April 18, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 9
The
House met at 10 a.m.
Admit
strangers.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The Deputy Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Motion 1, that this House
Approves in General the Budgetary Policy of the Government.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LESTER:
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to also congratulate the
volunteers of my district which spans over St. John's and Mount Pearl. Both
communities are held together by those volunteers which contribute to the fabric
of community and helping out each other. Most of those volunteers are taking
time away from their families and contributing to the better good of the youth,
the seniors, the ones who are less fortune and I think everybody in this House
are very thankful for volunteers within their communities.
I'd like to bring your attention to an initiative which the
City of Mount Pearl has undertaken. It's part of the Smart Cities Challenge
which is a federal government program. I think this type of initiative is what
we should be encouraging all our communities throughout our province to
undertake.
I think our population has matured to a point
to realize that government is
not responsible for everything. They're responsible for creating environments;
they're not responsible for taking individual initiatives. Mount Pearl is a
prime example of this. They've recognized that their demographic is rapidly
changing. Their average age median rate is increasing every year.
Right
now, in Mount Pearl, the age median is about 46. They've outlined targets to
reduce their median age to 43½ by 2023, increase their population by
5 per cent to 24,104 and double the technology-based companies from eight to 16.
Mount Pearl itself is unfortunately – well, I can't say unfortunately, but it's
challenged with the fact that within Mount Pearl there is not a lot of physical
natural resources. Their resource within Mount Pearl is their people.
Part of
the Government of Canada's announced plan of Smart Cities Challenge is basically
– it's open up to communities of all sizes including municipalities, regional
governments and indigenous communities. The challenge encourages communities to
adopt a smart cities approach to improve the lives of their residents through
innovation, data and connected technology.
I think
this type of initiative shown by Mount Pearl could go throughout our whole
province. We really could become not just what I'd like to say the silicon
valley of the east coast but the silicon political jurisdiction of North
America. It's something that we've invested in, we as a people, we as
governments from one administration to the next. We are educational facilities.
While, yes, we do have infrastructural challenges, they're second to none
throughout the whole continent.
For the
longest period of time we have not been the primary benefactors of those
educational institutions. Far too often our other jurisdictions, other economies
are making good on our investment in our education. We need to find more ways to
keep our educated people here, create industries around those, because people
with jobs create jobs. People with good stable livings create stable livings for
others.
I,
personally, wish Mount Pearl the ultimate success on their initiative and will
be doing everything I personally can within this House to advocate in any way
possible to guarantee their success, but Mount Pearl, their existing council led
by Mayor Aker and, I guess, chief administrative officer Steve Kent, who most of
us all know very well, they are the ones who are going to be able to lead this
challenge. They got great councillors backing them up. Hopefully, we'll be able
to replicate their example of initiative throughout the province to provide a
stable future and opportunity for economic diversity throughout our rural towns
and centralized locations.
Mr.
Speaker, in 2015, I like to joke and say I was retired. I was working and I
didn't consider it work. I loved being a farmer, but it came to my attention –
and no disrespect to any individual within this House, especially the Member who
I ran against, but he was successful. I was concerned that, once again, the
electorate throughout the province was going to do a wholesale change of
government. Democracy just can't work that way when it's a wholesale change. We
need an Opposition. We need a strong government, and we also need a strong
Opposition. Collectively, all together, we have to work towards the same
direction but we're human; we all make mistakes.
Why I
decided to run in 2015, I was afraid that there was not going to be an execution
of democracy. Another thing I didn't really see at that time was I didn't see a
real, strong economic plan. I'm not an economist. I'm not a mathematician but
when the price of oil goes from $100 a barrel down to $30, I know there's
trouble on the horizon. That's something that we were all aware of.
People
say you can't base our economy on oil, but guess what? We're a province of
resources. We're a resource-based province at this point. We rely on commodity
prices for our revenues. If we have to rely on tax dollars that we basically
take out of one pocket and try to put it back in the other, each time we do that
there's less money coming in front of us because someone else is dragging it out
of the province. We need to concentrate on making the maximum use of our
resources.
A lot of
the strategies which the current government has put forward in
The Way Forward documents, they were
done in good intent and with consultation with industry representatives and the
citizens of the province. I commend them for that, but what's happening is I
don't see – granted, it's a short period of time, but I don't see the
fulfillment coming out of that like it should be happening. We need to bring
some of those high-level theories to the ground and get our industries and the
economy going again.
I hear a
lot about Muskrat Falls, just like everybody else does. I'm concerned about it
too. The reality is when the decisions were being made, they were made on the
best possible information at that time. I don't mean to point anybody out but
I'm pretty sure Cathy Bennett, who I have a lot of respect for, she was the
chair of the –
AN HON. MEMBER:
No names.
MR. LESTER:
Oh, sorry.
AN HON. MEMBER:
The Member for Windsor Lake.
MR. LESTER:
I apologize for that. My
rookie mistake.
The
Member –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Windsor Lake.
MR. LESTER:
Okay. Thank you.
The
Member for Windsor Lake, who I have an extreme amount of respect for, made the
best decision at that time when she supported it, as did Minister Osborne, as
did Minister Hawkins.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Did it again.
MR. LESTER:
Oh my gosh, I did it again.
AN HON. MEMBER:
The Minister of
Transportation and the Minister of Finance.
MR. LESTER:
The Minister of Finance and
the Minister of Transportation.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Put him in the corner with a
book on his head.
MR. LESTER:
I guess I'm going to be put
in the corner. I apologize.
We had
concerns about it but when we looked at our energy deficit, we had to do
something about it. There's a big concern about methylmercury in that lake, but
I can guarantee you that climate change is going to have a lot greater effect on
everybody else.
When you
look in Holyrood, that is still one of the top 15 producers of carbon into our
atmosphere, one of the top 15 biggest polluters in North America. That's going
to have a much larger effect. I'm not trying to diminish any risks of
methylmercury because it is a concern, but I'm also a big proponent of right now
we have to make the best decision with the least effect.
This
leads me into my next topic which is agriculture. We often hear that by 2050
we're going to have to produce twice as much food as we do today. I've said this
before, as a provincial jurisdiction at the end of the food supply chain, it
won't matter how much money we have in our pockets, we're going to be the ones
to go hungry.
Most of
our population increase is going to happen in the Third World countries. Over
the past five or six decades, our food production has moved out of our own
backyards into the Third World countries. I'm really troubled with the fact that
I'm sure the people of China are not going to allow food to come here to North
America while their own children are starving. We'll be the ones to be hungry.
Industries such as agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, they're not as readily
accessible or developable – if that's a word – as mining, for example. The
mineral resources are there in the ground. But in order to harvest a living
resource, be it through agriculture or forestry or aquaculture, it takes
decades, absolute decades and millions and millions of dollars of investment in
order to make that industry profitable.
That's a
concern of mine because I see there is a bit of a shift within the Department of
Natural Resources from planning and business development to streamline programs,
to streamline departments, to reduce costs. But I really think that is not the
situation we should be looking at. We shouldn't be looking at cutting planning.
We shouldn't be looking at cutting resource management. Those decisions that we
make to cut those management positions today are going to affect the
availability and profitability of those resources 10, 15, 20 years down the
road. We need to keep up to date. Even if it is a bit of a knock on the chin
right now, we need to continue to manage our natural renewable resources,
because they're the ones that are going to provide the paycheques down the road.
In
addition to the opportunity that's there in the agriculture industry, there are
several different directions it can go when it comes to spinoffs. Agriculture
basically creates jobs, not only in the activity of producing food or
agricultural products, it creates service industries. There's no reason why we
can't build our industry to a critical mass where we can get infrastructure
placement, such as fertilizer plants, larger dealerships of equipment, larger
dealerships of input such as chemicals, packaging. All those things can be
produced right here in our own province.
It's
estimated that for every one job that agriculture creates, there are two more
jobs needed to back that production up. So it's a great driver of the economy,
and I would suspect, while my knowledge is fairly limited, that the same ratios
could go for aquaculture and forestry as well.
We often
hear about this 64,000 acres of land that's highlighted as areas of agriculture
interest. That has always been there. We've always had an opportunity to produce
more of our own food. The factor that's kept us from doing that has been the
economics of doing so. Because we're such a small portion of the retail grocery
trade throughout Canada, we account for less than 4 per cent of the food
consumed in Canada. Back to my first point about being food short, we'd only
need a very small reduction in food and we're going to be hungry.
Because
of the nationalization –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Can I have some order,
please!
It's
getting difficult to hear the speaker.
Thank
you.
MR. LESTER:
And I'm pretty loud.
MR. SPEAKER:
You are.
MR. LESTER:
Back to my point about 4 per
cent of the market. Because of that and our nationalization of our food supply
chain with the big corporations, the opportunity to get into these food supply
chains is becoming increasingly challenging. While it may not be popular with
other provinces, as a provincial Legislature we need to put parameters and
legislation in place that local first. We need to make sure that food that's
produced here is able to be filling a market that's devoid of local product and
in short supply.
In our
recent budget, I had one little concern – a very small number that creates a
very big concern, and that's the amount of limestone that is budgeted. It's been
more or less stable for the past 10 years, the amount of limestone consumed.
There was a bit of a jump in it a couple of years ago when there was additional
agricultural land being developed.
Agricultural land development is great but productivity is more important.
Limestone is the key element to agricultural productivity. For every basis point
that you're below optimum levels, you're looking at an 8 to 12 per cent decrease
in production. I would challenge the department to do another survey of pH on
existing agricultural soils. I'm sure they would find that through the addition
of limestone, an increased budget of limestone, we would be able to increase our
production significantly without the development of additional agricultural
land.
We have
to start making better on what we already have. If we look to increase and
double our production of horticultural goods in less than four years, we have to
look at the land we already have. Land I will clear this fall or this summer,
I'm not going to get maximum production out of that for at least four to six
years. That's beyond our target of production. We need to look at the land that
we already have, make the best of it and use it for where we can get the most
food produced. That is, of course, in horticultural production.
I can
bring in on my – again, speaking to my experience as a farmer. I can bring in
one tractor-trailer load of supplies and I can produce 10 tractor-trailer loads
of food. That's what I call tractor-trailer economics that we need to look at.
The same
thing with Labrador, you can bring in one tractor-trailer load of food. There's
lots of land in Labrador, lots of opportunity, far better soil than I have in my
jurisdiction and you could produce much more food for the people of Labrador.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LESTER:
Pardon me?
AN HON. MEMBER:
We got a lot to think about.
MR. LESTER:
A lot to think about.
Well,
see the time for thinking is now passed, we need action. We need to start using
that land. We need to put the economic factors in place that enable people to
consider agriculture as a viable livelihood and a viable means of supporting
their families.
I love
being a farmer and I'm slowly liking to be a politician. It's just a different
kind of material that you're having to deal with, but –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) rewards.
MR. LESTER:
Yes (inaudible) rewards.
I think
this is something – the agriculture industry in particular is going to be an
industry that's going to be passed from administration to administration and
it's something that's going to be passed from generation to generation.
A field
that I farm, that's been producing food for the people of the St. John's region
for over 200 years. Then I'm farming other fields that, for the first time, will
become a resource that's going to produce for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
In
closing, I would like to restate my commitment to advocate for the people of my
district. As I said, we have an aging demographic and there are going to be
challenges as we can all experience throughout our province but we can't lose
sight of the future in taking care of the problems that are happening today. We
still have to put the resources and forthright thinking into planning for down
the road.
Yes, we
need to take care of the problems at our door but once we close the door on
those there'll be more that will show up if we're not thinking ahead. Yes, it's
great to think but, again, we need to go with action. That's what I'd like to
see a little bit more of on the ground. I'd like to see more proactive work and
not see our research and planning divisions of our resources in any way
compromised and continue to invest in that.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DEAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, it's a pleasure and an honour to be able to speak on the budget of 2018
and the people of the great District of Exploits.
Before I
go to some of my points, which will be more generic this morning – I'll be a
little bit more focused on the district when I get to speak again hopefully
later. Before I go there, Volunteer Week, all of the speakers thus far have
raised and acknowledged with accolades, all of our volunteers throughout the
province.
Exploits; certainly we're not shortchanged when it comes to people,
organizations and different groups. I'm not going to go down the road of
individualizing them because whether they're individuals or service groups or
firefighters – and the list goes on and on and on – each and every volunteer in
the District of Exploits, I'm sure, knows who they are.
It's
like I've often said when I was mayor bringing greetings – and I've heard it
said here – the volunteers in my district and throughout the province, what they
do and what they've done for decades for our people is pick up, I'll call it,
the slack or the shortcomings, in a lot of cases, of government services, what
we probably should be expected to bring forward. Our people have always been
good. Regardless of the party in power, our volunteers have always had the backs
of successive governments. They need to be congratulated for coming onside and
doing what, in my opinion and in most cases, is really government
responsibilities. Without our volunteer sector, I think we'd find ourselves
lost.
Mr.
Speaker, in December 2015 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were facing an
unprecedented $2.7 billion deficit. We inherited a fiscal policy guided by no
realistic plan to return the province to surplus, long-term plans based on the
belief that oil would always be at $100 per barrel and a promise of only $3
billion equity investment in Nalcor Energy that was expected to generate $12
billion in revenue. We were also told the investments in Muskrat Falls would be
returned in just eight years.
Mr.
Speaker, we have reduced our deficit from a projected $2.7 billion to a little
more than $800 million today. We are on target to return to surplus despite the
volatility of oil prices. We are moving forward with a strong commitment to
creating conditions for businesses and employment growth.
We also
cannot take such severe actions as massive job reductions and cuts to services
as they would have far-reaching consequences on our already challenged economy
due to the winding down of major industrial projects. As our economy stabilizes,
coming off these projects, employment remains one of our key challenges and we
are addressing this head-on. Our approach is focused on creating opportunities
for job growth across sectors and retaining our youth by supporting them to
pursue career opportunities right here at home.
Building for Our Future
addresses our province's economic, social and fiscal challenges. It is a way
forward that is methodical, fair and responsible. This is the approach that our
government will be taking. This is the approach that our government will
continue to take.
We are
driven by the goals of managing our fiscal situation, delivering valuable
programs and services, getting better outcomes for our investments, creating an
environment which supports economic development and job creation and creating
opportunities for residents to excel in their careers.
An
important part of our approach has been our relationship with the federal
government and the ability to leverage available funds for a maximum benefit.
AN HON. MEMBER:
That's right; we don't tear
down flags (inaudible).
MR. DEAN:
That's right.
For
municipalities, we have partnered on initiatives that have improved clean
drinking water, waste water systems, along with road and community
infrastructure. We have also advanced projects that support the growth of
tourism, ocean technology, aerospace, defence, film, television and
manufacturing, along with many other industries. We will continue to identify
opportunities where we can join our federal partners in realizing the full
benefit of our considerable investments and help create opportunities for
economic successes.
Mr.
Speaker, within departments and government organizations, we are carefully
examining how programs and services are delivered in order to secure the best
possible outcomes. This reflects the principles of our way forward to advancing
a smarter, more accountable approach to managing government's operations.
Our
approach to health care is addressing increased demand for long-term care and
creating economic benefits. Through The
Way Forward, we are continuing to action initiatives that help to improve
government efficiency. Over the next year, we will implement initiatives to
build on the progress achieved to date. Examples of these would include
consolidating government's vehicle fleet under one department, which will result
in the reduction of the number of vehicles by 10 per cent, saving taxpayers
hundreds of thousands of dollars over the long term.
Consolidating collection activities to reduce redundancy and standardized
collection processes – this will provide a single approach to managing
receivables owed across multiple departments; creating an asset management
framework to guide how we assess and dispose of assets in a way that enhances
service delivery and ensures the maximum financial return; adopting a strategic
sourcing model that leverages the consolidated purchasing power of the
government to secure better prices for goods.
We will
take steps to make it easier for citizens and businesses to access services
online which will improve the overall experience of interacting with government
and, ultimately, result in greater efficiencies and savings. We are working
towards a single government ID that citizens and businesses will use for all
services accessed through a single portal.
Mr.
Speaker, our approach focuses on reducing spending within government while
advancing programs and services to citizens. A truly balanced approach involves
many different areas of improvement. In the past two years, we have eliminated
795 positions within departments while maintaining service delivery and
protecting a vulnerable economy.
We
recognize there is an opportunity to expand attrition across the entire public
service, as there are more than 5,000 public service employees who are eligible
to retire. By carefully conducting workforce planning, we will be able to reduce
the size of the public service and spending in a more gradual way, without risk
of disrupting service delivery and the economy. Longer term, we continue to look
for savings within all areas of the public service, including reducing
discretionary spending and working with management and unions to address such
issues as overtime and sick leave.
Mr.
Speaker, health care spending represents the largest portion of our provincial
budget. Annually, the cost to deliver health care programs and services in
Newfoundland and Labrador are the highest in Canada and has increased by 130 per
cent since 2001.
It's no
small undertaking but we are carefully changing how our health care system
operates. We are shifting focus from treatment to preventative care, providing
care in the home and community where possible and appropriate and strengthening
primary health care options. We are also using $72 million, secured from the
federal government, to improve home and community care and mental health and
addictions services.
More
specifically, we will develop a Home First Integrated Network with wraparound
services for clients and an extension of available services in the community
beyond traditional work hours; initiate a province-wide palliative care approach
with greater training for clinicians, service providers and caregivers who
provide end-of-life care; and increase access to home care supports for people
with dementia. Our government has placed a spotlight on transforming how mental
health and addiction services are delivered, breaking down stigmas and removing
barriers to treatments.
Mr.
Speaker, we have made progress by using federal funding. We are better able to
support those experiencing mental health issues. We will develop a province-wide
mental health service delivery model for children, youth and emerging adults to
address existing systemic barriers and gaps; expand e-mental health services;
improve access to addiction services; and improve the community-based services
to replace hospital care.
This
year, we have allocated $6.1 million to advance a value-for-money assessment for
a new mental health facility to replace the Waterford Hospital. The new facility
will be a focal point of our community-centric approach to mental health and
addictions.
In
Budget 2018 we are allocating more
than $115 million for operational funding for community groups, as well as
support for projects and programs that they deliver to our residents. A
multi-year approach for community grant funding will announced in the coming
week.
Mr.
Speaker, our government recognizes that we have responsibilities to support all
of our citizens regardless of age, gender, ability or geography. It is our
responsibility that we take very seriously. Today, we are continuing to provide
these valuable programs with the total investment of $121 million. In 2017,
47,000 seniors and their families received the Seniors' Benefit and 155,000
families received the Income Supplement.
Mr.
Speaker, we believe that safe, stable and affordable housing is fundamental to
the social and economic well-being of individuals and families in our
communities. Our government is working closely with our community partners to
help improve access to affordable housing and to make it easier for first-time
homebuyers to enter the marketplace.
This
year we are increasing the Rent Supplement Program by an additional $2 million
to increase the number of rent supplemented units and to support the portable
rent supplement pilot program. We will also invest $10.2 million for
maintenance, repair and upkeep of public housing properties to ensure safe and
quality homes are available for our tenants. To modernize and renovate public
housing, $3.6 million has been allocated, which will help ensure we continue to
provide good, affordable housing.
Mr.
Speaker, our $8.6 million investment in the Supportive Living Program and the
Provincial Homelessness Fund will allow us to partner with the community sector
to prevent homelessness. An additional $2.7 million will be invested to leverage
federal funding under the Investment in Affordable Housing Agreement which
enables Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation to partner with affordable
housing developers in the private and non-profit supportive living sectors.
In
partnership with the federal government – we've got good partnerships with the
federal government – we anticipate building new housing units, as well as
upgrades to some of our existing social housing units to reflect the present day
family size and needs of seniors. The focus will be on providing additional
housing to those who need it and reducing wait-lists for social housing.
Mr.
Speaker, our government is making it easier for home buyers to purchase their
first home. We are doing this through two new programs, which are: The
First-time Homebuyer's Program, which will include financing for a down payment
and a $2,000 grant for eligible first time home buyers to purchase a new or
existing home.
The
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing commission is also increasing the average
household income maximum for eligibility from $65,000 up to $75,000 for full
benefit and up to $85,000 for partial benefit. The program will be extended to
March 31, 2019, with available funding of $1.25 million, and will assist an
estimated 100 households secure home ownership.
Our new
Home Purchase Program will provide a $3,000 grant towards the purchase of a
newly constructed or never sold home under $400,000, including HST. These are
innovative programs that will stimulate new home construction, economic activity
and job creation.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) some builders are
mentioned.
MR. DEAN:
That's right, maximum.
Mr.
Speaker, through the Independent Appointments Commission, government will
appoint a committee of experts to undertake a system-wide review that will
explore how our post-secondary education system compares to other jurisdictions,
and to recommend options to achieve better outcomes in post-secondary education
in a more cost-efficient manner. Memorial University and the College of the
North Atlantic will play key roles in this undertaking.
Mr.
Speaker, the provincial and federal governments are finalizing agreements that
will provide additional funding to support employment and training programs.
Through these agreements, our government will strive to increase participation
in the local labour market for under-represented groups, including women, and
assist them to achieve gainful employment.
Under
the three-year $100 million municipal infrastructure program, we are investing
approximately $10.6 million in 2018-19 through the provincial Municipal Capital
Works Program. In addition to this, we are providing $18.8 million to leverage
an additional $12.7 million in federal funding under the Small Communities Fund
of the New Building Canada Fund.
Mr.
Speaker, our government is proud to continue the presumptive cancer coverage
benefit that career and volunteer firefighters now receive. This year, we are
expanding support for first responders by introducing a new Search and Rescue
Volunteer Tax Credit that will allow eligible search and rescue volunteers to
claim a $3,000 non-refundable tax credit starting on January 1, 2019, on their
provincial income tax.
