PDF Version

March 3, 2025 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 101

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER

(Bennett): Order,

please!

Admit

visitors.

Before

we begin, I would like to welcome everyone in our public galleries this

afternoon.

Also,

I’d like to welcome a new face to the Table today, Jennifer Peckham, who’s

joining us from the Policy, Communications and Committee Support Division for a

one-year development opportunity in the Committee Analyst position, including

responsibilities as a rotational journalling Clerk at the Table. Jennifer

joined us from the House of Assembly where she served as the Manager for

Hansard.

Welcome,

Jennifer, to the House of Assembly.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER:

Today we’ll

hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Conception Bay South,

Exploits, Ferryland, Fogo Island - Cape Freels and Grand Falls-Windsor -

Buchans.

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

B. PETTEN: Thank you,

Speaker.

rise today to acknowledge two exceptionally talented students from Conception

South, both winners of Heritage NL’s Heritage Places Contest.

Mariell

Sánchez is a Grade 11 home-schooled student. She is the 2025 Overall and Senior

High Winner of the Heritage Places Poster Contest for her depiction of the St.

Patrick’s Roman Catholic Church in St. John’s. Mariell explains that the church

is quite captivating and has been a core part of the community, standing

majestically in St. John’s.

Chloe

Regular, a Grade 12 student attending Holy Spirit High School, is the 2025

Avalon Regional Winner of the Heritage Places Poster Contest for her

depiction of Deadman’s Gulch in Ferryland. Chloe learned about a devastating

storm in 1823, during which 42 fishermen sought refuge in this cave.

Unfortunately, the cave collapsed, resulting in the tragic deaths of those 42

men. She notes that if this report is accurate, Deadman’s Gulch is the site of

the worst geological tragedy in the province’s history.

Their

beautiful posters can be viewed on Heritage NL’s website and Facebook page.

Congratulations to Mariell and Chloe for receiving these well-deserved awards.

I wish you both continued success in your future endeavors.

Thank

you.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Exploits.

FORSEY: Thank

you, Speaker.

Speaker,

today I would like to recognize Tracey Porter of Bishop’s Falls. Tracey is a

dedicated and compassionate employee with the Exploits Valley Community

Coalition, Family Resource Centres in Grand Falls-Windsor, Bishop’s Falls and

Botwood for the past 26 years, helping well over 1,500 families.

Tracey

is always there to support single mothers and expectant parents, offering help,

advice and a listening ear, even during the late hours. One example of her

selflessness occurred a few months ago when she was asked by an expecting

couple from Ghana, who had no family support nearby, to be present for the

delivery of their newborn. Tracey, without hesitation, spent her entire weekend

at the hospital with this family offering her support after and before birth.

This family has now called her Nana Tracey.

Speaker,

I would like for all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in recognizing

Tracey Porter for her unwavering support and dedication in helping expected

mothers and families.

Thank

you.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Ferryland.

O’DRISCOLL: Thank

you, Speaker.

rise in this hon. House to recognize the Jacob Puddister Memorial Foundation

for the incredible work they do daily to support those in our province

struggling with mental health and addiction. Today, I want to particularly

acknowledge the organization’s dedication in creating a remarkable new space in

the Town of Bay Bulls.

Jacob’s

Garden of Hope is a beautiful, thoughtfully developed ocean space in Bay Bulls,

across from the Town Hall. This space stands as a tribute, designed to honour

the lives and legacy of those lost to suicide or addiction in our province.

It’s a place where visitors can come to reflect, relax and find solace.

invite all Members of this House to join me in congratulating the Jacob

Puddister Memorial Foundation and everyone involved in bringing this meaningful

space to life. May it continue to be a place of peace and healing for those who

need it now and for those who may find comfort there in the future.

Thank

you.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels.

MCKENNA: Thank

you, Speaker.

few weeks ago, I had the pleasure to recognize a hard-working and dedicated

worker from Fogo Island. I was pleased to present Clifford Rowe with a 75th

Anniversary of Confederation Medal. Mr. Rowe is the owner of Fogo Island

Freight Inc and, after 55 years, he’s still going strong. He operates his

trucking company throughout our province.

This

honour recognizes Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have made significant

contributions to their communities and their province over the past 75 years.

Fogo Island Freight Inc has been a lifeline for the Island, ensuring goods and

supplies reach families and businesses year after year. Mr. Rowe’s company also

is key to moving fish products to and from Fogo Island for the co-op.

Congratulations,

Clifford, and thank you for your dedication to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

TIBBS: Thank

you very much, Speaker.

Many

wonderful volunteers have emerged from Grand Falls-Windsor over the years,

including one amazing man doing extraordinary work, Harvey Sheppard. Mr.

Sheppard has been feeding people in Central Newfoundland through the Community

Kitchen in Grand Falls-Windsor for many years now.

His

hard work and compassion have also ensured meals were provided to many

volunteers and emergency workers during the forest fires in Central during

times of uncertainty. Harvey Sheppard’s generosity has no borders. During the

COVID-19 pandemic, he made his way to Port aux Basques where he fed truckers

who were caught in limbo, again making sure people were fed.

Harvey

gained his work ethic and will to help others from over 20 years as a member in

the Canadian Reserves. Each Labour Day for the past five years, Mr. Sheppard

was kept busy helping to prepare the Labour Day breakfast in Grand

Falls-Windsor – another tradition we are all proud of. Harvey Sheppard also

gives his time to the Park Street Citadel where his work is valued by such a

beautiful church.

Join

me as we thank Harvey Sheppard for a lifetime of volunteer service, helping the

people of Central Newfoundland with full bellies, thanks to his huge heart.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

Statements

by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

COADY: Thank

you very much, Speaker.

rise today as a proud Newfoundlander and Labradorian to recognize our

government’s new Buy from Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada campaign.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

COADY: Launched

just weeks ago, this diverse, multimedia awareness campaign is designed to help

businesses highlight their products and services and help consumers to easily

identify Newfoundland and Labrador and Canadian products, and we thank the many

businesses who are participating so far.

The

success of this campaign will depend on the actions that we take as a community

to buy from Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada when possible. We have seen the

power of the program as people encourage, promote, recognize and support buying

local and buying Canadian.

Speaker,

we have taken decisive action to assemble leaders of industry, community and

labour to develop strategies for securing new trading partners that reduce

reliance on the US market for Newfoundland and Labrador businesses.

This

collaborative approach aims to leverage the expertise and insights of various

sectors to build a robust and diversified Team NL trade network.

part of our action to identify new export markets for Newfoundland and Labrador

products, we are leading a series of market development and expansion

initiatives.

will deepen our connections in Europe and abroad to grow our trading

opportunities.

Let’s

all work together on this campaign. With our Team NL and Team Canada approach,

we are embracing new potential.

Thank

you.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

PADDOCK: Speaker,

I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

Speaker,

those of us on this side of the House are delighted to see the Liberal

government finally stand in voicing support for this province’s small

businesses – something that we on this side of the House will always support.

Local

businesses are the lifelines of our communities, both rural and urban.

Providing employment and many benefits to those they serve, and our overall

Newfoundland and Labrador economy. So, Speaker, we find it ironic that it has

taken an extraordinary threat towards our province and our country to finally

see some government action towards supporting our small businesses.

According

to the Fraser Institute, this government leads Canada in red tape, which causes

endless hardships for our local business owners and those considering starting

their own business. After 10 years, why has this Liberal government still not

taken this issue seriously?

The

Liberals are asking people to buy local, but they have not made it easier for

people to do so. They have not made it easier for farmers to make their

products available.

SPEAKER:

Order,

please!

The

Member’s time has expired.

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

BROWN: Thank

you, Speaker.

thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

The

New Democratic caucus applauds the Buy NL campaign, but it’s the least this

government can do to insulate the public from the effects of tariffs.

call upon this government to impose a suite of measures to respond to the

tariffs. Ones that could keep down inflation, keep down the price of goods,

direct supports towards workers directly impacted, and support businesses that

are in vulnerable industries. But also find new markets for Newfoundland and

Labrador products.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

Are there

any further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

WAKEHAM: Thank

you, Speaker.

Speaker,

while some things change, lots still stays the same. That includes another

secret Liberal land deal that this Liberal Cabinet approved over Christmas that

sold off 32 acres of Crown land off Snows Lane for $5,000 an acre.

ask the minister: Why?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Housing, and Mental Health and Addictions.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

ABBOTT: Speaker,

thank you for the opportunity to respond.

think it’s fair to say this has gotten a lot of commentary in the public

domain, and fair enough.

the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure has commented publicly, all

of the transactions related to that particular land transaction were

transparent and open.

All

I can say to the Leader of the Opposition, if he doesn’t accept the facts, he

doesn’t want to acknowledge the facts, then there’s nothing else we can do

about that. But what I will say to the Leader of the Opposition, if he doesn’t

accept the facts, take the file, go over to the Auditor General, and ask her to

investigate.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

WAKEHAM:

That’d be a great opportunity but let me speak about facts.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Oh,

oh!

SPEAKER:

Order,

please!

WAKEHAM: Let

me speak about facts, Mr. Speaker.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Oh,

oh!

SPEAKER:

Order,

please!

WAKEHAM: Let

me speak about facts.

The

facts of the matter are the taxpayers of this province paid $25,000 an acre for

this property and this Liberal government sold it for $5,000 an acre.

Since

when does land depreciate and how can the minister justify that?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Housing, and Mental Health and Addictions.

ABBOTT: Again,

Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to respond.

Again,

the Leader of the Opposition has enunciated some facts. And that’s what they

are; they are facts. But the conclusion he’s trying to draw from those facts are erroneous,

misleading –

HON. MEMBER: Shameful.

ABBOTT: –

and shameful. Thank you.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

ABBOTT: What

I want to say, Speaker, is – and I will repeat – if he doesn’t want to accept

the facts, he thinks there’s something nefarious or whatever you want about

this transaction, take the file over to the Auditor General and ask her to

investigate.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

WAKEHAM: Speaker,

I’ll repeat it again: $25,000 an acre it was bought for, sold for $5,000 an

acre. Fact – that’s a fact, Speaker. The fact of the matter is that building

lots on Snows Lane, right now, sell for $200,000 a building lot. Again, a

simple transaction to a Liberal friend.

ask the minister: Why did this transaction not go to public tender?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Housing, and Mental Health and Addictions.

ABBOTT: And

a few other titles here today, Speaker.

Look,

again, the facts are – and as the Leader of the Opposition said – this

transaction was above board, it was transparent, it was recommended by senior

officials in the department. We have explained it on numerous occasions, why

and how this transaction happened. Again, if the Leader of the Opposition

doesn’t want to accept the facts, thinks there’s something behind them, then

let him go to the Auditor General.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

WAKEHAM: Speaker,

the people of the province are the ones we are talking about here. With all due

respect to the minister, the facts of the matter are that this land was sold

for $5,000 an acre. It was said by the minister – who’s not here today – that

this land was actually –

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Oh,

oh!

