least one unplanned power outage nearly every single day in 2024 in Nova Scotia. This isn't bad luck. This isn't the result of global pressures and tariffs. It's a systemic failure. When reliability fails, ratepayers pay twice: Once on their bill and a second time with their time, their stress and their lost income.

We've heard from a gentleman caught up in Nova Scotia Power's data breach. Like many affected, he signed up for TransUnion credit monitoring. Imagine his surprise when TransUnion got his name wrong and made multiple errors on his credit report. What was supposed to protect him, served to hurt him. Even before the breach, he was receiving power bills hundreds of dollars higher than they should have been. He's still waiting for answers, and that's what an unaccountable monopoly looks like.

[Page 2479]

Contrary to the comments made by the previous speaker, Nova Scotians can't merely switch providers. They have to trust a system that's designed to fail them. This government is failing to take leadership and reign in Nova Scotia Power. They're not asking how we can reduce power bills. They're counting on Nova Scotians being able to absorb more while all of these wonderful solutions that are 7, 10, 15, 20 years down the road come on stream. It's the wrong approach.

Our bill asks the right ones. Was Nova Scotia Power privatized in the public interest? Did we even get a fair price for it when we sold it? Can affordability, reliability and sustainability truly be achieved under the current ownership model? What could a different system look like that truly benefits Nova Scotians?

We're asking these questions because Nova Scotians deserve better. Contrary to my colleague in the Liberal Party, who said that we've got it wrong, we've got an Energy Review Board that exists "independently," and yet it routinely approves rate hikes that are out of Nova Scotian's ability to pay. It has a relationship with a monolithic monopoly that's addicted to profits. It clearly isn't powerful enough to hold this organization in check.

Nova Scotians desire a power utility that works for them - one that keeps costs down, and one that keeps the lights on. It deserves a utility that is accountable in the public interest. Nova Scotians are doing their part. They're working hard. They're trying to pay the bills that they know they should pay, but they're making untold sacrifices under the current model. It's time that this system and this government work as hard as they are. That's why, Speaker, I urge all members of this House to support this bill.

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

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : Thank you very much, Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to share a few thoughts on this bill as well. As my colleagues have already outlined, this bill initiates a comprehensive ownership and regulatory review of Nova Scotia Power.

We hear every day from constituents, from people all over the province: "Why is the government not reigning in Nova Scotia Power? Why are we not taking Nova Scotia Power back into public ownership? Why are we not figuring out ways for Nova Scotia Power to work better for Nova Scotians?"

As my esteemed colleague said earlier, we don't have all the answers to those questions. I guess the main answer to the "Why aren't we doing something" question is: I guess you'll have to ask the government. We're giving the governing party of this province an opportunity to say yes to all those people who are deeply concerned about Nova Scotia Power and the way it's functioning right now in the province. Say yes to this bill and conduct a review. It's not going to change anything in the short term, but it does show - or it would show - that we are listening, and that we want to know how to get the best results for Nova Scotians.

[Page 2480]

So the bill strikes a task force with a mandate of studying whether to take Nova Scotia Power back into public ownership, based on a series of public interest criteria, including power bill affordability, grid reliability, and environmental sustainability. The review would also assess whether it's possible to achieve the public interest criteria through regulatory change alone.

Speaking of regulatory change, we've talked a little bit today in Question Period about regulations that this government, the Premier, the Minister of Energy who is the Premier - I'll remind everyone that it's the same person - could put in place today to protect Nova Scotians. He could pass a bill in this Legislature, in this sitting, that would change the regulations so that we could have a low-income power rate, for instance. He could change the regulations to make sure that the regulations are working for Nova Scotians as opposed to working against them. There are many things he could be doing, and many things that important reports - like the Colton report, Roger Colton - suggested, and that this province's Department of Energy, worked on.

The mandate of the task force would include assessing the privatization of Nova Scotia Power, whether a fair sale price was achieved at the time when it happened, and what kind of financial analysis was conducted at the time by the Province. The study would assess how service and affordability could be improved under public ownership and the financial cost of the purchase, in whole or in part, weighed against the potential revenues, including the potential for offshore wind export and export revenues.

Nova Scotians work hard. We look out for each other, and we're just asking for one thing: A fair shot at having a good life - not a fancy life, not an easy life, but a good life in Nova Scotia. A life where bills don't always feel out of control. That's not happening right now. People aren't able to relax and enjoy a life because bills are out of control. Power bills are out of control. Lots of bills are out of control, but power bills are really out of control. It didn't just happen. It's the result of choices about who the system works for: the shareholders or the people of Nova Scotia.

It was the PCs who privatized Nova Scotia Power, and it has resulted in sky-high bills, frequent and avoidable power outages, and an unaccountable utility with runaway profits. It's time for a serious look at whether the Province should take the utility back into public ownership.

I heard from the ministerial assistant for the Department of Energy that this is not the way to go forward - that the government's doing plenty. I heard from the Premier earlier this afternoon that the government made a big closing statement at the rate application review. Great. You made a big closing statement. We also made a closing statement. We also made an opening statement, which this government did not do, actually. What the Premier fails to acknowledge in this House, and what the ministerial assistant fails to acknowledge, is that power - pardon the pun - lies in the hands of the government at this moment to change things. They have a majority government. They could do it today.

[Page 2481]

Nova Scotians are already spending 30 percent more on their home energy bills compared to the average Canadian. For example, residential ratepayers in Halifax currently pay double the energy rates that people in Winnipeg and Montreal pay, more than 60 percent higher than what ratepayers in Vancouver pay, and 30 percent more than what ratepayers in Toronto and St. John's pay. Half of Atlantic Canadians report that they are within $200 of being unable to pay their bills each month. That's shocking. When you look at the Winnipeg and Montreal statistic, those are cold cities. They're very similar to ours. They might have slightly longer winters, so it makes it even more egregious that we're paying more than them.

Half of Atlantic Canadians report that they are within $200 of being unable to pay their bills each month. I'll just remind people what happens when you're unable to pay your bills - when you get behind in the power bills, for instance. Let's just talk about the many people who come into my office who come in for help because they're behind on their power bills. This is not because of some financial mismanagement that they have executed, it's because power bills, rent, food, and medication are all going up.

[3:15 p.m.]

Now, many of those families, by the way, will have to pay for bus passes for their children to go to school. That's an extra $1,000 per year - maybe more. Probably more. What is happening? People cannot afford a basic, simple life.

The power gets cut off. Nova Scotia Power talks about how they really don't want that to happen, but it happens. Notice to quit is offered. People are rendered homeless because they have to choose between their power bill and their rent. The eviction process is started. Because of the work of this government, the eviction process is quicker. Families are out on the street, living with another family, living in a tent, and losing their children to the system because they can't have children living in a tent.

This is not some faraway thing. This is happening all the time in Nova Scotia. Since this government has been elected, families' power bills have increased by $400 - a 20 percent increase. If the rate hike that's being entertained right now is approved, by 2027, Nova Scotians will be paying $600 more per year on their energy bills than when this government was first elected. That's 30 percent.

What a legacy. We came in. We promised to fix health care. We promised to do all these things. Guess what Nova Scotians got for it? A 30 percent hike in their power rates. Awesome.

In 2023, Nova Scotia Power made $141 million in profit. If this general rate application is approved, Nova Scotia Power will increase its profits to $212 million by 2027, which is a 50 percent increase in profits in just four years.

[Page 2482]

This government says we don't need to review the process of how Nova Scotia Power functions in this province. This government spoke for six minutes on this bill. Six minutes was all that they could muster - the ministerial assistant for energy. It's baffling.

Forty-three percent of Nova Scotians can't afford their power bills. We heard this - my colleague talked about this earlier. That's 43 percent of people who live in energy poverty right now. It means that they spend more than 6 percent of their income on energy costs.

In September 2025, this government cut funding for the Heating Assistance Rebate Program by more than half, reducing the benefit amount by one third and significantly lowering the income threshold, dropping 46,000 people from the program.

This government also removed the requirement for a referendum if the provincial government ever wanted to remove the sales tax rebate on power bills, meaning that the Premier can remove those savings through legislation in this House. The Premier could do that in this House. He could also implement a universal service program in this House, but he won't do that.

Nova Scotia Power, for all the expensive rate hikes, has failed once again this year to make the grid reliable. For eight years in a row, the utility has failed to comply with grid reliability standards. Last year, they were issued a $1 million fine for this - a slap on the wrist for a company that proposes in this rate application to increase its profits to $212 million by 2027, off the backs of ratepayers.

A CBC analysis of power outage data showed that there was at least one unplanned outage in Nova Scotia nearly every single day in 2024 - every single day. My colleague pointed out what can happen when your power goes out, especially when it's unplanned. Full fridges of food go bad. You go to Gateway Meat Market, you fill your freezer, the power goes out - $200 worth of meat gone. People can't afford that. Medicine is wrecked and ruined. People definitely can't afford that.

We need to be able to count on our power utility, especially as there is more demand on the grid. We need to decarbonize. We need to have a greener grid, and that means heat pumps and that means electric cars, even if they are going to be taxed $500. We need to get off fossil fuels, and that is going to put pressure on the grid, and so we need to make sure our grid is robust.

Nova Scotia Power's reliability metrics are awful for both the average number of power outages per year, per customer, and the average length of time of an outage per year, per customer. On a per-customer basis, Nova Scotia Power has twice as many and twice as long power outages as the average power utility in the United States.

[Page 2483]

The Province, as I have mentioned, has broad powers to establish performance-based regulations under Section 52(a) of the Public Utilities Act, but it has also failed to do that. These are the powers the Province has right now to hold Nova Scotia Power accountable but are being left to collect dust under this government. These powers to establish performance regulations cover topics including equity; low-income and energy poverty; outages and reliability; energy efficiency; environmental performance, and customer service, including customer satisfaction and billing accuracy. Imagine that. This government had demanded that the energy board fine Nova Scotia Power for billing inaccuracies, but the board can only levy a fine if Nova Scotia Power fails to meet a regulatory standard for billing accuracy - something this government has failed to establish.

We talked in Question Period today about the person in Dartmouth whose bill was higher than his paycheque. That is not accurate. There is no way that his bill was that high, but the government is not doing anything about it.

I will conclude by saying that what we need to do is (a) act with the powers that we have right now, and (b) implement a review of Nova Scotia Power to make sure that it is doing everything it can to serve the people of Nova Scotia, to make sure we are getting our money's worth, and to make sure that we shouldn't take it back into public ownership. Again, we are not experts. We do not know the answers. All we are saying is we need to look into it and, with that, I will take my seat.

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

LINA HAMID « » : Thank you, Speaker. We are constantly receiving emails and messages about what the unreliable and unaffordable power of Nova Scotia Power means to families. We've told those stories time and time again in this Chamber, but for some reason, it does not seem to be hitting. So I am going to deviate for just a moment and talk about how this impacts our small businesses in Nova Scotia.

For commercial rates, there is a proposed rate hike of 7.7 percent. At a time when the cost of everything else is rising and small businesses are having such a hard time keeping up, 7.7 percent would mean that many of them would have to shut down. Additionally, the unreliable power that goes off on a random, really nice, sunny Tuesday means that all of the food and the supplies they have in their fridges go bad, meaning they have to go and resupply and reinventory, repurchase - whatever you want to call it - and fill up their fridges once again. That's lost revenue.

They lose customers because their hours that are listed on the door are now unreliable because power could randomly go out at any given day, and to those who may not know - and I just learned this recently - business interruption insurance does not cover these costs. So these small businesses - the small businesses that we hear this government love so much - are suffering too, and they have no way of recuperating that cost through their insurance. The government is doing nothing to support them, and additionally, their insurance can't cover it either. So I just wanted to make sure that I put that concern out there - that the small businesses that are driving our economy and driving our tourism are also being impacted by this. If, for some reason, the human story doesn't touch you, maybe a small business story will.

[Page 2484]

For years, people in this province have felt frustration and helplessness over what the unaffordability and unreliability of Nova Scotia Power have caused. Power is not a luxury. It is fundamental for living, working, and staying warm in our province, but what option do people have, other than to be Nova Scotia Power customers? There isn't one. We are operating under a model that prioritizes shareholders and guaranteed returns for them over reliability and affordability for Nova Scotians.

I think my colleagues have already touched on a lot of good points, so with that, I take my seat.

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

JULIE VANEXAN « » : Speaker, I can think of so many occasions recently when a constituent has shared their frustrations with me about Nova Scotia Power, and they're not wrong. Nova Scotia Power has asked for a rate increase despite failing to provide the service that ratepayers need. The request . . .

THE SPEAKER « » : Order. The time allotted for Opposition Business has elapsed. Pursuant to Rule 21.2, the debate is deemed to be adjourned.

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, I thank everyone for the great debate tonight. I ask for unanimous consent to move to the moment of interruption.

THE SPEAKER « » : There has been a motion.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

We have now reached the moment of interruption. The notice of the topic for the adjournment debate, as submitted by the member for Timberlea-Prospect, reads as follows:

Therefore be it resolved that the government immediately present a clear, funded plan in the upcoming budget to achieve $10-a-day child care without delay so families can afford to work and our economy can grow.

[Page 2485]

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION UNDER RULE 5(5)

The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.

GOV'T. (N.S.): AFFORDABLE CHILD CARE - PRIORITIZE

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : Speaker, I want to start with something important; the deal that was signed - the Nova Scotia deal with the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care framework - was a strong deal for our province. It attracted $605 million with just a $40 million investment from this Province. That is a huge exponential gain for our province, and on a per-child basis, that placed us among the strongest allocations in the country.