Mr.
Speaker, in addition to our industry development, our commitment to advancing
infrastructure throughout the province will help stimulate economic activity and
job creation, while providing access to services in modern facilities.
Last
year, our government launched a five-year plan for new and existing schools,
health care facilities, post-secondary institutions, roads, bridges, justice
facilities, affordable housing and municipal infrastructure. This year, we will
continue to build on this momentum and action a plan that includes a total
investment of $619.7 million. The five-year infrastructure plan will generate an
average of $540 million in economic activity and 5,300 person years of
employment per year.
Mr.
Speaker, Budget 2018 includes
investments which ensure health care infrastructure can meet the demands of
residents, including the $6.1 million for the value-for-money analysis to
replace the Waterford Hospital, as well as $4 million to support the 20-bed
expansion of the protective care unit at the Dr. Hugh health care centre in
Botwood.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DEAN:
If I may – this probably
would be a good time – I would like to advise all hon. Members and staff here in
this House that the wife of former Health Minister Dr. Hugh Twomey passed away
about three days ago. I've been talking to her son, Sean, and conveyed to them
our deepest sympathies.
Sean is
totally aware of the extension to the Twomey centre in Botwood. I know he feels
strongly that his father would be nodding his head in approval; a great doctor,
a great minister, a great MHA and a great friend of mine. He died several years
ago. Unfortunately, his wife passed away recently. Condolences are extended to
all.
Mr.
Speaker, $3.75 million for the ongoing development of the new long-term care
homes in Gander as well as Grand Falls-Windsor.
In 2017,
we introduced a five-year plan to improve the province's roads network. It also
allows us to take better advantage of our short construction season through
early tendering, which leads to more competitive bidding. By the end of last
season, more than 500 lane kilometres had been paved and 360 culverts were
replaced. This fiscal year, our government will match last year's Roads Plan
budget of $77.2 million. Tenders for many projects have already been issued,
while the remaining tenders will be issued in the coming days.
Mr.
Speaker, our government continues to make substantial progress in improving the
transparency and accountability at Nalcor Energy. In collaboration with the
Crown corporation, we have created greater certainty on the cost estimates and
timelines for completion of the Muskrat Falls Project.
Under
the terms set by the previous administration, we are once again required to make
an equity investment in Nalcor. This year, that investment totals $723.9 million
and will support the completion of the Muskrat Falls Project, which is close to
90 per cent complete.
Budget 2018
allocates more than $20 million and an additional $13.7 million in 2019, and is
led by Justice LeBlanc. The inquiry will provide a greater understanding of what
led to the previous administration's sanctioning of the project and why budgets
increased from $6.2 billion to the $12.7 billion projected today, as well as why
the schedule was consistently underestimated.
While we
cannot change the past, we can learn from our mistakes. Addressing electricity
rates has been, and will continue, to be our priority. Continuing to purchase
and import less expensive power via the Maritime Link and Labrador Link;
exporting surplus recall energy from Churchill Falls; bringing surplus power
across the Labrador-Island Link for use on the Island in 2018; finding ways to
use energy more efficiently, reduce peak demand, to free up capacity for export
and domestic customers; and expanding customer base within the province.
Mr.
Speaker, our vision for the province does not include the doubling of
electricity rates. We are focused on ensuring that electricity rates –
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
Order, please!
MR. DEAN:
– are competitive with other Atlantic provinces.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
pleased to stand this morning and to speak for the first time in the budget
debate. There's much to be said – not much in the budget, but much to be said.
This is
a budget that is continuing a pattern that was set by this government with its
2016 budget. So in order to really understand the impact of this budget, one has
to understand where this budget comes from.
In 2016,
we had an austerity budget –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
– put in by this government.
They knew it was that and they've made, in their words: they make no excuses for
it. They knew it was going to be hard, they said. They knew it was going to hurt
people, but they had to do it. We know they didn't have to do it; they chose to
do it. They chose to take that route of an austerity budget.
This
budget continues everything that was in that budget –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
– except for the few changes
that happened because of protests from the people and protests here in this
House from us as Opposition. For example, the 2016 budget had a levy in it.
Well, we still have the levy. We still have it. They made changes to it. Now it
starts with the individuals with incomes over $50,000. That's a whopping lot of
money and the levy is still there. So that levy hasn't gone. While this
Budget 2018 may not mention the word levy, the levy is still in
place.
Now,
when it came to something like the closing of the libraries, we certainly know
the impact that had and the reaction of the community, the reaction of people
outside of our province and our reaction caused that to change. So we did have
in this budget – and I did have yesterday in Estimates from the minister – a
commitment that libraries are staying open. But it's not because they wanted it.
It's because of the fightback from people in this province that caused that. Day
after day, we stood with petitions from people in this province demanding that
they make the change, so they made it.
When
we're dealing with 2018, we're dealing with what they're calling this is staying
the course. Well, the course they're staying is hurting people on a daily basis,
and that's what they don't say. The people who, since 2016, have lost hours of
home care, that goes on. The seniors, since 2016, who've lost dental care, that
goes on. The people who are paying levies, because they have whopping incomes of
$51,000, that goes on. All of this continues.
So it
may be a stay the course for them in terms of their so-called fiscal policy, but
it's not a stay of course for the people of the province because with every year
that they're being affected by what happened in 2016, their lives are getting
worse. The senior who hasn't had dental care for two years will now not have it
for three years. It gets worse for the people. So it's not a stay-the-course
budget for the people of the province. It's only a stay-the-course budget for
the government and the direction in which they are moving.
Now,
government likes to say that we stand up and we talk about what's wrong and they
act as if we are the only ones who do that, Mr. Speaker, who look at their
budget with an eye that says an austerity budget is not the way to go. Let's
face it, this budget in 2018 is still an austerity budget because it's based on
2016 and what happened in 2016.
In June
of 2016, when we, in this House, were talking about a private Member's motion, I
made reference to comments from the heads of the teachers' associations in
Canada who were actually meeting here in the province at the time. The reason I
brought them in is because this was a belief statement and call to action. It
was actually signed by the presidents of the Canadian teachers' organizations of
the whole country. They were here in St. John's.
They
were dealing with governments, not just here, but other Liberal governments and
other governments in this country who were starting to look to austerity
budgets. These heads of the teachers' associations of the country said that they
developed a belief statement and call to action because of overwhelming concerns
on the educational system on inclusive education because of austerity budgets.
So they were concerned about austerity budgets.
Let's
listen to what the presidents of the teachers' associations of Canada said and
their belief. I think these are people who are pretty well-educated people, who
certainly know the impact on children and families of government's budgets.
Let's listen to what they're saying: “WE BELIEVE… that austerity budgets
undermine the strength of our public education system as students and their
teachers lose out, and families are left out.” So this is in general; this is
just not from an education perspective. This is the effect of austerity budgets.
“WE
BELIEVE… that publicly funded public education must be fully funded to support
student learning.” So they're talking about learning, but they're still talking
about the impact of austerity budgets.
“WE
BELIEVE… that a successful inclusive education model requires sufficient
funding” – not austerity budget – “and teachers/educators to ensure student
needs are addressed.”
“WE
BELIEVE… that fiscal deficits must not be solved at the expense of the public
education system or on the backs of our children.” And I would say fiscal
deficits must not be solved at the expense of vulnerable people in this province
and on their backs.
This
comes from the presidents of the teachers' associations in Canada. So it may be
wise for this government to open its eyes and its ears and to listen and pay
attention to what people, not just the Opposition in this House, not just my
party, but economists, educated people, academics, the people on the street,
what they all say about austerity budgets.
So when
I look at Budget 2018 and I hear what
my constituents are saying to me, one of the things they picked up on – and I've
had a number of my constituents who've said this – is the fact that, once again,
there is no plan for a child care program. That we have no plan by this
government to look forward and to pay attention to what a child care program
would need.
The
minister yesterday, in responding to me, indicated that he really did care about
an integrated system from the time children entered regulated child care right
through to their graduation, and he and I are in agreement on that. The problem
is: What about the children who come into the regulated child care? How many of
our children are coming into regulated child care?
Basically what he was saying, and it's true, that as the Minister of Education,
that's what he is responsible for, for the time they come into regulated child
care right through. Our problem is we don't have enough children coming into
regulated child care. We have children who are coming into the system on an
unequal basis. We have children who have been in child care maybe since they
were three years old, maybe two, and these children have such an advantage over
children whose parents have not been able to afford to put them into regulated
child care.
My issue
with the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development is not the job
that he's doing for the children under his mandate and under his care, my
concern is what this government is doing with a fiscal policy that is keeping
children an unequal basis and it has a long-term effect. There are many studies
that would show that having an early childhood education, being in regulated
child care and having a foot up before going into full-day kindergarten, that is
something that makes sure that we have more children who are graduating out of
grade 12. It lowers out dropout rate. It also increases employability of
students coming out of our schools. Getting more children into child care should
be this government's goal, Mr. Speaker.
What I
want to do today is to point out some of the ways that this can happen. I'm not
saying it should happen overnight. I'm saying the plan needs to be put in place,
and government is showing no sense of the need for a plan being put in place.
We have
22,695 children under five in this province. That's the 2017 number. Most have
working mothers. Sixty per cent, according to our stats, have working mothers.
That's the Federation of Labour statistics actually. We have 22,695 children
under five but we have only 8,521 regulated spaces in centres and family
daycares in September 2016.
We may
have a few more now. Since 2016, we do have some more children in regulated care
because of a Capacity Initiative program which provide start-up grants to
community organizations. By 2016, we did have 28 CI centres. The minister told
me yesterday in Estimates that there are four more since then in the past year.
We are
not meeting the need. We do not have children coming in. We're not doing what
they do in Europe, for example, where from the time they're six months old –
there's care in many European countries and Scandinavian countries. Why? So that
parents can continue working and so that children are also getting good
development – development is the word here – they are getting wonderful
development.
The
parents are able to work; the children are being cared for. Development for
those children is going on and all children are receiving the same care. All
children are being taken care of because of public child care, because of a
publicly funded, a publicly regulated child care program. It's a given in those
countries, Mr. Speaker – a given.
Besides
that, why should we want to have early childhood for every child in our
province? That should be enough, knowing that our children are going to be in
safe places where their development is going to be assured, where they are in a
good social environment with other children their age, where the people who are
working with them are trained and are well paid.
All of
that should be something we want for our children but there are also economic
reasons, and that's part of – there some of the social benefits. Social benefits
are extremely important, but the social and the economic go together. There are
also economic benefits, and that's been recognized here in this country, in
Quebec for sure, and in PEI.
Now
we're getting in Ontario, with their election coming up, we're getting both the
government and the NDP there putting out proposals with regard to a public child
care system. This is what we should be looking at, but economically we should be
looking at it. Not just for the social benefits but also for the economic
benefits. That's something I want to talk about here now is the economic
benefits, Mr. Speaker.
The
economic and financial benefits are immense. I think the government and the
people who are sitting opposite me right now should be looking at, again, other
people who are saying this, not just me, not just our party but what other
people are saying, just like I pointed out what the presidents of the Teachers'
Associations.
As early
as last month, March 13, 2018, the head of the Bank of Canada in a talk, in a
speech he gave on that day he used Quebec's affordable child care model to show
how Canada could unlock some of the considerable untapped potential in our
labour force. He is so impressed by what has happened in Quebec that he's done
an analysis that showed that if we were to get an injection into our job market
of 500,000 people, that's all, and he's looking at women and young people and
indigenous people, recent immigrants, Canadians living with disabilities. If
people in those groups could enter the job market to the tune of another 500,000
people, by his estimate – this is the head of the Bank of Canada – that kind of
workforce injection could raise the country's output by $30 billion per year or
1.5 per cent.
Now
that's really important information. He goes to the Quebec situation and points
out how in Quebec – and we all know this because Pierre Fortin, the great
economist did his own analysis – how the economy in Quebec was so improved
because of having their fully subsidized child care program in Quebec. I think
it costs $7 a day per child, and it goes down with the number of children from
one family.
What has
happened in Quebec – and this is what he's pointing to – because of the
participation rate of prime age women going up, that's why the workforce
increased and that's why the economy increased. He says we could add almost
300,000 people to our country's workforce by doing what was done in Quebec.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Now, I just don't want to
talk about what was done in Quebec. I'm using this as the information with
regard to the economic benefit. Having a public funded, a public regulated and
fully accessible child care program makes for a larger workforce, makes for a
healthier workforce and therefore makes for a healthier economy. That's proven.
It's proven over and over again. We don't have to look for the proof it's there,
and this government seems to ignore that proof.
This is
why you should be planning. This is why they should be planning, Mr. Speaker.
They should be planning for this. It's not going to happen overnight. So they're
not planning yet. I certainly got a lot of good stuff yesterday in Estimates but
one thing I didn't get, there certainly isn't a plan going in this direction.
This
government says it's concerned about the economy and concerned about revenue.
Well, I just don't understand why they don't see this. It's proven. It's been
spoken by everybody, including the head of the Bank of Canada. So why can't they
start putting a plan in place?
When you
look at PEI; PEI has exactly the same kind of program that we have, Mr. Speaker.
PEI also had a patchwork quilt. They had private child care. They had
community-based child care. They had not-for-profit child care. When PEI decided
they were going to put in place a full public system, what they did, they put a
plan in place, they gradually worked through that plan and the idea of that plan
was to move everybody, to move the for-profit sectors as well as the
community-based centres all into the public system.
What
happened is that many of the-for profit centres did join the program. Some
joined right away with a publicly managed system, and if they didn't join, they
still had to adhere to the new provincial early childhood education curriculum.
That was an incentive for them to do that. I think the government also put in
place a timeline that was a point at which they needed to think about joining
the full system.
The
gradual transition happens by existing the network that we have, the network of
not-for-profit, community-based and institution-based. Expanding that network,
encouraging private operators to become part of it – look at what they did in
PEI. Maybe not everything they did there was perfect. We need to analyze that to
see what fits us.
It can
be done, but, Mr. Speaker, it won't happen unless we plan for it. It won't
happen unless we recognize the benefit of doing it. Until we do that, until we
make sure that every child – we decide on the age, it could be two, it could be
six months – at the same time has the right and the ability to be part of a
publicly funded and publicly regulated child care program, our children will not
be going into school on an equal footing.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Health
and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
Good morning, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to rise in this House to speak to the budget. This is the first of what
I will hope will be three opportunities to deliver some comments. Similar to my
colleague from yesterday, I'm going to try and break them down into those that
relate to my district, those that relate to this particular budget in general
and also those that relate to my own department. I did have some prepared notes
but I have to say the preamble, or the first 10 minutes of my predecessor's
talk, left me wondering if we were talking about the same budget.
Essentially, I'll start with a quote, or at least a kind of slightly butchered
quote from Charles Dickens. Mr. Micawber basically said that if your income was
19 shillings and 6 pence and your expenses were 20 shillings, you would be
happy. If, however, your income was 19 shillings and 6 pence and your outgoings
were 20 shillings, you would be in trouble.
You have
to live within your means was the message of that. If I buggered it up, I
apologize. I apologize if that's unparliamentary language. I withdraw it
completely.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
Essentially, it's a failure
to grasp the fundamentals of finance.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. HAGGIE:
That's very good.
You
either increase your revenue, you borrow money or you reduce your expenditure.
It seems to be impossible for the Third Party in either of its leadership
incarnations to grasp that principle. They keep on using labels – I would refer
to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that economy has been called the dismal science for
years for many a good reason. It has failed dismally or repeatedly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
So let's do what Margaret
Thatcher did – and if the conservative group opposite will apologize for me
stealing one of their icons for a moment – run it like it a household. If you
spend more than you have, you're going to be in do-do. If you don't, you'll be
happy.
The
facts of the case are we inherited a situation that was not of our making, but
we were in a colossal fiscal hole. There was a possibility that by December of
2015 this province would not be able to make payroll. That's been said and
repeatedly said and repeatedly ignored by the Members opposite. So how do you
deal with that?
The
Members opposite are obsessed with a budget that we found ourselves in a
situation where we really didn't have many options. The reason we didn't have
any options is the hole we were in was so deep that borrowing was barely an
option, barely an option. So what do you do?
If you
can't borrow to keep the lights on, you either tax or you cut, or you do both.
The fastest way was to pull, as my colleague of the day said, to pull all the
taxation revenue levers that you could at the time.
The
Member opposite keeps on referring to taxation and the levy. She keeps on
forgetting that by legislation that drops off the books automatically with no
debate and no fuss and no great fanfare this year. It goes. It goes.
This
budget, Mr. Speaker, is a triumph of compromise. It is the best that can be done
in a balanced approach to what is still a dreadful financial situation.
I've
spoken in this House in previous years about the analogy of haemorrhage. We had
to stop the haemorrhage. We were bleeding money by the day; $4.8 million a day.
We are still bleeding, but only at the rate of $2.3 million a day. That is a
significant achievement given the fact that there have been no mass layoffs,
there isn't chaos on the streets, as the Members opposite would have us believe.
They
talk about investing. I found this on my desk in the caucus room and I read it
before and put it on one side. It's a five-year, multi-year plan for
infrastructure investments. The first page, $2.5 billion over five years in new
spending. That is not austere by my books; $619.7 million this year alone in
infrastructure.
In
addition to that, we're still managing to spend $2.99 billion in my own
department. One of the things the Members opposite will fail to point out is the
changes that have happened within that department in the last three years. We
have kept health expenditures steady. Everyone says: So what? Well, so what, CPI
is over 2 per cent.
We have
beaten that. We've beaten inflation and we've beaten the costs of the service
that we are providing. We're getting a better value for the dollar that we spend
to the point now where nationally, within the last 10 days, a report has come
out that shows this province leads Canada in having the shortest wait times in
seven areas of national recognition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
Seven!
You
don't hear them coming out and mentioning that, Mr. Speaker. We lead the country
with the shortest wait times for radiation therapy, for hip replacement, for
cataract surgery. We lead with cancer surgery for all but lung cancers. We lead
–
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. HAGGIE:
The heckling from over there
was bad enough, shut up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
You don't hear those
celebrations. We spend over $800 million a year in education. You don't hear
that from the Opposition. We have with our infrastructure alone in Health – in
Health alone, we have new infrastructure on the West Coast, we have the new
long-term care facility, we have the request for proposals out for the
acute-care facility. In Central Health, my colleague here stole all of my
announcements from the last few weeks and bundled them up, except for one. The
beautiful District of Green Bay –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
The new centre in Springdale
will move ahead this year. We couldn't do it in 2016, and we've been beaten to
death because of it. We had no money. Ask them why. We had no money; $25 billion
in 12 years and we were broke. The cupboard wasn't just bare, Mr. Speaker,
they'd sold the damn cupboards as well. There was nothing.
We hear
about how we need to listen to people. We hear about how much consultation we
have to do. Well, in case they've forgotten, we did it. In June of this year, we
released Towards Recovery. It is the
single most comprehensive review of mental health care and addiction services in
this province and a 54-point action plan – 54 points.
Eighteen
of those are short term. Every one of those short-term targets will be met by
the deadline of the middle of this year, Mr. Speaker – every one of those 18. Of
those 54, there are only three that haven't been started. One of those is the
replacement of the Waterford, which was announced very recently.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
We, again, have had national
experts from the mental health council of Canada, from the Centre for Addiction
and Mental Health in Toronto come to this province and say we are an example for
the rest of Canada with what we are doing. We are leading the way.
You
don't hear that from the Opposition. I understand it is their duty to oppose,
but it wouldn't be a bad thing if for once they actually celebrated some of the
things that Newfoundland and Labrador actually does better than anywhere else.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Won't be done.
MR. HAGGIE:
Won't be done.
Mental
health and addictions: $6.1 million – we're supposed to be talking about the
budget and I may have digressed a little bit and I apologize, relevance and all
that good stuff. Mr. Speaker, $6.1 million to replace the Waterford. That
project will unite, for the first time in this province, physical health and
well-being with mental health and well-being. It will, in a single stroke,
remove one of the biggest hurdles for mental health care and addictions care in
this province, which is stigma. We do not, as a society, want to talk about it.
Now it doesn't matter. You go to a building just down the road and nobody knows
whether you're going to have your bunions done, your piles done or have your
depression fixed. Nobody knows, and that's the way it should be – I can't read
this; oh yes, there we go. My eyesight, I need to go and see an ophthalmologist.
We won't go there either.
Mr.
Speaker, $1.7 million for a mobile crisis response system across the province.
This was pioneered in Memphis in the States after a tragedy involving someone
with mental illness and an encounter with an armed police officer. It works. It
has worked for them. What this does, again, is recognize a fact of life, which
is law enforcement have become de facto first responders for mental health
crisis in urban areas and rural areas, but it's more predominant in urban.
What we
will be doing in partnership with the RNC and what's already started rolling out
is plainclothes law enforcement, a mental health worker, an unmarked police car.
These teams will attend those calls that dispatch feels would fit in their
mandate. No obvious sign that it's a legal issue, it's a judicial problem. A
mental health situation automatically, in no circumstances, starts to
de-escalate because the prominence, the visibility, the fear of being foul of
the law, for want of a better term, disappears. The officers have gone and
received training to train their colleagues.
Over the
course of this year, this program will roll out. It started in St. John's; it's
now been expanded to 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It's going into Labrador
with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and we've engaged with the other law
enforcement office, with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to put this in areas
where they have jurisdiction. This will roll out over the course of this year.
There's $1.7 million there.