SPEAKER:

Order,

please!

WAKEHAM: Sorry

about that; I’ll retract that.

was said and quoted by the Minister of Transportation that this land was

landlocked and worthless. Yet at the same time, it wasn’t that long ago that

the government was looking at building a school off Snows Lane.

ask the minister: Does he think that this land is worthless?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Housing, and Mental Health and Addictions.

ABBOTT:

Well, I would suggest the land is worth more than the value of the question

being asked right now, Speaker.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Oh,

oh!

ABBOTT: So,

Speaker, not to repeat myself, I have the documents here which I want to table,

copies of the purchase and sale agreement between the department and the

Crosbie Group, the appraisal report completed by Altus Group for the vacant

land at Outer Ring Road at Logy Bay Road, the Snows Lane area, and we have an

appraisal report and estimate of the current market value completed by Kirkland

Balsom of the vacant land at Nils Way in St. John’s.

Speaker,

I’m tabling those documents.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

WAKEHAM:

Speaker, no tender call, as we know, for this piece of property that was sold

off. Certainly no requests for proposals for the land that they bought at

$400,000 an acre at Kenmount Crossing.

Can

the minister actually table the documents showing how much that land was worth

when they paid $400,000 an acre and spent $23 million of the taxpayers’ money?

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Housing, and Mental Health and Addictions.

ABBOTT:

Well, he may have missed my previous comment, Speaker, it is in the appraisal.

It’s in the document I just tabled, so I cannot do any more than that.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

ABBOTT:

Speaker, in terms of any land transaction, when you buy at one point in time

and when you sell it at another point, the price can change: It can go up, it

can go down. But the important thing is what the value of that piece of

property at Snows Lane was when it was to be returned back to the family from

whom we expropriated it.

is common practice and in common policy for us to return the land that we do

not need to the family at fair market value at the time we do that transaction.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

WAKEHAM:

Speaker, I’m not sure if the minister heard the question. I was asking him for

the independent market appraisal that was done on the property they bought at

Kenmount Crossing.

maybe the minister can respond to that one? If that appraisal has actually been

tabled?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Housing, and Mental Health and Addictions.

ABBOTT:

Putting it simply, it is in one of the three documents that I just tabled.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

WAKEHAM:

Speaker, when we think about land and the commodity that we call Crown land,

it’s one of the most important assets belonging to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador. It is imperative that we get the best value for it. I’ve heard

from people who have said they would have paid much more than $5,000 an acre

for this Crown land on Snows Lane, yet they were never given any opportunity.

we have a land deal at Kenmount Crossing that’s not defendable; we have a land

deal at Snows Lane that’s not defendable; we have a lease of a hotel called the

Comfort Inn down in St. John’s here, a $21 million lease for three years with

no tender, that’s not defendable; but yet we have people in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and I ask on behalf of them, who were forced to pay more than $5,000

an acre to keep the land that they’ve lived on for 40 years, why? Why?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Housing, and Mental Health and Addictions.

ABBOTT:

Well, Speaker, again, thank you for the opportunity to respond.

There

are obviously a lot of questions within the question, but let me speak of the

Airport Road hotel, Horizons at 106 and what we are accomplishing through that

particular initiative. At the present time there are just over 70 individuals

living at the hotel; 14 people have already pumped through the hotel and found

permanent housing.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

ABBOTT: Speaker,

the program is working.

are providing the supports that they need. It’s a transitional housing

facility. It is working; we will continue to invest in it. We have also looked

at that model and how we can apply that across the province.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

PETTEN: Thank

you, Speaker.

Speaker,

none of this stuff is defendable and this government can do whatever they want

in this House of Assembly, but the people of the province deserve better

answers. We hear it day to day. The answer the minister has just provided, the

government is providing, is ridiculous. It’s not satisfactory and the public

will decide, Speaker.

Speaker,

it’s not just taxpayers’ dollars these Liberals are mismanaging. They are also

mismanaging the health care system. The Registered Nurses’ Union has presented

options for retention – and I mean retention – with solutions that this

government has failed to act upon.

Why

are we still ignoring the 700 nursing vacancies?

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

HAGGIE: Thank

you very much, Speaker.

Déjà

vu all over again. The answer is 1,133. That’s the number of nurses that were

recruited into this province between April of 2023 and December of 2024.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

PETTEN: I

guess we’re only going by Ms. Coffey and we’re all going by what the Auditor

General discloses but the former minister has got very shaky ground to get up

and b e really

nonchalant about his time in health. The big reason the health care crisis

exists today, he was the architect. That man was the –

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

PETTEN: –

architect. History

will tell you that he was the architect.

Speaker,

this government loves to run the cameras every time they say someone new is

coming to work in the province, but what they aren’t running to tell you is

that the Auditor General said, just last week, that nursing vacancies – I

repeat – nursing vacancies have been growing over the last five years.

Why

don’t we have a health human resources plan?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

Health

human resource plan has been something that the department has been working on

in various forms. There is a formal document nearly ready, so I would say to

the Member opposite: stay tuned.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

PETTEN: Ten

years and we keep waiting. I guess next year we’ll say stay tuned. We’ve been

staying tuned for a long time, Mr. Speaker , and we’ll still continue to stay

tuned. I think when he was minister back when – fortunately he’s no longer the

minister – he was telling us that then, so we stayed tuned. We continue to

wait.

Speaker,

the Registered Nurses' Union estimates that over a quarter of a billion dollars

has been spent on private agency nurses. Dozens of nursing students and

internationally recruited nurses still sitting home waiting for permanent

full-time job offers.

Can

someone explain why?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

HAGGIE: Thank

you very much, Speaker.

I’m

pleased to say that this year we will graduate 246 new RNs in this province.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

HAGGIE: From

the point of view of agency nurses, as my predecessors have said, it was agency

nurses or no nurses. Care or no care. The number of agency nurses in this

province is currently down by 42 per cent and that trajectory downwards

continues and we are committed to reducing our reliance on them to an absolute

minimum. But I will warn the Members opposite that they are essential and have

been for decades in Labrador.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

PETTEN: Speaker,

it’s fine to say you have these nurses, but how many are staying here? How many

are actually staying in this province? How many of them are agency nurses?

were told last year that we’re reducing our reliance on agency nurses. Now we

find out last week, by Dr. Parfrey, that we’re increasing usage of agency

nurses.

The

messages are all mixed, Mr. Speaker, no one can keep track of it. The

government seems to think that they have it under control, but I question that.

Speaker,

NAPE has spoken out about contracting out of ultrasound service in

Labrador-Grenfell, calling it an insult. The union suggested solutions last

fall but never got a response.

Speaker,

why is the minister ignoring front-line health care workers when they put

forward solutions?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

HAGGIE: Thank

you, Speaker.

think it would also be good to point out that of the nursing class last year,

2024, 95 per cent of them stayed in the province, 95 per cent.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

HAGGIE: With

regard to the Member’s question about ultrasound services, we are ensuring that

those services in Labrador continue, and we are doing so whilst continuing to

recruit for a difficult to recruit position.

have recruitment initiatives in place, and we are confident that in time we

will find a publicly funded full-time employee.

Thank

you.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

PETTEN:

Speaker, I have the same question as Jerry Earle, president of NAPE: Why can

private agencies get staff and government cannot? Simple question.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

HAGGIE: Thank

you very much, Speaker.

We’ve

be working closely with NAPE, Allied Health Professionals, RNU and other

stakeholders in the union sphere to ensure that we listen to what it is they

suggest about how we can recruit and retain.

would argue that we have been partially

successful. Is the job done? No, but it is getting done and we are making

strides in the right direction. I would argue that 1,133 new nurses is

something to be pleased with. It is not the end of the problem, but we will

continue to work on it until we get a state where it is.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT: It’s

always amazing how the minister takes these numbers and jumbles them together.

The comment was on RNs, we’d love to know how many RNs were hired.

Speaker,

this past week – and this government has known about it for a year – there were

no internists available in the whole eastern rural area again, forcing patient

transfers and diversions and I’ve been told the Health Sciences Centre had to

take in nearly 30 patients from rural Newfoundland.

When

will this Liberal government prioritize specialist recruitment in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, specifically at G. B. Cross in Clarenville, so

patients can receive closer to home care and rural Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians can get the care they deserve?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

HAGGIE: I

take a little bit of exception to the concept of jumbling numbers; I thought I

was quite clear, 1,133 nurses. In answer to the Member opposite’s specific

question, the answer is 761, that’s the registered nurses. If you’d like me to

break it out further, I can.

The

Member opposite does highlight an issue with general internal medicine in rural

areas. We are working closely with the NLMA to come up with a package that will

further enhance their compensation and be more attractive.

the interim, we have increased the number of general internal medicine

residency slots here to train our own. In addition, my colleague, who is

currently sitting three rows behind me, has just come back from Europe on a

further recruitment tour, looking at bringing Canadians training abroad back to

this province.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT: The

recruitment scheme for internal medicine specialists was to take them from

rural Newfoundland and bring them into St. John’s and mislead the public by

telling them that they’ve hired all of these doctors, when in fact, it’s

addition by subtraction.

Speaker,

critical wound care services still remain unavailable at G. B. Cross in

Clarenville. Surgeons are raising the alarm, not just the patients now, but the

surgeons. They are performing procedures knowing the lack of wound care is

setting patients up for complications. When will wound care resume in

Clarenville at G. B Cross?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

HAGGIE: Thank

you very much, Speaker.

That’s

an excellent question. Having spent 15 years running what was rural

Newfoundland’s only surgical wound clinic, wound care is a topic close to my

heart and certainly I’m not aware of the issue that the Member opposite raises.

I do know there have been several nurses who have completed the NSWOC wound

care course and are certified and are currently looking for jobs. So maybe

there’s an opportunity here for us to match them up.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Terra Nova.

PARROTT: If

the minister had paid attention in the last sitting when this was all over CBC

and it was asked in the House of Assembly, he would know that the individual

that was performing wound care at G.B. Cross was taken out of her job to answer

phones for pre-admission surgeries.

have a wound care specialist in Clarenville who is not practising. The answer

that was given to me by the department is because it’s in every nurses’ scope

of care, which this minister knows is wrong. Every nurse is not qualified to do

wound care. It is not a part of their scope of care.