Another strength is that it was able to reduce fees in half quickly. It also respected our pre-Primary program that we spoke about earlier in Question Period and created a real pathway, as confirmed by past Ministers of Education and by past Deputy Ministers of Education, to get to $10 per day in Nova Scotia.

The problem today is not the deal; it's the lack of priority in understanding just how important this is for families - for women, but all parents - especially how we are trying to grow the economy when we have so many parents who can't find access to a space and who struggle to come up with the cost to pay for that space. This is something that all provinces are grappling with - the challenge around increased cost - but we have other provinces that are adapting and making it happen.

We have a list of provinces. Whether it's P.E.I., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Québec, Nunavut, or Newfoundland and Labrador, they've all reached $10 per day child care, and they're all seeing the pressures on inflation and construction costs the minister mentioned today - tariff issues. The government needs to find a way to fulfill their commitment and follow through on the spirit of the agreement, which is to build a truly universal system that is predominantly non-profit.

That was the agreement. I'm the first to say those were the parameters within the agreement. That was the offer, and all provinces understood that, the past government knew that, the Opposition knew that when they supported it and joined calls.

[3:30 p.m.]

After they were in government, the Premier himself joined calls with the Prime Minister to announce more spaces. There were spaces announced, announcement after announcement, of how great this was. Then things changed in what the government was saying - that they didn't have enough from the federal government.

[Page 2486]

On a child-per-child basis, we got more than a lot of provinces, especially the larger provinces. What gave us leverage, a lot of it, was pre-Primary. We were able to use that as an in-kind contribution to get so much.

I want to mention some of the strengths of the deal that were referenced by experts when that happened. This is relative to a bill I tabled today. There should be a centralized public agency created. Experts across the country saw that as a unique strength of the Nova Scotia deal. That never happened. There is an operation funding model that many operators are waiting for right now, who are struggling to come up with the cost gaps. We know that there are non-profit proposals that are sitting idle. We know the government has stated their preference to expand the for-profit, but we also know there are for-profit proposals that are sitting there waiting. I got one just a couple days ago in my community that asked for an update on where that proposal is.

In anticipation of where this government will defend not being able to come up with the funds, I think they'll say two things. I think first they'll say the amount of money that they invested in the sector and that it increased by 40 percent. Secondly, I think they'll say that they were able to give pensions to early childhood educators. I want to address those directly.

A 40 percent increase: This is from a government that overspent on literally all their departments. You'd be hard-pressed to find a department line that hasn't increased over the last four, five years by at least 40 percent. Their debt servicing cost has grown by 62 percent. We're spending more on the addition of debt than they are to prioritize moving towards a truly universal system. For pensions, yes, this is a great thing. This came out of the study, which was agreed to in the agreement, to review all the salaries and benefits paid to ECEs. They do deserve that security, but a pension does not fix recruitment today if the wages still remain uncompetitive. It doesn't address the operational pressures that centres are struggling with right now.

We have here 4.2 spaces for every 10 children. The benchmark federally is 5.9. There's a lot of talk about how the focus was creating space and not having the funding for reduction in fees. I think that's what the minister is saying, that Nova Scotia is doing better when they're creating spaces compared to other provinces. There's a claim that there are 9,000 new spaces. We know that's part of the PC math that was on display today around the average of $12 a day, which is not an average when you take out pre-Primary. We know the average is more like $25 a day. The 9,000 spaces includes before and after school.

When people are talking about child care, they're not talking about before and after school. They're talking about dependable child care so that they can go to work. There are actually 3,214 spaces, unless the minister has different math - maybe he's announced more that I haven't seen. It's only about a third of those spaces that have actually been created as full-time spaces. That does not align with the federal government's full-space creation targets.

[Page 2487]

I really think they need this agency to look at wait-lists. There are different wait-lists across all the different private providers. We don't have a handle on exactly how many parents need space. We need that agency, a coordinating body that would be created. The agreement is clear: Prioritize public nonprofit growth to build a true universal system. That principle is evidence-based. We know this. The experts, I know they talked to the minister; they provided the research. There's research from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that consistently shows that countries with strong public or nonprofit early learning systems deliver high quality and more equitable access.

Universal systems are built, not left to the market. Markets can fill a gap, we know that, but if there's an appetite to go that way then why are those proposals sitting on a shelf as well?

There is room for for-profits to hold the seats they have. We knew that, but to truly grow a universal system so that not just four-year-olds have access to early childhood education - to pre-Primary - that toddlers and all ages truly have universal access. A universal system requires strategic expansion, stable operation funding, workforce competitiveness, and clear prioritization of nonprofit growth.

We know there are many, many proposals from different operators across the province to fill those spaces. They need to build those spaces. They need to lower fees for parents. There is money. The government is about priorities. I think a $30-million investment into creating spaces and reducing child care would go much further than trying to subsidize fracking in the province.

Tolls were mentioned before. Tolls aren't free. People are paying for those tolls. I think that people like parents who are waiting for child care, those are the people who are paying for those tolls. When the cupboards are bare and all the money is spent, these are the kinds of decisions you see made. It's a broken promise. Parents deserve that reduction in fees that was committed to, promised by their own staff, by past ministers. This is yet another example of how government waste and fiscal mismanagement over the last number of years has backed this government into a corner and parents will have to pay that price.

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

PAUL WOZNEY « » : Nova Scotian parents work hard every day to provide for their families. I know that you, like me, hear about it every day when we talk to families. They are stretched thin. Rent is up substantially over the last five years. Power is out of control. We all feel the pressures of grocery prices that are inflated and many other essentials that continue to creep up are pushing families beyond their limits.

[Page 2488]

It's not too much for Nova Scotia parents to ask to be able to depend on accessible, affordable child care. It's one constant in their life that helps make life livable but in Nova Scotia they simply can't. This government promised $10 a day child care to Nova Scotian families. They've done it for years. I've watched the ministers since I got elected in 2024 stand here and chastise anybody who questioned whether we were going to hit the target, that it was fake news. It was ridiculous to suggest we wouldn't get there, and yet that's where we are. We're not going to hit the target.

The fact is that the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development was part of the government that signed that agreement. Nova Scotians put their trust in him and this government that it would be in place by now, and this government has failed them. This minister loves to saddle the blame for this mis-promise and this failure on Ottawa. The fact is that with relatively less support from the federal government, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec have all managed to reduce child care fees to $10 a day. They did it in the same timeframe that this government had the same project.

Why has Nova Scotia failed to reach the same, clearly reachable target as all the other provinces? It's because Nova Scotia spends far less of its own money to meet this goal than those other provinces. We pay 20 percent of the cost of an affordable child care spot in Nova Scotia. All those other governments that I mentioned have devoted substantially more provincial resources to hitting that target. It's a question of priorities, they put their money where their mouth is and this government didn't.

In Halifax, parents spend twice as much on child care as parents in similar cities like Charlottetown, St. John's, and Winnipeg. Some spend more than three times as much. The fact is that if these parents had access to $10 a day child care, they would save $3,600 a year. You don't have to be an expert to know that $3,600 covers a lot of groceries, pays a few months of rent, covers power bills, and helps kids be involved in extracurricular activities, but in Nova Scotia, that's money that Nova Scotian families don't have because this government hasn't acted the way it should to provide them with affordable child care.

We've got the highest rate of child poverty in Atlantic Canada. We should be working to fix that, not leaving it on families to will themselves out of tough times. Affordable child care is one thing, but parents here can't even find child care spots to begin with. One in three Nova Scotians live in a child care desert, and parents are spending years on multiple wait-lists, with no end in sight, just to find any spot, regardless of cost.

I know this is true. I had a young mother working in Sackville with a good-paying job - phenomenal, sparkling professional. She told me that, from the time she knew she was expecting to when her baby was six months old - she was coming off maternity leave - she'd spent over a year navigating dozens of wait-lists in hope of finding any spot. She would drive anywhere within an hour of her residence just so she wouldn't lose her job. She came to my office and asked, "Can you help me?" We provided lists of every spot we could imagine.

[Page 2489]

No woman should face a year of uncertainty about whether they're going to have to give up their job, whether they can care for their child, or whether child care's affordable. That shouldn't be the way here in Nova Scotia, but that's the way that it is.

At a time when we talk about growing the provincial economy, we have to wrestle with the question of failing to provide $10 per day daycare to Nova Scotian families. How many brilliant, capable women and partners are shut out of the workforce because they've got to stay home to care for kids because they can't afford the cost of the care that's available to them, if they can find it at all.

This government claims it created more 9,000 child care spaces, but hundreds of those spaces are before and after school spaces for children who are older than pre-Primary. These are not preschool age children who need full-time child care. These are school aged kids. While those spots are important - I don't question that, those are spots that my family and I made use of - they're not full-time child care spots, and framing them as such is disingenuous.

This government includes pre-Primary spaces as child care spaces for the convenience of its math and its social media releases. The reality is that this minister and this government have only created about 3,000 spaces that meet the standards contained in the agreement that they signed and re-signed with the federal government. I might be a high school English teacher, but 3,000-plus out of 9,000 spaces is definitely a failing grade.

There's a group in Halifax that I've had the pleasure to meet, but I have to scratch my head at why they need to exist at all. This group is called Mat Leave Moms. It began as an online community, but it's quickly evolved into a network of working parents who are either expecting, have recently given birth, or are struggling, while their mat leave remains, to find child care.

It's turned into this problem-solving, crowd source way to figure out: Where am I going to find a spot? The clock is ticking. I have to go back to work. If I don't find a spot, I've got to quit my job, my family looks at major upheaval in the way that we live our lives, and the long-term fiscal outlook -"Can we afford our home?" "Do we have to move to a different apartment?" It creates an entire cascade of stress and strain for families.

This group has an immense number of members who, rather than having reliable access to affordable child care where costs are certain - "I know that my spot is available to me. There's this many in this neighbourhood, and it costs this much money." They will go anywhere within driving distance just to make sure that they do not have to quit their jobs.

[Page 2490]

[3:45 p.m.]

I have to salute the ingenuity and the creativity and the resourcefulness of Nova Scotians to meet challenges but it should not be this way in Nova Scotia. This government has had the same time ramp to be able to devote the resources necessary to hit this target and the fact is they have not done it. That has made it necessary for families to crowd source solutions to child care shortages and to child care spaces even when, if you can find a space, they are not affordable. They are not within a family's budget.

It is not too much for families to expect the government to have delivered at this point. They have not asked a lot. They did not ask for a million $10-a-day child care spaces to be available in 20 minutes upon the signing of the agreement. This government has had five years to navigate these issues, the same trends, and the same tides that have made it difficult for other governments to realize this goal under - you know, Nova Scotia is not unique. There is not a unique-to-Nova-Scotia set of global pressures that it has faced that justifies missing this target. Other provinces with relatively lesser funding commitments by the federal government have realized this goal to the benefit of their families and the results are immensely positive for those provinces. For families' lives, for economic growth the benefits are tremendous. These families are waiting to get back to work. They are waiting to save some money, and they are waiting for the government to deliver what was promised to them.

The NDP are calling on this government to stand up for parents and put its money where its mouth is and take the action necessary to lower costs for families across the province and make sure that every family can find a $10-a-day spot in daycare when they need it.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Thank you, Speaker, and I appreciate the comments from the members across.

There is this conversation happening where I am surprised on the Liberal side but not on the NDP side because they voted against it - this dismissal of pre-Primary which is part of daycare and early child care. Sorry, I was interrupted. In the agreement, it actually says that Nova Scotia's policy towards early learning and child care agreement - it's making more child care accessible. Early learning and child care centres are all part of that including nurseries, before and after school. All those things are all part of child care.

The member for Sackville-Cobequid said something that really stuck with me on this. We have had a lot of conversations about child care. First, they are being dismissive of pre-Primary. When my kids were in school - three kids - we did not have pre-Primary. So, guess what? You paid for child care. Right? Right? In fact - actually, I am not going to go there. So, it is part of child care. He talked about the before- and after-school program and almost being dismissive of it because they do not have pre-Primary children in it, but they do have school-age children in it. I do not know about you but a six-year-old, a seven-year-old, an eight-year-old - are you going to leave them home alone?

[Page 2491]

I have spoken to many parents in the community that I live in who drop their kids off before school, go to work; their kids go to school. Then, after school, they go to before- and after-school programs and the parents pick them up after work. What about that is not child care? This whole thing about being dismissive toward early learning childhood educators is offensive. It is very offensive. I stood on that side when that agreement was signed and it was touted as one of the biggest child care agreements ever made. Right? I stood on that side when we talked about pre-Primary. It was generational and it was going to put more parents, single moms back to work because it was child care. Those were the messages. Those were the messages. Not anymore.

What has changed? Both members have hundreds if not thousands of constituents who take advantage of pre-Primary and before- and after-school programs. When you knock on the doors next time, tell them that it's not working. It's not working for them. It's not affordable child care. It certainly is.

They're dismissive of the hard work that's happened. Yes, it started under the previous government. It continued under this one: 9,500 spaces were created - fact.

Child care, including all aspects of child care - because none of it is free. People are acting like there was no investment in any pre-Primary or before- and after-school programs. Hundreds of millions of dollars were invested by multiple governments on this.

That all figures into - I just cannot wrap my head around how you don't see pre-Primary and how you don't see before- and after-school care as child care. That's literally what it is. These are professionals in the field.

The thing that they don't want to talk about, which I find very surprising for a former union leader, is that we are the only province in this country that added wages and pension to early childhood education. They don't want to talk about that. They don't want to talk about that and the $40-million investment we're making this year in wages and pension and benefits.

