Claudia on the Coastal Protection Act - Bill 434

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

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : I listened with interest to the comments of my colleagues. I want to just take a few moments and speak to this bill.

I want to address, in particular, the comments that we heard from the member for Richmond. I don't know if the member is aware, or if he made his constituents aware, but the Coastal Protection Act is enabling legislation. All of the contents of what property owners would, in fact, be able to do would be created by regulation. The idea that this Act itself was somehow going to create a huge burden, I think, is actually a failure in communication by the PC government to the people of Nova Scotia.

I think that it's really important that we understand that this Act includes measures that protect all Nova Scotians from the impact of climate change. I would say that people didn't hear about this on the campaign trail because the bill had passed. Nobody thought it was an issue because it was a piece of legislation that had passed, which is why we introduced another piece of legislation saying that if you pass a bill, you actually have to proclaim it or you have to bring it back and repeal it. You can't just pass a bill and then sit on it forever. This isn't the only bill that's happened to, of course.

It is compelling, what the member has brought forward, but I also think that it's very clear from what we've heard from government members - and also what we've heard from the radio ads that have started airing - that government believes that this is an issue for coastal property owners. We believe that this is an issue for all Nova Scotians. I think if you call this an issue for coastal property owners, you deny the coastal character of our entire province.

You shouldn't only care about the coast, or be able to understand the coast, or be able to advocate for coastal protection, if you own a piece of property on the coast. I think that notion is anathema to most Nova Scotians. I don't think most Nova Scotians think that way. I'm not saying the member said that. I'm saying that this is my characterization of what I hear from government - that this is an issue for coastal property owners.

The radio ad says, "We have created guidelines for coastal property owners." What we are saying is, in the words of my colleague, the member for Timberlea-Prospect: This is an issue for our neighbours, and our neighbour's neighbours, and our neighbour's neighbour's neighbours, and anyone who identifies as a Nova Scotian. All Nova Scotians identify as coastal people.

I just want to highlight most of what has already been said. I think that the issue is that we see the government's decision not to pass this bill as an abdication of responsibility. This is no longer coastal protection. It's coastal suggestion. We think that coastal suggestion is insufficient.

This, as has been said, is why we are here. We are here to pass laws for the public good. That is what Joseph Howe brought into this building and into that room next door to us. That is what we are here to uphold: the public good. The protection of our coast - which we no longer have through a failure to pass this Act - is absolutely, 100 per cent a piece of legislation that is in the public good. Now we no longer have it.

Aside from what we just heard from the member for Richmond, until today I actually hadn't heard a government member or anyone give any example - other than an allusion to government members - of someone who had said: We don't want this passed.

We have that now in the record today, but I would also like to add into the record the reaction to the government's decision not to pass the bill that was originally introduced: The EAC calls the Nova Scotia government's coastal plan "a failure of leadership"; Nova Scotia Federation of Municipalities wants province to explain new plan; Something Rotten in the Province of Nova Scotia; Government Business - The Halman Theorem; Commentary - 'Underwriting' coastal protection; Thinking Out Loud with Sheldon MacLeod: Coastal protection by "instinct and better judgment"; Voice of the People - Nova Scotia Government gets an F on coastal protection; Is Nova Scotia's Coastline About to Change Forever?; Nova Scotia Government Downloads Coastal Management; and Pictou County expresses disappointment in scrapping of Coastal Protection Act.

We have already talked about the clever way we have interpreted the survey results: Nova Scotia Environment minister says silence on Coastal Protection Act survey speaks volumes - I will leave that for people to understand; The Houston government thinks we can use an app to ward off storm damage and sea level rise individually. We can't; Nova Scotia's Coastal Protection Act dead in the water; Residents dealing with erosion react to N.S. abandonment of Coastal Protection Act; New N.S. act shifts responsibility to homeowners, municipalities; Property owners, researcher critical of N.S. approach to coastal protection; Coastal Protection Act set adrift by Tories; Government Business - Slapstick Consultation; Commentary - Urging Coastal Rethink; and Coastal Protection Act meets Hogan Court.

That is a good place for me to segue into what will be my final comment on this. This is really an issue where, once again, we have a huge number of people who are in favour of this bill. We have a bill that passed with all-party support, and we have government reversing decision with almost no explanation, other than a few anecdotal items that have been offered to us today in response to our Opposition bill.

Who is the government listening to, and who are they making decisions for? It's not all the residents, and it's not the municipalities. The Municipality of the District of Lunenburg is a great example of a municipality that wanted this legislation, pushed for it, and when it didn't come, did the work themselves. They were about to pass the Coastal Protection Act measures municipally when this came up. Interestingly, their numbers are different than the numbers in this coastal action plan, and those numbers are now being called into question.

That leads me to the final question, which is: Where is this government getting its scientific data? We do not have the underlying data. We know that when we go through the government's own web site, sea levels are rising in Nova Scotia and many coastal areas are experiencing flooding from storm surges. Why is this government's data so different than the data from the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg? They are transparent about their data set. Can this government do the same?

We are in an entire legislative process that is shrouded in mystery. We have bills that are passed with all-party support that don't get passed. We have the Premier promising tons of legislation on the Friday before March break, and we have three pieces, one of which is actually 15, but you know. I can't really figure out what we are doing here. We want the government to pass this bill. This is why we are bringing it again. We need to take the guesswork out of coastal protection. We need coastal protection, not coastal suggestion.

Everyone has spoken to this so loudly. Of course there will be some dissenting voices, but this isn't about individual property owners. This is about all Nova Scotians. This is about our children's right to be able to access the coast of our province and about protecting it for future generations. We give this government a failing grade on their coastal action plan in terms of having done that.

I hope, for the future of our province and the future of our coasts, that this government will change their approach. With that I move to adjourn debate on Bill No. 434.