Speaker,

surgeons at G.B. Cross in Clarenville are being told there isn’t enough funding

to increase the number of procedures like colonoscopies. I’ve been told there

is a wait-list for over 1,000 patients – a massive wait-list. That’s G.B. Cross

alone and it’s cut because of budgets. These surgeons are ready and willing to

work through the backlog, but the resources are not there and are not coming.

Why

won’t the Liberal government give specialists the tools they need to provide

the health care to the men and women in rural Newfoundland who need these

services?

SPEAKER:

The hon.

Member’s time has expired.

The

hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much.

think we’re experiencing some jumbling of concepts from the other side,

Speaker. It is in every RN and, actually, LPN’s scope of practice: wound care.

They are trained and taught to do that. It is to different levels and in

different levels of complexity. Every physician who receives their degree and

accreditation can suture a wound but not everyone is a surgeon. There are

variations in practice that mean that some people specialize in wounds to an

extent that are complex and difficult.

have no problem taking away the Member’s comments opposite about the

distribution of wound care resources in his area. I do not have the answer for

him specifically with relationship to Clarenville, but we’ll get it for him.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Terra Nova.

PARROTT: I

would like to ask the minister to clarify his statement.

From

NLHS’s own website: “Negative Pressure Wound Therapy.” Click the markers on the

image to learn how NPWT works – application performed by an RN – yes; requires

an order from a physician or a nurse practitioner, or a skin and wound care

consultant.

That

is not what every nurse does; it’s part of training that is available to them,

but there should be a wound care specialist in Clarenville. We got all kinds of

people coming out from bowel cancer that surgeons are saying it’s required and

it’s not there. So when is it coming back?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

HAGGIE:

Thank you, Speaker.

It’s

been a long time since I discussed the intricacies of negative wound pressure

and I didn’t expect to do this in the House of Assembly quite frankly, but the

bottom line is any competent RN who has been appropriately trained can apply

negative wound pressure. The need and the directive to do that may require

advanced skills and training.

the Member opposite is conflating things and making a situation into something

that it is not. I am not saying that wound care as a specialty is missing from

Clarenville. I’m not arguing the point. What I’m saying is he is making mileage

out of a specialty he knows little about.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

DWYER:

Speaker, there are too many people in my District of Placentia West - Bellevue

that are without a family doctor, and this is completely unacceptable.

How

many of this year’s medical graduates have the Liberals secured to provide care

to the residents of our district?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

won’t have this year’s figures because the CaRMS match hasn’t started yet. I

certainly don’t immediately have at hand the numbers for last year. I’ve got

numbers for just about everything else here.

What

I can say is that in May of 2023, we had 32,000 people connected through

Patient Connect with Family Care Teams. That number, as of January of this

year, is 73,370, an increase of 41,000 people who are now rostered to a primary

care team who didn’t have primary care before.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

DWYER: Thank

you, Speaker.

Again,

I didn’t hear an actual answer to my question from the minister. My

constituents certainly deserve an answer, not more of the Liberal talking

points.

How

many medical professionals have been recruited to provide health care in my

district? Are there any job fairs going to be happening for Whitbourne,

Placentia, Burin Health Care Centre and G.B. Cross?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

can’t give him the breakdown for his district, but I will certainly get it for

him. In relation to job fairs, the answer is yes. In actual fact, there are, I

believe, 16 going to be held across the province in various locations. These

have yet to be determined. If he would like to make a bid for Arnold’s Cove or

somewhere, I would be happy to put that in with NLHS.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Torngat Mountains.

EVANS:

Speaker, our children are the heart and soul of our communities. What specific

protocols are in place to ensure timely medevac transportation for sick and

injured children, such as a 22-day-old infant from Northern Labrador to the

Janeway Children’s Health and Rehabilitation Centre?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

The

Member opposite is right about the importance of our children. They are fewer

and further between now than they used to be. I can’t speak to specifics

without specific consent from the families concerned and, even then, we have a

precedent or a tradition here of not bringing personal health matters before

the House.

principle, a call from a physician or a health care provider at any location

requiring a medevac to a higher level of care is triaged through a medical

control centre since the integration of the air and ground ambulance here as

part of the Health Accord. This is all done by clinicians. It is not done by

administrators or bureaucrats.

Thank

you.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Torngat Mountains.

EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, I didn’t ask about a specific incident. I just used that as an

example. I can actually stand up here and talk about a lot of specific examples

where our children and our infants were not transported to the Janeway – the

only hospital situated to deal with sick and injured children and infants. A

22-day-old infant or a 13-year-old seriously injured child or an eight-year-old

who’s got a leaky shunt, these are some of the examples where our children have

not been able to access the Janeway.

question is: Is the Janeway access denied to the people of Northern Labrador,

to the people of Labrador, when in actual fact all these delays are impacting

their overall health and undermining how people in Northern Labrador and people

in Labrador feel about how they fit into this province?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

HAGGIE: Thank

you, Speaker.

The

short answer to that question is no, of course, no one’s being denied access to

the care based on where they live or, indeed, on any other circumstance. What I

was trying to say in my previous answer, to cut to the quick, is that if a

physician or a health care provider needs to have a patient, be it a child or

an adult, transferred to a higher level of care, that is a clinical decision

and it is sorted out and prioritized by clinicians, not administrators, not

bureaucrats and, certainly, not politicians. It is a clinical decision.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Labrador West.

BROWN: Thank

you, Speaker.

Speaker,

the privatization continues to creep into our health care system. Last week, NL

Health Services contracted out diagnostic imaging in Lab-Grenfell. The week

before, they announced travel nurses are going to staff long-term beds in

Western.

ask the government: Why does this government continue to outsource public

health care to private, for-profit companies?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

HAGGIE:

Thank you, Speaker.

are not privatizing health care. The bottom line here is that it is agency

nurses, agency nurse care or no care until we continue to complete, as far as

it can ever be completed, our recruitment and retention initiatives.

are making progress. We have not got it finished yet, 42 per cent reduction in

agency nurses but is the Member opposite arguing that we should have no care or

is he arguing that we should have the care that we can get as a transition

until we get a publicly-funded, publicly-delivered system?

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Labrador West.

BROWN: Thank

you, Speaker.

This

government claims to be prioritizing recruitment and retention, yet it

continues to rely on private, for-profit companies. The AG report shows that

they aren’t even monitoring correctly whether the incentives are working.

ask this government: When will they act on the AG’s recommendations and make it

more accountable in recruitment and prioritize recruitment in rural and remote

areas?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

HAGGIE: Thank

you very much, Speaker.

Again,

I go back to some of my initial comments. We have recruited 1,133 nurses

including 761 registered nurses. In the last 18 months we have added 146

physicians. We are working to recruit. We are competing in a global market,

against some very competitive jurisdictions. I would argue, however, that at

$500,000 as a starting sign-off stacked bonus, we’re doing well in the

physician world, and we have comparable measures for other health care

providers and we’ll continue to do until we get it right.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Labrador West.

BROWN: Thank

you, Speaker.

was great to see that Manitoba became the first province to sign on with the

federal pharmacare plan championed by the New Democrats. This program would

help so many across this province afford medications they need.

ask this government: When are they going to finally sign-on and help provide

medications to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

HAGGIE: Thank

you very much, Speaker.

Certainly

we would be delighted for the federal contribution towards pharmacare to

increase. Interestingly enough, what we’re looking at is making sure that the

people in this province don’t lose what they’re getting from the province at

the expense of a federal program.

Our

staff are working with the federal government, who seem to be a little

distracted with other things at the moment, but as soon as we can focus them on

it, we’ll have something to report back to the House, hopefully.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Labrador West.

BROWN: Speaker,

it’s interesting that the minister talked about losing things but yet they

haven’t changed the caps on it, so Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are losing

out on their medications.

So I

ask the minister: When are they going to change the cap so Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians who are currently losing out on the program will be able to keep

what they have as well?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

HAGGIE: Thank

you very much, Speaker.

the risk of speaking in someone else’s portfolio, if it’s the fiscal caps and

financial thresholds the Member opposite is referring to. Those are actually

not set by the Department of Health and Community Services. We fit in with

government. It is my understanding, and certainly from discussions around the

tables, that these are under review at present and that would naturally fall

into a budgetary cycle.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Labrador West.

BROWN: Thank

you, Speaker.

Speaker,

this government likes to talk about how much they want Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians to be healthy in this province, including access to medication.

So I

ask this government: When are they going to continue to add to the program

instead of denying people medication? Because there are so many people losing

out on medication or are unable to get any medication that they need.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

HAGGIE: Thank

you very much, Speaker.

The

NLPDP budget has increased significantly and steadily over the years since 2015

and continues to do so.

The

challenge is keeping up with medication and also not spending money on me-too

drugs that may not be a significant improvement. Those are regular activities

within the department, and I would argue that our package with the NLPDP is as

competitive, if not better, than at least half the jurisdictions in this

country.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The time for

Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting

Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: Thank

you, Speaker.

Pursuant

section 26(5)(

a) of the Financial Administration Act , I’m tabling

seven Orders-in-Council relating to funding precommitments for fiscal years

2025-’26 to 2029-’30.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

Any further

tabling of documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: Thank

you very much, Speaker.

give notice that I will on tomorrow move that this House approve in general the

budgetary policy of the government.

Thank

you.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

Further

notices of motion?

The

hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

DEMPSTER: Thank

you, Speaker.

give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee

of the Whole on Supply to consider a resolution for the granting of Interim

Supply to His Majesty, Bill 105.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Deputy Government House Leader.

DEMPSTER: Do

I need a seconder for that motion?

SPEAKER:

No, not for

the notice.

DEMPSTER: Speaker,

I give notice that I will on tomorrow introduce a bill entitled

An Act to Amend

the Revenue Administration Act No. 7, Bill 106.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

DEMPSTER: Speaker,

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into

Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider resolutions for the granting of

Supply to His Majesty, Bill 107.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Deputy Government House Leader.

DEMPSTER: Thank

you, Speaker.

give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following motion: That

notwithstanding Standing Order 63, this House shall not proceed with Private

Members’ Day on Wednesday, March 5, 2025, but shall instead meet at 2 p.m. on

that day for Routine Proceedings and the conduct of government business.

SPEAKER:

Are there

any further notices of motion?

The

hon. Deputy Government House Leader.

DEMPSTER: Thank

you, Speaker.

give notice that I will on tomorrow move in accordance with Standing Order

11(1) that this House now adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 4, 2025.

SPEAKER:

Are there

any further notices of motions?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Bonavista.

PARDY: Thank

you, Speaker.

Residents

in the lower part of the Bonavista Peninsula have to frequently travel up Route

230 or 235 for health care, banking and other services.

addition to the cost of fuel and time, it is quite frequent that the

replacement of a windshield will be added to their stretched budgets. It is

adding additional and unnecessary costs to the residents and visitors

travelling the District of Bonavista.