I spoke to a gentleman on the weekend, Speaker. I was at an event. He came up to me, and we were talking for a minute. He said, "I just want to say, my partner is an early childhood educator. Do you know what the pension does? What the benefits do?" I said, "What's that?" He said, "Now I know my children have medical, and now I can plan for the future."

[Page 2492]

When I hear the Opposition say we're not investing in the right area, is it pension and benefits they don't want? Because if that's it, say it. If it's the on-average $12 a day and the 50-percent reduction of child care fees across this province, say it. If it's the spaces, say it.

The truth is the whole story is not being told. They keep talking about these other provinces and territories. They're saying, well, they met $10 a day. Did they meet their child care spaces? They're not mentioning that. They're not mentioning it for a reason: because they haven't. They're not mentioning that they didn't give those workers - some of the most underpaid workers before this government gave them wage increases - a pension and benefits. They don't talk about - that wasn't done in other provinces and territories.

I get it. They have a job to do. I will never attack the previous - I think this was started under the previous government. This was the start of a great thing.

What they're not talking about - they said, well, the deal was great here, it was great when it was signed. They don't talk about year over year over year, the 10-percent construction inflation that has happened in the industry.

They haven't talked about inflation in general when it comes to wages. None of that was accounted for in the deal.

The member quoted 20 percent. That's factually incorrect; it's 40 percent. I know where he's getting his information, but maybe he should table it because it's not 20 percent.

What they're doing is, they're picking and choosing things. They're saying pre-Primary and before- and after-school is not child care. We're not going to count that. We're just going to count this here. We're not going to talk about the whole continuum.

Again, if the members think that this isn't child care, then go to the people in their community who use it and say, "We're going to take this from you." See what happens.

We have to have an honest conversation. I have been honest all along. I have said we are in the same boat as every other province and territory - the NDP government in B.C., Liberal governments, PC governments, Conservative governments right across this country. I don't know if there's a Liberal. Is there a Liberal? (Interruption) New Brunswick - they're all in the same boat - because I speak to them. We sat there on a call with Minister Hajdu. They're all in the same boat. They're all saying, "we cannot reach $10 and child care space" - let alone they're not even talking about pension and benefits. They're not even going there.

[Page 2493]

They cannot reach $10 and spaces without more funding from the federal government. So far, we have had great conversations with the feds. I have talked to - the member for Timberlea-Prospect - I've talked to his federal colleagues. They understand the importance of this. They do.

I know he has lent his voice to this, and I know the member for Sydney-Membertou knows the importance of this, too. When we talk, they say, "Yes, we're talking to our federal cousins." They know the importance of this.

In the end, I have been completely honest about this. We have invested in child care. We have invested in a 50 percent reduction on average. They can say that pre-Primary and before and after is not real child care. I beg to differ. It's real taxpayers' money. It's real spaces. It's real people going to work.

On average, we're at $12.13. We're going to hit our 9,500. We have reduced fees 50 percent across the board. We professionalized the sector with higher wages, pension, and benefits.

We know there's more to do. That's why we're talking to our federal counterparts. I'm proud of the work that was done previously. I'm proud of the work that's being done now. We take this seriously. I'll say this: I'm confused, because today I watched the Official Opposition stand up and say you're spending too much. Now they're saying spend more.

Which is it? On one side, depending on if they care, it's you're spending too much, or you're not spending enough.

THE SPEAKER « » : I wish to thank all members who participated in the adjournment debate this evening.

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, would you please call the order of business Government Motions.

GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, I move that you do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on Supply.

[Page 2494]

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

LISA LACHANCE « » : Friends, colleagues, it is time for the rainbow budget. This is the time. This is now. I am so excited to bring you this year's edition of the rainbow budget because I have a 2SLGBTQIA+ action plan to talk about.

I'm going to start on a bit of a darker note. I have weighed whether to share this. I guess I want to make the point about why this is so important in this province now.

It's so important because, first, we're basically, as far as anybody can gather from a lot of research, the queerest province. That's important to recognize, but of course, there are still lots of areas where 2SLGBTQIA+ folks are lagging.

In homelessness, among young people 13 to 24 who are counted as homeless, about 24 percent identify as 2SLGBTQIA+. That tells us a couple things. That tells us that there are still things happening in communities, in schools, and in families that disrupt that relationship and increase the risk of homelessness. We can do a lot about that.

We also know that there is a greater proportion of former youth in care who are homeless. I think it's 27 percent to 30 percent on average and the overlap between those. Maybe you didn't immediately become counted as homeless, but you went into child welfare. From there, you have trouble making your way.

[4:00 p.m.]

The community members have disproportionately lower incomes. A larger share of 2SLGBTQIA+ folks aged 24 to 64 make less than $30,000 per year compared to non-community folks. I think the vulnerabilities also show up in different ways that the world has experienced.

An example would be that this past year the Scotian, which is a building in my constituency, was without power for two weeks. The advice was constantly to go to Residential Tenancies, and people did. But I will tell you, there are a number of queer and trans folks who live in that building who were like, "I'm not complaining, because I know that it's harder for me to get an apartment." That is the lived reality of folks. They know that a trans person showing up to try to get the apartment in a competitive market is at a disadvantage.

I think also of our seniors. I have two public senior manors in my constituency, as the Minister of Housing knows, and I try to visit quite often. I have witnessed, amongst and between residents, homophobic and transphobic remarks, making life much less safe and much more difficult for some residents, I think across the board.

This is the other part of what I was sort of debating whether or not to share about why it's so important that we have this action plan. As you know - you could probably set your clocks by it - on November 20^th, May 17^th, and often March 31^st, I host flag-raisings here at the House to recognize different days. I will tell you, each and every time I do that, and especially if it's uncontrolled on social media, like if Halifax Noise shares it, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of negative comments.

[Page 2495]

By "negative comments," I'll give you just - this is literally just a couple of screenshots. I will warn you that this is not parliamentary language. I have sought permission from the Speaker to say these words. These were directed at me on my social media. Again, this was just the top five of a lot: "Pedophiles get the rope." "Mentally ill." "Child abuser." "Degenerate." "Don't touch the children, Lisa, you groomer."

That's for having a public event here at Province House - a really privileged public event. I am able, because of where I sit these days, to invite community members and allies to Province House to mark Transgender Day of Remembrance. Yet despite all of that privilege, this is the type of abuse that happens, and it happens all the time.

I don't like to share it for a couple of reasons. One is that I know I occupy a certain amount of privilege. The other is that I actually really, really don't want other folks who don't occupy as much privilege to see this. I don't want young trans kids to see that when I'm also inviting them to come mark Transgender Day of Remembrance or celebrate May 17^th or what have you. I want to protect them, because I know that they see this all the time. I know they see this on social media.

I wanted to share it just to - I guess I just really wanted to say that this action plan is so - has been needed. The community has fought for it. It is so relevant and it is so important that we have it.

We also have it because this is a time of regression in terms of rights. I have told the story too many times, but the right to marry, the right to adopt children - these are all things that I did not have when I was almost 30. And I'm not that old, just to point that out. (Laughter) I'm really glad about the menopause centre, but you know. (Laughs)

We thought that as you sort of advance through the courts, as you prove that two women getting married wasn't going to end your world - we proved that we could parent - that these rights would be entrenched, that we would not roll back. But we see threats of that. We see that happening in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and until recently, we saw that happening in New Brunswick, right next door.

Young people are - everybody, I would actually say, but young queer and trans people in particular are well aware that their rights, their identities, their right to exist, their right to be in community are constantly being questioned and under attack. It is so important that Nova Scotia has this action plan.

I'll just tell a bit of a story about the action plan, and I will talk about what is in it - checking my time - okay, you will probably have to read the action plan yourself.

[Page 2496]

When I was elected, I was very concerned that there was really nothing happening in this Legislature and, thus in the leadership of the province around queer and trans issues. It had really gone silent under the Liberals, and so we talked about wanting a minister. We still don't have a minister, still looking for one. You can volunteer for that. WPATH Standards of Care Version 8 - we still do not quite have that, and I would love someday for somebody to explain to me why we are still holding out on four different procedures under those standards of care, and an action plan.

So, here we have the action plan, and it comes out of recommendations from the Equity and Anti-Racism Strategy. It was announced, I believe, in the budget of 2023 that this would be brought forward.

There were consultations undertaken. I will say that there were concerns in the community about how the consultations were done, about who was being engaged, about the accountability of those consultations. Nonetheless, there were, I think, 446 people who were consulted. And then, to be honest, there was a little bit of silence, and I was worried. I was very worried that we weren't going to see this action plan.

We were supposed to have the "what we heard" document. We didn't see that. We did a FOIPOP, and nothing was happening, and then, suddenly - ta-dah - the action plan arrived. So, for community members right now, there are a couple of things. One is that not a lot of people know about it at this point because there wasn't a lot of fanfare from government to be quite blunt. And, as well, government stuff can be kind of boring. So, people do not necessarily follow along. So, the first thing I would say about this action plan for everybody in here is to read it. The second thing is to have it displayed in your offices, to make sure constituents know about it when people come to you to talk about Pride in their community, when people come to talk to you about concerns with accessing health care, have this ready and just say, "Well actually we have this commitment here for you." Make sure people know about it.

I host a sort of monthly, sort of bimonthly queer forum. As people know, I had about 60 people show up to just analyze and go through the action plan to collect some feedback. We've got the department coming in - or the office, I guess, coming in - in March to also have an open community meeting. You know, I think this work is really important.

In the action plan, there is a section on health, talking about the work of prideHealth, which has really just gotten started - it's an expansion - and hopefully will increase access to gender-affirming care across the province. There is a section on education that talks about curriculum and school and community infrastructure, which is really important. You can't - we know this from other communities and other stories and other struggles. If you don't know that there were ever queer people who were scientists or in history or politicians or all these things - we don't learn these stories. We don't read their books. We do not see their plays. It is hard to know about that community, and it is hard to counter the negative stereotypes, so curriculum is super important.

[Page 2497]

There is a section on community and economic growth. I think that's really important. It is amazing that in this province we have Prides in every small town at this point, I think, really from tip to tip. Those have proliferated also at a time when, in fact, there has been a push to take away rights, a negative push on the community. Prides are important because they are often people's first contact or first connection with the queer and trans community, whether you are queer or trans or an ally, especially when it's in your home community. It's an opportunity for people's home communities to be safer, to be recognized as being a safe place.

There was also quite a bit of recognition in the action plan around 2SLGBTQIA+ entrepreneurs, which is great, and working with existing structures that support queer and trans entrepreneurs.

There are some things that we would probably worry about. So, here's what's missing from the action plan. And then, I'll come around - a couple of things are missing. First of all, there is definitely a miss in terms of working with the other things that are happening in government. There is actually no reference to gender-based violence in this action plan. Gender-diverse folks and trans folks experience the highest rates of gender-based violence.

We had folks who came from the autism community. They were like, "Hey, we've been working on an autism action plan for a long time. It's not referenced in here." There's no consideration of folks with disabilities. There's no consideration of newcomer special needs. There's a lack of intersectionality to put it quickly because I'm running out of time.

I think what's important about that is that it's also a lack of being able to connect the dots. This where people say government works in silos, so I'm hoping that work will happen now.

There's no funding attached to it. There are no timelines. There are no key result indicators. Basically, there are some very important statements in here and some very important commitments, but they're not measurable. It's going to be hard for a community to know, it's going to be hard for the office to know, it's going to be hard for folks to know, did we do it?

One piece of that, for instance, is what we'll do. We'll continue to support community-based organizations and that's it. That is super important, except there's no way to measure that, particularly when we're here talking about cuts. We were in the back room there and community groups are calling us, saying, "We just got our cut. This whole program has gone from this community."

I guess people greet government's work often with a degree of skepticism, right? Lots of blah, blah, blah, what do you really do and how does it affect my life?

[Page 2498]

This action plan has the potential to positively affect people's lives. I think one of the main takeaways I would say is to not let it be a piece of paper, or twelve pieces of paper, that just sit around, and to not feed into that feeling of skepticism that government does things for communities because I think this can be really important.

I wanted to end on a more positive note than I began on. When I was looking back for the social media bits about what people had said to me in November, I was also reminded that we wrote some messages to trans youth and invited everyone to fill a little heart-shaped Post-it and put it on a trans flag. There were some really beautiful things. I'm just going to read a couple of them to end off.

So, "We are still here." "Everyone deserves safety." "You are loved." "Trans kids are magical." "To the trans youth, we can't wait to see what you do."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear. (Applause)

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

KENDRA COOMBES « » : I also have an annual speech and unfortunately, I'm doing it again. Speaker, Cape Breton families do not ask for much. They work hard, pay their taxes, raise their children, support their families. They should not have to live in poverty. They deserve to afford their rent or mortgage, pay their bills, and put food on the table.

Poverty is a political choice. This government keeps making that choice by not taking bold action or creating a real poverty elimination strategy. Every year, I come back here during Estimates asking for real government action to end poverty in a budget.

Past promises, like the 1989 pledge to end poverty by 2000, have failed because of inaction and a refusal to fix our broken social welfare systems. Poverty continues because of these choices, choices that government makes.

I am asking this government to make a real commitment and change direction now.

[4:15 p.m.]

This budget was an opportunity to finally take that bold action, but it did not include concrete steps to help Nova Scotians out of poverty. In fact, in the Budget Address, there's not one mention of poverty. The 2025 Poverty Report Card from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Nova Scotia - this was from the taxes for 2023 - shows that one in five children live in low-income families. That's 40,210 children living in low-income families. We should be ashamed that there has been so little progress, especially since 24.9 percent of children under six live in poverty.

