Annual Well-Being Budget and Reports

Summary#

This bill would add a “well-being budget” to Nova Scotia’s yearly budget. It would track how government spending affects quality of life, not just dollars. It aims to make budgets clearer, fairer, and focused on results for people.

• Requires the Finance Minister to table a well-being budget each year with the regular budget.
• Tracks nine areas of well-being, such as health, education, environment, income, time use, community life, culture, democracy, and equity among regions and groups.
• Uses clear, yearly indicators that are, when possible, broken down by region, age, sex, income, disability, and other traits.
• Each department must assess how major programs are expected to help or harm well-being, in the short and long term, and for which groups.
• The Minister must consult experts, municipalities, Indigenous communities, community groups, and the public before tabling the budget.
• After the year ends, the government must publish a report comparing what it expected to happen with what actually happened, and name programs that made a difference.
• All documents must be public, in plain language, with charts or dashboards. The well-being areas are reviewed at least every five years, and rules can set data standards.

What it means for you#

• Residents

  • You would get a clearer picture of how the budget affects everyday life, not just finances.
  • You could see trends on health, education, the environment, and more, and how they differ by region and group.
  • You may have chances to give input during consultations.
  • No direct change to your taxes or benefits is created by this bill. It changes how the budget is explained and planned.

• Families, patients, and students

  • The government would have to explain how funding for schools, health care, and other services is expected to improve results, and then report back on what happened.

• Rural and urban communities, equity-seeking groups

  • Data would be broken out by place and by traits like age, sex, income, and disability when available.
  • The budget must explain how it advances equity among regions and population groups.

• Community organizations and sector stakeholders

  • You may be consulted on priorities and can use the published data to make your case for programs.

• Municipalities and Indigenous communities

  • You would have a formal role in consultations and a clearer view of how provincial programs affect your people.
  • You may need to share information to support the assessments.

• Public servants

  • Departments would need to assess the direct, indirect, and long-term well-being impacts of major programs, identify who benefits or may be harmed, and share assumptions and data with the Finance Minister.

• Researchers, students, and media

  • You would have access to plain-language reports, methods, and (where provided) dashboards to track outcomes and hold programs to account.

• Timing

  • The well-being budget would come with the annual budget. A results report would follow within about four months after the fiscal year ends.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Makes budgets about people’s quality of life, not just balancing the books.
• Improves transparency by setting clear priorities, tracking trends, and comparing promises to results.
• Encourages smarter spending by requiring evidence on who benefits, who may be harmed, and what effects happen over time.
• Shines a light on inequities by breaking data down by region and group and asking how the budget advances fairness.
• Builds public trust through plain-language reports, open data, and broad consultation.
• Supports long-term planning and course-correction with yearly results and regular reviews of what to measure.

Opponents' View#

• Adds administrative work and costs to gather data, do assessments, and run consultations, which could pull time and money from frontline services.
• Risks becoming a box‑ticking exercise if measures are hard to get right or if agencies focus on reports over real outcomes.
• Data gaps may limit reliable, annual reporting for some groups or regions, weakening conclusions.
• Choosing indicators and judging program impacts can be subjective and vulnerable to political pressure.
• More steps could slow the budget process or complicate decision‑making.
• May duplicate existing performance reporting instead of streamlining it.