We,

the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to replace the broken filtering screen at the Amherst

Cove depot to reduce the size of the aggregate of stone and salt on our

highways.

Many

people have brought this up and all you need to do is to drive around on the

lower part of the peninsula and you’ll find that a large number of windshields

are broken. I recently spoke with Mr. Gary Monks of King’s Cove, 43-plus years

in municipal politics and has never seen it so bad as the large stone that’s

found on the lower part of the district.

replace a windshield, you’re in excess of $400 and I would think if you travel

with any degree of frequency Route 230, the main route down to Bonavista,

you’re going to find that chances are, with a high probability, you’re going to

lose a windshield. You can keep your distance from the car in front of you, but

it’s the oncoming car that’s going to shoot a piece of stone or a large piece

of salt in.

This

is not a problem that would cost the government more money. The ask is that

regular maintenance would be done on the filtering screen that would keep the

large stone and the large chunks of salt off our highways and that is where we

are. It is not a big ask. It is an operational issue for which we can keep more

money in the pockets of those on the Bonavista Peninsula as opposed to an

unnecessary burden of costing them more, taking them out.

have several situations that are operational issues in our district. Culverts

that will be blocked, where Transportation and Infrastructure would have to

send down a piece of equipment, trailer it down, like in Tickle Cove, for an

area, to free it up temporarily and keep going back and forth.

What

would make sense is fix the culvert and then you don’t have to go trailering

large pieces of equipment on such a high frequency to that area. But we would

need to get the stone off the roads, and I would say that is a small ask, no

budgetary increase, but one that’s going to keep more money in people’s pockets

in the District of Bonavista.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Labrador West.

BROWN: Thank

you, Speaker.

Speaker,

this is a petition to bring back the Residential Energy Rebate. These are the

reasons for the petition.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Oh,

oh!

SPEAKER:

Order,

please!

BROWN: In

2011, the provincial government lifted the 8 per cent provincial portion of the

HST on residential heat by introducing the Residential Energy Rebate; the RER

was later cancelled by the provincial Conservative government in 2015; heat is

a necessity of life and a health concern, particularly for seniors; and the

cost of living is rising, and the current measures by government are not doing

enough to combat inflation.

Therefore,

we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to bring in the HST rebate on home heating again.

2011, obviously, we removed the provincial portion of HST on home heating and

then it was later cancelled, very swiftly, within four years. Now we are, once

again, seeing the cost of inflation on heating. It’s quite easy to see this

past year, you see a lot of people noticing their bills, realizing they’re

steadily increasing, and most residents now are finding it very difficult to

continue to pay these bills while, on top of that, paying all the other

inflationary pressures that residents in this province are forced with. You see

a lot of comments and stuff there lately.

did bring a private Member’s motion into this House in the last sitting talking

about removing HST from home heating, from residential electricity and other

heating products to try to help combat some of the rising pressures in cost.

Unfortunately, that PMR didn’t make it through this House, so now we continue

to see HST applied to residential electricity and other heating products.

Now

we are seeing that those costs, in themselves, are rising as the rates of

electricity went up on the Island, and seeing that other products and stuff,

their prices are rising as well, and now you’re having people trying to pay for

medication, having to try to pay for heating and electricity, and even try to

pay rent and mortgages, which are both also steadily rising – so we see the

residents of this province strained when it comes to the necessities of life,

which is unfortunate because should we be actually taxing the necessities of

life, like heating.

This

is where, in this petition, we hear from the residents of the province. Once

again, I ask, we really need to take a serious look at what we are actually

taxing and should we continue to be taxing things that are considered a

necessity, like home heating.

So,

once again, we’re calling upon this government to the do the right thing and

remove the provincial portion of HST from home heating and try to give

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador a break on that. But also, you look at

the point of it is that heat is a necessity of life, shelter is a necessity, so

maybe we have to rethink why we are taxing these things.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Exploits.

FORSEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

Volunteer

fire departments are very important to the Exploits District. Many times, they

find themselves in dire straits in order to provide the service needed, due to

inadequate equipment to perform their duties and provide safety to their

communities.

Therefore,

we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to provide adequate tools and equipment in a timely

manner to our volunteer fire departments.

Speaker,

I brought this to the House before. The volunteer fire departments in our

district are very important. That’s what we depend on – we depend on our

volunteer fire departments, especially in the rural area. We don’t have career

firefighters; we have volunteer firefighters who do their job effectively when

they can. We depend on them and thank the fire departments for doing such a

job.

But,

in the past couple of years – and I get calls from the smaller fire departments

of their rejections, not getting their tanks and not getting their cylinders

and that sort of stuff that they need and require. Just this January, they got

rejection letters. I got one here for the Town of Northern Arm, January 13; the

Town of Norris Arm, January 13; Town of Leading Tickles, January 13; January

14, the Town of Botwood – rejection letters for equipment for the volunteer

fire department.

November, the minister announced $730,000 for 39 fire departments. I can tell

him that it’s not in the Exploits District. They didn’t come there, but we need

this sort of funding so that those volunteer fire departments can do their jobs

efficiently and as adequately as they can.

funding is the problem, there’s a Premier’s office in Grand Falls - Windsor

that’s going through $250,000 a year. Put that towards the volunteer fire

department and put the money where it should be.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Ferryland.

O’DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Speaker.

The

background to this petition is as follows:

The

breakwater on the lower coast in Trepassey is in urgent need of repair. This

breakwater is necessary to protect the one and only access road to the lower

coast.

Therefore,

we petition the House of Assembly as follows: We urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to complete the necessary repairs and install a more

durable and sustainable breakwater.

Speaker,

I have spoken on this a number of times and, only the weekend past, they had

another storm surge on the lower coast down in Trepassey where they needed the

town to hire somebody to go in and clean up the roads for the sixth time, I’m

going to say, since February – maybe the seventh.

spoke to the former minister last year. I asked him a question in the House of

Assembly. He said it wouldn’t cost the town anything. They’re going to replace

the breakwater and it didn’t happen. It is not done yet.

This

October, we had a meeting with the minister, in his office, where the mayor and

councillors from Trepassey had to go out there to meet him in his office. No

correspondence with the people in the Town of Trepassey to let them know what

was on the go with the breakwater. Here we are, today, six or seven times have

paid dearly to get these roads cleared.

When

they put it in there, the people in the district had told them it wasn’t going

to work. Now, they’re not engineers, nor am I, but they know what could work.

In October, they said that they’d do a temporary repair or go up and fix the

issue. At that time, we figured they were going to put in some armour stone out

in front of the breakwater where it was, or what’s left to it now, and they

haven’t done that.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Oh,

oh!

SPEAKER:

Order,

please!

The

level of conversation is really loud and it is hard to hear the Member speak.

O’DRISCOLL: Thank

you, Speaker.

now they had the armour stone that we thought they were going to put out there

and it’s still not done. When is this Liberal government going to get up and

fix this issue for the people of Trepassey? It’s costing the town an absolute

fortune to hire people to go down.

did ask the minister, previous, and the current minister, if they’d send down

the depot trucks to be able to clean the roads that are in the district.

There’s a depot right there in Trepassey; go down and clear off the road when

it comes in and be able to alleviate for the town. But, no, they couldn’t do

that.

they’ve got to pay for it themselves through the town with a population of 350

to 400 people. They can't afford it. Get up and fix the problem. They have a

tender going out. We don’t know when.

HON. MEMBER: Send

them out the bill.

O’DRISCOLL: It’s

not acceptable. Yes, they can send them the bill. They’re not going to pay the

bill.

I’ve

been asking about this since last year and the former minister said it wouldn’t

cost them anything. It’s costing them every time we have a storm surge. Lots of

times, a storm surge doesn’t happen on every part of the Island. There was a

storm surge up there Friday. There was nothing down in my area, in Bay Bulls,

Witless Bay, Tors Cove that really affected it. But when it’s down our area,

it’s not up there. It’s a different wind. So they have to get up and fix this

problem for the area.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Housing, and Mental Health and Addictions for a response.

ABBOTT: Speaker,

I just wanted to respond to the Member’s comment about the work that needs to

be done in Trepassey. I know the Department of Transportation and

Infrastructure is fully engaged on finding the solution. There have been design

flaws in some of the previous work they’ve acknowledged, with our consulting

engineers.

Obviously,

we want to get it right this time. Options have been presented to the

department last week. So we’re working on a solution that I trust the Member

and the Town of Trepassey will find acceptable.

We’re

working on it, and we’ll get it right.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Torngat Mountains.

EVANS: Thank

you, Speaker.

We,

the undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador –

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Oh,

oh!

SPEAKER:

Order,

please!

EVANS: – who

urge – can I start again?

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Oh,

oh!

SPEAKER:

Order,

please!

The

hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

EVANS: Thank

you, Speaker.

We,

the undersigned, are concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who urge

our leaders to advocate on behalf of the residents of Northern Labrador for

timely and adequate access to the Newfoundland and Labrador Janeway Hospital.

The

Janeway Foundation website states: “The Janeway Children’s Health &

Rehabilitation Centre provides excellence in specialized health care in a

compassionate, supportive environment, to our province’s sick and injured

children.”

However,

some parents and grandparents of children in Northern Labrador communities have

expressed concern that their children were not transferred to the Janeway in a

timely manner for serious medical conditions, and/or were in a very vulnerable

medical situation.

This

raises the concern that delays in accessing the proper medical care have

detrimental impacts to the children’s health.

We,

the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to advocate

that all children – all children – in our province have equal access to the

Janeway, and to ensure that the children of Northern Labrador communities do

not face barriers that may limit this access.

Now,

Speaker, I asked questions in the House of Assembly just a few moments ago and

the Minister of Health did talk about politicians – the Acting Minister of

Health. Now, as a courtesy I actually went to the acting minister this morning

to give him a heads up that I was going to be asking those questions.

Because

for me the children, the infants, if they don’t get timely access to the

specialized, care their health could be jeopardy. Not only their lives, but the

impacts that the delay can have. So for me I think it’s disrespectful to talk

about me asking those questions as a politician. For me, I’m asking those

questions on behalf of my constituents, and not one –

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

EVANS: –

specific incident. And it’s not just Northern Labrador, it’s all of Labrador.

We need to make sure that when our children need the care, they have access to

the care that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian should have.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

Orders of

the Day.

Orders of the Day

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Deputy Government House Leader.

DEMPSTER: Thank

you, Speaker.

Speaker,

I call from the Order Paper, Order 9, second reading of Bill 100,

An Act to

Amend the Revenue Administration Act No. 6.

SPEAKER:

And a

seconder?