[Page 2499]

Although that number is down from 26.4 percent in 2022, still one in four young children is affected. Keep in mind that we have not included the financial crisis, and we have not included the cuts that the government will bring forth and how it will bear on these families. Nova Scotia still has the highest rate of child poverty in Atlantic Canada and third highest in the country. There is nothing to be proud of here.

In the federal riding of Cape Breton-Canso-Antigonish and Sydney-Glace Bay, they continue to have high rates of poverty. In the federal riding of Cape Breton-Canso-Antigonish, 3,930 children live in poverty. In Sydney-Glace Bay, 4,260 children are living in poverty.

Let's take a little better look at Cape Breton. In Victoria County, 390 children live in poverty. In Richmond County, 420 children are living in poverty. In Inverness County, 670 children are living in poverty. In Cape Breton County, 5,420 children are living in poverty.

Our lack of real progress is indefensible. That's why I've called for targeted interventions to support the most affected communities many times over in this Legislature. They are not the only ones living in poverty. Seniors live in poverty, especially women who live alone. In my riding, seniors are rationing their medications, and many are trying to get in seniors' housing because they can no longer afford to live in their homes or the homes that they've rented privately.

I also have seniors who are rationing their heat because they cannot afford the oil. Government cuts have not helped. As inequality grows, more people in Cape Breton struggle to meet their basic needs, putting greater pressure on essential services. Community leaders say families cannot afford food, shelter, and other necessities. Recent data shows that 4.1 percent of children live in food-insecure households. That's the second highest rate in Canada. People often have to choose between food, medicine, heat, and the power bill. The current budget does not solve these problems. In fact, from the reductions in many of the OSD programs, I can tell you from talking to organizations, those cuts are, in fact, going to make poverty worse.

This government could have taken real action to reduce poverty and to make sure no one was left behind. They chose to do the opposite. This government's answer to food insecurity has been food banks, but food banks are at the brink. They are struggling because donations have started to dry up. People cannot afford to provide donations because they themselves, who used to donate to food banks, are now attending food banks.

People want a government to act so Nova Scotians do not have to choose between buying their groceries, heating their homes, or getting medicine.

[Page 2500]

Living on low income is costly. It is very expensive to be poor. The Nova Scotia school lunch program created, thanks to NDP advocacy and our leader, helps, but it is not available to everyone all the time. It cannot solve food insecurity on its own. It is one program. It is not the golden ticket to end poverty. Families need strong income supports and a living wage, well above $22 per hour, since our minimum wage here in Nova Scotia is so low.

Many people in Cape Breton work full-time jobs but still cannot afford their basic needs: housing, paying their bills, food, you name it. There are some people who work and are living in their cars, living on a friend's couch, living in tents, and living in shelters. Everyone deserves a safe home, enough food, and to not worry about ending up living in their car, on the street, or in a shelter.

I have parents who come into my office worried about how they're going to afford to keep a roof over their head, pay their bills, and feed their children. I have families living in tents because, astonishingly, they make too much money to qualify for assistance, yet they cannot afford a place to live. This is the lived reality of many people within Cape Breton and, I'm pretty, sure many Nova Scotians.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Nova Scotia has made many recommendations to this PC government, and they're clear:

·         Implement and fund a poverty elimination plan for Nova Scotia, with targets and timelines to end child poverty by 2031, and immediately establish a child and youth advocacy office to monitor progress;

·         Increase family income with a higher minimum wage and additional income assistance and substantially extend the Nova Scotia Affordable Living Tax Credit to lift families with children out of poverty;

·         Fundamentally transform the child welfare and social assistance systems to achieve meaningful, rights-based, trauma-informed outcomes. All families on social assistance should receive no less income than what is offered to foster families;

·         Realize and protect families' and children's rights to housing and food;

·         Enhance access to universal public services, including health care, child care, education from Primary to post-secondary, and public transit, while making essential services such as energy and communication infrastructure more affordable;

·         With community input, implement responsive, targeted supports to uproot all forms of discrimination, which are a root cause of child poverty, to address barriers for low-income Indigenous families, racialized newcomers, lone parents, and those raising children with disabilities, to reach their full potential.

[Page 2501]

Speaker, looking at this budget, having the information that I do on all the programs that are going to be slashed or completely abandoned by this government, I do not see a plan to end child poverty. I do not see a plan to end poverty at all. What I see is an austerity budget, an austerity government that is willing to put at risk the social safety nets that help people, the social safety nets that keep children from being apprehended by the Department of Opportunities and Social Development because their parents are simply poor. That is what's going to happen if this government - this PC government - continues down this path. More and more children are going to be apprehended by Opportunities and Social Development because their parents are simply in poverty, and that is the fault of this government. It is the fault of this government.

Look at the budget and see what's being cut. Family resource centres are seeing their budgets cut. You think that's not going to have an effect when they are helping people be able to afford formula for their babies? This is where we are. We are in an austerity budget when poverty rates are still high and there is still so much more to do.

The choice, again, is not whether poverty can be reduced. It can be. But the question is whether this PC government is prepared to treat it as the critical, solvable crisis that it is.

With these closing words, I will leave you with this: Children and families in Cape Breton cannot wait another generation for government to act. Thank you.

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

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN « » : A healthy province starts with healthy leadership and healthy leadership plans beyond the next news cycle. Healthy leadership understands that public money belongs to the people. It's an honour today to rise to respond to the budget that was tabled on Monday.

I represent a rural constituency here in Nova Scotia - Cumberland North, and I want to speak in a way that reflects the people I am here to serve. Before this session, my team and I listened to our people, not just through day-to-day emails and phone calls or through Facebook Messenger, messages and appointments, walk-in appointments to our office, but proactively we held town hall sessions in Pugwash and Amherst. We hosted a Facebook Live and put out a survey to gather feedback. Democracy works best when we are outward focused - when we go looking for the truth and hear from the people directly. The messages that I got back were very clear.

In the survey, for example, 56 percent of the people said the number one issue they are facing is getting access to the health care that they need, starting with primary care - either a nurse practitioner or a family physician. There are still too many people without a primary care provider.

[Page 2502]

They also told me in a survey that they want real physicians, not virtual. They want shorter wait times and they want the rural hospitals open and not closed. They want answers and accountability when services are reduced, like the pain clinic at Cumberland Regional. They want safer communities.

[4:30 p.m.]

The number two issue that people shared with me, of their biggest concerns, was safety in their communities. They want more visible policing, and they want a justice system that they believe protects them and the rest of the public.

The number three thing was protecting our land and having safe drinking water, which is important throughout all of rural Nova Scotia. Towns and cities that have municipal water sources - it is wonderful, but there are so many people throughout Nova Scotia who have their own private wells, and they want to feel safe that their well water is going to be safe moving forward with some of the changes being proposed.

People understand that you can't separate health care from environmental health. People told me they're struggling with affordability, the cost of food, the cost of housing, the cost of power rates, and general cost of living. Seniors and people with disabilities are asking for their basic dignity and practical support for them. Many people spoke up strongly for libraries and for government to communicate honestly and respect rural Nova Scotians.

None of those priorities are partisan. These are the words that people in my area and those from other areas of the province shared with me. What I heard are priorities that are basic and that are human. They are what people need to live, to work, to raise their families, and to age with dignity. Those needs are exactly why this budget does matter because budgets are not just a document, a financial statement. They're a statement of priorities. It is a moral document. It tells us what we value, who we value, and whether we are planning for the long term.

Today, we are debating a budget with a projected deficit of $1.25 billion. This province has never seen anything like this before. What is even more alarming is that it's not just a one-off - the forecast shows continued deficits for years to come. It is a structural deficit. We all know that if we spend more year after year without a credible revenue plan, the consequences are predictable. We borrow more, we pay more interest, we lose flexibility, and eventually, we are forced into even more difficult choices, choices that hurt the very people we're here to help.

For debt service money, the interest that we're paying on the debt doesn't heal patients, doesn't feed children, and doesn't build resilience here in this province. We're forecasted for our debt interest payments to reach $1 billion soon. A healthy province needs healthy leadership that exhibits strong, healthy, fiscal discipline.

[Page 2503]

I want to speak directly to rural Nova Scotia, the people I represent, because too often rural communities feel like an afterthought in provincial decision-making. I constantly hear from people that they feel like they don't even feel they're part of this province. Those colleagues here in the House who have served along with me since 2017 have heard me say that over and over again. My hope was that if I kept bringing that message to government, eventually things would change, but people are not feeling that.

Decisions continue to be made that don't take into consideration northern Nova Scotia or our border communities. People in Cumberland North and in rural communities are experiencing great hardship, and they are tired of being told to be patient about waiting for a family doctor and making groceries more affordable. They are tired of being told there's not enough money to fix their roads, and they're tired of not feeling safe in their own communities because of the lack of policing in rural communities.

It was clear in the survey and the town hall meetings that I had that people want the basics. They want a primary care provider. They want to have a family doctor or a nurse practitioner so they can catch health issues early instead of waiting in emergency rooms. They want local hospital services that are safe and stable, and they want clear answers about why services like the pain clinic at Cumberland Regional Health Care Centre have been closed.

What is the plan to restore access for these patients who are suffering? There has been radio silence - nothing communicated with patients. It's heartbreaking to see the suffering that they're going through, while we have physicians wanting to provide the care.

I called on the Minister of Health and Wellness during Question Period for leadership on this - not to be partisan but because we need it. What's happening right now between the physicians and Nova Scotia Health Authority management is taking away care from patients who need it desperately.

We need leadership, Speaker, when the people we have in place under the leadership of the minister aren't able to provide what is needed. We heard loud and clear from people that libraries are needed in our communities and throughout our communities.

We heard loud and clear that work on the Chignecto Isthmus needs to be completed. This is not just local infrastructure. The Chignecto Isthmus connects Nova Scotia to the rest of Canada.

Recently in a CBC article, we had a specialist for science talk about the lunar cycle. In 2034, we know that we're going to have very dangerous high tides here in Nova Scotia. We need to ensure that Nova Scotia is safe before these predicted high tides come. We are vulnerable.

[Page 2504]

Back to health care, Speaker. We also continue to hear that people want to have reduced wait times for specialized care, including endometriosis care. Women are waiting three-and-a-half years for a first initial appointment at the gynecology clinic at the IWK. That's not acceptable. There are also services that are done on women - procedures - that are paid less than their male counterparts. This is proven through research and data. Women's health care must be made a priority by this government here provincially but also federally.

In Cumberland North we need designated palliative care beds so people can die with dignity and they're not just placed in whatever corner can be found. People deserve to be able to die with dignity. Our palliative care physician has continued to plead with the Nova Scotia Health Authority to provide designated palliative care beds. His pleas go unanswered. It's very sad.

People want more fair treatment for our border communities. Again, we have unique needs and experiences in our border community. I have talked to the Minister of Advanced Education before. We have nursing students whose only option is to get their education next door in New Brunswick. It's 10 minutes from the border - actually, not even, maybe seven. There is no RN program available in all of northern Nova Scotia. They can drive seven minutes and get their degree. They are Nova Scotia taxpayers becoming nurses working in Nova Scotia yet are not eligible for the Nova Scotia nursing student loan forgiveness program. It's discrimination.

Our bottle depots next door in New Brunswick give 10 cents return. Prince Edward Island is going to be starting to offer 10 cents from April 1^st. Here in Nova Scotia, it's still 5 cents. Our businesses that are in the bottle return depot business had to lay people off because people are going to drive seven minutes to get those refunds. Those are just a couple of examples.

We need a government that takes into consideration the needs of people living in our border communities. Time and time again, they are not considered. People are getting tired of it. They are Nova Scotians. They are Nova Scotia taxpayers, and they deserve to have government services and programs consider them and our unique needs.

Another example that we see more than maybe other Nova Scotians is the continued interprovincial barriers that restrict food moving across our borders. Meat from New Brunswick cannot come into Nova Scotia. Blueberries that are grown and put in a package in Cumberland County can't be taken across the border to be frozen there at the big freezer plant in Sackville. Really the interprovincial rules do not make a sense and continue to inhibit business and economic growth in our area. We need to see more work being put into our budget, taking into consideration the needs of people living in our border community.

[Page 2505]

I really need an hour to do this speech, Speaker. There's so much in the budget. I do want to mention two more things before I finish. That is how disappointed I was, along with people in our area, that the visitor information centre at the border is being decreased in hours. It's not a good way to present Nova Scotia to incoming visitors. Being a former woman in business, it would be like me saying, "Well, you can buy my products online, but I no longer have anyone there to greet you when come in the door."

The reality is that tourism is a big economic driver for Nova Scotia. A big impact of tourism is not just the first-time visitor to Nova Scotia, but also making sure we can bring people back, return customers. The way that happens is by giving people positive experiences. That happens with people, not over the internet.

I'd really encourage the Province to reverse the decision on making cuts to our tourism industry and the people who are welcoming people to the Province of Nova Scotia - not just my people at the border, Speaker, but those also at the airport and other places, like Peggy's Cove and Yarmouth, and other visitor information centres. It really undermines the importance of tourism. That is one of the ways we can grow our economy.

On that note, I want to finish with what I believe is the number one thing we should be doing to turn our economic fortunes around, and that is investing in agriculture. We are eating less than 20 percent - depending on the numbers that you look at, some say even 10 percent - of our own food here in this province. It's a big risk for food security, and it's also a potential way to grow our economy.