Then, to
back that up, we are working with the regional health authorities to expand
mental health services. We have rolled out already across the province a program
called Doorways. Again, validated in a crisis situation in a part of the
province where they experienced an upswing in suicides and suicide attempts. We
have shown very clearly that for those folks who go to Doorways, 50 per cent of
them will leave a single one-hour session regarding their problem as having been
resolved completely. We have those now in 17 locations across the province and
more to come.
For
those people whose problems are of a greater magnitude who need counselling, who
need further assistance, we have the availability now of technology to defeat
geography. We can put in place therapist assistance online. Eighteen thousand is
the capacity of this system. On a referral from a walk-in clinic, this can be
organized. A therapeutic relationship is established via Skype or phone or email
or a mixture of those to suit the clinician and the patient to manage their
problems over a series of counselling sessions.
For
those for whom that is not sufficient, we're working on building up counselling
services. Finally, for those people for whom in-patient care becomes crucial,
we're going to put mental health beds in every region in the province. There are
beds allocated for the Big Land too.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
Which brings me back to the
Waterford replacement; again, a rather iconic building for good reasons and bad.
It will be seen by many as the hallmark of the system transformation but, in
actual fact, it is the tip of the iceberg.
It is
the pinnacle of the roof, but we're building this building from the ground up.
We've put the foundation in first. Not as glamourous as anywhere else but a
house without secure foundations, as various books will tell you, will not
survive. It's built on firm ground.
The
Waterford and its replacement is the visible piece. There are always going to be
those folks for whom that level of service is necessary and, indeed, vital.
We've recognized that already.
We have
funded renovations to the Health Sciences Centre already and put in place an
eating disorders unit dedicated to the needs of a very small, but very
significant and complex group of individuals. These people will have physical
care and mental and psychological care and their families will also receive
support and counselling, all in one location from a team dedicated to dealing
with this problem, and this problem alone.
If
anything will exemplify that integration of physical health and mental
well-being, it is those four beds on the Eating Disorders unit. Their location
again is representative of the breaking down of the barrier between physical and
mental, between family and patient, and between provider and patient. It is
situated within the Health Sciences Centre.
When the
plan comes to fruition over the next three or four years, they will have ready
access to a broad range of mental health services which will be co-located, and
they will be physically situated in a place which will deal with their
significant nutritional and metabolic needs. This is, if you like, in microcosm
the whole concept of integrating physical and mental health. The Eating
Disorders unit opening got delayed owing to some plumbing issues and a flood,
but that hopefully would be remedied and we should be back on track in the
not-too-distant future.
Again,
in terms of capitalizing on what revenue we can have – and I'm conscious that
the clock is ticking – we have generated and leveraged federal dollars to
increase the financial resources. Again, a window opened where our interests and
needs coincided with what was seen as a federal priority as well, and we've been
able to bring in money through bilateral agreement to address mental health and
addictions particularly.
We've
started spending that money from the get-go. In actual fact, some of that was
allocated in last year's budget. Again, you don't hear that from the Members
opposite. It's being used in an integrated way to fit the needs of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, not simply thrown in a knee-jerk way at the
latest fad. Within that pile of money is a separate pot for community care and
for end of life care.
If I use
my last minute or so to highlight the fact that what I've described through
mental health and addictions is in actual fact indicative of a shift through the
whole of health care. We're moving health back into the home, back into
communities, back at a very low level with low barriers and low tech, and that's
where it needs to be. No longer will the centre of excellence be a building on a
hill or somewhere on the Parkway. It has to be focused around the home, and this
federal money will help us kick start that process, particularly in relation to
our other area of need, and a personal pressure point of mine, which is
palliative and end of life care.
I can
wax lyrical further, but I see I'm down to my last 32 seconds. So I would use
that simply to state that some of the misinformation, some of the doom and gloom
that comes from the opposite side of this hallway is actually simply fear
mongering. It is simply there to serve a lack of ideas and a lack of
intellectual rigour that comes from over there because they have nothing else to
offer except criticism, absolutely nothing except negativity, and on that, Mr.
Speaker, I'll take my seat.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What an
excellent segue for me to start my speech, but before I do, Mr. Speaker, I too
would like to join my colleagues here in this House and recognize all of the
fantastic volunteers of Newfoundland and Labrador. The volunteers who are the
very fabric of our community's well-being, the volunteers who keep everything
going, the volunteers who shape our children, who care for our seniors and who
provide so many invaluable services to each and every one of us in our
communities. We thank you for that. Certainly, I know from our side here in
government, anything we can do to support your endeavours we're there to do it,
and I believe every Member of this hon. House is there to support volunteers in
any way we can.
My
colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, ended by saying all we
do is talk about negativity. Well, Hansard
is a wonderful thing, Mr. Speaker, because
Hansard is proof of everything that is said in this House of
Assembly. For the first two years, from 2015 to – actually, we've only noticed
the change in their messaging and their notes in the last few months, Mr.
Speaker, because they're finally starting to realize that their message of doom
and gloom and the sky is falling is not working. It's actually making the
situation worse.
You can
look at any speech by any Member from government opposite and you can see the
negativity that was entailed in all of their speeches for the first two years.
You will also see that it was Members on this side, including myself, who stood
up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, who stood up and said we believe
in you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
I think it works, because
they're changing their message, Mr. Speaker, and they're finally talking about
the positive things. That has had a positive impact, and I'm glad to hear you
finally talk about the wonderful things, the wonderful potential and the
wonderful people in Newfoundland and Labrador, that we here in this House of
Assembly are put in place to try and do what we can to support their efforts to
make Newfoundland and Labrador a place that we can live in, we can encourage our
children to live in and that will be a place that offers a decent quality of
life.
Over the
last two years a lot of people I know have moved. They've left Newfoundland and
Labrador because they can't afford to live here anymore. The tax burden is so
high that they sized it all up and said if I'm going to have a decent future for
myself where I'm able to afford a decent quality of living, than perhaps this is
not the place for me.
I will
say, Mr. Speaker, 2019 is only a year away, don't give up on Newfoundland and
Labrador yet. We, the people, will decide the fate of this Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador and we the people are the strength and fabric that
will ensure this province continues to thrive.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to return back to speaking to some elements of the budget
but, again, in terms of relevance, people will notice – anyone who's watching –
relevance won't be called during a budget debate because the budget debate is
actually what we call a money bill. For a money bill, any Member of the House of
Assembly can get up and speak about anything. We can talk about issues in our
district. We can talk about issues in departments. We can talk about issues that
affect us as politicians. We can talk about how the House of Assembly itself
works. We can talk about anything we wish during a money bill that we feel is of
importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
To that
end, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a few minutes for the people of
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune and talk about the new school which has been promised
for the people of Bay d'Espoir. I will say now, Members opposite can't bully me
into voting for the budget because I have to vote for the budget as a whole. I
will say that the residents of Bay d'Espoir, although we are absolutely
thrilled, we are thrilled that we're finally getting a new school which is long
overdue – we should have had one 20 years ago to be honest because –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MS.
PERRY:
We
should have had a new school but the Liberal government back in 2001 put us back
into a 60-year-old building, but that's okay, we're going to get our new school
now which is good. Too bad it had to come by way of tragedy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS.
PERRY:
It's very unfortunate that it had to come by way of tragedy, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The noise level in the House is too high. I'd ask
Members to show some restraint to allow the Member to be heard.
Thank you.
MS.
PERRY:
Thank you for the protection, Mr. Speaker.
We certainly need a lot more of that in here.
I will say that we are delighted with the new school,
and we do thank the Premier and the ministers for their support in a new school;
however, no one was happy on
budget day. Everyone was devastated because it's going to take four
years. Our children have no lab. How would you feel if you had a child in grade
nine that you know has to go to university in three years and will never see
inside of a lab, and your child wants to be a pharmacist? It's unacceptable, Mr.
Speaker.
But
we're working on some solutions, so I do want the people of my district to know
that certainly we are working with government to try and at least address the
problem of the lack of science lab. We also don't have a computer lab, Mr.
Speaker. We don't have a cafeteria.
The
children are in a building that my father, who would be 100 if he were still
alive, was the principal of back in the '60s, and that's when it was built. And
that's the building they're in today.
So we do
look forward to having a new school, but given that we lost our school by
tragedy, everyone's very upset that it's taking actually five years. Because
we've been a whole year waiting to find out what's going to happen with our
school, and now we have to wait four years before it's built.
That is
a stressful situation for parents, and they do expect me as their Member, and it
is my responsibility as their Member to bring forward their concerns and ask
that government do everything within its means to make sure this process can be
expedited so that our children can be back into a decent school, a
state-of-the-art school, one better than we've ever had before in the Bay
d'Espoir area.
So we
are looking forward to that, Mr. Speaker. But just for purposes of explaining to
people how this works and why it's four years – and certainly the Minister of
Education or the Minister of Transportation, if there's anything I explain
inaccurately can get up and clarify how the process works.
From my
understanding, the reason why it takes four years to build a new school is
because in the first year there's a process – and anyone can log on to the
Newfoundland and Labrador school district website and there's a manual there
that talks about the process that has to be followed when there's a new school.
That process, Mr. Speaker, is in place because schools are built with taxpayers'
money and it is a responsibility of government to ensure that it's done properly
and in the best interests of the people. So that manual is in place and the
school board will follow that manual.
The
first process takes about a year or so, and a contract tender gets issued for a
consultant to do the design work, Mr. Speaker. Throughout that process, the
school council and the parents and the teachers in the community will be
involved in talking about what they'd like to see in their school.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm quite proud to say that the children of Bay d'Espoir are very
incredibly talented. They're talented musically; they're talented drama-wise. In
fact, we had a young girl, her name is Miranda Caley, who actually wrote the
drama play that our drama class participated in this year. So, fantastic talent
in the region. We would like to have a music room and a drama room, and a
science room and a computer room in our new school. Those are the things that
will happen during the consultation phase.
That
process takes about a year or so. Then, once the design is done, that design has
to go to tender for the build. From what I told, that build process can take
anywhere from 24 to 36 months. So, hopefully, four years is the long end of the
time frame and possibly, you never know, we might see it come on quicker. I
certainly provide the guarantee to my constituents that at every opportunity I
will encourage government to move as expeditiously as possible so our children
can get the education that they deserve, along with each and every other
Newfoundlander and Labradorian.
I'm
going to talk a little bit now about aquaculture. Someone was asking me to talk
about aquaculture. I see aquaculture as one of the bright lights of our
potential for the future in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
I live in a part of the
province that face some very hard times.
AN HON. MEMBER:
We built it.
MS. PERRY:
Yes, it was indeed the
Progressive Conservative government that built the Newfoundland and Labrador
aquaculture industry. It's actually the reason I ran for politics. I worked with
the Community Economic Development Regional Board and we were so frustrated. We
did four marine infrastructure studies before we finally got some movement on
wharf infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, and it was a perpetual loop. Working in the
economic development field, I felt that I needed to be on the inside of
government to really make a difference in the understanding of the urgency of
the investment.
What
happened? We created the Loan Guarantee Program, Mr. Speaker. We invested in the
aquaculture biosecurity wharfs. We invested in companies that created 1,000 jobs
in rural Newfoundland and Labrador – 1,000 meaningful jobs, at that, where
people – there's a community in my region where the majority of residents lived
on income support prior to aquaculture.
With the
advent of aquaculture, came wealth and prosperity unlike anything they've ever
seen before. They have new cars. They have new homes. Their children are being
able to go off to post-secondary education where they didn't have that
opportunity before. So the difference aquaculture makes cannot be understated.
That
being said of course, Mr. Speaker, it's still an industry that's in the growth
stage. I know in my region alone there's still a need for tens of millions of
dollars of investment to ensure that the industry is on stable footing, and to
ensure that we have maximum employment in our plants.
To say
that it's all good and there are no struggles would be inaccurate, Mr. Speaker,
because there are struggles. Struggles do continue. It is a farming industry
and, like any farming industry, there are challenges from time to time. At
present, we're facing a problem of shortage of work in one of our plants that
used to have work for 52 weeks a year.
These
are challenges that we will encounter from time to time, and we certainly expect
continued investment from government to ensure that the 2,000 jobs that are in
place now are protected and remain in place as we continue to grow the industry,
Mr. Speaker.
I want
to talk a little bit in terms of moving back to the budget as well. We spoke in
Question Period this week, and we're going to be speaking this afternoon, about
the changes that are coming with respect to the legalization of marijuana. In
our to and fro of Question Period and our debate, we were raising the point that
the Liberal government has given $40 million to Canopy Growth. Now, they said
well, we're not giving $40 million; we're giving a tax credit. Okay, but a tax
credit is money lost to the Treasury. So a $40 million investment is a $40
million investment either way.
It was
interesting to note that the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation, when he got up and spoke about the wonderful impact of tourism and
Maudie, he said the province was
earning $400,000 in taxes from Maudie.
That's $400,000 in revenue. It's $40 million in revenue we're going to lose from
Canopy Growth and we never even gave Newfoundland companies an opportunity to
bid. We never gave Newfoundland and Labrador entrepreneurs the opportunity to
become leaders in this industry. So that is very disappointing, especially in a
time –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
Thank you again, Mr. Speaker,
for your protection.
It's
incredibly disappointing in a time where we need every job that we can get, and
we need every entrepreneur that we can get. Because, at the end of the day, it's
not government who create jobs. Government creates the environment to support
the entrepreneurs, the risk takers, the people who are out there willing to risk
everything to start a business and employ people, Mr. Speaker. They are the
people who deserve our support each and every day.
Our job
is to support them, not to create the jobs, but to support the leaders and the
trailblazers who do. We have many of them here in his hon. House, Mr. Speaker,
and I'm quite proud that we have such fabulous entrepreneurs in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I'm
running out of time. I only have about five minutes or so in this speech, but I
will have more opportunities, Mr. Speaker. I want to talk a little bit, in my
last five minutes, about the change that's starting to happen in the world with
respect to women, and respect from women. I will say that I was incredibly
pleased to be a part of the private Member's motion that was moved last week by
the Member for Windsor Lake as we endeavour, as women who are few in number in
politics overall, to change the culture that permeates politics.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to be honest with you. As I started the speech, I could even
feel my heart beating a little bit because it's tough, tough world, politics;
it's even tougher for women. Politics is what it is and has been the way it is
for quite some time. I came into politics in 2007 when the Green report was
released, so I feel I was able to join politics at a time when there was more
attention being paid to obeying the rules. I felt really good about that, Mr.
Speaker.
But when
it comes to issues like women, when it comes to issues like decorum, bullying
and vindictiveness, they still exist in politics. For us as women to come
forward and fight it, it is not easy. What holds us back, probably what holds
men back too – I'm not saying it's just women who get bullied; I'm sure men do
as well. But what holds us back is often fear, fear of repercussions,
repercussions to yourself as a politician, repercussions to your constituents
because you dared challenge someone who did something that you felt was wrong.
I think
we all have a responsibility in this hon. House to raise that bar, to say no
more – no more, none of us are going to tolerate it, not women, not men. It's
unacceptable. If you have a male colleague that you see bullying a female
colleague, you should stand up to that male colleague. Each and every one of us
has that responsibility.
Mr.
Speaker, I was proud to stand with the women of this House and all the men as
well who supported us last week as we endeavoured to address the issue of
bullying. I will say again that I hope we go further than just a policy change.
I hope we go into legislation. I hope that we can find a way to hold the
perpetrators of bullying accountable.
It's a
struggle for us. We can't figure out how to do it without repercussions. We
can't figure it out. We need the support of legislation. We need people as
individuals to say we're not going to take it. We're going to support the person
who says there's an issue and we're going to put a stop to the culture that has
existed in politics of all stripes, of all colours, for all time, I would say,
Mr. Speaker. Some are worse than others. I'm sure if politicians across this
fine country ever really opened up about some of their experiences, the public
would be probably shocked.
The day
I hope will come when we don't ever have to talk about this again because it
doesn't exist anymore. Mr. Speaker, it does still exist. It's not going to stop
if we push it under the rug. It can't be pushed under the rug.
I'm
going to finish my first budget speech, which kind of talked a little bit about
everything. In the next two, I'm sure I'm going to have a whole lot more
heckling because I'll probably be talking more about the budget itself and how
this government has really let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador down.
They promised them a better tomorrow and they delivered a nightmare to us for
the last two years.
Certainly all of us on this side of the House, in our job, as Opposition, will
stand up and raise issues that are of concern to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. I thank the people of
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune for the opportunity
to once again stand here in this House and represent them. I promise I will
continue to try and do my very best to represent your interests and I also make
this pledge to try and do what I can to support women in this province who enter
politics, any colour, any stripe, we're all together in this. We want the House
of Assembly, we want politics in general, the House of Commons, everywhere in
this country, to be a place that's good for men and women to work.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It's a privilege to rise here this morning and give
some comments about Budget 2018 and
some departmental
issues and things that we're doing as a government as a result of our budget.
To
start, Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on Volunteer Week and some activities in
my district. Just last night, myself, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Environment and MHA for Fogo Island - Cape Freels actually attended an event in
Victoria in my district to help celebrate Volunteer Week.
Mr.
Speaker, one part of that event last night – and I would remiss not to reflect
on it – is a vigil that was held during the event for Parker Tobin. Parker's
grandfather is from Victoria in my district and his grandmother is from Heart's
Content in my district. It was very fitting last night that they started the
event with a moment of silence and a reflection on the tragedy last week in
Humboldt, Saskatchewan. It really shows the ties that many people in our
province have with people who have moved away from the province with the fact of
one of his grandparents being from Victoria and the other being from Heart's
Content and our sincere condolences to the family.
Mr.
Speaker, just last week as well – and it was referenced here in the House
earlier this week – the Minister of Natural Resources did a Member's statement
and reflected on the life of Mr. Al Chislett. Mr. Al Chislett is actually a
former resident, born and bred in my hometown of Heart's Delight-Islington. He
also made a very valuable contribution to this province with his work around
Voisey's Bay and many other projects.
Mr.
Speaker, also last night when we were in Victoria, the fire department took an
opportunity to name their fire hall after their first fire chief, Mr. Vivian
Hiscock. He was the first fire chief in that town back in 1975, a very fitting
honour. They also took the opportunity to congratulate and to make Ms. Effie
Deering Victoria's volunteer of the year. That was a great event last night in
Victoria.
To all
the volunteers in our province and in my district and every district in this
province: Congratulations on the great work you do. We'll continue to celebrate
Volunteer Week in this province. Myself and the minister of child, youth and
family services –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Children, Seniors and Social
Development.
MR. CROCKER:
– Children, Seniors and
Social Development will be in Carbonear tonight to celebrate with the local food
bank and honour the volunteers in Carbonear that work and contribute to the food
bank. That will be another important event in the district this week.
Just to
reflect on volunteers and some of the different things that volunteers do in our
province, just a few weeks ago in my hometown in a show of humanity, we seen a
number of dolphins stranded in the Heart's Delight - Islington Harbour and they
were pinned in by ice. What we seen was a group of volunteers from our fire
department and other groups in the town come together and find a solution to get
those animals or mammals out of the harbour. It just shows the extent that
volunteers do in our province and some of the places they actually go.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, again,
congratulations to all of our volunteers in my district and throughout the
province. Enjoy the week of celebrations and take the opportunity, let somebody
pat you on the back because the work you do is very important.
Mr.
Speaker, when you look at my district, tourism is playing a much more increasing
role year after year. Just recently, we seen the Heart's Content Cable Station
be placed on the UNESCO nomination list. This would be a game changer for the
Heart's Content Cable Station which celebrated its 150th anniversary back in
2016. I thank the Minister of Tourism for his commitment to this facility as we
move forward with the nomination.
Mr.
Speaker, we see tremendous support throughout the district, whether it's from
different departments: Tourism; Children, Seniors and Social Development; Health
and Community Services; Municipal Affairs.
Just
recently, the Department of Health and Community Services continued its
commitment to U-Turn. U-Turn is a drug addiction treatment program in Carbonear.
Our government has maintained a strong commitment to U-Turn. U-Turn, as well, is
based around volunteers. So no matter what sector we look at when it comes to
funding through different government departments, volunteers are typically the
people making out those applications. For us as MHAs, no matter what side of
this House, I think it's one of the things that give us some of our best moments
is when we work with volunteer organizations to get them some support, and
supports they need and absolutely deserve.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, I'll take some more time in my next remarks about budget to talk
about my district but, right now, I sort of want to move on and change the
channel and talk some more of departmental things and government.
The
previous speaker made some comments around a piece of infrastructure that we
announced. We announced a new school for Bay d'Espoir in
Budget 2018. She referenced giving up and a Liberal government that
cancelled that school in 2001. Mr. Speaker, what she was remiss to talk about
was the government from 2003 to 2015, who had 12 years – her government had 12
years to replace that school in Bay d'Espoir and they failed to do so.
Mr.
Speaker, you look at other schools in our province. They talked about building a
school in Coley's Point for year after year after year and it dragged on. What's
the difference? This government, we're going to build that school in Coley's
Point.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROCKER:
We're actually right now
working with the architect, working with the designers to get the final tender
package ready. We are preparing to go to tender early this fall with a tender
for Coley's Point, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROCKER:
It's interesting when you
think back to the previous administration. They talked about Coley's Point, and
there are lots of other Coley's Points. There's Corner Brook hospital. There's
all this infrastructure that they talked about and talked about and talked
about, but when we came to government what we found was what they did was talk
about it. There were no tender documents. There was no consulting. There was no
work done on these projects, Mr. Speaker.