DEMPSTER: Seconded

by the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: Thank

you, Speaker.

move, seconded by the Government House Leader that Bill 100,

An Act to Amend

the Revenue Administration Act No. 6, be now read a second time.

SPEAKER:

It is moved

and seconded that Bill 100,

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act No.

6, be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act No.

6.” (Bill 100)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: Thank

you very much, Speaker.

Thank

you to my colleagues, it’s wonderful to be back in the House this afternoon. I

will say that this bill, you know, I’m standing here in the hon. House to bring

forward the amendments to the Revenue Administration Act . My colleagues

would know this is quite frankly a regular occurrence. It is routine and

housekeeping as we evolve.

The

purpose of the updates to the legislation is primarily administrative or

technical in nature, to update for current language and administrative

practices, and to remove uncertainty and address any gaps there are in the

legislation.

an overview, I’ll provide some background regarding the role of the Department

of Finance in administering the act. The department is responsible for the

administration of the provincial tax statutes under the Revenue

Administration Act and the Revenue Administration Regulations . Taxes

administered include the gasoline tax, the Health and Post-Secondary Education

Tax, known mostly as HAPSET and many others.

Through

the administration of the tax statutes, various issues have been identified

where an amendment is proposed to correct an issue or update or clarify the

legislation.

this is why it comes to the House on a regular basis – I call it regular– it’s

probably once a year, we kind of update the Revenue Administration Act

and really it’s to clarify things that we’ve discovered during the year or make

mirror amendments to something that’s happening in Canada.

For

example, one of the amendments being proposed today, is to clarify how the

HAPSET, which is a payroll tax, applies when remuneration occurs outside the

province. We’ve run into this now and we’re going to clarify.

an employee works some time in another jurisdiction, the employee’s

remuneration will be included in the employer’s calculation of HAPSET where the

province of employment, under the federal Income Tax Act , is determined

to be Newfoundland and Labrador. This is consistent with the method of

determining payroll deductions in Canada, we’re just clarifying it.

Another

clarification: Employers who are associated corporations and pay remuneration

to employees are required to file an amendment for purposes of allocating the

exemption threshold. For greater clarity, we are adding new provisions to the Revenue

Administration Act to ensure that the exemption threshold is allocated

between all associated employers whether they are corporations, partnerships,

joint ventures or trust. This is a consistent approach with other

jurisdictions.

It's

worth noting another amendment being made to the act that is beneficial to

taxpayers. It’s proposed that the time period within which a taxpayer is

required to notify the department of an overpayment of tax for a refund is to

be extended from three years to seven years so that we have some consistency.

It gives the taxpayer, you know, should they have been overpaid, they have some

extra time by which to claim it and I think that’s fair and reasonable. This

will provide more favourable treatment for taxpayers as it will provide them

with more time to request a refund when an overpayment of tax is identified.

There

are amendments related to gasoline tax to improve the accountability of fuel

within the province, similar to what is taking place in other jurisdictions. We

are also clarifying the legislation to specifically allow consignment sales for

gasoline, as it is standard business practice within the industry.

mentioned, many of the amendments being made are administrative in nature, this

includes changes to the

definitions of motor vehicles to ensure consistency

with other jurisdictions that are part of the International Fuel Tax Agreement

or IFTA. So you’ll hear me talk about IFTA today, the International Fuel Tax

Agreement, and so you’d want all jurisdictions to be consistent across that.

IFTA is a co-operative agreement among Canadian provinces and most American

States to make sure it is easier for jurisdictional carriers to report and pay

taxes on the motor fuels they use. We’re getting rid of red tape.

Speaker,

we must modernize, clarify and improve our legislation regularly. That’s why I

come before this House on a regular basis, doing these updates, to ensure that

we’re following best practice.

Technical

amendments to the Revenue Administration Act are being proposed today to

clarify current language and practices, to remove gaps identified in the

current legislation and decrease risk of tax loss.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

PADDOCK: Thank

you, Speaker.

These

legislative amendments are mostly technical amendments to the Revenue

Administration Act .

As the minister highlighted, they will provide additional clarity and to make

sure our province is in line with agreements and practices already in place

both nationally and internationally.

One

thing I would like to highlight with it is what the Auditor General highlighted

in her recent report: “… there have been changes to financial management and

comptrollership practices, leaving the current Act with outdated language and

practices. It is important for the Financial Administration Act to be

modernized to reflect current practices and terminology.”

agree with what the minister is doing in bringing in these amendments. It needs

to be done. Overall, these types of amendments are really housekeeping for our Financial

Administration Act and for good financial management. Where I am concerned

is what the Auditor General also highlighted was that 28 of the management

points that were generated in the audit this year remain unresolved from

previous years.

we have to be careful not just to look at the regulatory and the documentation

side, but how we also execute and implement as well. We need to ensure that we

look at what the Auditor General is highlighting and taking action on it.

Overall,

this side of the House, we have no major issue with these amendments. I do have

a couple of questions for clarification. One with regard to motor vehicles and

one with regard to the seven-year time limit going from three to seven, with

regard to repayment.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Labrador West.

BROWN: Thank

you, Speaker.

look at the tax here and it is, I guess, coming in line with the rest of the

country and other jurisdictions, especially when it comes to the administration

of some of these things, in line with the international fuel tax agreement and

changing the

definitions on association corporations. It’s a cleaning up, I

guess, of a lot of things that have piled in over the years and streamlining it

into a more consistent way and changing some of the feedback with the three to

six years on the audits and that.

we don’t have much for that, but I do have a few questions that I will ask in

Committee regarding some of the changes that are coming in and just kind of

finding out where they are and why some of these changes have been made. But

other than that, we do agree with some of these changes and trying to

streamline this system in the process as best as we possibly can for

administration.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

Seeing no

other speakers, if the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board

speaks now, we’ll close debate.

The

hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: We’re

very efficient, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

thank the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and, of course, the Member for

Labrador West for their overviews and their involvement. I will say, again, we

repeat it. It is routine to address the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay’s

questions – I’m going to try and address them one at a time.

First

of all, this is the Revenue Administration Act . The Member opposite was

referring to the Financial Administration Act , which the Auditor General

did point out is due for review and I completely support that. I absolutely

support a review of the Financial Administration Act and, certainly,

that is on our agenda. It is time for us to renew that act – separate,

completely different act than this Revenue Administration Act .

The

Member opposite also mentioned the 28 recommendations, I think, from the

Auditor General’s report. I think the number was about 30 per cent of the

Auditor General’s recommendations and she wanted an update. So allow me to do

that. I know it’s not specifically to the act but a question from the Member

opposite.

There

are 28 recommendations, as the Member opposite posted. About 70 per cent of

those 28 are in entities. So they are outside of government. They’re in

entities. You’re absolutely right. We are going to chase down and talk to

entities about those, certainly. The other 30 per cent, which I think is a

total of 9, they’re either completed or nearly complete within government.

So I

want to reassure the Member that of the nine that are in the purview of

government, they’re either complete or nearly complete, but the Auditor General

was right. We don’t want outstanding recommendations. We very much value – I

think all of us in the province value the work of the Auditor General, so we’re

asking departments to chase down and speak to entities and make sure that those

are under way, if not completed.

thank the Members for their involvement. I look forward to their questions, and

I’ll take my seat to listen to what questions there may be.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

Is the House

ready for the question?

The

motion is that Bill 100 be now read a second time.

it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those

against, ‘nay.’

Motion

carried.

CLERK

(Hawley George): A

bill,

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act No. 6. (Bill 100)

SPEAKER:

This bill

has now been read a second time.

When

shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?

DEMPSTER: Now.

SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act No. 6,” read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole presently, by leave.

(Bill 100)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Deputy Government House Leader.

DEMPSTER: Thank

you, Speaker.

move that this House do now resolve itself a Committee of the Whole to further

consider Bill 100. That is seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury Board.

SPEAKER:

It is moved

and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into

a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 100.

it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those

against, ‘nay.’

Motion

carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR

(Gambin-Walsh): Order,

please!

are now considering Bill 100,

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act

No. 6.

bill, “An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act No. 6.” (Bill 100)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause

1 carry?

The

hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

PADDOCK: Thank

you, Chair.

Paragraph

(ggg.1), on the bottom of page 2, it defines qualified motor vehicle means a

motor vehicle, other than a recreational vehicle, that is used, designed or

maintained for the transportation of persons or property. Is the intent that

that will also encompass motorcycles?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: Thank

you very much.

The

new definition of recreational motor vehicles added as it is used in the new

definition of qualified motor vehicle – and these will line up with IFTA. But

specifically on motorcycles, I’ll ask my team and they’ll respond. I’ll be

happy to give you where their view is on motorcycles, but it is to line up with

the IFTA.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte -

Green Bay.

PADDOCK:

Then, subsequent to that, on the top of page 3, paragraph (

i) has two axels. So

if we’re talking about motorcycles and even bicycles that are using some type

of electrical motor, then it should be two axels or spindles.

That

was my point there, because we want to be encompassing with this and not

excluding, given that the definition is transportation of persons with a motor

vehicle. We have a lot of people now based on need that are using, essentially,

a motorcycle for a sole transportation purpose.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: Thank

you, and it is clearly defined here. I understand that it does not include

motorcycles. Just for clarity, I wanted to make it for certainty but it does

not include.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte -

Green Bay.

PADDOCK: My

next question – and this will be my last question – comes back to the extension

from three years to seven. This is at the top of page 6; subsection 21(2) of

the act is amended by deleting the number three and substituting the number

seven.

understand why that’s done, given where Revenue Canada is for six years and

then if an audit is conducted. We could have special audits then that starts

and if forensic accounting needs to be done, so it can go for an extended

period of time. As I reflected on that, wouldn’t it make sense, in addition to

seven, or after being subject to an audit?

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: Thank

you very much for the question. It is a very important one.

The

amendment is to extend the time limit for a taxpayer to request a refund – I’m

just making sure that everyone is on the same understanding – for an

overpayment of tax. So they overpay their tax and right now if you overpay tax,

you only have three years and we’re now going to seven years. This will

provide, obviously, more favourable treatment for taxpayers, as it will provide

them with more time to request a refund.

It’s

really limited for overpayment and then making sure you have time to request a

payment. It gives people more time to request that payment. It’s not tied to

audit. So if they have overpaid and an audit happens to pick it up, they still

have seven years.

it’s not tied to an audit, but should an audit pick it up, they have now more

time, because – I know you’re an accountant. As you know, it usually takes some

time for your audit to pick up on these things, so that’s what we’re trying to

do is allow more time for it.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

PADDOCK: Thank

you, Chair.