For example, if Nova Scotia moved to 40 percent of food self-sufficiency, we could bring in $1.4 billion more a year in economic activity, supporting another 16,000 jobs and about $1 billion growing our GDP.

Speaker, can you imagine what that would mean to communities throughout rural Nova Scotia, and communities like mine in Cumberland North, where agriculture is a big economic driver? It not only would improve our economy, but it would also improve our health. Local healthy food improves our health as well.

Speaker, with those few words - again, I could talk for hours on this budget - but those are just a few of the points I wanted to bring up on this budget that was tabled Monday.

THE SPEAKER « » : Seeing no more speakers, the motion is carried. We will have a short recess while the committee sets up.

[4:43 p.m. The House rose and resolved into the CWH on Supply with Deputy Speaker Marco MacLeod in the Chair.]

[Page 2506]

[House in recess]

[9:12 p.m. CWH on Supply rose and the House reconvened. The Speaker, Hon. Danielle Barkhouse, resumed the Chair.]

THE SPEAKER « » : Order, please. The Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on Supply reports:

THE CLERK » : That the Committee of the Whole House on Supply has met and made some progress and begs leave to sit again.

THE SPEAKER « » : Is it agreed?

It is agreed.

[GOVERNMENT BUSINESS]

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader.

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

PUBLIC BILLS FOR SECOND READING

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 196.

Bill No. 196 - Community Colleges Act (amended).

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Minister of Labour, Skills and Immigration.

HON. NOLAN YOUNG « » : Speaker, I move that Bill No. 196 now be read a second time.

This bill supports the creation of a new Institute of Skilled Trades at NSCC. It also updates the Act to reflect the transfer of responsibility to the Minister of Labour, Skills and Immigration, and it modernizes certain governance provisions to support stronger coordination across the system.

I look forward to hearing from my colleagues on this legislation.

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

[Page 2507]

PAUL WOZNEY « » : There you go. That's a first, Speaker. (Laughter)

I won't take the full hour here. That's not the purpose of these opening remarks, but one of the things I like to do when there's a bill in my portfolio is talk through what I understand the bill will accomplish if it's passed as constituted on the page. It's helpful to stakeholders and folks watching at home to understand exactly what the bill would accomplish. Then it's an opportunity for us to sit with the ramifications of it as written, potentially provide the minister with an opportunity to respond later on with further information to clarify the purpose and intent of the bill, and perhaps identify areas where amendments might strengthen the legislation. With that in mind, I'll get under way.

I understand the bill would achieve a number of things. Clause 3 makes the president of the Nova Scotia Community College an appointment of the Governor in Council. For the uninitiated, it means that this is a role that would be appointed by the Premier of Nova Scotia. We've had a bit of back and forth with department staff, and we understand that this appointment is intended to be subject to the existing agencies, boards, and commissions process.

Beyond that, it establishes - allows the board - empowers the board, the current board of the Nova Scotia Community College, to establish an Institute of Skilled Trades and an Institute of Skilled Trades Council. Most of you will know that I'm a classroom teacher. I've spent my life in schools. It's not common in Nova Scotia because most of our schools aren't large enough for this model, but I am familiar with public schools of a significant size, usually 5,000 or more, where it's not uncommon for students to be organized into academies. So, it's not a separate building but kind of functions like a school within a school, where there is a population of the students whose studies kind of align with a particular focus.

[9:15 p.m.]

One large school might have an academy that's sort of fine arts related, another that's kind of STEM related, et cetera. So, I understand the creation of the Institute of Skilled Trades would be to create a school within NSCC.

Right now, for Nova Scotians, what is NSCC? Way back when, there were a whole bunch of different colleges that prepared people for vocational and trades-related education. In the '90s, they were all brought under one umbrella by the Community Colleges Act, so that all those colleges and campuses across Nova Scotia functioned as one entity, under one administration, to support the delivery and enhance access to trades and vocational education.

This would sort of modify how NSCC works currently. It's also worthy of note to clarify that the Nova Scotia Community College - while a lot of people tend to think of it as, well that's where you go to learn to be a tradesperson - is not the only pathway toward certification as a tradesperson. It's an important one, unquestionably, and it does fine work in that regard.

[Page 2508]

NSCC is not only, for lack of a better term, a purveyor of trades-based education. It also prepares students for a number of other academic and post-secondary destinations. It has wonderful programs in the field of broadcast journalism and audio recording and production. There are a number of entry-level health care roles that you can get certified to be qualified to fulfill in our health care systems through NSCC. There's a broad scope of programming that NSCC provides.

Right now, trades-based education is provided alongside or parallel to non-trades-based education, under the purview of the board of directors. This legislation creates a school within the school. The skilled trades institute, as I understand it, would be responsible for the delivery of trades-based education in the NSCC milieu, and it creates a sub-body of the board to oversee and administer that education.

Later on, this Act also provides the board with the ability to empower this council. This is like a sub-board of governors. There is some thought given to who this board of this council would be, how many people, who would sit on it, and for how long. Those are all what I understand Clause 6(c), as proposed in legislation - I understand and read that to be a list of regulations that would be developed that would define the composition and the constitution of that group: its purpose, who sits on it for how long, and who will be qualified.

I see the minister nodding, so I think I'm picking up what the legislation is laying down fairly. I'm not trying to criticize here; I'm just trying to outline what I understand the bill to accomplish.

I do want to highlight that, in establishing this council, this sort of sub-board of governors that would oversee all trades-related education at NSCC, is its initial iteration. This is a new body, it has no members, and there's nobody appointed yet to serve.

The ability to staff this council - and I understand the purpose of this council is for there to be a more direct, robust relationship with the skilled trades sector and the construction sector in the delivery of trades-based education at NSCC.

I'm making the guess or the leap that one of the reasons this legislation is coming forward is a perspective that perhaps NSCC is not as responsive to the needs of the sector as perhaps it should be in the delivery of trades education, and this is an attempt to remedy that and make it more nimble and responsive to industry needs.

This first iteration of the Skilled Trades Council will be appointed by the Minister of Labour, Skills and Immigration. Those appointments are not subject to the ABCs process. I note for the House that, in appointing these members, it is the minister alone who determines the terms, which I understand to be - that means term limits, how long they would serve in this group. Those term limits are at the sole discretion of the minister who makes those initial appointments.

[Page 2509]

I'm not suggesting that the minister has 25 buddies that he wants to hand lifetime appointments to on this new Skilled Trades Council. I'm simply drawing the attention of the House that the language as currently constituted allows the minister - the potential for the minister to stack this council with people whose terms would be indefinite. There is no limitation. It doesn't say the minister shall appoint the initial members and their terms shall be such and such, a limited length that would allow the ABCs process to figure out who would sit on that board in the longer term.

That's a potential issue. If you give somebody the power to do something, you have to sit with whether that's what's intended. Whether or not the minister intends to give people lifetime appointments to this Skilled Trades Council, the door is open to that in the way the language is currently constituted.

Aside from that, I don't have a whole lot of things to point out about how this bill functions or what it would change.

Now I want to shift to discussing some questions and some thoughts that arise out of my understanding of the bill. I want to go back to my initial remarks about NSCC and its history. Right now, NSCC is a jewel in the crown of post-secondary education in our province. There are people who would suggest that anything less than university is looked at as "lesser than" in our province.

Since NSCC was formed, it has done brilliant work in providing quality vocational skilled trades and other education to students who attend. Moreover, Nova Scotia Community College is recognized by the people of Nova Scotia and students outside of Nova Scotia as a high-value location to get an education. Not only are you going to get some kind of piece of paper upon graduation from NSCC that puts you in a great position to find meaningful, good-paying employment in whatever sector you happen to have trained in, but you are not going to pay crazy fees to go to NSCC. Tuition is affordable and accessible, and of course, campuses are distributed geographically throughout the province, which makes it possible for students to access opportunities to obtain well-paying employment through industry-relevant training, oftentimes in their own backyard so they don't have to move away from home.

These are net positives of the college, and they are worthy of a tip of the cap. The faculty and professional support who deliver learning to students at NSCC do world-class work, and that's worthy of mention here.

[Page 2510]

One of the things I wonder about - one other thing before I make my next comment - I also understand that Nova Scotia is in a place where we are facing a shortage of skilled trades people for a number of reasons. The folks we have working in the skilled trades are highly qualified, do immensely admirable work across dozens and dozens of different kinds of trades, and help keep our province ticking, moving, and building toward progress. NSCC helps to meet that need by graduating students.

There is a focus on a shortage, and I understand that we need to turn our minds to how we can graduate more qualified people to meet this need at a time of shortage. In the short term, I understand this move and the motivation behind it. That said, I do want to sit a minute for a potential impact of this legislation. Right now, NSCC delivers trades education right alongside lots of other forms of education, and trades education is not lesser than or greater than the other kinds of learning that are delivered by NSCC.

One of the concerns I have about changing the governance structure of NSCC is that in effect, the Board of Governors that technically has responsibility for the whole college, is being told: You are now going to delegate oversight and administration for trades-based education to this other group that you create, and then it's their stuff, it's no longer yours. Nothing in this legislation makes clear that the Institute of Skilled Trades is answerable to the board.

In practice it may work out that way, but it's not enshrined in legislation that the Institute of Skilled Trades is answerable to and accountable to the board. In the absence of that language, there is a possibility that over time, once we set this in motion, we know that government is motivated to fund initiatives that help us train more skilled tradespeople. And we understand why. That's a worthy objective and it's something that every government in Canada is frankly responsive to in this time.

Skilled trade shortages are not unique to Nova Scotia. I understand the government - this is their attempt, or an attempt, to address that need. We also know that this legislation comes at a time that in a budget that's getting lots of criticism about reductions in spending and cuts, we know that NSCC as an institution is looking at a 3 percent reduction in operating budget for at least the medium-term future.

At the same time the government is going to pump lots of money and resources into trades-based education at NSCC, the funding that NSCC gets to deliver a lot of other world-class training is shrinking by the year. That creates a dynamic where all of a sudden, what happens when because of resources that are shrinking or growing smaller over time, do those programs face the chopping block by attrition over time?

When those programs can no longer be deemed to be deliverable, because they're too costly, or enrolment is too low, have we artificially created conditions that drive those programs to private colleges that charge significantly more tuition to get the same training? I'm not saying this is the intent. I am trying to draw to the attention of the House a potential outcome of this legislation if we pass it as is.

[Page 2511]

By hiving off the governance of skills-based training from the rest of the operation of the university, there's a potential that we create a part of the college that gets lots of resources and lots of government support, and the rest of the institution is left to fend for itself. The governors who are responsible for that have limited ability to ensure the long-term viability of other programs that remain immensely valuable to Nova Scotia families and students and other industries, even though they exist outside the trades.

I draw to the attention of the House that the way that these governance changes are structured expose us to some risk if we consider this legislation in isolation from budget direction for this year, and for the foreseeable future, and how that will impact funding for training and access to programming outside skilled trades by the college.

The other thing that I would simply draw attention to is back in Clause 3, and my initial comment, that the hiring of the college, the Nova Scotia Community College, becomes a Governor in Council appointment. I rightly noted that it's our understanding, from department staff, that this appointment would follow the ABCs process, and it would come before the Human Resources Committee of the House for approval, if you will.

Nonetheless, certain government appointments as of late have come under scrutiny because of the public perception that senior leaders in this government make appointments based on political patronage and proximity to key government leaders.

[9:30 p.m.]

I'm not here to debate those appointments. I am drawing attention to this clause and the potential for the appointment of a president under the language that's passed to be subject to the same scrutiny.

This enables the Premier to say, "Hey, pal. You spent 20 years in the trades. You've been a faithful friend. You should be the new President of NSCC."

That recommendation goes forward to the House. You can say there's an opportunity there for people to draw attention to whether or not this appointment was done in a way that's on the up and up - except that as a current member of the Human Resources Committee, that committee has a majority government component.

We live in an environment of "whipped politics." If members of the committee receive direction from the Premier's Office that this appointment is going to go through as is, no amount of reasoned debate in that committee is going to stop a patronage appointment from occurring through the ABCs process.

Do I believe that this is the intent of the legislation? That's not what I'm saying. Before anybody gets neck problems from shaking their head in vigorous disagreement, that's not where I'm going.

[Page 2512]

I'm simply pointing out that the language as currently constituted leaves open that possibility, I believe. Whereas NSCC is a Canadian leader and an international leader in the delivery of vocational trades and other post-secondary training, it's in the public interest that NSCC be free from any perception that the government of Nova Scotia, or whoever the Premier of the day is, exerts political control over how the institution operates - what its priorities are, who gets hired, and what gets funded by the board of directors or people that they can appoint or recommend to the Skilled Trades Council.

I don't think it serves NSCC well. I don't think it serves the province well. I think thoughtful legislation could turn its mind to perhaps a different mechanism to the appointment of a president than is currently present in the legislation.

I do raise the flag that the language in the proposed legislation leaves significant potential for there to be perception of patronage and the functional ability for a patronage appointment to occur in the role of the president of the college.

As I have indicated, I think I understand the function of the legislation well. I do want to look very closely at the end, under the proposed Article 6(c), respecting the composition of an Institute of Skilled Trades, I do want to tip my cap. I do recognize that the minister, in proposing this legislation, has not been opaque about who is going to be on this council and who is qualified.

I do recognize that regulations that are not yet before this House will be framed, such as how many members will be on this council. In the spirit of collegiality, I do urge the minister to consider that a council that is equal in size to the existing board of directors could be deeply problematic. It could foster the perception that the Skilled Trades Council is intended to outweigh or equal the board in governance function. In determining the size of the council, I would urge the minister, if it's passed as is, to exercise some restraint and discretion in determining the size of the council.