For the
Member opposite to say it's going to take us four years to build a school, the
reality is we just can't go and pick a school off the shelf; it has to be built
to fit those needs that she outlined. That's fair. There are needs. We want to
make sure that we're building a school to fit the needs of those children. It's
important no matter what part of the province you are to ensure education for
our children, but we're committed to doing that. Yes, it will take some time to
build it but, Mr. Speaker, again, the previous administration had 12 years to
build it and they chose not to.
Mr.
Speaker, in Budget 2018 we announced a
$619 million infrastructure plan for this year. That infrastructure includes
further work on the Corner Brook long-term care facility. We're actually getting
ready to go to the RFP stage for the Corner Brook acute care facility. As a
commitment, I think, of what we've done as a government in tough economic times,
we've taken an infrastructure plan and we've planned.
Just a
couple of weeks ago, we were able to go and announce a new mental health and
addictions facility. I know the Minister of Health this morning talked about the
recommendations coming out of the All-Party Committee on Mental Health. I guess
for once we took a report and we didn't put it on the shelf, we put the report
into action. That's something we've committed to doing in tough fiscal times,
but we realize that this infrastructure is needed for our province.
If you
look, Mr. Speaker, in Central Newfoundland, the Green Bay Health care centre in
Springdale; we have a commitment to long-term care in Grand Falls-Windsor and in
Gander. Those are commitments that we haven't seen before.
I'll
bring it a little bit closer to home again and speak of my own district. In
Budget 2018 we announced over $3
million to start the construction and the redevelopment of the third floor of
the Carbonear Hospital for a new ambulatory care unit, one that's been talked
about for a long time but, again, Mr. Speaker, we're going to deliver on it.
Just
last fall, we were at Private Josiah Squibb long-term care facility in Carbonear
to announce – along with the Minister of Health and my colleague from Harbour
Grace - Port de Grave – the opening of 28 more beds in the Carbonear long-term
care facility. This facility not only benefits the people in my district, the
people in the District of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, the District of Harbour
Main, the District of Placentia - St. Mary's. This is important infrastructure,
and we see this infrastructure happening all over the province, and rightfully
so, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, and I alluded to this earlier, but in this year's infrastructure plan
we have school construction and planning starting in Paradise, Coley's Point;
work being completed in Mobile this year, and Baie d'Espoir. We've also
committed close to $16 million for school maintenance to schools throughout the
province. This has all been very important expenditures.
Mr.
Speaker, the other infrastructure committee that I think this government is
proud of, and so we should be proud of, is our transportation infrastructure. Do
we have challenges in our roads in this province? We absolutely do.
One
thing our Premier said long before he was Premier is that when it comes to road
construction and paving in this province, when we form government we were going
to do it with a plan. That's how we've changed how we do road construction in
this province, is we're doing it with a plan. This is the second year of our
five-year Roads Plan. We'll spend some-$77 million this year in road
infrastructure in our province on very important projects.
I
realize everybody in this House has important road infrastructure projects in
their districts, but, Mr. Speaker, this is a way we look at it now that's
criteria based. What we do – and I guess for people who haven't really looked at
our Roads Plan. What we do is our local engineers feed into our regional
engineers, who then feed into some of our senior engineers and they make the
determination of where our Roads Plan goes, along with consultation from the
general public. Mr. Speaker, there's tremendous infrastructure work happening on
our roads and we're very proud of it.
To come
back to the infrastructure needs and the infrastructure challenges in our
province, the Leader of the NDP yesterday afternoon in her speech talked about
there was nothing concrete in this budget. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you there
was lots of concrete in this budget – tons and tons and tons of concrete in this
budget. We're building hospitals, we're building schools, we're building bridges
and we're building roads. So I can assure you the concrete industry in this
province is alive and well.
Mr.
Speaker, I would be remiss not to talk about, in my district, the effects of the
fishery and the effect that has on not only my district but the entire province.
If you look at my district, in Bay de Verde we have the world's largest snow
crab plant. In Old Perlican, we have Royal Greenland. They're diversifying to
more species. If you look in Winterton, we have Green Seafoods. It's a plant
that actually, I think, could be a model for many processing operations in our
province, employing between 70 and 80 people for 37- or 40-plus weeks a year and
it's very diversified with species that once weren't seen as valuable –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
MR. CROCKER:
– but what happened, Mr.
Speaker, is they diversified their product lines and it has been very, very,
very successful.
Mr.
Speaker, as my time starts to wind down, I do want to address as well some of
the comments that would come from the Members opposite when they talk about
fiscal planning and where we are in fiscal planning. There's one thing I've
referenced I think almost every time I've spoken to a budget in this House over
the last four years, I guess. Yes, this is my fourth budget as being a Member of
this House.
In 2015,
the previous administration charted the course based on a $2.7 billion deficit.
That wasn't sustainable. There's nobody – and you can still find it, Mr.
Speaker. If there's people out there today that are watching these proceedings,
you can still go on government's website and find Budget 2015: Balancing
Choices for a Promising Future. That document was built on a $2.7 billion
deficit.
Just
think about it, when we came to power in December of 2015, we were faced with a
$2.7 billion deficit that was not sustainable. We had to take corrective
measures. And yes, those corrective measures were tough and we realize that.
It's not something that anybody would ever want to do as a government, but we
had to set the course straight. We had to get back to that concrete; we had to
put the province back on a solid foundation.
Mr.
Speaker, the previous administration gets up and talks about out-migration.
Well, the reality is that the previous speaker said that this mass exodus – it's
false, absolutely, categorically false. My seatmate, the Minister of Advanced
Education, Skills and Labour, can share with you the numbers.
From
2012-2016, we had about 60 more people leave in 2016 than we did in 2012 when
oil was $100 a barrel or $120 a barrel, Mr. Speaker. So they never fail and mix
the numbers with the facts. Because if they wanted to talk about real numbers,
they'd talk about the choices they made in 2015 when they issued this document.
You know, when they issued this document in 2015 I can remember – I was a Member
of the House – the former Finance minister standing in his place and saying I'm
going to go out and knock on doors and this is going to be my campaign
literature. That's what he said. The Finance minister of the day said this was
going to be his campaign literature. Well, we all know where that went. He was
Finance minister of the day and he moved on. He knew what he was leaving for us.
The
Member for Mount Pearl North got up earlier this morning and actually said he
saw it coming. He did. He stood in his place this morning and he saw it coming.
He knew; he saw it coming. And he's agreeing with me over there now, Mr.
Speaker. He stood in his place this morning and said he saw it coming.
Well,
unfortunately what you should have done was reached out your colleagues and told
them about it, because then they might have seen it coming. Because I tell you,
based on this document, they didn't see it coming. What they saw for this year,
where we've budgeted oil at $63 a barrel, they budgeted at $80.
So the
Member for Mount Pearl North, I wish he would have been around in 2014-2015
because he saw it coming. But, Mr. Speaker, as I can see, he was one of the only
ones over there that saw it coming. The rest didn't see it coming. Again –
AN HON. MEMBER:
They did not want to see it
coming.
MR. CROCKER:
Or I guess, yes, that could
be the point actually; they didn't want to see it coming. The Member for Fortune
Bay - Cape La Hune said she was elected in 2007. I think that's eight years from
2007 to 2015. Eight years to build a school. They had eight years to build that
new school back in 2007.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Point of order, Mr. Speaker,
and number 49.
The
Member is stating something that doesn't even make sense. Our school wasn't even
on the list in 2015. Our school burnt in 2017. Stop misleading the public.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd like to still continue to
hear from the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune. Please complete your
remarks.
MS. PERRY:
I think that's misleading the
public and it's unfair, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, firstly, this
would be what you would normally term a disagreement amongst Members, but in
making your point of order, the Member opposite used unparliamentary language to
describe the remarks and said that the Member is misleading the public.
So I
would ask that that Member withdraw her remarks and apologize and then you can
make a decision on the original point of order.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
I withdraw my comments, Mr.
Speaker, and I can assure the people that if we were in government, that school
would have been built by now.
MR. SPEAKER:
I would ask that the Member
make sure that is an unequivocal withdrawal, please.
MS. PERRY:
I withdraw my remarks, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
There is
no point of order. This is a matter of disagreement between Members.
Please
continue.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I see
through this; it consumed the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker. In the Member's
previous comments, she clearly said that the previous Liberal government took
the school off the books in 2001. They had 12 years to build a school. That
failed the people of Bay d'Espoir. They failed them (inaudible) –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROCKER:
No more than the failed the people of Coley's Point. They failed, Mr. Speaker.
She failed; eight years in government, no new school. This government will build
a new school.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member's time has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member for Conception Bay South, please, to continue the debate.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It was a
lot more pleasant where I just left than where I am right now, but I'll adjust
I'm sure. It's part of where we operate.
Mr.
Speaker, it's a pleasure to get up and speak on –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
It's a pleasure to get up to
speak on the budget, a sub-amendment I believe we're speaking on. It's always
good to get up and speak any time. As in the budget debate, we can speak about
anything we like, really, but I guess everything we speak about in our districts
ties back to the budget, ties back to the financial situation of the province.
Every decision government makes obviously affects our district, affects each and
every one of our lives, which we've seen over the last several years, since
2015, the 2016 budget.
I hear
Members opposite – I know I heard the Minister of AES yesterday say that 2016
was a tough year. It was tough and they didn't like the decisions they had to
make. That's fair game. It's good to see them acknowledge that, but I don't know
if there's anyone coming in and forgiving. There's not a lot of forgiveness out
there. People will acknowledge that 2016 –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
People will acknowledge the
2016 budget was tough, no doubt, but I still don't see much change, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I still
don't see a lot of change. We have an extension of the 2016 budget that really
goes into 2017, now we're into 2018. You could not bear another budget like we
had back then to go on. The province, the economy, the people couldn't sustain
another budget of that nature so it stayed the course.
I
believe the Premier had made a reference to the budget when it was upcoming:
it's going to be pretty well a non-event, it's staying the course and steady as
she goes, but there's no pullback from 2016, it's a continuation. People just
grow accustomed; it becomes the white noise or whatever you want to call it.
People acknowledge – they don't, they keep driving past it. People don't pay
attention to stuff. It's like the 2016 –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
I will not tolerate any
further interruptions.
Final
warning.
Proceed.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
strange; I sit here most times and I'll be the first to say I make my scattered
comments, I don't deny that. But for the most part, when Members up opposite
speak; you try to be a bit respectful. I'm sure that for the rest of my time
here I'm expecting I'll get that.
To go
back to the 2016 budget, it's two years later. There's no doubt, this budget is
boring next to 2016. Probably 2017 was too, but that doesn't take away what's in
the budget. What still remains in the budget are taxes, Mr. Speaker – taxes,
taxes, taxes.
It's not
me propagandizing this stuff. I challenge, and I say this with sincerity, I say
this to my own colleagues: It's worthwhile to go to the Tim Hortons, to the
McDonalds and to the coffee shops. There's a lot of interesting commentary that
comes from that. These people are on the streets. They're retirees. They're
educated people. They watch the news. They follow the news. They shop. They buy
gas. They buy groceries. They talk to people. They are the people you have to
listen to.
I can
get in my bubble in the political world, we all can in here. It seems like we
shelter ourselves from reality. If you go in to those places and you talk to
those people – and I challenge any Member or welcome any Member to come with me
and have a conversation with a lot of these people. It's very enlightening.
They're
not always complimentary of this side either, Mr. Speaker. You got to take your
knocks with that. I've stood there and took knocks because of what the PCs did,
but I respect what they say because me, and I'm sure others in this House agree,
if want to open up your mind and listen, you can learn. I actually listen to
them and take advice from them. I'm not afraid. I've never been one to not take
advice. That's my nature. I don't know everything and never will, I never
profess to, but I'll tell you what, I'll always listen to rational arguments,
whether I agree with them or not I listen.
When I
say that, the people in this province are still struggling. Families are still
struggling, Mr. Speaker. The gas tax is down to four cents but gas it still at a
really high, high rate. It's still an extra four cents over. Gas is going up
again tomorrow, I think. It's not going to break the bank. It's not going to
make a huge difference, but psychologically it may help people.
Insurance tax; we stood in this House and debated a private Member's motion for
the elimination of insurance tax. I've said it before and I don't mind saying it
again. Me personally – and I'm not into the high echelon, I'm not a
multi-millionaire or nothing – I pay $1,100 extra a year because of the
insurance tax. I got two daughters that drive, you have a home, you have your
own vehicle, your wife's vehicle. That's just me. I'm one person in this
province who pays that. Forget about the Liberal, PC, NDP, independent thing
here, look at us as a group. Others around this floor and on the opposite,
they're paying the same thing.
You do
your income tax; now, my background is accounting. I am an accountant by trade,
so I do taxes. I don't get into the forms, Mr. Speaker, I do it, I cheat. I got
my own program. That's something I do at home. I've done it for years.
I talked
to someone yesterday; they actually do the form process. With the form process,
they have to go down the line and find their income and match it up. When they
do the forms they realize, I got to pay an $800 levy. That hurts. When you see
it on paper it hurts.
Now when
I do taxes my way, like I said, us people who supposedly know what we're doing,
we kind of cheat. We don't really look at that until you have to go into the
forms, but when you're looking at the paper copy, you pick it up and you go down
the line, you have to pay $800. It's tearing the scab off the 2016 budget over
and over and over, and that's what everyone is telling me. I can see that.
To say
and to get up in this House, as the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills
did yesterday, and: Oh, but we had to make tough decisions. We're sorry now. Do
you know what, Mr. Speaker? People are not forgiving them. That's the reality.
You'll never be forgiven for taxing the economy into the state it's in right
now. I don't know if there are Members opposite who can argue with that point.
It's obvious, all you have to do is go out on the street and talk to people.
As we
get talking about budgetary things and whatnot, and I hear some of the antics
going on. Like the Minister of Transportation was just up there then and he was
on his soapbox about the Bay d'Espoir Academy and why we never done this, we
never done that. The school burnt down, Mr. Speaker. The school burnt down. It
was a very serious event. Criminal charges arose from that. The school burnt
down. You have $13 million in the budget for it.
My
colleague from
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, rightfully so, representing
her area: When are we getting our new school? The people want a new school.
Forget that she's the Tory Member for out there, she wants a new school. She
should do it. No matter what Member, that's our job. Pointing fingers and
blaming – you're asking questions.
You're doing your job as a Member, Mr. Speaker, to
advocate for this stuff, but the school burnt down and she should stand up and
speak up for her people. Whether you get that or not, you'll never go wrong by
speaking for the people you represent – never. That's what you're put here for,
Mr. Speaker. I continuously say that every time I get up, that's what we're here
for and that's what we should all continue and strive to do. That's our job as
elected officials.
On this note, again, as I say, of budgets, the
five-year Roads Plan is something that I continually muse about, I talk about.
The minister in Estimates the other day, we had a little bit of a – during
Estimates, a back and forth on the issue. I'm the first to say, and I've said
this publicly and I'll say it again. I support a five-year Roads Plan. I've said
that here in this House and I'll continue to say it. The minister is well aware
and the former minister is well aware that I never did oppose the five-year
Roads Plan. It gives more certainty to contractors. Overall, everyone was very
happy and seemed to be happy with that announcement.
There's one part of that announcement, part of that
program that I struggle with personally. It's taking the politics out of paving.
In theory, that sounds great. It does, it really does. If you're a person there
thinking, great, the politics is coming out of paving. It doesn't matter what
road, what district your roads fall in, you'll get paving based on the scores
and the – your five-year Roads Plan is based on scoring. It's not about
politics, it's based on scoring.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, the minister pointed out to
me in Estimates, they don't have scores on the 10,000 kilometres. They don't
have the scores on those 10,000. They have scores – people go out and assess
roads. They pick roads in the area, basically, and then they assess them. They
score them and they go on the list.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I know there was a lot of criticism
by the former minister that the former administration and the former previous
Liberal administrations always just did it by politics. They went out: this road
got to be done, that road got to be done, this road got to be done.
Well, when they drove those roads day after day in
their districts and realized these roads are in bad shape and their constituents
were calling them about it, they would reference this road should be paved. But
guess who'd go out and do the scoring then, Mr. Speaker? It would be an
engineer. As the minister has so rightly pointed out, engineers did it – after
you referenced to them that that road needed to be done.
We have
10,000 kilometres of road, a lot of Transportation and Works staff, who are
great by the way, don't get the opportunity to travel those roads to see what
really needs to be done in a lot of our areas, especially in a lot of rural
areas because it's so much to look at. But if you have people out reporting and
complaining and coming to their Members and advocating for it, you can call it
politics in or out of paving, but the bottom line is the roads were still done
on a needs basis.
No
doubt, there may have been some that probably could have been skipped, no
problem, but my point is you got to pick a case here now where you're taking the
politics out of paving. And I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I don't really get it.
I can
tell you – I'll use a road in my own district and the minister can argue this
with me and we'd debate it, as an example. My colleague from Ferryland out
there, he's arguing constantly on the roads. I have other colleagues here: Cape
St. Francis got issues, Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune. We all have issues in our
districts. That's normal. That won't go away, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
just reference Route 60. I can give you numerous emails, times I've spoken
publicly, questions I've asked here in the House: Where does Route 60 land on
the list? Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity and all due respect to the minister, I
don't think that's a hard question.
Route 60
is the fifth busiest –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, I'd wish he'd
answer those questions in Question Period instead of here trying to heckle me
now in my time up on the budget. It's so sad. This is really terrible.
That is
the fifth busiest road in the province – 20,000 vehicles per day. The minister
will tell us all the time: It's a local road and the town should take this over.
We got Peacekeepers Way, Route 1, and that's our responsibility, Route 2.
Fine, go
talk to the town. There are a lot of repairs got to be done to that road for
anybody who's taking over the road. This conversation has gone on forever and we
are making strides towards fixing it. But I'll remind the minister of one thing
right now, as we speak here right now, Route 60 is a provincial road. It's under
the province's responsibility.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. PETTEN:
Yes, and when he fixes that
overnight, he can fix a lot of other things, Mr. Speaker.
So I'm
asking: Why can't I get the scores for Route 60? Why can't I get the scores?
I'll continue on that challenge, Mr. Speaker, because I think it's a fair
question. Why can't I get the scores for Route 60?
If you
have the fifth busiest road in the province, the most travelled road that really
has a depot – the Foxtrap depot is in the district, these people travel this
road every day, why can't engineers assess that road? What are the scores for
Route 60, Mr. Speaker?
What
about Witless Bay Line? What's the scores for that? Why don't he come and tell
us – why don't he go and fix Mutton Bay Bridge? That was supposed to be done
three years ago, now it's almost falling out into the river, and he's over there
heckling and telling me everything he has figured out.
I'm
asking a simple question: What are the scores for those roads? If you're going
to say the former minister heralded it on the five-year roads plan; we are
taking the politics about of paving; we have a comprehensive roads list; no more
will you be at that; this is the way it's going to be; we have a list – no one
complained about that, Mr. Speaker.
I stood
up in this House – you can look back in
Hansard, you can check – I complimented the government and the minister when
they came out with the Roads Plan, but I don't compliment them on saying one
thing and doing another. I don't think they took the politics out of paving. It
may appear that way. I do not think they took the politics out of paving.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Sorry, Minister. When you get
an opportunity in Question Period one of these days, you might provide the House
with some decent answers.
Right
now I have a few minutes left and I'll speak. You can get up whenever you want
and rebut what I have to say but I have a few minutes left there to speak.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Maybe he didn't score the
road.
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah, I don't think the road
has been scored because if you don't take the politics out of paving, you go
red, blue, orange, red, blue. That's the way it's done. We were criticized for
that. At least they can be a bit genuine –
AN HON. MEMBER:
That's politics.
MR. PETTEN:
That's politics. So the
politics is in the paving, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister just confirmed for the House politics is still in our paving. Thank you
very much, you finally assured – Minister, you finally told me.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, Standing Order
49. The Member opposite just referenced that the minister said. I said I did not
open my mouth.
The
Member should start listening. At no point, Mr. Speaker, did I utter what the
Member just stated that I spoke. I did not. It may have been a Member on this
side of the House, but I can assure the Member opposite that I did not say what
he has just said I said, absolutely, unequivocally and I expect an apology.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, I don't know if
cameras don't catch all this at home. Right now, I think I'm on camera. He has
not stopped, in the 15 minutes I've been on my feet, heckling me.
I'll
tell the residents of Conception Bay South and the town council: He just said
with a stroke of a pen he can put Route 60 with the town. He could do it. He
said that, Mr. Speaker, not me. I said about the politics in paving. He said
that's politics.
MR. CROCKER:
Point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
Folks, I would suggest that
this is a disagreement between honourary Members. I would say that it's not a
point of order. I'll allow the Member to please continue his remarks.
I've
asked the Member for Conception Bay South to please continue his remarks.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
move on now to a couple of other things that's very important to me. In my last
few minutes I want to go to carbon pricing.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to speak to a new point of order, Mr. Speaker, under section 49; the Member got
up again and referenced comments back and forth across this House. He stands up
today and talks information about meet with the town – we've met with the Town
of CBS recently as last week.
MR. SPEAKER:
Please get to your point.
MR. CROCKER:
It's unfortunate that he
wants to get up and continue to play politics, Mr. Speaker, with this. We're
willing to work with the Town of CBS.
MR. SPEAKER:
There is no point of order,
please.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd ask the Member for
Conception Bay South, please continue his remarks.
This is
a debate, please continue.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Unfortunately more time's gone, but I got a couple of minutes left and I want to
talk about carbon pricing.
We stand
up in the House here day after day after day and people might say what are you
getting on with again, or some people may not be even attuned. I know a lot of
Members opposite are not clued in to carbon pricing. But it's not only them, Mr.
