I’ve been thinking a lot lately about government accountability — specifically, about what happens when “emergency spending” becomes business as usual.
The PC government in Nova Scotia has been defending its use of additional appropriations—money spent outside the regular budget process. Their argument? Government needs flexibility to respond when emergencies or opportunities arise.
And you know, I agree with that. Wildfires are a perfect example. When emergencies happen, government needs to act quickly. I get that.
But here’s what I don’t get: $6.7 billion spent outside the regular budget process since 2021.
That’s not emergency flexibility. That’s a pattern. And it raises serious questions about a government that doesn’t follow its own rules.
When Government Doesn’t Follow Its Own Rules
Let’s talk about what the Houston government has done versus what they said they’d do.
They set debt-to-GDP targets to maintain fiscal discipline. Then they oversaw large deficits that pushed the net debt-to-GDP ratio to 45.4% by 2029/30 — higher than the limits they set for themselves.
They established competitive bidding policies for procurement. Then, according to the Auditor General, most procurement spending in 2024-2025 didn’t go through a competitive process.
They promised to index social programs to the cost of living. Then they were slow to act—and in some cases, abandoned the promise entirely.
They tabled a budget with $130 million in cuts to grants for seniors, people with disabilities, and community groups. Then, after public outcry, they reversed $54 million of those cuts two weeks later, with Premier Houston acknowledging they “got it wrong” and “moved too quickly.”
Premier Houston has justified this approach as prioritizing “progress over process.” But here’s the thing: process is progress when it comes to accountability. Process ensures public money is spent responsibly. Process builds trust.
The Deficit-to-Surplus Shell Game
Here’s a pattern worth examining: the Houston government consistently tables budgets with large deficits, then ends the year with surprise surpluses — which they spend through additional appropriations approved only by cabinet, without legislative debate or public scrutiny.
Look at the track record since they took office:
Every single budget has been tabled with a deficit forecast:
• 2021-22: Budgeted deficit of $585 million → Actual surplus of $107.7 million
• 2022-23: Budgeted deficit of $506.2 million → Actual surplus of $115.7 million
• 2023-24: Budgeted deficit of $418.8 million → Actual surplus of $143.6 million
• 2024-25: Budgeted deficit of $467 million → Forecast now $654 million deficit
• 2025-26: Budgeted deficit of $1.041 billion (and climbing to $1.24 billion)
The surpluses in those first three years came from revenues that were billions of dollars higher than expected — driven by population growth and stronger-than-anticipated tax collection.
The Real Story Behind the Numbers
Here’s what the government won’t tell you: of the $6.7 billion spent in additional appropriations since 2021, only about 2.4% went to actual emergencies like wildfire response ($29.2 million). The other 97.6%? Spending on things like efficiency programs ($140 million), tax credits ($9.1 million), rink repairs ($6.5 million), and healthcare contracts — all predictable expenses that should have been part of regular budget planning.
Yet even after spending $6.7 billion outside the budget process, the government still managed to end three consecutive fiscal years with surpluses:
• 2021-22: $107.7 million surplus (after $1.7 billion in additional appropriations)
• 2022-23: $115.7 million surplus (after $1.2 billion in additional appropriations)
• 2023-24: $143.6 million surplus (after $1.2 billion in additional appropriations)
Let that sink in. The government overspent by billions — on top of their already-approved budgets — and still ended the year in the black.
That’s good news, right?
So when they tell us they had to cut $130 million from community programs serving seniors, people with disabilities, and cultural organizations? An amount that accounts for less than 2% of the overall provincial budget. When they tell us there’s no money for arts funding, or for African Nova Scotian initiatives? When they justify these cuts as necessary fiscal discipline?
That’s not fiscal reality. That’s a choice.
If the government had the surplus to absorb $6.7 billion in unplanned spending and still come out ahead, they had the surplus to protect community programs. They chose not to. And they did it without any transparent assessment of what those cuts would actually cost — in terms of community health, mental wellness, social connection, or long-term healthcare demand.
When “Emergency” Spending Isn’t Actually an Emergency
Some of the examples government has cited as necessary additional appropriations are things I would have expected them to plan and budget for — like negotiating pay increases for nurses and physicians, or establishing a new medical school. These aren’t surprises. These are expenses that should be part of regular budget planning.
In my years leading nonprofits, I’ve learned this: if I consistently need to spend outside my approved budget, it means one of two things. Either my budget planning isn’t capturing actual needs, or I’m making spending decisions without proper oversight. Either way, it’s a problem I need to fix.
The Auditor General flagged similar concerns — control weaknesses, implementation gaps, the need for better monitoring. These aren’t partisan criticisms. They’re professional assessments about fiscal governance that this government seems content to ignore.
The Accountability Double Standard
Here’s what really gets me: the government holds community organizations to strict accountability standards that it doesn’t even apply to itself.
I’ve led nonprofit organizations that receive government funding. I know exactly what’s required of us. We have to be audited annually. Our financial policies and procedures are examined closely. We have to show how every dollar is spent and what results we achieved. We report on our activities, our impact, our challenges. We’re held accountable — as we should be.
But when government spends $6.7 billion outside the regular budget process? We get a defensive video saying “we need flexibility.”