The minister, in creating regulations, is going to have to turn his mind to the appointment process. Who is going to be on this council? How are they going to be selected? I would encourage the minister, as I've already expressed, to ensure that the training of skilled tradespeople at NSCC is not a process over which the perception of patronage or political interference hangs. I would encourage the minister to adhere to open and transparent selection processes. The ABC process, I think, serves this Province for the most part very well in selecting highly qualified and clear-cut choices to fill important roles. I hope the minister gives strong consideration in regulation to adopting that habit here.

Term members of councils: I have some experience as a board member of boards that are concluding or wrapping up. I also have some experience as a member of a board that's just getting under way. I would encourage the minister in considering regulation on terms to stagger those term lengths. Initial terms might be one, some might be two years, so that you in effect create a natural rotation where you're not replacing your council members all at once. It provides for continuity and institutional knowledge to remain on the council and support effective transition amongst council members.

[Page 2513]

I would encourage the minister to confer with his colleague in African Nova Scotian Affairs and the Office of Equity and Anti-Racism on meaningful language that would ensure representation on this council from an equity, diversity, and inclusion perspective. I'm not making this simply as a throwaway comment to social justice interests. I've heard the minister acknowledge that one of the challenges faced in recruitment and retention of the skilled trades is underrepresentation of historically excluded groups.

I submit to the minister that building into the Skilled Trades Council designated representation for communities that are historically excluded or underrepresented in the trades would serve this council well and bring necessary perspective in the operation and governance of the work of helping to graduate in perpetuity a trades workforce that is more reflective and more inclusive. I think it's a very progressive step that he could easily write into the terms of the council and sidestep one of the major landmines that the skilled trades face as a sector in attracting diverse candidates.

Finally, qualifications that must be met by council members: I have no doubt that the minister will prioritize candidates with experience in leadership in the skilled trades, as practitioners of a skilled trade, but perhaps also leaders from trade unions who understand the needs of their members in that particular group of skilled trades practitioners.

In terms of officers of the council and their roles and terms of office: In regulation, I would encourage the minister to, with care, consider what you call the members of the council. Again, understanding that behind this council, you have a standing board of directors at NSCC, a board of governors. I would encourage the minister to be thoughtful about what you call the leaders of the council on skilled trades, such that the board of directors doesn't feel that this new group is a threat to their existence or subsumes in any way their wider authority over the operation of the college.

With those comments, Speaker, I offer my first thoughts in the spirit of helping pass legislation that accomplishes good things for Nova Scotians, demonstrates balance and restraint, but also progressive action that helps build up our province. With that, I will take my seat.

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

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : A few comments on the bill that's being proposed today that's dealing with a number of different areas within Nova Scotia Community College, including governance and aligning the Department of Labour, Skills and Immigration with the creation of the Institute of Skilled Trades.

[Page 2514]

I guess, first thought is just "why?" What is the problem that we're trying to solve with the way that Nova Scotia Community College is functioning, especially with the appointment of the president? Why does there need to be a direct influence from the political body to appoint that person? There are some things in the bill that do appear to be good and some housekeeping, but it does beg the question around why the government wants more control over higher education in the province.

We saw last spring the Universities Accountability and Sustainability Act, which gave the power to government to have more authority over the university boards. Then, we've seen the government interfere with Research Nova Scotia, cutting health care research funding because it didn't adequately align with the government's economic agenda.

It's a trend that has definitely started in the Province, continuing to have more control and say over who is running these types of institutions. That's what an OIC basically enables. So even though it's a Cabinet decision, the Premier controls that by the actions at Cabinet.

Why does the political appointment make Nova Scotia Community College stronger, especially during a time when the college is actually actively recruiting - my understanding is - a new president? What does that do to the potential qualified candidates who are already under way in that process? Will they remove themselves from consideration?

At the very least, it does introduce the risk of politicizing the role, and that's not just to cast aspersions of what is going to happen, but what could happen. That's what legislation does. It enables decisions to be made. It opens up that vulnerability of this government or future governments. But it is no secret that patronage is becoming quite rampant. It's a discussion every time - every session that we've had in this House about successive appointments to pretty important positions that are so-called independent, and this session is no different.

The reason why that's a challenge is because we expect heads of institutions to actually act in the public interest and be truly independent and not at the whims of the government of the day. I'm just curious. Maybe the minister can explain in this reading why he feels this change is so necessary. We have the college running just fine. As far as I'm concerned, lots of success under the leadership of Don Bureaux, who I know is moving on. But obviously, the government wants to have a say in who that successor is. Of course, it's important for the college to be responsive to communities and students, and adapt to programming that the Province needs to grow. But I do believe it works best when it's connected very closely with communities, and guided by educators and industry.

[Page 2515]

I'm not sure how making the president a political appointment will make the institution stronger. I challenge that assumption, and I think just "because it's publicly funded" won't stand up to scrutiny. If that's the case, then why not appoint all your favourite people to be principals of all the schools that are publicly funded?

The creation of the Institute of Skilled Trades is a good thing. Nova Scotia Community College has been trying for a long time to work very closely with industry, and I know that they are. So to formalize that and have official participation with industry is a great thing.

We see that we need to fill skilled labour shortages across the board for housing, for infrastructure development, for clean energy projects, and many other sectors. We need more trades. We need more people working in trades in this province. So the creation of that Institute of Skilled Trades has potential to elevate training and at least the importance in the minds of many in the province. Strengthening those partnerships is good. I think that's a good thing. We can certainly support how that can grow real job opportunities. We support that.

But this bill is a bit of a mixed bag of things. We're looking forward to what happens at Public Bills and with stakeholders who are affected by this, but we look forward to what Nova Scotians have to say, and I just want to register those concerns as we move forward on who the next president is, and why that whole process is changing.

[9:45 p.m.]

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

LISA LACHANCE « » : I'm really just going to speak quite briefly to this bill. In fact, the first word that I wrote down after reading the bill and thinking about it was, in fact, "why" - why this measure? What is expected to be beneficial about this approach? How was that determined? How were the options evaluated? Does this compare to what is happening in other jurisdictions?

There are obviously some things that are familiar to us in this House - consolidating the power of ministers. The minister can appoint the board in perpetuity and creating the risk for conflict of interest and patronage. I think that's really important. It's happened time and time again that this government has chosen to dissolve independent boards and vest the power in the minister - and this is no different.

I guess I would just implore, as I have implored since 2021, to think about good public policy and why we put things at arm's length, why we create independent boards, why governance is important. I guess I just really wanted to echo and amplify some of the questions around how diversity will be accomplished in this work.

[Page 2516]

I can table this tomorrow - I've tabled it 100 times at this point - but there's a 2024 YWCA Halifax report that found over 90 percent of women and gender diverse people in Nova Scotia's skilled trades have experienced sexual and gender-based harassment; 91 percent of 101 respondents reported experiencing sexual or gender-based harassment with 2 percent experiencing it multiple times. Perpetrators in power - harassment frequently comes from supervisors or those in positions of power, making it difficult for victims to report.

There is a really important analysis in that paper that we should be taking to heart. We want to grow the skilled trades. We want to expand the employment and productivity of traditionally underrepresented groups. Then also thinking about the programs in skilled trades that have been developed for African Nova Scotians, Indigenous folks, and persons with disabilities. We have the highest rate of disability in this province in the country.

We need to increase our productivity. We need to increase the workforce. So my concern is that this is another change on top of a lot of change for NSCC, that I think - in fact, I can't quite figure out the path here. Because it now has the power to grant degrees. It has been moved to a different department. There has been a rationalization of some programs. NSCC responded fast when we needed people to be training ECEs and personal care workers, and has been trying to juggle all these balls.

I think fundamentally, I just don't understand what the advantage is here - why we're doing this and why we're not simply consolidating the strength and gains that NSCC has to offer.

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

The honourable Minister of Labour, Skills and Immigration.

HON. NOLAN YOUNG « » : I'd like to thank the members and everyone who participated in the feedback. Sincerely I thank you.

NSCC is a great partner. We have great partners in industry. I'm optimistic about growing the skilled workforce for what we need in Nova Scotia. I'll have more to say later as this bill moves along. Again, I'd like to thank the members for the feedback.

With that I move to close debate on Bill No. 196.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is for second reading of Bill No. 196.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

[Page 2517]

The motion is carried.

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

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 193.

Bill No. 193 - Powering the Economy Act.

THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, I move that Bill No. 193 be now read a second time.

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

SUSAN LEBLANC « » : Speaker, I cannot believe this is happening - that I am going to speak on this bill without hearing anything from the Minister of Energy about what this bill is and what good it's going to do the province, how it's going to rein in Nova Scotia Power. All of the things that Nova Scotians are thinking about right now, we don't get to hear about because the Minister of Energy doesn't want to say anything about the bill. It's shocking to me. Mind you, it is 9:51 p.m., so no one's paying attention anyway. (Interruption) Oh yes, the ministerial assistant. I'm curious to know if the ministerial assistant wants to say anything about it. Certainly, gets paid enough to have some opinions on this bill.

In any case, I'll talk a little bit about it. First of all, I will say that it's a bit rich that we have this gigantic bill on energy, but nothing in it is going to help us lower power rates for Nova Scotians today or tomorrow or presumably in the next several years.

Nova Scotians are paying too much for power. More and more - increasingly, Speaker - people cannot afford their power bills. Nova Scotia Power has suffered - and by connection, Nova Scotians have suffered - a terrible data breach in which Nova Scotians' private information was stolen. In the meantime, in the wake of that, we have these outrageous estimated bills that don't make any sense. The whole thing's a mess. This bill - I mean, from what I can gather, because I haven't heard anything about it yet from the government - doesn't really do anything to address that.

What I surmise that it does - one of the things it does - is it sets up the Province to collect next to nothing in revenues from offshore wind. It creates a revenue mechanism for offshore wind to collect royalties but gives companies a royalty break for 10 years - the first 10 years of operation. That's not going to lower Nova Scotians' power bills. If we're giving the revenues away, if we're not charging royalties on the wind, it's not benefiting us.

[Page 2518]

This will reduce predicted revenue from exporting the Province's target of five gigawatts of energy from $100 million to $35 million - a 65 percent revenue decline, relative to the previously announced 4 percent royalty rate. Selling five gigawatts of offshore wind power would generate $2.5 billion in total revenues for the Province, and the Province just wants to retain $35 million of them. It doesn't sound like a good deal for Nova Scotians to me.

Another thing that this bill will do is remove the penalties from Nova Scotia Power if it fails to meet renewable energy targets. This means that if Nova Scotia Power fails to meet the 2030 target of 80 percent renewable energy, it will face no fines or penalties. The bill moves the renewable energy 2030 target obligations from Nova Scotia Power to the IESO.

Another thing that this bill does is it repeals and replaces the Petroleum Resources Act with the Subsurface Energy Resource Extraction Act. Now it includes everything from carbon capture to storage, to geothermal and fracking, and the department said that nothing is missing from the previous legislation in this change.

Nova Scotians have been waiting for this government to ensure that they get affordable, reliable power, but so far the Minister of Energy has not acted to hold the company accountable or protect ratepayers from price hikes. While this government cuts jobs and programs that Nova Scotians rely on with no plan to get back to balance, the Premier's and the Minister of Energy's whole focus is on pitching Nova Scotians on Wind West, which is a hypothetical energy project that might happen in a decade or two or three.

The Minister of Energy/the Premier hasn't taken any action to lower power bills or review Nova Scotia Power, but he is already tabling bills to stack the deck for more corporate profits and less money for Nova Scotians. Nova Scotia Power burned more coal last year, but rather than ensuring the company provides clean, reliable, and affordable energy to Nova Scotians, this government is letting Nova Scotia Power off the hook with no fines or penalties if it doesn't hit its renewable energy targets.

If this Wind West project ever sees the light of day - and I hope it does by the way - we are going to give a royalty break for the first 10 years of operation on future energy projects, which will reduce the predicted revenue by $65 million a year. Nova Scotians need their Minister of Energy to have their backs instead of using his power to help huge corporations.

I just want to talk for a second about our position on Wind West. We support developing an offshore wind industry in Nova Scotia. It's clean and it could be really lucrative, and we believe that the Province should learn from the successes of jurisdictions like Denmark which have managed to create jobs in the wind supply chain, integrate clean energy onto their grid, and deliver public benefits through public and community ownership of the wind power.

[Page 2519]

This Province is currently failing to unlock the industry's potential by doing little to guarantee a viable path to market with transmission infrastructure and port investments, failing to have a comprehensive strategy to create jobs in the offshore wind supply chain of component parts like blades and towers, and failing to ensure that Nova Scotians benefit from this project by using revenues from our offshore well to lower power bills.

The Province currently has no strategy to retain public benefits and lower energy bills. If the Province had a greater degree of ownership of the offshore wind energy generation and export infrastructure, then we could share the revenues from developing this resource with Nova Scotians and lower power bills. Denmark, for example, requires that the public retain a minimum of 20 percent equity stake in all wind power developments. By the way, our Nova Scotia Power Review Act that we discussed today would assess how much revenue the Province could gain from offshore wind that is publicly owned through a Crown utility model.

About 80 percent of the jobs that come from wind energy or building wind energy come from the manufacturing of its component parts like blades and towers and turbines, but we have no plan to localize the value-added supply chain of the offshore wind industry. The Premier's approach will mean that jobs created in Nova Scotia will mostly be temporary and only during the construction phase. Even worse, the Carney government recently imposed a 25 percent import tariff on all imported wind towers as part of the package of tariffs on steel, and so unless the Province has a plan to onshore the supply chain for wind towers, these projects will be very expensive.