Speaker, a lot of people in this province aren't. When I referenced tonight the
initial comments about taxes people got to realize, that's another tax. Either
way you cut it, it's another tax.
I guess
one of the good examples, it was only recently, it was there last week – during
the Easter break, actually, I was meeting someone up in my district and this
other guy came in. It was a very knowledgeable business guy and he was there
talking, referencing about this and that, basically day-to-day stuff. He
mentioned about carbon pricing, carbon tax. And he referenced it to the big
industries.
I said –
I'll use his first name – Paul, just a second there now. It's not just the big
industries; it's every single one of us, every resident in this province will
have to pay some form or another of an extra cost on your fuel, on your home
heating fuel. I go back to last year. In Alberta, the crematorium had a line
item and the carbon tax was on the cremation. There was a lot of uproar over it.
It was changed. It was amalgamated in – this is a true story, so this is not
concocted by no stretch; I would never do that on something like that. But that
just shows you how much this affects the general public. I've talked to people
in Alberta, actually. I've talked to residents of Alberta living with the carbon
pricing. Some have adjusted, some haven't.
That's
no different than here, Mr. Speaker. Three hundred taxes, there are people in
this province that had kind of a little bump in the road and they've moved on,
they can bear the burden, but it's another tax. And I just started off by saying
families are struggling. This will affect the food we buy in the stores, to the
gas we buy, to our clothing. Everything that crosses the Gulf will be affected
by this. Municipalities will have increased costs with their operations. It's
right across the board.
The
Minister of Transportation, in Estimates, we had talked about his department
will be affected more by carbon tax than most any other government department,
based on the operations of that department. The vehicle fleets and the buildings
and you name it.
So we
keep asking these questions. We don't ask them to get on the evening news. I
could care less about that. I feel that as a critic for Environment it's our
job, as any of us who have critic roles here, to bring these issues out because
they're important to the people of this province, Mr. Speaker. They are real
issues.
There
was a time probably a year or so ago we used to get great answers on questions,
on carbon pricing. It was a former minister at the time and I thought his
answers were phenomenal. I give full marks to the former minister because I
thought –
AN HON. MEMBER:
You want him back.
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah, we wouldn't mind having
him back.
I
thought he was great in his responses. As a critic, sometimes you get up and you
try to get a bit of fire back and forth. Actually, he was very level in his
response. His response was so good that it took all the steam out of me as the
critic. I couldn't really come back with anything. When the man answered my
question, I said okay very good and move on to the next.
I'll
have other times to speak, as the time winds down, but carbon pricing is a huge
issue for this province, for the residents of this province, and it's another
tax. I just think that a lot of people still haven't really zoned in on what
it's going to mean to that family of four with two children, what it's going to
mean to the cost in their home. I'll chat further on that later, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
In
accordance with paragraph 9(1)(b) of the Standing Orders, this House is in
recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, I'm sorry, so he was
standing.
I am
sorry; I didn't recognize the hon. Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR.
FINN:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I understand we are nearing what is normally our recess
for the day. I do have to rise just for a quick moment and I will adjourn
debate. I'll use my time to speak to the budget perhaps at a later date, but I
take great exception to the comments from the Member for Conception Bay South.
The Auditor General of this province released a report on roadwork in June of
2017 and in that report the Auditor General specifically stated that 46 per cent
of the roadwork completed in the year 2015, that's an election year under the PC
government, 46 per cent of the roadwork was made up from MHA priorities.
You want to talk about politics in pavement. Now, the
Minister of Transportation and Works has been very clear. He has responded, and
the former minister of Transportation and Works had responded to the Auditor
General's remarks as well and we have been making great progress to ensure that
this does not happen. To suggest that there is no rankings released, I'll' have
to tell the Member he can refer to the five-year roads plan where all the
rankings are noted based on quality, based on safety, based on reliability and
the rankings are noted there.
Just for the Member's reference, I'll refer him to page
13 of the Auditor General's report where it specifically states: “The Department
was not performing roadwork based on an objective evaluation process.
“MHA priorities may have resulted in lower priority
roadwork being performed ahead of higher priority roadwork.”
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. FINN:
Essentials projects for
roadwork in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador made up 23 per cent that
year, Mr. Speaker.
“Projects that were selected were not always based on the regional priority list
from each of the Department's five regions. There was no clear relationship
between a project's rating on the regional priority list and its placement on
the Provincial listing.
“The
Regional priority lists and the Provincial listings were often missing key
ranking information …” – you want to talk about rankings. They had no
classification errors. “Rankings between regions may not be consistent because
there was no guidance given to regions on how to allocate points within
different categories, and each region was ranking projects independently.”
Mr.
Speaker, 46 per cent of the roadwork – that's just about half of the roadwork
that was completed in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2015 into
2016, based on the PC government – had direct MHA interference. The Auditor
General has pointed that out. I'll refer the Member to the Auditor General's
report.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I'll adjourn debate for this afternoon.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Given the hour of the day, I
would suggest, Mr. Speaker, we recess until 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
In accordance with the
Standing Orders, we will recess until 2 o'clock.
Thank
you.
Recess
The
House resumed at 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
In the
public gallery today, I would like to extend a very warm welcome to several
guests with us. First of all, we have Ms. Anna Ross from Vanier Elementary
School's Breakfast Program. Ms. Ross will be mentioned in a Member's statement
this afternoon.
A very
big welcome to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Also joining us, we have
Joaquin Acevedo from Rennies River Elementary School. Joaquin won the school's
Heritage Fair this year and will be competing at the regionals in Bay Roberts
next month. He is accompanied by his sister, Isobella, and his mother, Carey
Majid, who is the executive director of the Human Rights Commission.
Congratulations, Joaquin.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd also like to welcome in
the public galley a very important organization. We have representatives from
the Canadian Cancer Society and the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Care Foundation.
A very
important welcome to you as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today, we will hear Members'
statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of St. George's - Humber,
Virginia Waters - Pleasantville, Topsail - Paradise, Exploits and Torngat
Mountains.
The hon.
the Member for St. George's - Humber.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to pay tribute to Calvin Cormier, a well-known Southwest Coast businessman
and talented musician who recently passed away.
Calvin
enjoyed meeting people and worked as an independent businessman for over
40 years. He and his wife, Patricia, owned and operated Crabbes River Irving in
Bay St. George South. His love of wildlife and nature was evident in another of
his businesses, the Codroy Valley Wildlife Museum.
He will also be remembered by many for his love of music.
He performed many times at both the Codroy Valley Folk Festival and the Codroy
Valley Winter Carnival, which he played at just a few months ago. He also
enjoyed hunting, fishing, golfing, playing cards, cooking and cheering for the
Toronto Maple Leafs.
Calvin was devoted to and very proud of his family,
especially his two grandsons. At the age of only 62, he was taken all too soon
and all too suddenly.
I ask all Members of this House of Assembly to join with me
in sending our condolences to Calvin Cormier's family and to his many friends
throughout the province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House during Volunteer Week to
recognize the Vanier breakfast program and their suburb performance under
coordinator Anna Ross.
I've had the pleasure of volunteering with the Vanier
breakfast program for years and never failed to be impressed by Anna's
dedication to the students and her infectious positivity.
Nothing is too much work for Anna. She spends her evenings
making homemade muffins and always ensures that a gluten-free option is
available so no student is left out. Every morning a fantastic spread of fruit,
grains and drinks are available. There is never any difficulty in finding
something good to eat.
A dedicated group of over 30 volunteers including parents,
students and community members rotate through the week like a well-oiled
machine. The sounds of blenders can be heard many mornings offering smoothies as
well as the smell of pancakes and muffins filling the hallways of the school
drawing students to the program.
It is easy to see that Anna Ross is the glue that keeps the
breakfast program together. There is no task too hard or time consuming. She has
a positive attitude that starts each student's day with a smile and a solid
breakfast. Every school deserves an Anna Ross.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Canada's Outstanding Principals recognizes outstanding
contributions of principals in publicly funded schools. It honours principals
from every province and territory in Canada who demonstrate innovation,
entrepreneurial spirit and who have done something truly remarkable in public
education. Mr. Speaker,
another principal in my area won this in 2017.
This
year, Michael Tobin, who has been principal of Paradise Elementary for two
years, was named as one of Canada's Most Outstanding Principals. He was
recognized by The Learning Partnership, a national charity that chooses
recipients via a selection committee after educators are nominated by parents,
colleagues and community members.
The
committee considers applicants on the basis of their exceptional contributions
that positively impact student achievement and success. The Learning Partnership
singled out Michael's focus on innovation and technology-facilitated learning.
The
Learning Partnership noted Mr. Tobin's focus on new, innovative learning
technology as one of the reasons he was selected. Mr. Tobin said: new learning
technologies like interactive whiteboards, iPads and Chromebooks are available
to students in an effort to create a positive, fun learning environment. When
you have students that are motivated, engaged and having fun, we get
improvements in student achievements.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating Mr. Tobin
for his outstanding contribution to the students and for achievements
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of Exploits.
MR. DEAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge the role played by the
community of Norris Arm in response to the horrific terrorist attack against the
United States on September 11, 2001. At 9:45 a.m., Eastern Time, one hour after
the first passenger airplane flew into the North Tower of the World Trade
Centre, both the US and Canada closed their airspace. Over 500 airplanes from
around the world were ordered to return to their airports of origin or were
diverted to airports across Canada.
The
resulting landings at Gander saw the homes and hearts of residents of Appleton,
Gander, Gambo, Glenwood, Lewisporte and Norris Arm opened up to our stranded
American friends. Last year the Town of Norris Arm in the District of Exploits,
along with neighbouring communities previously noted, were presented with the
Duke of Edinburgh's International Award at the Newfoundland and Labrador
Volunteer Hall of Fame as a testament of what was an exemplary embracing of the
core values of this prestigious award being service to others.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating the Town of
Norris Arm, as well as the aforementioned neighbouring towns, for being shining
examples of humanitarian champions.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to recognize Mr. Barry Sheppard and Ms. Natalie
Anderson of Rigolet whose heroic efforts and quick thinking saved the lives of
two people this past December.
On
December 29, 2017, Barry, Natalie, and Stanley and Judy Wolfrey were on the way
to their cabin in Valley's Bight when Natalie noticed that the light from the
snowmobile behind her had disappeared. She quickly realized the snowmobile
belonging to Stanley and Judy Wolfrey had gone through the ice. So Natalie
rushed to get help from Barry.
Barry
immediately returned to the sinking snowmobile where he found Judy and Stanley
fighting for their lives to stay above the ice. Thanks to his quick thinking,
Barry was able to get a line out and pull the two people ashore.
Both
Stanley and Judy agree that if it wasn't for the efforts of Natalie and Barry,
they would not have made it out of the situation alive.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in thanking Mr. Barry Sheppard and Ms.
Natalie Anderson for their quick thinking and heroic efforts in what could have
been a very tragic situation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and
Labrador has the highest automobile insurance rates in Atlantic Canada – rates
which have steadily increased over the past 13 years since the last review of
the insurance industry in the province.
Last
July, our government provided the Terms of Reference to the Board of
Commissioners of Public Utilities to conduct public consultations, as well as
two independent closed claims studies: one on the rising insurance claims costs,
and a second focused on claims related to taxi operations. We have now launched
the government's portion of the consultations process which will complement the
review currently underway by the PUB.
Mr.
Speaker, government's consultations will explore issues outside the scope of the
PUB's mandate, such as the rate setting process itself. There are also
opportunities for the public to share their ideas about measures to improve
highway safety and accident prevention in the province.
The goal
of the review is to identify opportunities to lower rates that will benefit
consumers and help bring stability to the industry. Feedback will help inform
potential future changes to the Automobile
Insurance Act and the Insurance
Companies Act in the fall of 2018.
Mr.
Speaker, our survey is available on the main page of Service NL's website or can
be completed online at
www.EngageNL.ca.
Feedback can also be shared via email at
autoinsurance@gov.nl.ca,
or through regular mail to Service NL. Consultations will continue until May 31,
2018.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement and for the update on
the auto insurance. There has been a lot of
discussion about insurance rates in our province and I know a lot of people are
concerned about the high rates they pay. I know they are very anxious to voice
their opinions and concerns on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, public opinion is a very important part of
the review and government must make sure people are aware that they have an
opportunity to participate in the process. I look forward to future updates on
this very important issue and I hope government will listen to the people of the
province and recognize that the 15 per cent on insurance should be removed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of her
statement. This whole thing is good news for everyone in the province but
especially the people who live in the rural parts of the province. We all know
we pay the highest auto insurance rates in Canada but people in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador have no public transit options and have no choice but
to pay high insurance rates in order to get around.
I hope the result of this work will be a relief from
the rates the motoring public has had to bear for the last decade.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you.
Cancer is a disease that knows no boundaries. Its
impacts are multiple and far-reaching, affecting people of all ages.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize April as Cancer
Awareness Month. The provincial government recently joined with its partners to
light the Confederation Building yellow.
The lighting ceremony held on April 2 highlighted the
significant efforts of community groups and agencies in this province that
support the many people affected by cancer every year.
Through their hard work and dedication, they are making
a very real difference in the lives of so many. For this, we thank you.
April also means it is Daffodil Month. I encourage
everyone to wear a daffodil pin or purchase a bunch of daffodils – a symbol of
hope, strength and courage.
Through our participation in the pan-Canadian
Pharmaceutical Alliance, we've been able to allocate $3.4 million for new cancer
drugs in this year's budget. This reflects our government's commitment to be
innovative in how it supports the health needs of residents.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members of the House of
Assembly to stand with me as we work to raise awareness, support those facing
this disease and find a cure.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement today. I've been looking forward to this one, knowing it would come,
no doubt, in the month of April.
It's an important month to recognize April as Cancer
Awareness Month. I, too, want to join with the minister to acknowledge some of
the great work that happens here in Newfoundland and Labrador, work by
organizations such as the Canadian Cancer Society and the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy
Cancer Care Foundation
who are represented here today, but other organizations, such as: Leukemia &
Lymphoma Society of Canada, Lymphoma Canada, the motorcycle Ride for Dad, and
organizations such as those who raise money to improve the quality of life for
patients and families who have to deal with cancer in their lives.
We know,
Mr. Speaker, every community and every family has been touched by cancer. This
is a month to not only reflect on that but also to celebrate in the great
efforts that are made to add to that comfort for patients and families.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister. A diagnosis of cancer can change the lives of many, the person
directly affected and those who love them.
When I
was diagnosed with breast cancer 19 years ago my life certainly changed. Because
of organizations like the Canadian Cancer Society, cancer survivor support
groups, the Bliss Murphy Centre, the brilliant health care providers who have
dedicated their lives to cancer prevention, treatment and research, the families
and community at large who rise to the challenge of cancer, I learned that the
world is a much kinder place than I could ever have imagined.
Bravo to
all those who push on in hope, strength and courage. Together we can.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety and the Attorney General.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, this morning I
had the pleasure to join the Chief of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Joe
Boland, and the Mayor of the Town of Conception Bay South, Terry French, to
announce a new Royal Newfoundland Constabulary detachment for the Town of
Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'd also like to acknowledge,
Mr. Speaker, colleagues from both sides of the House that attended this
morning's announcement.
The RNC
plays a crucial role in ensuring the safety and security of residents. This
police agency patrols the Northeast Avalon, Corner Brook and parts of Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, Conception Bay South is the second largest municipality in
Newfoundland and Labrador with more than 26,000 residents and RNC officers spend
a significant amount of time responding to calls in that community. Currently,
the closest detachment is 26 kilometres away. This new detachment will ensure
timely police response and will better serve the growing population in that
area.
Mr.
Speaker, public trust and community co-operation are crucial in effective law
enforcement. Having dedicated resources in the Town of CBS will help further
build that trust and ensure public safety. This new detachment will include an
inspector, administrative staff, community services, a criminal investigation
division, operational patrol services, a police service dog unit, telephone
reporting centre and traffic services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, we have heard
the concerns of the people of this area and we are happy to work with Chief
Boland and the town to move these RNC resources where they are most needed.
I would
like to thank the town council of CBS also for their hard work and their
co-operation in making this initiative possible.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the minister, first of all, for an advance copy of his statement today. It was a
pleasure for myself and the Member for Conception Bay South to attend this
morning. I can tell you it was a very, very good day and a great day for the
citizens, not only of Conception Bay South but also of Paradise and surrounding
areas who will benefit greatly from having a permanent RNC detachment located
right in the community.
Mr.
Speaker, the minister mentioned the 26,000 residents that live in Conception Bay
South. It is, by far, the largest town in the province, and second only to St.
John's. Over 500 kilometres of road was referenced this morning. I can tell you
in the 2015 election this was heard many times by my colleague from Conception
Bay South; and, in 2017, municipal councillors told me they heard it
predominantly in the Town of Conception Bay South when they campaigned in the
municipal elections.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention my colleague specifically. He has
advocated for this since he got elected in 2015; he took the ball and ran with
it. The minister worked with him, and the chief referenced it today as well, but
I thank him for his advocacy, I thank the government for making the decision and
we thank the RNC as well.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister. Congratulations to the leadership of the Town of Conception Bay
South for identifying the need for their people for more police service and
successfully securing it. Congratulations to the department for listening to
those concerns and acting on them. And thank you to the good people of the RNC
for the considerable work it will take to get this new detachment up and
running. We wish them well in their new home, and bravo to the people of
Conception Bay South.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
In
Question Period on Monday, the Minister of Finance said that he's not aware of
any funding directly from the federal government for cannabis. He later said
that he knows that the federal government are giving $1.9 million in training,
and he said I think $500,000 ticketing, for a total of $2.4 million.
Minister, could you clarify the statements from Monday, please?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
this is certainly a very significant topic and one that's been talked about in
this province, basically since the federal election when it was first promised.
What I can say – and this was communicated during the Justice Estimates that
occurred just before Easter – is that we are indeed going to receive funding
from the federal government as it relates to the cannabis initiative.
Right
now, we are still in the process of finalizing the agreements. It looks like
there will be a five-year funding agreement reached with the federal government.
But since that agreement has not been signed off yet, it's too early for us to
say exactly what the amounts will be or how the allocations will go.
The feds
have been made very much aware by all provinces, including this one, that since
this is their initiative and we have to make this legislation here in this
province, they're going to have to do their role and play their part.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Minister of Finance also said that revenues this year of $5.8 million as a
result of cannabis – he said the costs associated with implementation of
cannabis are going to be about $4 million, so it will be a net revenue to the
province of about $1.8 million. That's his words, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the minister to explain how this matches up with the $2.2 million which is
contained in Schedule 1 of Budget 2018
under Cannabis Tax.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the
remainder of that $2.2 million is from NLC. That's the revenue from NLC. The
remainder is the sales tax and excise tax.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
budget documents actually say $2.2 million is specifically cannabis tax. The
minister said on Monday that it was $5.8 million in revenue from cannabis tax.
I'm
asking him: Can he explain the difference in those two numbers?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I don't believe I said $5.8
million from cannabis tax. I don't accept the Member opposite putting words in
my mouth. I said the revenue would be $5.8 million. There's money from NLC,
there's money from sales tax and there's money from excise tax, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On
Monday, the minister indicated that he would table a list of how the $1.9
million in training will be utilized. I ask the minister if he's able yet to
provide that documentation.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I've
said earlier in Question Period, and as we discussed during the Estimates
section of the budget before Easter, right now we know we are going to be
receiving federal funding. It was made quite clear during this process that
right now we're allocating the money to different spots under the budget
headings. But we also said, depending on how this goes, the money may go to
different sections. We don't exactly know, nor does any province.
At the
end of the day, it's hard to talk about exactly how this is going to play out
because we have not received the funding yet. We know we will receive the
funding.
The main
thing for people to remember here is that we will do everything within our power
as a government to ensure the safety of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
when it comes to this huge policy shift.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the Minister of Justice's response here today and acknowledging that
they don't know exactly how this is going to go.
My
question was the Minister of Finance on Monday promised to table a list of how
the training was going to be utilized. Am I to understand now that you do not
know that – if I understand correctly from the Minister of Justice you do not
know at this point in time how that funding will be allocated. Is that what the
minister is saying?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I can't
recall exactly what was going to be tabled or not tabled on Monday's Question
Period, but what I can say here today, and what was echoed in this House on this
floor back when we did the budget Estimates, is that we will be receiving
federal funding. We're finalizing those agreements.
Right now, we
expect that it will be allocated to various sections, whether that would be
ticketing, whether that would be courts, whether that would be law enforcement.
But we do know when we come to the budget process for next year and the budget
Estimates in that process, that money may change around. But during that
process, we will be better able and in a better position than right now to
explain exactly what is received, how it's allocated and how it is distributed.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My colleague
received documents from the Minister of Finance and they indicated that the
total revenue from marijuana will be between $28 million and $40 million
annually once it's fully implemented, once sales are fully implemented.
I ask the minister:
Can you provide us with the analysis that reached these conclusions?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, this is
unchartered territory. We have no concrete ability at this point to tell you
what the sales are going to be, but I can tell you that for 2018-2019, it's $5.8
million; for 2019-20, we're expecting roughly $17 million; and it grows from
there by 2022-23, which is what we're forecasting out in our budget, that it's
going to be somewhere between $34 million and $40 million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So they've reached
some conclusions based on some information. So I'll ask the minister: Can he
supply us with the analysis that led them to the conclusion of the numbers he
just stated?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
These numbers were derived by officials
within the Department of Finance, Mr. Speaker. I'll certainly endeavour to get
the information.