When government ignores its own competitive bidding policies? When it abandons its own debt targets? When it tables massive cuts and then reverses course two weeks later because they “moved too quickly”? There are no consequences. No accountability. Just “progress over process.”
The organizations whose funding was slashed in that March 2026 budget — 72 arts and culture programs, hundreds of community organizations serving seniors and people with disabilities, programs promoting leadership and health for African Nova Scotians, Indigenous programming — they all had to meet strict accountability requirements to receive that funding — the community colleges that recently let go of every librarian on staff in the province, along with many other staff/faculty, due to their unexpected funding shortfall. Organizations that were required to have audited financial statements. They had governance policies. They reported on their outcomes. They demonstrated their impact.
And then government cut their funding without consultation, without community engagement, without showing that those cuts were based on performance or outcomes. Just… cut.
So let me get this straight: Community organizations have to jump through hoops to prove they’re worthy of $50,000 in funding, but government can spend billions outside the approved budget process, ignore its own procurement policies, and abandon its own fiscal targets — and we’re just supposed to trust that it’s all necessary?
That’s not accountability. That’s a double standard.
The Transparency Problem
This isn’t just about additional appropriations. It’s about making major fiscal decisions without meaningful community engagement or transparency.
Take the 1% HST cut that came into effect in December 2024. The government themselves have projected more than $260 million annually (and rising each year) in lost revenue. That’s a massive fiscal decision made without robust public consultation about the trade-offs.
And what did we get for that lost revenue? A tax cut that had minimal benefit to those who need it most, while community programs that actually strengthen our social fabric and keep people healthy were gutted. When you cut education, tourism, sports, health, Gaelic programs, African Nova Scotian initiatives, Indigenous programming — all in one budget — you’re not making strategic choices. You’re dismantling the infrastructure that communities depend on.
And it’s not just what’s already been cut. The government has signaled plans for further cuts to community grants, the civil service and broader public sector — which will directly affect community infrastructure like libraries, schools, and the spaces where people gather and connect. Yet these decisions are being made without meaningful consultation about what communities will lose.
I’ve written an open letter to the Premier, Minister of Finance, and my MLA about the budget and the disconnect between this government’s healthcare priorities and their decision to slash funding for community programs that prevent people from needing expensive healthcare in the first place. But the broader issue here is about process and transparency.
Major fiscal decisions — whether it’s cutting taxes, cutting programs, or spending billions outside the budget process — should involve meaningful community engagement. They should be transparent. They should follow the government’s own rules and policies.
Right now? None of that is happening.
What the Auditor General Told Us
The Auditor General has been clear: there are control weaknesses in government financial management. There are implementation gaps. There’s a need for better monitoring. Government isn’t following its own procurement policies. Spending outside the budget process breaks proper financial oversight rules.
These aren’t abstract concerns. They’re about whether Nova Scotians can trust that their money is being managed responsibly and transparently.
When government consistently spends outside the regular budget process — the process that includes legislative oversight, public scrutiny, and accountability mechanisms — it bypasses the systems designed to ensure fiscal responsibility.
When government ignores its own policies and targets, it sends a message that rules are for everyone else.
When government makes major fiscal decisions without robust consultation, it governs at people rather than with them.
What We Actually Deserve
Nova Scotians deserve more than “we need flexibility” and “progress over process.” We deserve the same level of accountability from our government that government demands from community organizations.
We deserve:
• A government that follows its own rules — including debt targets, procurement policies, and budget processes
• Clear reporting on additional appropriations — what was spent, why it couldn’t go through the regular budget process, and what results were achieved
• The same scrutiny government applies to nonprofits — audited processes, clear policies, demonstrated impact
• Better budget planning that includes proper emergency reserves so emergency spending is the exception, not the pattern
• Meaningful consultation on major fiscal decisions before they’re made, not defensive explanations afterward — or reversals two weeks later because they “moved too quickly”
• Action on the Auditor General’s concerns about financial management, control weaknesses, and procurement practices
Right now, governance is happening at people rather than with them. Decisions are made behind closed doors. Spending happens outside accountability mechanisms. Programs are cut without consultation — then partially restored after public outcry.
And meanwhile, the organizations doing the actual work of building healthy communities — the ones held to strict accountability standards — are having their funding slashed while government spends billions outside the approved budget process and ignores its own fiscal policies.
We Deserve Better
I live and work in Mi’kma’ki (Nova Scotia) because I’m committed to building a province where resources are allocated justly, transparently, and in alignment with community needs.
I know government is complex. I know budgets are complicated. I know there are competing priorities and difficult decisions to make.
But I also know what good governance looks like. I’ve lived it. I’ve led organizations that practice it – even while knowing it is an ongoing iterative process. And this isn’t it.
We deserve a government that holds itself to the same standards it demands from community organizations.
We deserve a government that follows its own rules and policies.
We deserve a government that consults meaningfully before making major fiscal decisions—not one that tables massive cuts and then reverses course two weeks later.
We deserve a government that acts on the Auditor General’s concerns instead of ignoring them.
We deserve a government that governs with us, not at us.
Is that really too much to ask?
Trish McCourt, RSW is a consultant supporting community organizations with leadership transition, organizational development, and advocacy. She has spent over 30 years working in community services, including eight years in strategic leadership with nonprofit organizations in Nova Scotia.
Drop me a comment below and/or follow one of my social media channels.