In late October, former justice minister Becky Druhan left the PC Party to sit in the legislature as an independent. Just last week, she told people why.
As per an article from CBC, the Lunenburg West MLA said a “difference in principles” led to her departure. Just last week, she explained further: during the fall legislature, she alleges a staff member warned her not to speak on the Protecting Nova Scotians Act, an omnibus bill that brought with it sweeping, controversial changes.
Some of those changes affected the Liquor Control Act. This included requirements for security personnel at bars, mandating that they complete criminal record checks and undergo training. This wasn’t well-received by the families of those who have died in conflicts with bouncers, who have criticized the bill because it doesn’t give the government the ability to regulate security. The fact that this same bill was passed back in 2010 and wasn’t proclaimed into law is a reminder of the disappointment they felt 15 years ago.
Druhan says she was told not to speak on this bill. She did, anyway. During an extremely short fall sitting—only eight days long—Druhan was one of the only cabinet ministers to chime in on the legislature floor about the bills up for debate.
That ultimately cost her the role of justice minister, and although she was offered a new portfolio during the shuffle, she decided against it and left the party altogether.
To some, it may have been strange that the justice minister, who held a law degree, was replaced in the last cabinet shuffle by MLA Scott Armstrong, a former high school principal who has experience in federal politics, but none in law. But, in the context of attempting to speedrun the fall legislature with no words from party members to drag it out, it starts to make some sense.
In a column written in the Chronicle Herald, policy analyst Paul Bennett calls Druhan a “talking points minister,”—a stiff insult, to be sure, but he’s not incorrect in his assessment. As minister of justice and, previously, minister of education, Druhan would be more likely to distract with platitudes rather than address the tough questions head-on. What Bennett is missing in his analysis is that this is the PC Party’s modus operandi.
Most members of the PC Party—and most politicians, at that—have a knack for saying a bunch of words that don’t necessarily address the real issues. The PC Party is great at making a show out of every little “win” they get. A few more apartments being developed? You’ll be sure to see your MLA there to talk about how the government is doing so much to fix the housing crisis—you just have to wait a decade for those units to complete construction.
When it comes to actual policy changes, they are slow and unwilling. Unless it’s to allow more development, you won’t see the PC Party lift a finger. When it comes to making peaceful protests illegal and selling off public land to the highest bidder, that’s when their interest is piqued. Otherwise, they’ll do the bare minimum, including recycling a change to the Liquor Control Act that should’ve been proclaimed back in 2010 in an attempt to appease heartbroken families. Going back to the housing example, they continue to say they’re working on the ongoing crisis while avoiding questions about how landlords are dodging the provincial rent cap through the fixed-term lease loophole.
In the wake of Druhan quitting the PC Party, she has been outspoken about bringing civility back to provincial politics, citing a communications training she and other MLAs were provided after the 2021 provincial election. As per CBC: “Every story should have an enemy, and to make sure that you knew who the enemy was, was when you were making your plans for communicating about the story.”
If there’s one person who understood this better than anyone during the 2024 provincial election, it was Druhan’s replacement, Armstrong. He was nothing short of the premier’s attack dog during the campaign, with press releases targeting members of other parties on lousy bases. He came after Lisa Lachance for receiving federal money for her consultancy work, and also the Nova Scotia NDP generally, for what he called “bad math” on rental price inflation while not providing any solutions to the problem at hand.
Now, as a junior member of the legislature, he’s the minister of one of the provincial government’s most important portfolios.
It’s less about who is and who isn’t a “talking points minister.” They all are, in their own right. Just watch these folks spill pre-rehearsed lines while giving an announcement, all with the charisma of an anxious teenager.
The difference between Druhan and those still in the party is that they didn’t like her talking points over what they’ve been told to say—or, in this case, not to say. In a political system that prioritizes zingers over actual policy discussion, it’s no surprise that someone who was starting to focus on the latter was dropped for someone who succeeds at the former.
Style over substance, as they say.
That Herald column by Paul Bennett that was referenced in this excellent piece… I’m sorry, but for a policy analyst, he’s incredibly naive. To single out Becky Druhan for being a “taking points minister” when, in fact, all ministers at the provincial and federal level are little more than “talking points ministers.” It’s a consequence of our modern democracy’s top-down approach. The PMO or Premier’s Office dictates policy, and it’s the job of a minister to sell it – that’s it.
To single Becky Druhan out for that, as if that’s the reason she had to leave the cabinet, is at best naive and at worst, disingenuous. Given the character she’s shown in her departure, imagine if she had actually been able to determine policy for her portfolio. We’ll never know.