Those are just a few initial thoughts on this bill. It is extremely difficult to assess what, in fact, the vision of this bill is without hearing from the Minister of Energy. I'm deeply disappointed that we are not going to hear from him tonight on this bill. I certainly hope that he will speak in third reading when we pass this massive bill, and I hope he will address some of the concerns that I have brought up here, especially about the fact that we stand to gain so much for wind energy, and yet there's nothing in this bill that's putting down in law protecting Nova Scotians, making sure that Nova Scotians benefit greatly, and lowering Nova Scotians' power bills.

[10:00 p.m.]

That's all I'll say for tonight. Look forward to hearing from people at Public Bills.

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

HON. IAIN RANKIN « » : It's kind of weird. I don't think I've seen that before in the last 12 years, that there weren't any comments from the minister. I know last sitting, the ministers simply introduced the bills, sat down, there was debate on this side of the House, and then questions asked, and then the minister said, "Thank you for the questions" and sat down and closed debate. This is a whole new level.

[Page 2520]

Nonetheless, I think I understand what the government is trying to do: trying to provide some certainty to a sector that they're putting all their chips on to try to save the financial basket case that this Province is in right now. That fact that this is called Powering the Economy Act, not the legal term of the legislation, but that they are just saying that this will actually drive all of our economic growth into the future and that's all they have, is a clear juxtaposition of what we have been proposing for a long time and actually valuing all sectors of the economy.

We have supported renewable energy as much as anyone in this province and put forward ways that we can support clean energy for a long time. We support offshore wind, and that's great, but we need to also support some kind of a vision that looks at innovation in this province and commercialization of research. Yet this government is stripping away opportunities from PhD students who do that kind of research. No focus on start-ups, no focus on scale-ups to get some more large companies so that we don't just have one Michelin in this province, so we can look at value-added manufacturing and things like it that can grow this economy.

Offshore wind could be part of that and could be part of the energy that we potentially could export. We've had lots of great stories in this province. NOVONIX comes to mind. I talked about it in my government and how that came from a lot of research from Dalhousie University and the Tesla agreement with battery research. These are the kinds of incubators that this government just doesn't value anymore. The opportunities around quantum. I could go on and on, but now, it's just about natural resources, raw extraction of natural resources, and a dream that someday we might be able to get multi-billion dollars from the federal government to build a transmission to export that energy.

How much does the Province have in fiscal capacity to participate in such huge dreams now? Do they have billions of dollars that are required to build that kind of infrastructure, way more than what was required to import from Newfoundland and Labrador with that link? Why wasn't that started a long time ago? It's really about transmission that we need.

Some of the stuff, the detail in the bill that we got yesterday, the numbers, maybe they're the right balanced numbers. We need to strike a balance so that we do get bids. We need to make sure that there is some risk that the private sector is taking on when they're making these bids. I can't comment on the validity - if those numbers are the right numbers right now. We supported the work of the IESO. That's great. We need to start looking at ways that we can move forward and have an independent operator looking at how energy is moving around. Those are positive things.

[Page 2521]

We can't just put all our chips in one big project, and we can't just expect the federal government, which already gives us so much revenue all the time, to pay for it all. I know there's work happening now. This project wasn't approved yet for a major project from the federal government. There was no real comprehensive feasibility study given to the federal government to give them that opportunity to say yes. There's a big announcement tomorrow, so I bet that is probably moving the needle along just a little bit. We'll see how much fiscal capacity is left in this province to build the ports, to build the infrastructure to participate in something that is massive. We need to export that energy.

We also need energy here. When the wind isn't blowing here there are opportunities to bring hydro in from other areas. This has been known for a long time, and vice versa. This is bi-directional transmission that has been talked about for a long time. When the reservoirs are low with the hydro in Quebec, they could use our offshore. It's confusing. I haven't heard certainty on what option is even being taken on where that transmission is going to go - subsea, what part of it is subsea, is it still the same way through the Atlantic Loop?

We agree that we need to attach our grid across Atlantic Canada, into Central Canada. Yes, we need to do all those things.

What I'm hearing through people who went to briefings is this is providing certainty. We can't wait for regulations. They need it in the bill to show the numbers so that we get bids so we can rush bids out the door for early this year before any certainty on transmission.

There's an MOU that's signed. We all know how much (inaudible) an MOU with New England, that they are going to buy our energy.

Let's hope this all comes to fruition. We hope the numbers are right. We hope we get bids this year and that this isn't rushed. We hope that this government gets their dream of attracting the right kind of bids to start the process and finally see some transmission built because that transmission is needed not only for export but we will need energy from other parts of this country.

Hydro is still a very cost-effective baseload energy that we need. We don't need to subsidize natural gas to distract from this issue. We need to get access to clean, renewable energy and we need to offer the rest of the country the access that we have, the lifetime opportunity offshore. But it's not going to happen in the next two years, I can guarantee you that, just as when this government said we're going to close coal by 2030. Yes, it was an objective of mine, I was the first one to say it. I didn't put it into law. Who would put it into law before securing the kind of funding that we needed to build that transmission?

[Page 2522]

What leverage do we have now? Even the media thought, "Well, this is a federal obligation." I think I heard the Premier say, "Well the Liberals came along and said we need to get off coal." No, in 2021 he rushed in here, he said that by law we will be off coal by 2030. Then he fought the federal government for the next number of years on carbon pricing instead of negotiating how much funding we can get, how much from the Canada Infrastructure Bank. They had an existing program - nothing, didn't want to work, didn't want to work together with - where's Quebec in this situation? I know when I was Premier, they were an issue; we had to talk to Quebec. How are you going to flow this energy in and out of Quebec and sell to the American markets?

These are complex issues that many governments have grappled with way before this government. We need to start moving on it. We need to find the fiscal capacity to do so. The fiscal capacity has been dried up, the political will has been dried up, and we can't just bank it all on this project.

With those few comments I'll look forward to seeing what the minister has to say as he closes debate.

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

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : I just want to rise and say a few words. I share the confusion of my colleagues as to why we wouldn't hear from the Energy Minister on this signature bill. I also do want to say that this is clearly enabling legislation but it does appear to be putting the cart before the horse.

My colleague just spoke and has lots of experience in the department as a former minister, as former Premier. This is the new version of the Atlantic Loop. This is something we've been talking about for a really long time. I share the view of my colleagues that if this comes to pass, it's a good thing. We need revenue. We need to use what we are good at. We need to find ways to strengthen our national economy. It would be great to be part of that but we're not even close to being there.

The federal Minister responsible for ACOA - a local boy - spoke not long ago. When he was asked about this, he quickly transitioned to talking about enabling infrastructure. This is a good idea, but we don't have the port capacity. We don't have the lay-by spaces. We don't even have the ability to think about building this in our province. To the extent that this starts to set out that enabling - the way that we're going to be able to do a deal some day in the future - okay, that's kind of a neutral.

I share my colleague's concerns about forgoing revenue. I haven't seen what I hope is a detailed report from experts in the economics of offshore wind. I don't know if it's a good deal. It doesn't seem like a good deal. I guess we'll see if we get bids and what that looks like. I'd like to see community benefit.

[Page 2523]

We're going to have a lot of conversation with our traditional industries. We've seen that with onshore wind. We're certainly going to see that with offshore wind. Those conversations are going to happen. We'd like to see those conversations happening.

I also do want to highlight that, while we were supportive of the independent energy systems operator, we also have questions about who they're ultimately responsible to. This was the government that came in in 2021 and legislated environmental targets. This government was proud of that, and like the other guardrails that we've seen this government set, we've blown through those targets.

Now apparently - this is the question I have for the minister that I hope he'll be able to answer - there's no repercussion for that. I'm not sure why we would have legislated targets if they're not enforceable, if they have no teeth.

As for the Atlantic Loop, the last thing I'll say is that the premise of this project seems to be that we're going to supply electricity to the United States. I want to ask the minister if this is what we want to pin our economic future on. When we talk about projects of national interest - the federal government has begun to talk about projects of national interest as a way to strengthen our east-to-west Canadian economic corridors. How do we stand on our own as a large, sparsely populated country in the shadow of a giant who's pretty mean?

I'm not sure why we're putting all our eggs in the basket of being a supplier to them. I'm not sure that makes the most sense. If it does, I would hope that, at the very least, we would benefit too. So far, we have heard nothing in this plan that would suggest that Nova Scotians would even have the capacity to take advantage of the power generated from this project.

Those are some of the questions that we have. I hope that the minister will take the time to answer those questions. We look forward to hearing from people at the Public Bills Committee.

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

HON. BECKY DRUHAN « » : I am pleased to stand and have an opportunity to speak to the significant issues of power and our economy, and particularly this proposed act, the Powering the Economy Act.

I do wish we had had an opportunity to hear the minister speak. It is unusual and unfortunate that that wasn't provided. We have had the opportunity to have some briefings, early as they were - in the morning - rushed as they may have been. That's helped to shed some light on what the goals of the Powering the Economy Act are. I mean, powering the economy - I've gone through it with those two lenses.

[Page 2524]

[10:15 p.m.]

Knowing what I know about Nova Scotians' challenges with power - I hear on the daily and I experience them myself. We all do. Those issues are reliability, affordability, and sustainability, primarily. We have regular power outages. We now know our grid is not adequately maintained to sustain power in times where it's strained, either as a result of weather or overuse. That's a challenge. The grid is a challenge.

We know that we're looking for a long-term sustainable source of energy for Nova Scotia. The cost is a significant issue that Nova Scotians are facing daily and that is in the news on the regular. We've heard from the Premier and the minister on his position on that. One would hope to see remedies for all of those challenges in a bill called the Powering the Economy bill.

On the economy side of things, we're facing a near-$2-billion deficit, and deficits projected for the next four or five years. Nova Scotia needs revenue, so I'm hopeful that this bill will provide an opportunity for that for the sustainability of our future.

Nova Scotia can always use better-paying jobs. That's a given. I embrace, and certainly folks in Lunenburg West embrace the idea of building new lucrative industry. Those are the things I was looking for when I reviewed this legislation.

I've got to say I was pretty disappointed not to find much of any of them. I'll start with a bit of a standalone, and that's the provision on the independent operator. The provision in this bill actually extends the timeline for the operator to take over the responsibilities and to take over the infrastructure for a number of years - I don't have it at my fingertips. That concerns me for a number of reasons.

The two primary reasons are - the reliability of the grid is something that is an immediate issue, and any delay to that work is going to result in continued outages - continued extended outages and the problems that that creates for Nova Scotians - the costs, the loss of food, the damage to homes. A delay to that is concerning. I wasn't clear from the briefing why that delay is being built into this bill. I would have liked to have heard from the minister on that. Hopefully at some point in the course of the debate, we will. That's very concerning to me.

I'm also concerned because that extension is going to come with additional costs. The transition of moving from the current structure to the new independent operator - that's ticking the price tag up for Nova Scotians, which we can obviously ill afford. That was disheartening.

Then the other issues that I raised - and I think for me, the best way - it's pretty black and white. For me, an easy way to look at this is a cost-benefit analysis. What's proposed in this legislation, what's it going to cost Nova Scotians, and what are we going to get from it?

[Page 2525]

Ever the optimist, I'm going to start with the benefits. The first benefit seems to be the monetary benefit. We understand that for the first 10 years, if not more, is going to be at most $35 million a year. To you and me - to everybody in Nova Scotia - that's a significant amount of money, but as a line item on a provincial budget, that is a drop in the bucket. That $35 million - I believe just this year, $30 million is going to potential fracking developers, so that doesn't go very far. That's not a significant monetary benefit. But I understand sometimes it takes time for industries to get up and running, so presumably the long-term benefit is going to be much more significant to Nova Scotians.

What's the long-term benefit? We've been told that the maximum that we're looking at is about $100 million per year. That's at best, and that is at least 10 years out, if not more. Again, $100 million per year is an incredible amount to you and me, to individuals in Nova Scotia, but as a line item on a budget, it is a drop in the bucket. It is not very much money. It's just not a lot.

What about jobs? What about long-term, sustainable, good-paying jobs? There's just no indication of what this will deliver on that front. It does seem like projects like this do tend to create temporary construction jobs, but the long-term job prospects are not significant.

That's what we see often in Alberta. A lot of the money in Alberta - we know that there's money there, but it's typically, for the people working there, in the construction of the energy production not in the production once it's running. The lack of any projections around long-term good-paying jobs is also quite concerning, but I did put it in the benefit column because presumably it will yield some jobs.

The big thing I think Nova Scotians are interested in is the energy for Nova Scotia. We need sustainable energy sources. We are all working toward reliable green energy. We share that commonality and goal. The great hope here was that this would provide Nova Scotians with a significant green energy source, but again, in fact, this is not for Nova Scotia. What we were advised at the briefing is that this is for export. Maybe Nova Scotia will see a bit of this energy.

I couldn't put that in the benefit column because we're exporting it - not sure to who - potentially to the United States, which I have some concerns about if that's the model that we're going with. It isn't going to deliver energy for us. It is building an industry. It's building an industry to export to others around the world.

That is what I came up with for benefits. I would have loved to hear the minister talk about what benefits he sees in this Act, but we didn't get that chance tonight. Hopefully, at some point in debate, we will. I look forward to that. That's benefits. Let's go now to costs, because that's the other side of this equation.