For this year, the
$5.8 million that we're projecting this year, Mr. Speaker, is one quarter of the
year because we're anticipating sales in the final sales in the final quarter of
this year. Obviously, there will be four quarters next year, so we would
anticipate that we would have revenue in four of the quarters.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In Estimates that
were referred to by the minister that happened just before the Easter break,
there was a discussion around $500,000 in federal funding that is going to be
used to assist in the additional cost of court processing, fines,
administration, court processing, prosecutions, those type of things.
We heard the
minister today again saying that they really don't know at this point in time.
There was a lot of anticipation and appears to be guesswork gone into what's
going to happen in the
future.
I ask
the minister: We're only a few months away from the legalization of marijuana,
what assurance can you give the people of the province that policing services
will be fully prepared?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, I'd be happy to have my department provide a briefing on the work
that we're doing. The first thing we would tell the Opposition is that it's not
three months away, it's six months away. That's the first thing we would get
clear.
The
second part is that we are doing everything we can in our power to be ready for
this initiative that's been imposed on us by the federal government. What I can
tell you is that we are far ahead of many other provinces when it comes to this.
I have full confidence in our law enforcement, our Crown attorneys. When it
comes to our victim services, when it comes to our ticketing, we will be ready.
I want
to bring up one other point that I think is worth mentioning when we talk about
the revenue. This Minister of Finance made a deal and he reached a consensus
with the federal government that benefited every province in this country when
he made sure that there was a cap put on this that more money would be coming
back to this province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, that's the first
thing he's sure about today when it comes to marijuana because they don't seem
to be sure about much of anything else over there. As a matter of fact, the
Minister of Finance confirmed yesterday that the legislation he requires for the
legalization of marijuana just simply isn't ready yet. It is not ready to come
to the House.
The
minister said just a couple of days ago this week when asked about aspects of
legalization of marijuana, he said there are a lot of grey areas – was his
public commentary. Now with legalization a few months away, we just learned for
the first time it's six months away.
How can
the minister responsible for Public Safety confirm and have faith that all of
the necessary legislation, rules and education for the public will be in place
before legalization actually takes place?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, it doesn't matter what I say here because I just corrected the Member
opposite on the timeline for this and he said we're finding out today. This was
on The National news weeks ago – weeks
ago. So I would suggest maybe you should concentrate on your research is the
first thing.
What I
can tell you, on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker – the Member opposite is
trying to create a panic and a fear. He reminds me of – there was a Reefer mania
or Reefer Madness from back in the
'40s.
The fact
is this is going to affect every province in this country. We are going to be
ready, and it's not going to be the fear and craze that he's putting out there.
We're going to be ready here in this province I can guarantee him that, and that
I am sure of.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was
going by the information provided by Members opposite who didn't know when it
was going to be legalized, Mr. Speaker. They didn't know, and today he said six
months. The first time I –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Please proceed.
I remind
all Members, I only want to hear from the person identified.
Please
proceed.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's the
first time I heard six months come from the minister. Maybe he said it before
but it's certainly the first time I heard it from him. We've heard it repeatedly
here today: We don't know. We're not exactly sure. We know they don't have the
legal authority yet and the proper legislation. They don't know how much funding
they're going to receive but the minister is sure we're going to be ready.
Don't
tell me, Minister, tell the people of the province: How can you ensure that
schoolyards are going to be protected? How are you going to ensure that
workplaces will be protected? How are you going to ensure that there's a good
way to make sure that people are safe on the highways? How are you going to make
sure that our province doesn't change? Once it's out of the box, Minister,
you'll never be able to put it back.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
first thing I would say to the Member opposite is he's talking as if there's no
cannabis out there in the world right now and all of a sudden there's going to
be a sudden skyrocketing rate of cannabis usage. The second thing I would say is
that the Member opposite just went to an announcement on the RNC today and at
the same time he's saying he doesn't have faith in them, they're not going to be
ready to handle this.
One
thing I would point out since the Member seems to be sadly misinformed – again,
we've said it, it's been quite clear in this province and in this country when
the legalization is going to be happening. We don't make that decision. It's the
federal government.
The
second part, I'm going to inform him: This bill is currently in the Senate. It's
working its way through. Maybe you can talk to your Conservative senators about
when it's going to come through.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the
Minister of Justice that our Leader has all the confidence in the world of the
RNC. I can guarantee you that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, the funding
forecast outlined in the actual Atlantic Fisheries Fund agreement states that
your government was supposed to be committed to $4 million in the fund in
2017-2018, yet we spent $1.5 million.
Why is
that, and can this fund be carried over in 2018?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
question is excellent because it allows me an opportunity to highlight that the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, our harvesters, our fishing industry, has
actually submitted 200-plus applications for the Atlantic Fisheries Fund. Do you
know how many have been submitted within the entire Province of Nova Scotia, 22;
for the entire Province of Prince Edward Island, 21; less than that in New
Brunswick?
We are
rising to the challenge of our expanding fishery, our new fishery, Mr. Speaker.
We have a seven-year agreement. It's worth $100 million. We will spend that
money. We'll spend it well and it will be for the benefit of our fishing
industry and our aquaculture industry here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Cape St.
Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
minister for that statement because that proves the full amount should have been
here. The full $400 million of the Fisheries Fund should have been here in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, he's right. We
did learn in Estimates that 200 applications have been received for funding for
this program; yet, only 30 of these applications have been approved.
Are the
majority of these ineligible requirements or is there a delay on processing the
applications?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE: Mr.
Speaker, we do have 200-plus applications, more than any other province in
Atlantic Canada. In fact, more than all provinces combined. That is quite
signification.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, $100 million is worth far more than their
phantom fund, which they were never able to achieve; 100 million reasons why the
fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador should feel very confident of its
future because we are investing in, not only innovative gear technology but
better systems for improved quality, for better systems for marketing.
We are advancing in our fishing industry. Mr. Speaker, all
of that $100 million will be spent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, the minister has a great way of not answering questions.
There were 200 applications; there were 30 people who got
awarded in these grants.
My question was: Why were they not awarded? Was there
something wrong with what their applications were doing, or was it the amount of
money or was it delayed? But he didn't answer that.
The Atlantic Fisheries Fund agreement is structured a
little bit different between the federal and provincial government. It's
structured in a way that the federal government set it up so that we transfer
our money to the federal government.
Why did you agree to this program and the way it's set up?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, we have a system in place whereby we can get the money out. Yes,
there are 200 applications in the system that will be processed and all eligible
applications that meet the criteria will be accepted. Some of those applications
came in as early as three weeks ago.
I'm sure
the hon. Member would not suggest that we should have an application turnover
time of three weeks. The program itself did not start until August of 2017. They
were four years trying to establish a program and had zero success. We, however,
established a $100 million program and it will meet with great success.
The
program itself, where it's Atlantic wide, we work co-operatively with the
federal government but we both have an equal say in the actual selection of the
projects. There will be no projects that are denied here in Newfoundland and
Labrador that (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I'll remind the
minister, the opportunity was to spend $5 million this year and you only spent
$1.5 million on the program. I just remind you of that.
We also
learned that you sign off and do recommendations approval as minister here, but
the final decision on applications to get approval lies with the federal
minister.
Has he
turned down any of your recommended projects yet?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Not one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, in February of
last year, the minister announced approximately 64,000 hectares of land for
additional agricultural development. It's been over a year since that was
announced.
Can the
minister tell us how much of that land was allocated?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, applications are
up. In fact, in Western Newfoundland applications for farmland are exceeding 100
per cent what they were in the past – in Central Newfoundland as well. We're
seeing a little bit of a bump in the Avalon, but we're expecting – we're quite
confident that will go up.
Maybe
the hon. Member knows of some people who might want to put in some applications
for land. But what I do know is that when the spring comes and when there's an
opportunity to actually survey those lands, that's 62,000 hectares of land, I
suspect when the snow melts, that's when you'll really see a rise in the number
of applications for that agricultural land.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
I do appreciate the uptake
and the increase in applications, but if we have one application and all of a
sudden it goes to two applications, those are still only two applications. We
need to hear some numbers.
On March
26 the committee concerned with clear-cutting requested a meeting with the
Minister of Tourism to discuss tourism-related matters as it pertains to Port
Blandford area. Over two weeks later, the minister's office finally replied and
stated he was unwilling to meet.
Will the
minister fulfill his responsibility to meet with this group?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, what happened
under the Progressive Conservative watch from 2006-2011 and then beyond, the
number of farms in Newfoundland and Labrador, according to Statistics Canada,
dropped by 25 per cent. They presided over a reduction in the number of family
farms in our province.
Now,
let's talk about forestry, Mr. Speaker, because what I'd like to hear from the
hon. Member, if he'd stand on his feet and say, there is a person within the
ranks of the Progressive Conservative advisors who have met with the community
of Port Blandford and said the Progressive Conservative Party's position is that
they are categorically against clear-cutting.
There
are 244 commercial forestry permit holders in Newfoundland and Labrador that
depend on their income from our forestry practices. Does he –?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member's time is expired.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
I believe – I'm not sure if I
spoke loud enough but I did ask the Minister of Tourism and I still have yet to
receive a response for my question.
Do I
have leave to ask that question once again?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LESTER:
On March 26, the committee
concerned with clear-cutting requested a meeting with the Minister of Tourism to
discuss tourism-related matters as it pertains to Port Blandford area. Over two
weeks later, the minister's office replied and stated he was unwilling to meet.
Will the
minister fulfill his responsibility and meet with this group?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, what the hon.
Member has an opportunity to do right here, right now is to state clearly for
this House –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BYRNE:
– Mr. Sandy Collins has told
this group that the Progressive Conservative Party is categorically against
clear-cutting, the form of forest harvesting that we practise in Newfoundland
and Labrador and the 244 commercial forestry permit holders practise.
Does the
Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador disagree with the
forestry practices that have been practised for generations in Newfoundland and
Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
I would really like to thank
the minister for acknowledging the work that Mr. Sandy Collins is doing on
behalf of Port Blandford.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LESTER:
Once again, I will ask this
question. This question, Mr. Speaker, was posed to me by the residents of Port
Blandford. I am at a loss as to why I cannot get an answer to this question.
Please,
on behalf of the people of this province and the people of Port Blandford, will
the minister fulfill his responsibility and meet with this group?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
This is getting serious. This
is getting very, very serious because, as we all know, in the cut and thrust of
the floor of the House of Assembly there are certain things that get said; there
are certain opportunities to clarify.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BYRNE:
I have stated three times now
that the Progressive Conservative Party has stated through their henchman, Sandy
Collins, that they do not agree with the forestry practices of the forest
industry of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the hon. Member opposite does not
want to dispute that.
We are
sending a message to everyone in this province that the Progressive Conservative
Party of Newfoundland and Labrador fundamentally disagrees with the harvesting
practices that are enacted in Newfoundland and Labrador and now we have that
position made perfectly clear for the (inaudible) –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Once again, I would like to
ask the relevance of his response. I still don't have an answer to my question,
so I'll move on to my second one.
The
committee and members of the council have met with their MHA, as well as the
minister of forestry, to discuss their serious concerns, achieving little
progress. Given the communities reliance on the tourism industry and the
potential negative impact that clear-cutting will have, they rightfully want to
discuss this matter with the Minister of Tourism.
Will the
Premier direct his minister to engage with concerned citizens and industry
stakeholders in the Port Blandford region?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Again, Mr. Speaker, it's not what he says; it's what he does not say.
There
are 5,000 jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador that depend on our forest industry
to able to supply our families and our communities with employment. We have some
of the best harvesting practices anywhere in North America that have been
recognized.
The hon.
Member had an opportunity to stand up and celebrate our forest industry and the
300 million-plus a year that it generates, and what does he do? He denigrates
it, Mr. Speaker. I am confident that the minister responsible for Tourism, as he
has done on every occasion, will meet with tourism stakeholders, whenever he's
available.
And yes,
Port Blandford does have an important tourism industry, but it also has an
important resource industry, and this hon. Member has failed to stand up for
Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, once again, I
would implore the Minister of Tourism to please get up and reply to this
question. I'm speaking on the industry of tourism at this point. I'm not
speaking on the industry of forestry. We're looking at an industry that also
contributes huge amounts of money to our province.
Please,
Minister of Tourism, can you answer this question?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
proud to be the Minister of Tourism for Newfoundland and Labrador. There are
20,000 jobs that are employed in the tourism and hospitality sector – very, very
important. As minister, I've been throughout the province talking and engaging
with stakeholders and I've been in the community of Port Blandford.
When it
comes to forestry harvesting practices and when it comes to sustainable forestry
management, there is a consultative process, there's input by all stakeholders,
input is provided through departments and there is a great balance when it comes
to looking at tourism development, looking at forestry development and looking
at all other economic components as well.
There
are also some people who are concerned about cottage development and how
lifestyle development is obtained as well.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Twice
our Labour Relations Board has found US-owned D-J Composites in Gander guilty of
bargaining in bad faith. In contempt, the company continues to lock out their
workers 16 months with no settlement in sight. This unfair lockout could be
solved with an amendment to the Labour
Relations Act imposing binding arbitration when a company is found to be
bargaining in bad faith.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Premier once again: Can he explain to the locked out workers
how this US company has more rights under our labour laws than the workers in
Gander, and why his minister still has done nothing to address this injustice?
Feigning neutrality and balance amounts to siding with the company.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Advanced
Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly a pleasure for me to answer the question from the Leader of the Third
Party. Obviously, there are some statements there that she's not really fully
aware of. If she looked at the Labour
Relations Act and looked at some of the parameters in which they
could work, that's already there.
Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that we've had a prolonged
strike from D-J Composites. I've stated here before – and the Member should be
obviously aware of that – this is an independent quasi-judicial relations board.
No different than the Minister of Justice and Attorney General does not get
involved in decisions of the court. Nor would I, as a minister, be responsible
for getting involved in a collective agreement or collective bargaining which is
our given right for unions and employers in this province.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
Leader of the Third Party.
MS. ROGERS: Mr.
Speaker, we know that our Labour Relations
Act must be amended. The minister is still sitting idly by under the guise
of neutrality while this American company violates Canadian collective
bargaining standards and workers' rights, doing what it can to break the union.
Recommendation 5 of the 2010 Industrial Inquiry Commission
calls for amending the Labour Relations
Act to impose binding arbitration in cases when a company has bargained in
bad faith, collective bargaining has failed or when it is in the public interest
to do so. The situation in Gander fits all these criteria.
I ask the Premier again: When will he take action on behalf
of these workers and do the right thing and amend our
Labour Relations Act?
MR. SPEAKER: The
Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, as I repeated on a number of occasions now, the best
solution to any decision is collective bargaining. Basically, Mr. Speaker, as we
work through – I'm assuming that the Leader of the Third Party would like for
legislation or some ability to be put in there for all when it comes to a
legislative option to have arbitration put in.
I don't think our unions within this province would be
agreeable to that either, Mr. Speaker, because we all know
that the best solution to any negotiation is we go through collective bargaining
in good faith. That's why we have that within our democratic country of Canada
that we have worked for years to get collective bargaining.
Mr.
Speaker, unfortunately, sometimes these happen. We will work (inaudible) –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
government has described its budget as a stay-the-course approach. I say it is
not stay the course for seniors who will be worse off in a year's time because
of lack of dental care and inadequate home care and who are paying higher
consumer taxes and fees since the draconian budget of 2016.
I ask
the Minister of Finance if their supposedly gender-based process included an
analysis of the impact on seniors, especially women of their budget measures.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we have 155,000 seniors in this province that are receiving the
Seniors' Benefit to the tune of $125 million. I can't say that we've ignored
those individuals who require and rely on that benefit. That benefit is
something that this government is very proud of to be able to help a vulnerable
population who need that assistance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi for a very short question, please.
MS. MICHAEL:
I ask the minister: What is
his evidence that proves seniors are wrong when they tell us – and they're doing
it – hardships have increased for them under the austerity fiscal policy of this
government? What is his evidence?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board for a short response, please.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, we've got
long-term care buildings and units that we're building across the province.
We're the government that put in place the Seniors' Advocate. We've got the
Seniors' Benefit that we put in place, Mr. Speaker.
We, on
this side, value our seniors in this province. I can tell you one thing, Mr.
Speaker, we didn't create the mess we're in, but we are definitely cleaning it
up and we are going to do everything we can to help seniors in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Oral Question
has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
To the hon. House of Assembly
of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the
petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly
sheweth:
WHEREAS
Route 60 is the main highway that runs through the Town of Conception Bay South,
and is a vital artery in the provincial road network; and
WHEREAS
Route 60 is one of the most heavily travelled roads in the province; and
WHEREAS
Route 60 has been deteriorating and requires major upgrades;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to allocate funds to upgrade Route 60.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this petition is one of a lot of petitions I've presented on Route 60.
I've spoken about this in the House on numerous occasions as a lot of Members
and the minister, I'm sure, would realize.
This
road is the fifth busiest road in the province. It is in bad need of repairs
right now. It's something that I advocate and I speak on. I speak to residents
on a daily basis. They come to me; they express their dismay and their
frustration with driving this road.
One
instance in particular, a petition I presented a while back, in a 24-hour period
I had 20 people contact me. There were 20 blowouts on one pothole. That's just
one of many, Mr. Speaker. It's tough as an MHA to try and explain that and
you're trying to contact staff to come out. They're doing pothole repairs as
best they can in most cases because the cold patch doesn't last. You are trying
to get asphalt recyclers out there, which have helped a bit. The bottom line is
the road is in need of upgrades.
My issue
has been – and I mentioned it earlier today and I'll reiterate again – the
five-year Roads Plan calls for rating of roads. This is the fifth busiest road
in the province in the second largest municipality in the province and I cannot
get the score for that road. The people of CBS deserve to know where that road
ranks on that list, as all other Members in this House deserve to know where
roads in their particular districts rank.
It was
promised, it was allocated and it was proudly – by the former minister who was
very proud to say he took the politics out of paving. I just simply, being very
straightforward, am asking the question: If the politics is out of paving, if
you're rating your roads, let me know, let the residents of CBS know – forget
about me, let the residents of CBS know – where this road places on that list.
I'd
gladly like to tell them, and the minister could tell him himself, where it
places. They would like to know along with me. We'd like to see some upgrades
done to that road sooner rather than later, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works for a response, please.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Indeed
to stand here and respond to this petition today, Mr. Speaker, we've met in the
recent four to six weeks twice with the Town of CBS to discuss Route 60.
The
Member gets up and talks about it being the fourth busiest road in the province
or the fifth busiest road in the province. Mr. Speaker, what we've seen – where
we've built bypass roads as a province previously, what ends up happening is we
built the Harbour Arterial; Mount Pearl took over responsibility for its portion
of Route 60. We built the first part of Route 2, Peacekeepers Way; the Town of
Paradise took over their responsibility for its portion of Route 60.
Mr.
Speaker, major towns, I understand, they want control of these roads so they can
do sidewalks, they can do lighting projects. They take control of these roads.
Large towns, I can understand why they want to take control of these roads.
We're willing to have this conversation with the Town of CBS. Mr. Speaker, we
met with them just last week again, and we'll continue to meet about the future
of Route 60.
Mr.
Speaker, he talks about the Roads Plan and taking the politics out of paving.
The hon. Member, my colleague, who brought in the Roads Plan last year. Mr.
Speaker, obviously we leave 25 per cent space in the following year for emerging
priorities, but he asks about the five-year Roads Plan. The good thing with
agreements like this one is it takes the politics out of this because we can
know what's going to happen from year to year within reason.
Mr.
Speaker, nobody on this side of the House said that (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS Route 60 is the main highway that runs through
the Town of Conception Bay South and is a vital artery in the provincial road
network; and
WHEREAS Route 60 is one of the most heavily travelled
roads in the province; and
WHEREAS Route 60 has been deteriorating and requires
major upgrades;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon our House of Assembly to urge government to allocate funds to
upgrade Route 60.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on this petition as well today, an
opportunity to respond to the Member opposite, the Minister of Transportation
who just responded to a previous petition on this very matter.
Mr. Speaker, we talked here in the House today on both
sides about the Town of Conception Bay South being the largest town in the
province, second only to the City of St. John's, 26,000 residents. We have a
road that runs through, Route 60, which runs through the centre of the town, a
provincial government owned road that on many days is simply just not fit to
drive on. That's what this petition is about. The deterioration of Route 60 is
simply unacceptable.
I had a resident contact me last week – the minister
talks about the work they've done on Route 2 – who was driving on Peacekeepers
Way on Route 2 and a piece of asphalt from the road flew up, from a damaged
piece of road, and damaged her car. She can't get any satisfaction whatsoever
from the government to repair her car. She's simply on her own because it flew
up from a different vehicle. It came from the road. It was a piece of asphalt
out of the road. I saw the video from her own dash cam to see where that came
from, Mr. Speaker.
Route 60 in Conception Bay South is what this petition
is about. Route 60 is in significant deterioration. It requires upgrading. It
requires a significant amount of work. The residents of Conception Bay South are
looking for that work. They're looking for government to act on this. This
problem is not going to go away. It's going to continue to get worse and the
government has a responsibility to fix the road, Mr. Speaker. That's what this
is about.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works for a response, please.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Point of order, the Member
for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
(Inaudible) the same – no,
different delivery.
MR. SPEAKER:
I believe it was two
different, separate petitions.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
It was, yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
The same petition.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
The same petition.
MR. SPEAKER:
Presented by two different
Members.
I'm
looking to my Clerk.
The hon.