Minister,

I understand all of that. I was just trying to highlight, we could have an

exception here where an audit was to start, you have to do a forensic analysis

of the accounting, it could go beyond the six or seven years and where an

overpayment is required. So to protect both the province and the taxpayer,

should we look at including, instead of excluding – this would be really just

for very specific cases, if indeed it did happen – after being subject to an

audit?

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: Thank

you very much.

It’s

a valid point that if you’re subject to an audit and it goes beyond the

seven-year point, should we – now we have not picked up on this issue. We’ve

not had anybody have this issue. We’ll certainly take that away and see – you

know we can always make that a subsequent amendment if we need to.

Right

now, moving from three, which is far too low in my opinion, to seven lines up

better with other jurisdictions. But if you do have an exception where someone

is just getting an audit done later and – we’ll look at that exceptional

circumstance and it can be included in a future amendment. It’s a good point.

Our

audit period is generally limited to seven years, as you know. So I can’t think

of a circumstance where your audit is generally limited to seven years and then

you might come back afterwards for your rebate. We just haven’t had that

circumstance, but it is worth considering.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

PADDOCK: Thank

you, Chair.

And

then another way around that could be subject to ministerial authority. Right?

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: Yes.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

PADDOCK: Okay .

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Member for Labrador West.

BROWN: Thank

you, Chair.

The

question for the minister is, did you conduct a cross-jurisdictional scan to

see whether other provinces do away with the appeals board for their

legislation and put the power of voting on appeals in the hands of the deputy

minister? Did you do a jurisdictional scan to see if that is a standard

practice across Canada, or are we one of the first ones to go down that route?

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: Thank

you.

generally follow suit with other jurisdictions, but I’ll ask my team

specifically if we’re being a leader in this particular area. They’ll come back

to tell me whether or not it is most other jurisdictions. I would say in a

general sense, most of these, they have ongoing discussions among provinces to

see what anomalies they may have and then we make changes to legislation based

on current practice across the jurisdictions.

I’m

getting – no, I haven’t gotten a response yet. As soon as I get it, I’ll come

back to you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Member for Labrador West.

BROWN: Thank

you, Chair.

Could

you tell us which groups you consulted with when drafting this? Can you give us

a

summary on what you heard back when you started, I guess, consolidating some

of these things and I know some changes to

definitions and that? What groups

did you work with and who did you speak to on trying to consolidate a lot of

this work?

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: Just

for clarity, I want to go back to your first question for a moment because

maybe I misunderstood it. Were you asking about appeals boards? Yes. There’s

nothing in this that talks about appeals boards. No amendments that really do

speak to appeals board.

The

second

part is we generally consult with people who are affected by it, so we

talk to other jurisdictions. We’ll review other changes to legislation that may

have occurred across. There’s an ongoing discussion or rapport across all

provinces to see what they’re seeing. Is there an anomaly? Is there something

that they’re seeing that we need to tweak? But there’s no real consultations on

technical amendments

because they’re just that, they’re technical. They’re just clarifications of

something that may have occurred.

Lots

of times somebody may call us and say, how come I can’t get my rebate back on

my overpaid tax, and it’s because in the legislation it’s only three years and

then we’ll put it on the list to fix the next time out. So there are no real

consultations.

The

IFTA changes are consistent with other jurisdictions.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

BROWN: Thank

you, Chair.

When

you came up with the definition of motor vehicles for transportation would

include people, where was that definition taken from or used? Is that IFTA for

that? Was that consistent with their definition?

Also,

I noticed that you said it’s the types of vehicles of transportation of people,

is that preparing for also autonomous vehicles that might possibly come into

play here as well in the future?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: Thank

you very much.

is following other jurisdictions and the IFTA, so that’s where the

definitions

are coming from. It’s coming directly from there.

Good

question on autonomous vehicles – very good question on autonomous vehicles –

and this does not really speak to that particular piece. It is something that

we should be considering going forward so we’ll take that away and consider

what possible tax implications autonomous vehicles might have. We do have

changes that are done to ensure that we are identifying where tax is being

paid, you know, removing some barriers so that people who are reporting don’t

have as much red tape in that regard, but no, there’s nothing in here because

autonomous vehicles don’t exist, really, at this moment.

They’d

still have to pay the tax if there’s no one pumping it or not. If they’re not

using fuel, they’re using electricity. All those things have to be worked out

in the next number of years.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

BROWN: Thank

you, Chair. Thank you, Minister.

you have any clear idea on how many tax refunds were denied and the amount of

money withheld because of the overpayments discovered during the audits

occurring after the three-year limit and, I guess, leading to the change to the

seven-year limit?

Was

there a significant amount that were unfortunately denied because of this

limit, and do you have an idea of how many that possibly could have been

denied?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board

COADY: Thank

you. I had to wait for my light to come on.

Thank

you for that. I can’t tell you; I will ask my team. Generally these are

circumstances where before a challenge arises they have already considered it.

I can tell you we have a great tax team who are always reviewing and

considering and looking across jurisdictions. There’s, I’m sure, a discussion

going on behind the scenes now saying if there’ve been any.

I am

not aware, as minister, of any. And I’m sure they would’ve risen to my desk,

because if they were denied they would’ve written a letter to me to consider

what could be done.

while I’m waiting I don’t think there’s any, but I’ll get clarification from

those that deal with this on an hourly basis.

Okay,

they said there may be some, and they’ll go back to review if it’s now

appropriate. So if there were any they’re going to go back and see what the

change, what they can do.

But

again, I say, I’m sure if someone overpaid tax and it came to the department

and the department referred them to the legislation, I’m sure they would’ve

written me a letter to say what is it we can do.

there are none that I’m aware of, but they’ll go back and make a review. It’s a

good question.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Member for Labrador West.

BROWN: Thank

you, Chair.

Now

that we are extending the limit from three to seven, was there any review about

the possibility of any liability or any costs to government that would be

incurred when we change this now. Or has any review of that taken place, of any

liability?

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: Thank

you very much. A very interesting question.

But

I would say it’s only if someone overpaid their tax. And therefore, if they

overpaid their tax that is exactly their money. So the liability to government

shouldn’t be there, because it was an overpayment of tax.

we have not identified any costs. And I think it is right and responsible of

government if someone overpaid their tax that they should have it returned to

them, quite rightly, right?

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Member for Labrador West.

BROWN: Thank

you, Chair.

And

thank you, Minister.

Will

we be forgoing any revenue by putting into effect these changes to how the

Health and Post-Secondary Education Tax will be applied to (inaudible) incurred

outside of this province? Or is there going to be any worry of any loss of

revenue or any implications on these changes that might lose revenue into the

province?

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: Thank

you very much.

Again,

a good question, but no, we don’t anticipate any major changes. It is

clarification. There are times when a company may have an employee that travels

repeatedly to – and I’ll use Alberta, because that seems to be where we always

tend to go, but they’re spending a certain amount of time in Alberta and the

company wants to know how to treat that tax.

no, we haven’t identified any real loss or any real gain either; it’s really

about clarifying current practice.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Member for Labrador West.

BROWN: Thank

you, Chair.

Thank

you, Minister, for that.

Are

you aware of any cases that are associated where employers have tried to claim

the $2 million threshold?

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: I’m

sure you’re referring to HAPSET. Yes, many companies, I don’t remember how many

but there were hundreds, maybe even thousands, that because we changed the

threshold from $1.3 million, and we changed that threshold to $2 million, that

means there was a number of companies that didn’t have to pay that tax. Now,

there are companies and we can name lots of them that have more than $2 million

in payroll and they would be paying the tax. But what we were trying to achieve

was ensure that small business were paying less tax.

We’ve

done many things to support small business, that is one thing that we’ve done:

change the threshold from $1.3 million to $2 million so less tax was being paid

by those companies. As you know, we also lowered the tax rate for small

business. We did that last year. We did HAPSET the year before. We’ve had a

multi-year plan of improving tax liabilities for business and to lower their

costs.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Member for Labrador West.

BROWN: Thank

you, Chair.

And

with the HAPSET and I guess, the $2 million threshold, since that came into

effect and the changes, has your department reviewed the results of that and

are you looking at any other changes in that area right now given that, like

you said, you adjusted the threshold to, I guess, mitigate some of the smaller

businesses inside that threshold. But has your department reviewed the

efficiency of that and making sure that there’s a fair balance there?

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: Thank

you very much.

You

know, going from $1.3 million to the $2 million really made a big difference to

small business because they are paying their employees more. Their rate of pay

is going up, they want to hire more people so what it did was it allowed small

business to not pay as much tax, to hire more people, to really grow their

businesses.

was a very important signal by this government to actually do that and to

encourage it. It wasn’t a small increase. I know I increased it from $1.1

million to $1.3 million and then I said, no, we’ve got to do a quantum leap,

right? The payment to employees is going up, we want small business to expand

and grow. The $2-million threshold was quite a good leap and, yes, we’re always

reviewing it.

will say that eventually it would be best if we could get rid of that

particular tax, all things being equal, because it is a payroll tax. We want

more expansion. But I will say that there are always things that we’re

discussing with the business community. As you know, I do a lot of

consultations on budget: where should we be placing our emphasis? That’s why

we’ve been able to put in so many special tax credits. We put in a new

manufacturing tax credit because that was important. We put in a technology tax

credit. Credits that businesses put in for their tax credit and get money back.

Really great things and inducements and encouragements for business.

can say that we’ve put in I think three, if not four, tax credits. We’ve

increased the threshold, as we’re talking about. We’ve also lowered the small

business tax rate. All of that frees up capital and investment opportunities

for small business and that’s why you’re seeing small business is growing in

this province and I’m very glad to see that happen.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

BROWN: Thank

you, Chair.

know, like you said, one of the changes there in

section 2 is how you talk of

associated employees – like if a business broken down into associates and

partners. Are you aware of any cases where they broke it down for associated

employers to each try to claim the $200 threshold individually, instead of as a

whole, to break it. Are there any cases of that that happened?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board

COADY: Thank

you.

will ask my team to see if there are any known cases but we wanted to make sure

that we didn’t create, I’m going to call it a loophole – I hate that word – but

create a scenario where you set up a partnership, I set up another one and

we’ll create a place where we’re having multiple different ways that you can

claim $2 million

in each of these ways. You know, you have to look at this holistically and so

that’s exactly what we’re doing.

I’m

getting a note that it has happened where people have come in and said, you

know, I’m going to create a little sub -company, now, to escape that $2 million

threshold. So it has happened. We’re clarifying that. Most people don’t do that

but there have been cases. I have been talking about the difference between the

$1.3 million threshold going to the $2 million threshold. Almost 1,300

businesses – 1,250 businesses were now excluded from paying the HAPSET because

we changed that threshold: 1,250 businesses. That’s a lot. Right?