[Page 2526]

There are a few costs here, but it's uncertain the volume or the quantity of them. The one that I'm going to start with is the one that is most concerning to me because it's not just a monetary number. It strikes at the core of our economy and our culture, and that is the potential damage that this project - or projects, if it's more than one - could do to our fishery.

Our fishery is a $2.5-billion industry, and I'm not even sure that number encompasses all the spin-off and all the additional benefits to our economy. It may be our largest industry. It is certainly our most historic and culturally significant industry in Nova Scotia, and it is incredibly important to Lunenburg West and to many communities. It's incredibly important to the entire province, but many communities across the province have people who are engaged in it and rely on this industry.

There are significant questions as to the potential damage that these projects could cause to fishing in Nova Scotia waters, and they come in two forms. There's the potential damage to the actual ecosystem that sustains the fishery. The particular industry that is raising issues around this, that I've heard of, is the lobster fishing industry, but I do believe there are concerns for other industries as well.

In addition to ecosystem damage, even if that didn't exist, there will be restrictions on fishing grounds because the wind farms are incompatible with the fishing. I'm entirely unclear – I did not have a sense from the briefings that we received, and we haven't heard from the minister - have we done an analysis on how this is going to impact our $2.5-billion industry, for the potential of $100 million per year, sometime down the road? That math doesn't work for me. That's really concerning to me. That's just one of the costs that we'll be facing.

I'm curious that there wasn't information in the briefing. We didn't have the opportunity to hear from the minister about whether tax credits will be offered to developers associated with this. Those are dollars that come straight out of Nova Scotians' pocketbooks, so that's an important number to understand.

I don't know whether grants might be available for developers. That would be an additional cost. If any of these developers are receiving federal funds - I know that doesn't come out of our provincial budget, but it's still a taxpayer input. These are costs that, I suggest, would probably likely be incurred. We don't have a sense of them, but they have to be stacked on this side of the equation.

The other item that we also haven't heard anything at all about, and I am incredibly curious about - not only from this perspective but for curiosity's sake, because this is a really big industry. I don't mean big for money; I mean big physical stuff. The equipment involved in offshore wind farming is equipment that we in Nova Scotia don't have now. I'd be really curious to hear from the minister: Do we have the infrastructure to transport that equipment? How does it get here? Are we going to manufacture it? I don't think we're going to manufacture it, so then we're importing it from somewhere. Do we need to build roads for this? If we do, that price tag goes up fast.

[Page 2527]

When I weigh that all out - the costs that we've described, the potential risks to the fishery, grants, tax credits, the possible cost of infrastructure - to me, that doesn't justify moving ahead with this without more information because the benefits aren't there. The benefits just aren't there. The income isn't there, the revenue isn't there for the province, the jobs - we've got no indication that those are going to be there - and there's no energy for us.

It doesn't seem to me, based on what's in this act - and I am a deep supporter of green energy. I want to see Nova Scotia be on the cutting edge of green energy, but we have to do it right, and we have to do it smart. I don't understand, based on what's in this act and the information that's been provided to us, who is benefiting because it doesn't seem like our fisheries are going to benefit. It seems like they're at significant risk.

The Nova Scotia ratepayer isn't going to benefit because this power is not for us. There is no big financial benefit to the provincial purse. We've heard those numbers - $35 million per year and then maybe a $100 million per year after that, 10 years down the road - possibly, hopefully, if everything goes really well, and no real guarantees of good jobs.

I'd like to be optimistic, but in the absence of having heard from the minister on other benefits that potentially I didn't see when I looked through the act, I remain skeptical and filled with questions and concerns, but I look forward to more information coming to light through the course of debate on this bill.

Power is something that needs to be tackled for Nova Scotians. Our economy is something that needs to be tackled for Nova Scotians. I can get behind a plan that could power our economy. This bill, as far as I can tell, doesn't seem to offer either of those things, though.

Those are all my comments for now, but I absolutely look forward to the minister's comments as debate proceeds.

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

PAUL WOZNEY « » : I am not going to retread ground already covered by previous speakers, but I want to respond to what I believe is a fundamental flaw in this piece of legislation. The Premier and the Minister of Energy, in social media posts, interviews, PR events, likes to use words like "generational" and "game-changing." It talks about how we have the potential that we have. I agree that Nova Scotia has that potential, and I agree with the Premier that offshore wind is a component of realizing that future. I don't make light of that. I think it is a pathway to prosperity that we have struggled to realize as a Province for a very long time.

[Page 2528]

[10:30 p.m.]

But when I look at this legislation - it's enabling legislation - my concern is that is points us to a pathway that fails to ensure the long-term prosperity of the Province of Nova Scotia. The Premier keeps talking about Nova Scotia as having the potential to be an energy superpower, not only meeting all of our own power needs, but being able to supply power to neighbouring provinces and other customers, that abundance of electricity being a source of prosperity and driving our economy forward, of powering not just electrical grid growth but economic growth and social development in our province. Those are all things that everybody in the NDP believes very strongly in. Those are goals that we hold very high and work to achieve as well.

But I think this legislation positions us more like the energy superpower in Alberta than it does the energy superpower in Norway. For the sake of discussion, Norway and Alberta are both energy superpowers because of oil, not necessarily because of offshore wind. For the sake of argument, let's look at Norway and Alberta. What have they done with their energy reserves? The source of it is a whole other thing.

Alberta effectively has treated oil. They've outsourced the development of that resource to private interests, and they've pumped government money into those industry partners for a very long time. As a matter of fact, Canadians, including Nova Scotians, subsidize to the tune of billions of dollars every year to corporate interests in oil in Alberta to make Alberta oil profitable and to get it to market. The return on investment for all that subsidy - Alberta enjoys benefits of it, but they treat that income as a way to prop up the Province's spending. That's one way to spend the income that comes from the energy resources of the province.

When we look at Norway, Norway's taking a different approach. Norway has said from the outset, in the 1990s, We're going to take the revenue generated from this resource, and we are going to annually set aside a certain amount of the revenue that's generated from this industry, and we are going to put it to use for the present and future citizens of this country. A quick google of "the Norway oil fund" will lead you to some very fascinating reading for us as decision-makers here in Nova Scotia. Do we want to be like Alberta, or would we rather be like Norway?

We're at a moment in time with offshore wind where we have the time and we have the opportunity to answer that question fully here and now. In Norway now, having begun to put aside what at the time was not a record sum but developing the political and fiscal discipline to put aside that money in a fund and administer it, that fund contains $1.83 trillion in resources. The government of Norway can withdraw no more than 3 percent of the principal of the fund on an annual basis to support the work of government and provide programs and services.

[Page 2529]

Nonetheless, the sheer enormity of this fund, that 3 percent, has become a lifeblood to a vibrant social democracy that relies on many of the public services that we in Canada aspire to provide our citizens here at home.

When I look at this legislation, this legislation enshrines a revenue mechanism for offshore wind to collect royalties. That's a bad deal for Nova Scotians. Companies that generate power offshore and sell it get a break on the royalties that they have to pay back to the province.

If we're a company, and we want to set up in Nova Scotia's ocean and we want to benefit from the wind and the land and the territory that make it a profitable enterprise to generate electricity offshore of Nova Scotia, I get a 65 percent discount on the royalties I have to give the province to do that business. Rather than set a paradigm where companies from the very outset that generate power in Nova Scotia pay their fair share, they contribute to a fund that over time grows in size and scope and empowers future governments to meet the needs of Nova Scotians without doing things like running record deficits.

The government of Norway, in its wisdom, has turned something very modest into a very formidable fund and a source of revenue to sustain one of the very highest standards of living in the entire world. We look at Norway and quality of life. Life in Nova Scotia is pretty good - not sure if it's as good as it is in Norway.

We have an opportunity to set the table and frame a future in which the wealth generated by offshore wind here in Nova Scotia powers the economic prosperity of our province for the rest of time. When I look at the deal that we enshrined in legislation here, we're going to retain pennies on the dollar in terms of the power that's generated and sold by corporations.

It's unclear whether the Premier intends to form a Crown corporation to be the sole producer of energy in Nova Scotia. That's nowhere in this bill. Based on the approach of this government in many other respects, they have a penchant for looking to private industry to be the developer and the deployer of solutions. Those corporations do rather handsomely based on that model.

I'm deeply concerned, Speaker, that enshrining this model in law deprives the people of Nova Scotia a base level of prosperity that enables us to provide all of the services - to finally fully fund the finest public schools on the face of the planet so that when we have a budget shortfall here or there, we have the resources to make sure that those schools don't pay the price; that we have the resources to provide Nova Scotians with access to emergency care in every community in this province around the clock, all year around.

Again, I don't disagree with the project. There's no question that offshore wind has immense potential to benefit the people of this province, not only in creating a stable, sustainable, reliable, low-cost source of electricity for our own folks, but to go from having some of the highest energy costs in the country to having the most affordable energy cost in the country. That's within our grasp if we do this right.

[Page 2530]

This legislation heads down a pathway that we know leads to less than best for the people who rely on us most. I think it would be a horrific missed opportunity to get 10 or 15 years down the road, down the wrong path following the wrong model, and have to fix it later. Why not set ourselves up for the kind of success that really leads the world?

We have a model to pattern ourselves after in Norway in terms of public ownership of the utility and the equipment, but also the public benefiting from the revenues generated by companies that produce electricity and benefit from being set in a particular geography.

With that, Speaker - again, I don't have any interest in re-covering territory that other speakers have already trod, but I think this is a point we're sitting with. It's not that this bill isn't worthwhile at all. It's whether or not it's worth passing as currently constituted, and whether we are following the right leads in establishing offshore wind in this province.

This legislation will go a long way in whether this is a solution to the problems that ail our province in terms of electricity and economic prosperity or whether it will simply continue and perpetuate those issues.

THE SPEAKER « » : I see no more speakers. Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is for second reading (Interruption)

There doesn't have to be a motion made. That's why I asked if the House is ready for the question.

The motion is for second reading of Bill No. 193.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

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

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Thank you, everyone, for the debate.

Pursuant to Rule 5(c), I am just going to call House hours for tomorrow. The House hours for tomorrow will be 11:00 a.m. until 11:59 p.m. and Friday will be 9:00 a.m. to 11:59 p.m.

[Page 2531]

Could you please call (Interruption) Oh, "all those in favour." I don't need to do her job.

THE SPEAKER « » : Pursuant to Rule 5(c), there has been a request for Thursday, February 26, from 11:00 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. For Friday, February 27, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:59 p.m.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : On that positive note, would you please call Private and Local Bills for Second Reading.

PRIVATE AND LOCAL BILLS FOR SECOND READING

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 190.

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

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

LISA LACHANCE « » : Thank you very much, and I am pleased to stand and talk about this bill, not for super long - don't worry - but perhaps more than the government recently spoke on their energy bill. So here I am.

I think we know these stories amongst our churches as they look at their changing demographics, their changing needs to their communities. St. Matthew's Church, Fort Massey United Church, and St. Andrew's United Church, they are all united churches here on the peninsula of Halifax. I did a little member's statement for them earlier today. They all have been amazing communities, grounded in their community, committed to making their communities better, all affirming congregations as well.

So it's no surprise that, as they looked at the cost of their old buildings and their declining attendance and some of those challenges, one of the things they thought about doing was coming together. And so, each congregation undertook its own process. There were votes, and already the community is being built. There have been joint worships, and there have been lunches after those worships so people can get to know each other. I read in the Vision Statement earlier today, but I quite love it: "With open hearts, open doors and willing hands, we work together to bring hope, connection, and transformation to Halifax and beyond."

[Page 2532]

[10:45 p.m.]

This bill simply creates the trustee structure behind this amalgamation, and I hope that folks will support it.

THE SPEAKER « » : If I recognize the honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island it will be to close second reading on Bill No. 190.

The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

LISA LACHANCE « » : I move to close second reading on Bill No. 190.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is for second reading of Bill No. 190.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

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

The honourable Government House Leader.

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE « » : Speaker, that concludes government business for today. I move that the House now rise to meet again on February 26^th between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 11:59 p.m.

Following the Daily Routine and Question Period, Government Business will include Estimates, Resolution Nos. 351 and 352, and time permitting, second reading of Bill Nos. 198, 200, and 201.

THE SPEAKER « » : The motion is that the House do now rise to meet again tomorrow, February 26^th, between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 11:59 p.m.

All those in favour? Contrary minded? Thank you.

The motion is carried.

[Page 2533]

The House stands adjourned until tomorrow, February 26^th, at 11:00 a.m.

[The House rose at 10:47 p.m.]

FILED PETITIONS

(Tabled Feb. 25, 2026)

Petition For The Upgrade of Frank Comeau Road From K-Road to Public Road

To: Ryan W. Robicheau, MLA Clare

We, the undersigned residents, property owners, tourism operators (housing approximately 250 guests monthly), and road users, respectfully petition to the government of Nova Scotia to assume maintenance responsibility for the 0.8 km section of Frank Comeau Road in the Municipality of Clare, Digby County.

This road is a vital connector between two government-maintained roads - Maza Road (which becomes impassible for more than a month each spring) and Petit Moulin Road. It serves residents, tourism guests, service vehicles, and emergency services, including fire trucks, ambulances, and Department of Public Works vehicles.

Although designated as a K-road (provincially owned but unmaintained and rarely used), it is heavily used and is being maintained by locals. Mainland Telecom has cleared vegetation for new infrastructure, and Nova Scotia Power maintains utility poles along the road.

Given its essential role in our community, we respectfully request due to an important change of pattern that this road be reclassified as a public road and its maintenance assumed by the government.

[Page 2534]