Deputy Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I believe when
we were changing the rules of the House to this that we did allow for a minister
to respond in a short duration to whoever is presenting a petition. This is
maybe a similar petition but it is a different member who is presenting it and I
would think that would be considered under the Standing Orders.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
And I agree with the Member.
The hon.
the Minister of Transportation and Works for a response, please.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
appreciate the opportunity again. I would guess that it's different people
signing a petition. So I appreciate the opportunity again.
Mr.
Speaker, as I said in my previous comment, and the hon. Member makes it sound
like these issues on Route 60 happened in the last 20 months. Mr. Speaker, the
hon. Member for
Topsail - Paradise was an actual former Transportation
minister. So I'm not sure what happened on Route 60 at that time.
Mr. Speaker, back in 2015 –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
CROCKER:
Mr.
Speaker, I think the hon. Member had an opportunity to respond –
MR.
SPEAKER:
Please proceed.
MR.
CROCKER: –
I'd
appreciate mine now, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there's a reason why. If you look at that
road, the section in Paradise has been taken over by the town, They've made it
into an urban road and that's a great piece of work.
Mr. Speaker, we're not going to take a whole pile of
lessons from the Members opposite about roads. You only got to go back to the
Auditor General's report where they talk about MHA priorities forming 46 per
cent of the Roads Plan.
Mr. Speaker, he talks about Route 2. We are making a
significant investment again this construction season in Route 2. That is our
primary road in this area. Mr. Speaker, we have a great investment coming in
Route 2 again this year and we'll continue to provide quality roads for the
people of the Conception Bay area.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Day
MR.
SPEAKER:
This being Wednesday, I now call on the Member for Topsail - Paradise to
introduce the resolution standing in his place. Motion 8.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like to move the following resolution, seconded by
my colleague the Member for Ferryland.
WHEREAS the Trudeau government intends to legalize
marijuana in 2018 even though many important questions about the impact of
legalization have still not been answered; and
WHEREAS Newfoundlanders and Labradorians deserve
answers to such questions prior to legalization;
BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House calls on the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to promptly release its
analyses on the impacts of
legalization on Newfoundland and Labrador, including the social, medical,
fiscal, economic, legal, penal, educational, residential and
cross-jurisdictional impacts;
BE IT
FURTHR RESOLVED that this hon. House calls upon the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador to urge the Government of Canada to delay marijuana legalization
unless both levels of government can assure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
that effective measures are in place to: inform people of the impacts of
legalization; monitor, evaluate and respond to the impacts in real time; address
any social and medical consequences as they arise; protect people from the
marijuana-impaired drivers; protect people from second-hand exposure to
marijuana products; and compensate our province promptly and fully for any
negative fiscal impacts of legalization.
So
moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This private Member's resolution basically says four
things. It basically says there are many questions, very important and
significant questions that are still not answered even though the legalization
is about to happen just a few short months away.
Mr. Speaker, people of the province ask Members on this
side of this House regularly about the rules, the regulations, expectations,
what limits will exist, what practices will be acceptable, and people want to
know. They want to know what's going to happen and get those answers prior to
legalization. They want to know what the impact will be on their children, on
school activities. What will be around schools or allowed near schools. They
want to know what risk will exist for their own family members.
Mr. Speaker, what this matter is about is two things.
One is about also the release of information that the government has. We've
asked questions in the last few days about analysis. I asked some today about,
what analysis did they use to reach the financial projections that were outlined
by ministers during Question Period today. It doesn't appear that they have such
an analysis.
The minister himself said today it was work done by
officials in his department. When I asked if he would table it, he didn't commit
to do that. Usually when a minister won't commit to table an analysis it means
one of a couple of things. One is there is no analysis or at least it's not
conclusive enough to support the information provided. I hope they do have it
and I hope they do present it because that's part of what this resolution is
about today.
Furthermore, if all of the unknowns that are – all the
questions that are happening can't be answered then government should slow down
the bus, Mr. Speaker. It's as simple as that. Slow it down until all the
analysis, all the information has been done. Delay the implementation. At least
advocate to the Government of Canada to delay the
implementation until these
answers can be answered so they know and government knows exactly what's
happening.
Recently, I read a piece out of an article out of the Colorado Springs Gazette
talking about Colorado. It was an opinion piece. So I'm sure there's a level
of bias, but I'm sure there's a level of bias maybe in a lot of reporting that
you can read, and sometimes it's hard to avoid that. But what this piece talks
about here, this opinion piece dated November of 2017, it was the fifth
anniversary since Colorado's decision to sanction the world's first
anything-goes kind of commercial pot trade. They've legalized marijuana in a big
way in Colorado, and it doesn't necessarily match what's going on here in
Canada, other than the fact there's a level of legalization.
The
writer here notes that visitors to Colorado remark about the new agricultural
smell that exists within the area and it also talks about residential
neighbourhoods and the smell of marijuana that you can smell everywhere. I've
heard other commentary in other states of a similar kind of nature. In certain
neighbourhoods, in certain areas, you have the stench and the smell of
marijuana. Some people like it, a lot of people don't like it but it's there all
the time. It changes the overall scape, the overall cut of a neighbourhood, the
overall feel of a neighbourhood when you have that smell, that odour that will
become very familiar to people, when you have that odour that constantly exists
within the neighbourhood.
My
comments earlier today, my comments earlier before today have been that once
this is out of the box, there's no putting it back. Once the legalization
happens, with a long list of unknowns, there's no way to put that back in the
box. Mr. Speaker, that's the fear I have. We want to see the analysis done. We
want to make sure that the considerations are made.
I talked
about nine different areas. I talked about social impacts. What's the potential
impact on people's employment or jobs, especially if they have an addiction or
have struggled with addiction in the past? What's the potential impact on people
who are addicts, who are currently clean? Is there a risk for them? What about
what the policies will be for Child, Youth and Family Services and how they
implement policies? Or what will their policies and response be to homes who
have parents who are avid users? Is it simply going to be to say well, that's
okay to use that in your home if you have children in your home – will it not?
What
will be the rules and the expectations around usage and before a person operates
a motor vehicle or heavy equipment or goes to their workplace as well? Will a
risk of – we, right now, have a risk in our society. We have from time to time,
and far too often, hear of armed robberies that occur in corner stores and
retail outlets. Quite often, armed robberies for cigarettes and tobacco, and we
know that cannabis quite often is a smoked substance. Will this turn into armed
robberies for people trying to rob stores and looking for marijuana? Has there
been any analysis done on that?
What
about use in public parks and campgrounds? So if a family is camping in a
campground – right now you can use alcohol, primarily, in a campsite. You can't
take it from your campsite is generally the principle and practice we see in
campgrounds. You can have a drink or you can drink a beer while you're cooking
your supper or having an evening with your family or friends, and you can smoke
your cigarettes. Can you also smoke your marijuana? Will you be able to smoke
and use your marijuana in public campgrounds and family campgrounds? What about
in bars and concerts and so on?
We also
raised the issue about medical impacts. And there's a lot of discussion, Mr.
Speaker, about medical impacts and development of children, development of their
brains and so on. Will there be any consequences for patients or for individuals
from the use from approved marijuana? Will there be issues around the overuse of
weed or hash oil or other products that will be derived from this legalization?
Will we
see consequences or is there a medical health concern for second-hand smoke, as
there has been for tobacco smoke? Will we see people that – now will there be a
new market for edibles and homemade edibles? How will that be controlled?
We don't
know here what those impacts will be, what's happened in other jurisdictions,
what has the analysis been. What about fiscal updates? How will new costs be
tallied? How will we actually know?
The
minister, on Monday, when asked about a contest that's being run currently by a
downtown business here in St. John's, in his own words, he said publically there
are a lot of grey areas. He talked about legislation being needed, but it's not
ready yet.
Mr.
Speaker, so the fiscal impacts, we don't know. In our Estimates in Justice
before the Easter break – the Minister of Justice and Public Safety referred to
it today – there was a reference to $500,000. They really don't know what
they're going to get from the federal government. They actually have something
put in their Estimates book for line items when they really don't know how much
is actually going to come from the federal government.
What
about economic impacts? What about the province bringing in a large firm? What
does that do to other companies and start-ups? We know in our beer industry
there's protection that you can't import – the large breweries can't import beer
into Newfoundland and Labrador to protect the businesses that exist here, the
two big breweries in our province. There's legislation so that Labatt or Molson
can't import tractor-trailer loads full of beer into our province with the two
breweries that are acting here. However, we do have start-ups and we do have
some smaller imports that happen. We have start-ups, people here trying to
compete with what are established brands.
Once you
have a large, established brand, it becomes difficult to be a start-up, to work
your way into what's already been an established market.
Legal
impacts, we've heard testing – I've talked about this in the House before. We've
heard challenges now with what's known as DRE, Drug Recognition Experts. I know
Drug Recognition Experts, worked alongside with them, I see how they do their
work but, as time goes on, there's a higher level of concern about the process
used. It's seen as subjective rather than objective. From what I know, right
now, it's the best tool they have available to determine someone's ability to
operate while impaired, in this case by marijuana.
It's the
same with field sobriety testing; there has been concerns raised about that.
What are our implications on our penitentiaries or our institutions? We don't
even smoke in them anymore. I'm not sure if that still happens. Will people be
allowed to use marijuana within those institutions, or will there now become a
new level of competition within the walls of our institutions?
There
are educational impacts. What happens if a child seems to have changed habits –
because that's quite often an indicator of a child is change in performance in
school, a change in the crowd that the child socializes with, a change in sports
activities are quite often attached to a change in other activities such as use
of alcohol or drugs. What's going to happen if there's people selling marijuana
in the area of schools? What will happen then? Will there be an education
campaign so people are on the same page and understand exactly what's going to
take place?
What
about landlord-tenant relationships and legislation to protect landlords from
any damage or from people who want to grow marijuana in rental properties? In
Colorado, that became an issue where people were renting properties just for the
sole reason of setting it up as a grow operation and an ability to grow op. What
about condos and bed-sitting rooms and dorms, apartment buildings? What will the
rules be in those cases?
Also, I
reference cross-jurisdictional impacts. If prices on taxes are lower elsewhere,
then what are the impacts when it comes to areas such as Labrador West who have
issues in the past with people travelling to Quebec buying goods and services
and bringing them back? Will there be a need for an adjustment for Labrador West
or for Labrador South? What about online purchasing and ordering and so on?
These are all matters that, so far, we've not got answers on and we haven't
heard any educational efforts for the public.
We know
there was an RFP went out recently, and I know the response from the RFP from
people who were interested in it, it was interesting to say the least. There
were some people who had identified – well, hang on now. There was one person
who said: I'm going to be able to sell marijuana for maybe $10 a gram. If I sell
it – I think he used the words: Unless you're a Tim Hortons, then I'll probably
make $360 off that in a day – is what the person referred to in one particular
article.
We know
there are concerns around the RFP that's gone out. I'm sure there will be
applicants. I'm sure people are waiting to set up and there will be a
competition. Of course, there are some concerns being raised on that as well.
So, Mr.
Speaker, this afternoon, as well as what I've said here, we're going to break
this down into three lots. One is about justice and public safety. The other
aspect, if I can put (inaudible) to be health and social, and the other one is
the fiscal and business. I've outlined in a very high level some of those
concerns and issues that have been brought to our attention. These are not ones
that we sat around and just dreamt up ourselves. These are things that the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador are bringing to our attention and asking us
to have a look at.
The
minister asked in Question Period today, referenced I should talk to some of the
Conservative Party of Canada senators – where the bill is right now in the
Senate. Well, actually, I had a look at what hon. Judith Seidman had said, who
is a Conservative Party senator. I'm going to wrap up my comments with just
quoting from her.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
She talked about a number of
things. I only have time to pick out a couple of excerpts from what she said.
She said, “As public health experts have pointed out, the government's approach
to regulating cannabis promotion has far more in common with how we regulate
alcohol.”
That's
exactly what's happening in this province. It's actually NLC which are
organizing the sales, and the regulations are in parallel to the sales of
liquor. What this senator points out, that the approach to alcohol “has failed
to protect underage users.” The exact same population they're trying to protect
when it comes to cannabis, and that's one of the big concerns.
The
province, NLC has a problem right now. Underage drinking is common, yet the
government thinks: no, underage use is not going to be an increased problem
because it's readily available for youth in our society. What the senator points
out here is she believes that's one of the issues that is going to happen in our
country.
I look
forward to closing debate and listening to what Members have to say this
afternoon.
Thank
you Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a product that it's the first time it's being sold legally in
Canada. It's probably the largest public policy shift in Canada since we joined
Confederation in 1949.
The
Member who just introduced this private Member's resolution seemed surprised
that I had indicated that officials in the department had put together the
financial forecast. That probably explains a lot, Mr. Speaker. It probably
explains why they were so off on their budget, if they're surprised that
officials in the department would put together a fiscal forecast, but that's the
way it works.
That's
the way it works. You provide information to the department officials and they
determine the economic indicators, they determine possible revenue, they
determine possible sales tax. They do that, Mr. Speaker, because they're good at
it. They do a good job at it. They determine the numbers and we rely on that
piece of work. I'm not surprised that we asked the department officials to
determine the work available.
Now one
thing that Members on this side have made a habit of, Mr. Speaker, and that's
being honest in the House. I'd like to think that all Members are honest, Mr.
Speaker, but I can assure you that Members on this side are honest. We don't put
forward fudgy budgets. We don't mess with numbers. We don't create a situation
where we blow out of proportion or put forward numbers that are not realistic or
numbers that you can rely on.
The
numbers we put forward in the budget, Mr. Speaker, for the sale of cannabis, I
would say are realistic numbers. Probably conservative, but certainly realistic
numbers. They're based on what we anticipate will be the sales.
Now I
don't know who the Members opposite hang out with and who they rely on for their
information but I haven't been able yet to get information from Vinnie or Guido
on the corner on how much they sell. So really, Mr. Speaker, we're taking a best
effort to determine sales volumes in this province and that's the best we can
do.
The
Member opposite also seems a bit surprised that we haven't figured out all the
answers to this yet. It is the largest public policy shift that this country has
seen in decades.
Mr.
Speaker, they seem to want to indicate to the general public and people who are
listening and people in the House that this is a brand new product, never ever
been sold. Well, it's the first time it's been sold legally. The first time it's
been regulated by government. Mr. Speaker, the benefits of that is people can
rely on a product that they know is not laced with other products, that they
know is not laced with other drugs. We know from media reports and health
reports that oftentimes elicit marijuana or cannabis products are laced with
other ingredients.
Mr.
Speaker, we've seen fentanyl, for example, which has caused deaths. So people
across Canada have been asking for a regulated product, because it's there.
Whether we want to believe it or not people are buying it, and whether we want
to believe it or not people are using it, and whether we want to believe it or
not there is a market there for cannabis.
Now the
shock the Members opposite have is that we don't know what the sales volumes
are. Well, we're being honest. We don't know what the sales volumes are. So
we're giving a best estimate on what the fiscal forecasts will be for this
product as we sell it.
What we
are able to do, and the reason the federal government – we didn't choose to sell
this product. We didn't choose to legalize cannabis in this province. We didn't
choose to make this product legal. It's a federal decision. We understand the
merits of the federal decision. We're not arguing that. We understand the
merits, but we have to be ready.
The
federal government has said whether we are ready or not to sell cannabis,
whether we're able to supply cannabis in this province or not, they will make
the supply available. So we either allow it to be sold legally and we don't
collect revenue, or we regulate and retail cannabis through the Newfoundland
Liquor Corporation and at least get some revenue for it, because if we don't get
the revenue the federal government will.
Now,
back to the fact that by regulating this product, you're providing a product to
people that at least they know it's not laced with something like fentanyl. At
least they know it's not laced with a heavier drug that will get them hooked on
a different drug.
The
Member opposite said the big concern or one of the big concerns is that it might
cause addictions issues. Well, the argument to that is we might stop or at least
reduce product being sold that's laced with other products which does cause a
greater addictions issue than cannabis itself.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, one of the reasons, as I said, is to ensure that the product is not
laced with other elicit products. The other is that people buying cannabis now
don't always know whether or not it's grown with fertilizers or pesticides or
other products that may create additional health concerns. At least by
regulating it we have some control, and we can control the strength of the
product that's being sold as well. That's something else – when you're buying it
you don't always know the potency of the product you're buying.
Is it
ideal that it's going to be legalized? You know, there are grey areas. The
reality is until we actually legalize it and start dealing with the product
that's legalized and regulating it, which may create some advantages in reducing
what's being – products that are being laced or products grown with fertilizer
or pesticides that may create other issues.
Part of
it here, Mr. Speaker, is that it's already being sold. We have people driving
who are using it. That's probably not going to change a great deal when it's
legalized. What will change is we know the product is regulated. We know what is
being sold, at least through the retail outlet. Some people will choose to buy
it through the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation because it's a product they can
have more confidence in as opposed to buying it on a street corner.
When we
say there are grey areas – because this is the largest public policy shift that
Canada has seen in many decades, there are grey areas. The Member opposite who
introduced this said he was looking at Colorado and they're still learning.
Well, it is five years later and they are still learning and there are still
issues that Colorado have to deal with. Do we put it off five years?
Well, no
matter when you introduce the legalization of cannabis, which is not our
decision, it is not our policy, whether we choose to accept it or not, it will
be legalized by the federal government. So we're either on board and we're a
part of it and we put additional funding into education using the revenue that's
made, to put money into the education and to put additional money into law
enforcement from the revenue that's made, there's not going to be a lot of money
made from this. We've been upfront about that. We've been upfront about that
from the very beginning.
There's
not a lot of revenue from this product but at least we can use the revenue as
opposed to it going into the hands of organized crime or criminals. We can use
the revenue to put it into law enforcement to help deal with the issues that
already exist, because people are using cannabis today. They're already using
it. We can put money into education from the profits.
Mr.
Speaker, if we don't provide this product, a safer product because it is
regulated, people are buying it anyway and that is the reality. Now, I don't
know why that comes as such a surprise to Members opposite, but this product is
being sold and it's been sold for many decades. The product that was sold many
decades ago was perhaps much safer than the product that's sold today.
That's
part of the reason the federal government has indicated they have a desire to
legalize cannabis because it is not always safe today. People can't always have
confidence in what they're buying on the illegal market today but they're using
it, and you're not going to stop the usage of cannabis by not legalizing it.
You're not going to stop people from purchasing or using the product simply
because you don't legalize it.
So the
benefits are we can put the proceeds from the sale of a regulated product that
is more reliable to the people who have a desire to purchase and use. We can
take the funding, the proceeds from that and put it into legalization, put it
into law enforcement, put it into ticketing, put it into education.
Mr.
Speaker, we don't yet know, because we haven't been in the market, all of the
details of what this product is going to bring when it's legalized. We know many
of the issues that are out there now. There are social issues, there are
addictions issues, there are issues with product that's not safe.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, if we can take some of the profits out of the hands of criminals,
that's a good thing. If we can reduce the element of organized crime, well
that's a good thing. If we can provide a product that people are going to use
anyway but it's a regulated product where there's no fear of having fentanyl in
the product, or no fear of having it laced with other drugs, well then that's a
good thing.
Am I
excited about this, Mr. Speaker? We've got to deal with it. I'm not excited. I'm
not excited that it's being legalized, but I do see the benefit that the federal
government has outlined in the legalization, and I've just outlined some of
those benefits. I know my colleagues, the Minister of Justice is going to speak
to this and outline some of the benefits.
I'd
rather a world, Mr. Speaker, where there was no drugs. I would rather a world
where there was no cannabis, but whether we legalize it or not, it is being sold
and many times what's being sold is simply not safe.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to rise today to speak to this private Member's resolution.
I looked
at and certainly listened to the commentary from the Minister of Finance in
regard to this particular resolution. He sort of alluded to the fact that this
is about being for or against legalization of cannabis and what this resolution
is about. In fact, it's not. It's about the preparatory work that's required. He
has indicated, and others have indicated, significant public policy change in
Canada. That's what we're talking about here. Any time you have a significant
public policy change, that ripple effect goes throughout society, all relevant
areas of society and all elements of the regulatory framework within that
society.
What the
concern has been and what we've heard is that preparatory work that needs to be
done to answer those questions and to prepare for, as he says, a significant
public policy change in Canada is available to the extent it can be, recognizing
there are areas that need to be discovered as we roll it out. Some of the things
we're talking about here and what we've talked about in the past number of
months have not been available and still not are available in regard to
particular answers to questions on how this is going to work. That's the issue
we're debating today in this resolution and talking about answers to good
questions prior to legalization so the public in general has that information,
has that understanding of how this is going to work.
One of
the parts of this actual resolution was to look specifically at the information
that's been collected and gathered by the current administration to date in
bringing this significant public policy change to the province. One of the parts
of this was asking for analysis. Obviously, government would have done some
analysis in regard to the impacts of legalization on Newfoundland and Labrador
looking at the social aspect of it, the medical side of it and the fiscal side
of it.
We've
had discussions with the minister and I wrote him and asked for information in
regard to the expected forecast for the sale of cannabis, looked at the
implementation costs. We had discussions today in regard to what the federal
government input would be as this is an agenda that's been driven by the federal
government and the decisions by the Trudeau government to legalize cannabis.
I
understand there are discussions between the minister and his federal colleagues
in regard to what that help would be for the federal government. That needs to
be defined. What are the implications on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,
specifically to a cost? There should be no costs burdened by the taxpayers of
Newfoundland and Labrador for this public policy change.