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

WAKEHAM: Thank

you.

just have a couple of quick questions, and they are, again, related to the

payroll tax issue. I’m wondering, Minister, I don’t have my book in front of me

but I’m wondering if you might know who much actual payroll tax you collected

last year.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: I

don’t have my book in front of me either, but I am sure my team will tell me,

but it would be in the budget documentation. Of course, I just – I don’t have

the number, and I hate to spew a number off the top of my head I’m not aware

of. So we’ll get that for you. As they’re looking it up in their book behind

the scenes, I’ll certainly come back to you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

WAKEHAM: And

my second part of that question was, did the payroll tax go up in terms of

revenue or go down? So that’s something that they would be able to provide as

part of that.

The

other question is related to agencies, Crown corporations, for example the

health care corporation. How much revenue from payroll tax did we collect from

the health care corporation or the four previous health care corporations

because they pay payroll tax? What other Crown corporations that government

funds actually pay payroll tax? So maybe they could get some of those numbers

as well.

last point is related to the fact that we have a $2 million threshold, but if somebody

hires an additional employee, or if wages go up. So as the payroll for

companies increases, they effectively pay more payroll tax. Is that correct?

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: Thank

you very much.

people are looking it up, I can tell you that in ’24-’25 it was $146 million.

I’m waiting for more information on what it was in ’23-’24, different books but

they will get that for you – $146 million. I will say that if it has gone up,

then it’s because of growth within the businesses and that’s what we want. I

will say that 1,250 businesses were exempt from paying HAPSET or Health and

Post-Secondary Education Tax because of that incredible change. I think your

point is very valid in that we have to keep an eye to that threshold at all

times because as people are paid more and we’ve just come through a spurt in

the country and around the world where we’ve come through an inflationary

period and that’s why it was so much of the increase that it is, but it is

something that we should continue to pay attention to so that we are aware and

make sure that the 1,250 companies that may have been exempt now don’t start to

hit the ceiling even without growth.

payroll increases tax increases. It’s 2 per cent of payroll in excess of $2

million. We knew that. In ’23-’24, it was $144 million and in ’24-’25, it was

$146 million so a slight increase, but that’s because of growth in the economy

and growth in wages. As you know in the last year, I think, it was in ’24-’25,

we lowered, that’s when we lowered so we’ll get that full year when we come

through this year.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

WAKEHAM: So

why are we charging Crown corporations and the health care corporation? Those

amounts that we take out of our health care corporation, for example, I will

just focus on that one for a minute. Do we have a number on that? Do you have a

number on how much the actual – whether it’s the four or whether it’s the one

paid in payroll tax?

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: All

government entities pay HAPSET because, of course, they’re not exempt from it.

I don’t know if we have a breakdown, but I will ask for the breakdown as to

whether what it is – I think your point is on health care. So I’ll ask for

health care and they’re getting those details for me.

This

is starting to feel like Estimates.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

WAKEHAM: So,

in effect, what we’re doing is we’re inflating the amount of revenue we’re

taking in from this payroll tax in one sense because we fund these Crown

agencies. We’re funding health care on one side and then we’re charging them

payroll tax on the other – taking the money back. So whatever number that is,

there’s a funding that comes out from government, obviously, to our Crown

corporations, and then we turn around and charge them payroll tax.

Part

of those budget numbers that are reflected in Crown corporations actually

include having to pay payroll tax. Is that correct?

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: Thank

you very much.

HAPSET

long predates either one of us in these roles. I think it was 1992 when it came

into being and so the establishment of HAPSET.

will say that all entities, including the federal government – it’s a general

application, so the federal government pays it as well, general application of

this tax. It’s been around since somewhere in the early 1990s, 1992. I wouldn’t

say it’s inflated. We estimate revenue from entities for HAPSET in budget and

in Public Accounts. So it’s estimated there; I just don’t have it in front of

me.

eliminate that revenue from entities for HAPSET in the budget and Public

Accounts. It’s not shown in that because, as you pointed out, it’s in and it’s

out. So this is raw data.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

WAKEHAM: It’s

fair to say, though, that the revenue you collected from the health authority

and other Crown corporations is included in the $146 million?

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: I

will confirm that because, again, I don’t have the book in front of me,

unfortunately. I have to rely on my team who has the book because we weren’t

expecting these details. I’m hearing that it’s not included in that book.

That’s from the deputy minister of Finance, so she would know that detail.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

WAKEHAM: I

recognize you don’t have those numbers in front of you. But can we get a

commitment of how much money is being paid by our health authority in payroll

tax and by other Crown corporations as well, broken down by those entities? I

understand it’s not going to be able to be provided right now, but if I could

get that in the future, I’d appreciate it.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: Thank

you.

Again,

I’m going to repeat, we don’t record revenue from ourselves. So it wouldn’t be

in that $146 million number that I gave you. We don’t record revenue from

ourselves, but I will endeavour to get you the breakdown for health care

corporations.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

WAKEHAM: I

suspect that the health authority, though, would have the remit it and, as part

of their remittance, we’d be able to track exactly how much money has been

collected through that process in budget.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: Thank

you.

I’m

waiting anxiously for my light.

again, just for clarity and certainty we net out entity HAPSET, but I will

endeavour to get – I’m sure that my finance team knows how much payroll tax is

being recorded from the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services. They would

know how much that would be and I will endeavor to get that for you, but it

will not be right this moment, unfortunately, because the team would have to go

out and get that information.

But

for clarity and certainty, it’s in and it’s out. So it’s more that it’s kind of

yes, we collect it but it’s not recorded as real revenue; it’s a net.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

WAKEHAM: It

is recorded as an expense of the health care corporation I would think when

they do up their financial statements.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

COADY: By

far, the lion’s share of the revenue, 99 per cent – I don’t know what the

actual per cent is, but the lion’s share of the revenue in the health

authorities would come from government. So while they may pay it, it’s

certainly in and out in the books of the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Seeing no

further speakers, shall the motion carry?

All

those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR:

All those

against, ‘nay.’

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clauses 2

through 9 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall

clauses 2 through 9 inclusive carry?

All

those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR:

All those

against, ‘nay.’

Carried.

motion, clauses 2 through 9 carried.

CLERK:

Be it

enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session

convened, as follows.

CHAIR:

Shal the

enacting clause carry?

All

those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR:

All those

against, ‘nay.’

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

A bill, An

Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act No. 6. (Bill 100)

CHAIR:

Shall the

title carry?

All

those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR:

All those

against, ‘nay.’

Carried.

On motion,

title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I

report the bill without amendment?

All

those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR:

All those

against, ‘nay.’

Carried.

Motion,

that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Deputy Government House Leader.

DEMPSTER: Thank

you, Chair.

move the Committee rise and report Bill 100 carried without amendment.

CHAIR:

The motion

is that the Committee rise and report Bill 100 carried without amendment.

All

those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR:

All those

against, ‘nay.’

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again,

the Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER

(Bennett): Order,

please!

The

hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s and Chair of the Committee of the

Whole.

GAMBIN-WALSH: Speaker,

the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and

have directed me to report Bill 100,

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration

Act No. 6, carried without amendment.

SPEAKER:

The Chair of

the Committee of the Whole reports they have now considered the matters

to them referred and directed that Bill 100 be carried without amendment.

When

shall the report be received?

DEMPSTER: Now.

SPEAKER:

Now.

When

shall the bill be read a third time?

DEMPSTER: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on

tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Deputy Government House Leader.

DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Speaker.

call from the Order Paper, Order 10.

move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that Bill 102, An

Act Respecting the Establishment of the Law Enforcement Oversight Commission

and the Complaints Process Relating to Law Enforcement Officers, be now read a

second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting the Establishment of the Law

Enforcement Oversight Commission and the Complaints Process Relating to Law

Enforcement Officers.” (Bill 102)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

DAVIS: Thank

you, Speaker.

rise in this hon. House today to introduce a new bill entitled the Law

Enforcement Commission Oversight Act.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

DAVIS: This

new act will replace

section 18 to 43 of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

Act, 1992 .

Speaker,

while other provinces have amended or created new acts on how police oversight

and discipline is managed, there has not been any legislative changes impacting

the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Public Complaints Commission since its

inception. I am

pleased to stand here today to speak about the new bill which will see

important improvements to the province’s police oversight process.

The

bill will establish the Law Enforcement Oversight Commission and the process

relating to complaints of misconduct of law enforcement officers. For the

purposes of this bill, law enforcement officer will be defined as Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary officers. This bill will not impact RCMP officers as

the RCMP have their own national complaints commission.

This

bill is based out of the recommendations that come from the Policing

Transformation Working Group within the Department of Justice and Public Safety

and feedback that has been received through consultation over the past year.

Speaker,

police officers in our province are in a unique position of trust and

strengthening that oversight of police discipline helps ensure that the public

has a high degree of confidence in police services. Currently there are two

police discipline processes pertaining to the RNC: complaints that go through

the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Public Complaints Commission; and

complaints that remain internal to the RNC. During consultations, people

expressed concerns that neither of these processes are conducted in an open and

transparent manner and that there is little public oversight. This new bill

changes all that.

The

intent of this bill is to improve the efficiency and transparency of the RNC

officers’ discipline process for both the public and the RNC officers. The new

bill combines both the public and internal processes into one streamlined

process and ensures that all complaints regarding police discipline go first

through the civilian oversight commissioner.

One

of the biggest changes in this bill is that all of the discipline complaints go

through the commissioner for review first to determine if the complaint is of a

public nature or if it is of an internal HR nature. If public, it will then be

investigated by the commissioner; if it is an internal HR matter, it will be

then investigated by the chief of police. I would also like to note that the

SIRT process will not change. This bill deals with police conduct issues.

Criminal investigations will still go to the SIRT.

The

new bill will replace the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Public Complaints

Commission with the Law Enforcement Oversight Commission and will provide the

commissioner with new tools for investigation and oversight, such as the

ability to launch an investigation if sufficient public interest exists to do

so.

will also enable the commissioner, who will be an appointed civilian through

the Independent Appointments Commission, to have oversight of all RNC

discipline matters; allow for the support person or a guardian to make a report

on behalf of the complainant; set timelines for the completion of the

investigation reports and requires the commissioner to update the chief of

police and the police officer and the complainant every 45 days on the status

of the investigation; and require the commissioner to publish de-identified

summaries of the reports of the public misconduct complaints once a decision

has been rendered, unless doing so would impact the victim or if it is not in

the public interest to do so.

Speaker,

I’d like to thank all those that participated in these important consultations.

We heard the feedback and this is why we are here today with this new bill.

would like to, first and foremost, thank the RNC Public Complaints Commission

for their important work. Your work has provided a solid foundation for this

new Law Enforcement Oversight Commission. Police officers have a very unique

and hard job and face challenges day in and day out. Thank you to all the

police officers for all that you do in our province to make it safer for all of

us.

conclude, I encourage the hon. Members in this House to approve this new and

important legislation to ensure that an open and transparent and efficient

police dispute process with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary exists.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Harbour Main.

CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank

you, Speaker.

First

of all, let me say that it’s an honour to stand here and speak on such

important legislation as Bill 102, Law Enforcement Oversight Commission Act .

The amendments to this act are very important. But I’m going to qualify my

remarks here by saying that, first of all, as has been stated by the minister

earlier today that this is a starting point, I think he said, and it is a step.

But

the question we need to ask ourselves: Is this step that’s being taken going to

be sufficient enough to ensure a comprehensive system of police oversight in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? So that is the important question.

Does this legislation, Bill 102, compare to other police oversight models in

the country?

know that there are many oversight systems that have been utilized in

provinces, and even the minister in his opening remarks said other provinces

have enacted police oversight models. What I say to that is yes – and hopefully

I will find this out through questions – the police transformative working

group and all of the others involved in analyzing and preparing and creating

this legislation, that they looked at other provinces and determined that this

is the best possible police oversight model that we could have in our province.

I have some real concerns, Speaker, real concerns about whether this cuts the

market, whether it satisfies that.

Let

me say, first of all, that we all acknowledge how the police do extremely

important work in our province. The importance of policing in our society is

crucial, especially given the crime rates that we see now in our province, and

especially since we see a rise in crime and other matters that are really,

really concerning with respect to public safety. So they do have very difficult

and sometimes very dangerous circumstances that they work in.

I’ve stated, the increase in complex crime that we are seeing everywhere

throughout our province now is certainly worrisome. That’s why it is so

important that we have a police oversight system in place that will ensure

police accountability to the public that it serves, and we cannot see the

erosion of that trust. We have seen, sadly in the history of our policing, many

things that have been of concern with respect to the police discipline and

police misconduct. So it is very important that we have a system in place that

ensures our public has confidence in the police.

Now,

when I look at the current disciplinary process that’s in place, it has been,

no question, convoluted, complex and clearly lacks independence. We have the

chief of police with so much power over the discipline process. We have the

vast majority of complaints that are actually even dismissed by our police

chief. I mean, surely and clearly, that lacks independence and is not

satisfactory.

see under our current disciplinary process that, in fact, hearings are

secretive and the process to adjudicate complaints happens most often,

virtually, behind closed doors. It is generally not open to the public, only in

exceptional situations.

Let’s

look at the delays. When an individual files a complaint against a police

officer, it’s my understanding that there’s an average of approximately one

public hearing each year. I mean, surely that’s not adequate. Then, when we

look at the way that the system is right now, there’s a blatant conflict of

interest that the position of the chief, who is supposed to be the champion for

the police and represent the police guardian and, at the same time, is

responsible for discipling police, so that’s clearly a conflict of interest.

Obviously,

those are some of the things that have caused the people of this province to

question and to not have public trust and then faith in the way that law

enforcement agencies investigate the wrongdoings by its officers. What we need

to ask here is, is this the best system that’s in place that we could have in

our province? I mean, we know that we need to strengthen our police force. We

know that civilian oversight is about accountability to the public.

What

does that mean? That means more transparency. Because we know that every time a

police officer is found guilty of some form of unethical or unlawful conduct,

the police as a whole is tarnished by association. So the question becomes,

what kind of disciplinary regime is necessary and is this adequate, Bill 102? Is

this good enough to ensure that it’s a disciplinary regime that’s going to

address these concerns?

The

other thing is what type of system of police oversight should exist. We know in

other provinces they have police services boards. For some reason, the

government here decided not to consider or to implement that type of police

oversight. We will get to this in questions, as well, about what structure of

civilian oversight best ensures the effective and the efficient police

accountability of police organizations. Because police organizations need to

ensure full, frank and free access to information about their organizations.

police oversight system should strive at all costs for independence, for

fairness, for efficiency, objectivity and we have to ask these questions when

determining whether the new act addresses these concepts, and I’m concerned

that they do not – this new act does not. We need to ensure that any police

oversight model that is in existence has the ability to look at those concepts

of independence and fairness and objectivity, so I worry about that.

The

police oversight board, we know that First Voice, who did an extensive,

extensive review of the police oversight system in our province and the police,

in particular, with the RNC, they basically had argued – it was, I think, their

first recommendation, that we have a police oversight board, not a

commissioner, but a board. Why? Because a board provides those necessary

mechanisms for accountability. It gives that level of civilian oversight the

level of transparency that it requires, and we all want to have the best

possible oversight model because we know that our police oversight, which has

been in existence, has been really negligible. I mean, it really has not been

satisfactory.

So I

ask the question of government – and I’ll be exploring this – does the

government have a deep and abiding commitment to the principle and practice of

civilian governance? I mean, let’s look at the structure and organization of

their bill. It’s about a commissioner. One civilian commissioner is at the

helm. And, of course, the minister can correct me if I’m wrong about that, but

we have one civilian member and is that going to ensure the necessary police

accountability and hold police organizations to account for their programs and

activities?

One

other concern that I have with respect to – I mean, the act that’s been

presented deals with one concept, and that’s police discipline – the discipline

process that’s in place. Right now, as the minister had pointed out, the RNC

Act of 1992 is replacing the Royal Newfoundland Public Complaints Commission,

so that’s going to be replaced. But what the question is, what we need to look

at is, are these officers – they’re going to be subject to a discipline model,

but there’s a lot more involved here than just police discipline. We’ve seen

that in other jurisdictions across our country. We’ve seen this advocated by

First Voice who, as I stated, did an extensive review of our policing

organization in the report that they did. I think that was in 2022.

is there anything in this new legislation about police standards? Any

respectable system of police oversight should properly begin, in my view, with

a detailed police standards because we want to increase efficiency and

effectiveness of our policing organizations. By establishing standards for the

police activity, it becomes much easier to determine any deficiencies.

From

my review of the act, there are no regard to police standards. Now, I do

believe that the act says that the commissioner may look at policies, but

that’s permissive. That is discretionary. I would submit that’s not good

enough.

Then

let’s look at another very important piece of any legislation that we put into

play here, with respect to police organizations and review of police

organizations, is what about police training, education and development? Unless

I’ve overlooked that, I don’t see any thorough analysis or any kind of

addressing of this.

The

question is, are officers functioning in a manner that is consistent with

available policing standards? We need to ensure quality police learning

programs. I mean, our police play such an important role in terms of the powers

that they have as officers, the extreme powers and authority that they

exercise, the power of using force and lethal force at that.

we need to ensure that there’s some mechanism, I would argue, to ensure that

there’s police training and education and development. How else can this act be

satisfactory? I ask the question again: Is this is a comprehensive model that

we are seeing?

There

needs to be design delivery and evaluation of training mechanisms for police. I

mean, the powers that officers have – and I might point out that the government

had, I think it was in 2022, commissioned the RNC workplace review by Harriet

Lewis and one of her conclusions, Speaker, she concluded that – well, in her

review – nearly half of the officers surveyed, 45 per cent, felt that they did

not have adequate training to perform their duties.

this is not on the officers, and let me be clear, the officers are doing their

very best and they are to be applauded, but this comes to the responsibility of

government to ensure that they have the resources and that they have the

training to do their jobs properly.

the government’s own RNC workplace review that they commissioned – again, I

have to repeat this, because it’s shocking – nearly half of the officers

surveyed felt they did not have adequate training to perform their duties.

And

what the lawyer, Harriet Lewis, concluded that this indicates a continuing

problem with concerning consequences, because it impacts the RNC’s risk

profile. And I found this even more shocking when I read it. As a result, at

least some RNC officers have arranged their own training on their own time and

at their own expense – and that goes to the commitment of these officers – in

order to feel confident that they are able to perform their duties safely and

effectively. Now isn’t that incredible?

The

RNC workplace review also found that there’s no organized management training

for those who are promoted to supervisory positions, which no doubt contributes

to the organizational dysfunction of the force. So obviously and without doubt

there are gaps in the training, there are huge gaps.

know that other jurisdictions have police training focused on conflict

resolution and crisis management; I mean, that should be a must for any

officers. It’s very difficult when we see these gaps and these deficiencies

that are in place for us to feel confidence in this new act.

have to say, it is worrisome, Speaker, because we know that police officers are

held to a high standard, a high standard of ethics and integrity. And surely

there should be in this act something to support them in their efforts. And

also, the point of the fact that there are reduced numbers – it’s my

understanding, and again, the minister can correct me if I’m wrong about this –

but in terms of recruiting officers and everything. If there are not processes

in place to support officers, then is it any wonder that our numbers are being

reduced?

The

problem I have with this act is it only focuses on police discipline. And,

yeah, that’s definitely important. How we deal with police officers who will

engage in unlawful or unethical conduct? Yes, we need to address that, but if

there’s no reference to the other things that are so important. Having police

standards and not making it discretionary on the part of the commissioner.

The

other thing is the delay issue. That’s another point, Speaker, the delay. We

know that, I think, there’s a six-month limitation period in which a citizen

has to file their complaint. Now, correct me if I’m wrong on this, but

hopefully there’s a reciprocal requirement on the part of the commissioner to

deliver their findings. I don’t know, unless it’s somewhere and I’m not seeing

that, then we need to know if that’s the case because that’s fairness, Speaker.

We’ve heard that there’s been such delays over the years in people waiting for

their complaints to be adjudicated. Some of the complainants have even ended up

dying before they can get their complaint adjudicated. So surely that is

addressed in this legislation.

Speaker,

there are many things that we’re going to bring out. I'm not saying that this

isn’t a starting point, but I just don’t understand why government couldn’t

just –you’ve got an opportunity here – why couldn’t you go all the way and make

it the best possible, most comprehensive oversight system that we could really

be proud of in this province? It needed to go further, in my view. We need a

comprehensive focus, and I feel this focus of the government is narrow. It’s a

narrow focus.

all benefit when the police have the confidence of the public and then they are

able to do the difficult, difficult job that they have to do. When the police

don’t have that confidence and trust then their jobs are made even that much

harder.

that note, Speaker, I will take my seat now and I conclude my remarks.

Thank

you.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear,

hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Labrador West.

BROWN: Thank

you, Speaker.

Only

after I said it for the Law Enforcement Oversight Commission, and it was

something that was long needed in that changes had to be made. We’ve seen time

and time again that complaints go out in different capacities and dealt with in

different ways. That Commissioner now has a bit more independence when it comes

to dealing with complaints coming in internally or externally into the RNC.

This bill is going to grant more independence and transpar