So as we
go through the resolution too, it talks about the impacts of legalization;
monitor, evaluate and respond to the impacts in real time; address any social
and medical consequences as they arise; talk about protecting people from
marijuana-impaired drivers and how that would work, what are the protocols in
place for that to make sure people are aware of it and the public is protected;
and also protect people from second-hand exposure to marijuana products. As we
know, we went through that over the years in regard to cigarette smoke and those
types of things in public places and how that was dealt with. And the important
one: Compensate our province promptly and fully for any net negative fiscal
impacts of legalization.
When the
minister spoke, he talked about it was a federal initiative. It was brought on
by the federal government. Other jurisdictions in Canada have certainly looked
at it differently in regard to how they factor in because of the unknowns and
because of all the questions – I look at someone like Saskatchewan in regard to
what they've projected in their budget, and even some of the things they've
talked about and how they wanted to move forward with it.
There is
ability to dialogue with the federal government and look at the fact that it is
a significant public policy change. Is the timeline sufficient to make sure we
are where we need to be in regard to making those changes and the people in our
society being fully informed to the best that they possibly can be? Government
has provided those regulatory frameworks in a whole list of areas that are
indicated in this resolution to the best of their ability to make sure that
people have a comfort level with it.
That's
all that this is about, and it's all what the debate and discussion is about. As
the minister said, it's not about being for or against; it's about this is
coming. Is the timeline allotted to do it appropriate? It is a federal
government direction. How's it going to be done? Can people have a level of
comfort?
These
areas that have been identified are those areas that we believe, and I guess
we've heard from other individuals in society and certainly in our districts and
across the province in regard to items and questions that they're still waiting
to hear about. That's what this is about, to make that information available,
show the analysis, show the work that has been done so we can give somewhat of a
comfort level to the people of the province in that regard.
Mr.
Speaker, another component of it as well is related to small business
opportunity that exists with the legalization of cannabis. I've known – probably
many people here in the House have had questions or inquiries from people in
their districts in regard to small business, entrepreneurs, people that want to
be entrepreneurs, people that currently have business and want to expand into
possible retail sale in regard to cannabis.
There
has been some frustration I know in regard to some that I've dealt with in
questions related to setting up small business and getting into the industry. I
had one gentleman that I spoke to from my district I know that was very
frustrated in regard to Health Canada. He went and wanted to put an application
in. The application he was told to put in was related to medicinal marijuana or
medical marijuana that's used today and to be a retailer from that perspective,
yet he was looking at the commercial side of things when it's legalized in a
commercial operator related to cannabis. That was the application that he put
in, so he went down a long road of trying to get distinguished away from that
and to the point of being a commercial operator when actual legalization occurs.
Again,
he talked about Canopy Growth. There was a deal done with that national producer
and what they were doing here in the province and how that would impact the
ability of a local grower to do what they need to do, and the volume that they
would need to produce to make a small business profitable. If you have a large
supplier coming in, it can take most of the market. Obviously the ability of
that smaller operator or smaller producer to produce enough to be
self-sufficient and to grow causes some concern.
Those
were issues that were identified from that small business owner, as well as
looking at the fee that needs to be charged in regard to Health Canada, the
amount, the start-up costs, those types of things. The question was: Why is one
large outside firm coming in and we're providing significant benefits – now,
some will say we're not paying out cash. No, we're not paying out cash but we
are giving remittance in regard to taxes they would pay if there was anybody
else coming into the province or someone locally that was setting up to pay.
That's money that's not going into the Treasury.
If
someone was coming in, starting that type of operation that's supposedly going
to hire X amount of employees, was going to buy materials, was going to build
their infrastructure, build their premises, have expenditures, all of that would
be taxed and, obviously, that would remit back into general revenue. What this
does is saying there's $40 million that's not going to go into that Treasury
comparable to anybody else that would come in and set up. That was another issue
from the business perspective that we heard from in regard to looking at it.
As I
mentioned before, some other jurisdictions and what they're looking at:
Saskatchewan's budget 2018 doesn't include a figure because they were concerned
that no one knows what the cost and revenues will be. They took a different
approach.
Just the
budget from Saskatchewan and their documents, they stated: “In part because it
remains unclear exactly when legalization will occur, and because the size of
the cannabis market and the anticipated retail price are difficult to predict,
making it challenging to accurately forecast potential revenue.” That was some
of the concern in that jurisdiction in regard to budgeting and putting together
a 2018 budget.
The
internal cost benefits here are not clear in regard to – we passed legislation
here a little while ago in regard to the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor
Corporation in regard to this would be parallel, the current situation with the
sale of alcohol in the province. The intent was that would be parallel to that,
but that was only very – not a lot of detail as you expand out from that, of how
that would work and the regulatory framework for all of that.
Even in
the last couple of days, we've had questions here in the House and media stories
in regard to different campaigns that are being run by retail sales now or
different venues that are set up in downtown St. John's and what they're
offering, and whether what they're offering in regard to doing promotions right
now before it's legalized is even legal, should they be doing it. There was
reference from the minister yesterday in regard to there are grey areas, we're
not sure, we're not sure if it's legal or not. All of these questions continue
to be out there in the general public.
Again,
it gets back to when I started about what this resolution is about. It is about
taking the time to make sure a significant shift in public policy in Canada
that's being directed by the federal government in our jurisdiction, and we can
make that call, it's done and it's done properly. So that all our, have some –
obviously, all the questions can't be answered, but have a much better
understanding than we do today in some of those variables I talked about.
From the
business side; again, there are other areas we need to look at in regard to the
impacts of online sales, cross-jurisdictional trade. How would that work in
regard to, we have a new Canada free trade agreement in regard to the exchange
of different product across our lines and across our jurisdictions, in two-fold
based on production and, as well, based on retail sales. How does that work and
how is that monitored?
It's
extremely important in terms of if we're going to do this from the business
perspective of the small business operators, all of those have the benefits and
opportunity to either expand a current business or, in fact, to – a young
entrepreneur who wants to start a company like I referenced earlier, how does
that work, and they're not getting frustrated, can't invest and can't do what
they need to do.
Just a
week or two ago I had a discussion, had a call from an entrepreneur in downtown
St. John's who talked about the fact there were three or four medical marijuana
outlets set up. They were functioning now. He had questions in regard to, do
these automatically roll over into commercial sites? Once it's legalized, what
are the implications of that? Do they have to reapply? What are the rules around
them in terms of their operations and all those sorts of things? So there are a
large number of questions in regard to that. If we revert to the Newfoundland
and Labrador Liquor Corporation and how they operate with the sale of alcohol,
it's very clear today if you go in and look to set up an outlet or wanted to
apply for an outlet for alcohol in a retail set-up, what the parameters are,
even the branding and packaging and the marketing, all of that is very clear on
what you need to do.
Yet,
with this here, there are some concerns in regard to how that would roll out.
Even talking to people, trying to get those answers is difficult and to get
fully versed in what it means.
The
other area – and I think my colleague may have spoken to it earlier, who brought
in the resolution – is related to the whole social side and I guess the work
environment and particular pieces of legislation. I know the minister yesterday
suggested that there was legislation that hasn't even come to the floor of the
House yet. But we're moving forward with legalizing it and some of the areas are
areas like occupational health and safety in regard to people in the workplace,
how is it monitored, what's the liability in terms of what happens in the
workplace; the human resources side of it, in regard to the use of it in the
workplace; all of those things are extremely important as we look at it.
Obviously the Highway Traffic Act, I
think my colleague mentioned that as well, in regard to knowing if someone's
under the influence of cannabis. There are many discussions about the actual
testing and if there's any legitimate testing out there today to actually
demonstrate that someone is under the influence. Most would concur that there is
not. So that's a concern and we need to work through that.
In terms
of the age and accessibility to cannabis certainly from an educational point of
view, certainly thinking about our youth at a young age, junior and high school
in regard to educating, in regard to the age of accessing cannabis and the
effects it can have on our youth and the growing youth and the effects that it
have biologically are all important aspects of this.
This
resolution, as I said when I started, is about a number of factors that are
outlined in the actual resolution document in regard to analysis and information
and taking the time to make sure, when we do this, we do it right; we have the
best information we possibly can have, recognizing not all information will be
available. But the very scarce pieces of information that we have today is not
good enough, and that's what this resolution is all about. If you don't have the
analysis, if you don't have the work done, let's slow this down. Lobby the
federal government to slow it down so we can get this done and get it done
right.
The
decision has been made on it, but let's do it right and make sure we do the best
job we can for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, not just
today but for the next generation as well.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for
the opportunity to speak to the private Member's motion today.
As the
Minister of Finance has already pointed out, this is a major policy shift when
it comes to Canadian decisions. The federal government has decided to legalize
cannabis.
Our
government has been working very diligently, since the date has been announced
and the legislation federally has been moved to legalize cannabis for
recreational purposes in all provinces and territories of Canada. We had an
interdepartmental committee that was established.
One of
the responsibilities of my department, being the Minister of Tourism, Culture,
Industry and Innovation, was to ensure from an industry point of view that we
had a supply and distribution system for cannabis here in Newfoundland and
Labrador. If you look across Canada there are 97 current licensed producers.
Every other province currently has a licensed producer. We do not.
What we
did – and it was an agreement that was entered into in December of 2017 – we
entered into a supply agreement with Canopy Growth Corporation. That would
ensure that we would have a world-leading diversified cannabis company operating
a collection of diverse brands, supported by over 3 million square feet of
indoor and greenhouse production capacity in use under our province. As a
result, we have secured up to 8,000 kilograms of cannabis and cannabis-related
products annually for a two-year period, with an option to extend to a third
year.
In
return as well for this agreement, Canopy has committed to build a production
facility here. They are going to create 145 jobs. With no licensed producer of
cannabis in Newfoundland and Labrador, it was important to ensure that we had a
secure and safe supply in advance of the implementation from the federal
government.
We've
guaranteed supply, but this doesn't preclude buying cannabis from any of the
other licensed producers across Canada. Actually, the NLC has gone out for a
request for information, an RFI, making sure that if there are gaps that need to
be filled or consumer or a different variety of choice in terms of oil, flowers
or seeds of cannabis, that opportunity is there. There is no obligation to
purchase, but the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation is certainly
doing its due diligence to make sure that Newfoundland and Labrador is amply
prepared.
Since
we've entered into a supply agreement with Canopy Growth Corporation in December
last year, we've had multiple inquiries from a number of other licenced
producers or people that are interested, some would be locally owned, some would
be a joint venture or other initiatives with current licenced producers across
Canada throughout this whole process. So we're dealing with that process of
multiple inquires as well.
What
we've done here in Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that we're really
building an industry here by entering into an agreement with such a world
leading company that is going to invest in research and development, there's a
cost-shared agreement of a million dollars over five years.
We can
work with some of our academic institutions, such as Memorial University and
their berry labs on the West Coast, as well as the Botanical Gardens at MUN
here, the College of the North Atlantic. There could be health research that
would be happening as well through our health authorities or at the School of
Medicine with Memorial University.
There
are a number of things that can build that skillset and focus on the
intellectual property. Importantly, it is to have raw product here in
Newfoundland and Labrador that's going to be growing the cannabis but also the
oils that will be done here, because currently it's not. If it's not being
produced here then it would be imported, and we would not have those jobs. We
would not be able to build the industry we have set forward.
There's
going to be a $55 million investment and Canopy has the opportunity to recoup up
to $40 million through reduced sales remittances. There are no tax dollars that
will be going into that.
They
also have a craft grower program, where they could support smaller producers as
well. That's a very important initiative when you're looking at the safety side.
Currently, cannabis is illegal. People who are purchasing cannabis right now are
purchasing it from individuals. They don't know the quality of the product. They
don't know if there are chemicals, if there's fentanyl, if it's laced with
harder drugs, if it's leading to higher level of addictions or creating further
problems.
We do
know in other jurisdictions that have legalized cannabis, such as in the
Netherlands, there is a lower usage of cannabis amongst teenagers. It is a legal
product that is regulated. Once you regulate a product, you can ensure the
quality and that it is safe. It is safe for consumer use and public consumption.
Newfoundland and Labrador is in a very strategic location, given we're only
five, five-and-a-half hours from the UK. We're four hours to Ireland, direct
flights. The ability to get into the EU with CETA, and the comprehensive
economic trade agreement with the EU, to get product, we're the closest to a
consumer market of hundreds of millions of consumers.
When I
was in the Czech Republic just in Christmas, Mr. Speaker, you could actually
purchase cannabis-related products, edibles in the form of chocolate, gummy
bears, lollipops, alcohol infused cannabis as well, purchased at duty-free
stores, purchased at retail outlets. It's a product that is being found in many
retail outlets across Europe.
The
current stage, step one, is around the production and the legalization of the
flowers, the seeds and the oils; but, no question, the edible market is also
going to be a long-term growth market for Newfoundland and Labrador. First you
build supply and production, create those 145 jobs, plus there will likely be
other cannabis operators that are going to produce and supply and create jobs
here.
You'll
see craft operators. You're also going to see where we use the Newfoundland and
Labrador Liquor Corporation through a retail model through an RFP where upwards
of 41 stores initially would be operating throughout Newfoundland and Labrador,
creating private sector job growth and going through a well-regulated process.
You will see the research and development side of things from an industry
development for safety and for the opportunities.
The
Leader of the Official Opposition talked about, a couple of times here in this
House, around PTSD. The Minister of Service NL, who's responsible for
WorkplaceNL, has previously committed to and they've been taking initiatives
through WorkplaceNL to advance PTSD in the workplace and other initiatives.
There are studies that have linked cannabis and PTSD. There is research and
development that can take place here in Newfoundland and Labrador around that or
other initiatives, whether it's soils, nutrients and all types of components.
When
you're looking at further economic development beyond the shipping and the raw
products, I wanted to talk something about secondary processing for the edible
market because there's a significant amount – being the minister responsible for
small business, there are a number of local companies that produce products
right here in Newfoundland and Labrador that would be interested in cannabis,
secondary processing and the edible market that would have Newfoundland brand
and products that would be interested for the world market to do further
exports.
So we
see where the supply chain can really be benefited, companies in food and
beverage, around cannabis in a controlled way. It's a planned approach. Every
step that we do as a government is a plan, it's very systematic, it's
thoughtful, it's evidence-based and this why we have an inter-departmental
committee that's working very closely. This is why we're getting so much work
done in such a short time frame with – I have to give kudos and accolades to the
small team of people at TCII and across the Departments of Finance, Health and
Community Services, Children, Seniors and Social Development, Justice, the
interdepartmental committee members, the NLC and the work that they have been
doing to make sure that we've gotten this far.
We've
already seen that in the fall we introduced legislation, that's been passed,
it's been advanced to allow for the retail model to come into place. We'll see
legislation in the spring sitting of this House that will deal with the other
regulatory matters that I'm sure the Minister of Justice will get into as he
adds to the debate and discussion. Because there is concern around making sure –
by the Opposition, they've been putting forward a lot of fear out there that
this government won't be ready. Well, this government certainly will be ready.
We have
been taking initiatives and steps to ensure that we are ready. We've had our
counterparts across other provinces reach out to us because we have a very
robust, a very progressive way of which we've been moving forward and making
sure that we are an open market, that we do have opportunity for business and
economic development. But we also make sure that we have the safety as top of
mind when it comes to making sure that people are trained here for enforcement
and making sure that people who are actually going to be selling the product
will be trained, will be knowledgeable, and will be able to ensure that from a
consumer point of view they will have a positive experience. That is certainly
important.
When we
look at training opportunities, there will be a requirement for engineers. There
will be very specific food specialists, quality control. There are a variety of
high-level jobs that will come when you're looking at manufacturing and growing
a product. There are a number of initiatives that we can do. But if you don't
take those first steps – because this is a product that will become legal, and
we can either be behind the times or we can be champions and we can actually
lead in a way that ensures that Newfoundland and Labrador has economic
opportunities for this product within our borders and outside our borders. We
are most strategically located to capitalize and tap into the European
marketplace. If you look at the fact that Toronto is three, 3½ hours by plane
then we are so much closer when it comes to looking at Europe and getting to
that marketplace.
I wanted
to point out that we've done a number of things very methodically, in a way that
looks after the people of the province, that ensures that there are jobs, that's
there's investment, that there's production, that can help benefit small
business as well throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. We really see where
production, job creation, supply chain development and research and development
in this province will be a significant benefit, and that this is something that
needs to be led by the private sector.
It is
the private sector that is the significant job creators here in Newfoundland and
Labrador. We are certainly very pleased that currently with the agreement that
we have with Canopy, that they're on track with its timelines, that the company
has been advancing its initiatives. As well, like I said, and the Minister of
Finance has noted, that everything is being done in order to meet the market
demand for cannabis for consumers in the province; the NLC, through their
request for information, if they're aware of any other licensed cannabis
producers who are interested in supplying our partner. We're continuing to have
those discussions. They want to make sure that there are suppliers that have
been linked and listed with Health Canada, and will have a supply of non-medical
cannabis upon the legalization date.
It's all
about making sure that we are ready and that are prepared. We have not been
dragging our heels, Mr. Speaker. We've actually been working very hard. We've
been working closely with all the other departments that are linked with this
major policy shift, and we've been taking actions.
We've
been also getting all the other work that's needed to get the economy on track.
We were left with an incredible mess by the Members opposite, a $2.7 billion
deficit that's now been reduced, in this year's budget, to just under $700
million, and that's quite significant, by steps taken by the current Minister of
Finance, the past minister of Finance to make sure that we have a seven-year
plan and our team.
We're on
track, we're meeting our targets, we're meeting our deadlines and we see that
Newfoundland and Labrador sees an opportunity here when it comes to cannabis,
cannabis production and supply, but it must be done in a safe and a way of which
is responsible. That's something that this government will be – we will be
responsible as the implementation rolls out.
Thank
you for the time to speak to this private Member's motion, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand and speak to this private Member's motion. We will not be
supporting this motion. Not only should there be no delay, the legalization of
cannabis is long overdue. We all know that. We know that across the province. We
know that across the country. People across the world know that as well. Many
lives have been destroyed because of the criminalization of the use of cannabis
and it's time to end that.
We know
that already the date for legalization has been pushed, it's still in the hands
of the Senate. We don't know when that will come down, the decision and
recommendations from the Senate. Then there will be an adaptation time, a
readying time after that Senate decision comes down as well. So it's already
been delayed. We do not have to formally ask for this kind of delay.
For too
long, Mr. Speaker, for far too long Canadians have been unfairly persecuted by
law enforcement for possessing and consuming cannabis, something that people
have been doing for decades. We have seen many lives ruined. We've seen the
incarceration of young people. We've seen how the incarceration has affected
their future employment, has affected the lives of their families. It has to
stop. It's crucial that it has to stop.
Once we
do see – it was July 1, and we don't know now. No one quite knows what that date
will be. We assume it will be beyond July 1, but we're in a time of uncertainty.
I do not believe we are going to see a sudden explosion of cannabis usage. For
the most part, already because of the underground economy, people who want to
use cannabis are finding a source of cannabis. It becomes trickier because at
times they don't know exactly what they're getting and there are safety factors
involved in that.
It is
important that this be a regulated substance, like our foods are regulated, like
our water is regulated, like our alcohol products are regulated. It is important
that this, too – this is about the safety of the people of our province. I
support that. I certainly support that; however, I don't want to dwell on that.
What I would like to speak to this afternoon are the missed opportunities that
the legalization of cannabis may have presented to our province and that we may
be missing.
Government loves to speak of viable, innovative and entrepreneurial industries.
They love these buzzwords, and perhaps cannabis could have fit into this. It
certainly isn't in their plan right now, and that could be very much a missed
opportunity for the people of our province.
Government is touting their support for the agricultural industry. This is
agricultural. They're talking about their support for innovative technology and
we know cannabis is not about putting a few seeds in a pot and putting a few
seeds in the ground, that it's a high-tech industry.
This was
an opportunity for our own people in Newfoundland and Labrador, for businesses
that are embedded in Newfoundland and Labrador, that are owned by people in
Newfoundland and Labrador to have been able to get into this on the ground
floor. Instead, what this government has done is given a break – albeit through
remittance – to a multinational company that is growing. This multinational
company is growing much like InBev is growing. InBev owns Labatt; InBev owns
Anheuser-Busch Hauser. They own a number of beverage companies all over the
world, and that's what Canopy Growth is doing.
Canopy
Growth certainly is growing. They are buying up cannabis producers, both
recreational and medical, all around North America and probably also doing
business offshore as well. Why the government has chosen to go in that direction
rather than investing in local companies who could also do the same thing – it
would take them longer to get set up and to operate, absolutely; however, what
government could have done is they could have secured a supply from Canopy
Growth, from a number of suppliers on an interim basis until our own folks who
should be able to access government support to be able to get into this new area
of growth, but they chose not to do that.
Instead,
what they have done – and we know they're not getting tax money, we know they're
not getting grants – they have reduced remittances. So this becomes just an
issue of semantics. It's still public money; public money that's being invested
into this multinational company. Again, it's a missed opportunity.
There
were possibilities. We have excellent chemists and people in Grenfell who are
doing great work in the area of agricultural advances, also chemistry folks and
engineers within our educational system, within MUN. This was an opportunity.
Why did
government choose instead – why did they not open this up to local entrepreneurs
to say we will support you to help you get these companies off the ground? So
you know what they did? Instead, they've engaged a multi-national company,
giving them a break with public money of $40 million. They will create some
jobs, but so would our local entrepreneurs.
But what
happens with the profits from this multi-national company? They don't stay in
our province. Those profits leave our province. We know what happens when there
are local businesses; those profits stay in the province. They're used in the
province. This is a missed opportunity.
So, in
fact, what government has done is that they are giving a financial break to the
equivalent to ‘weed Walmart.' Would government give Walmart the equivalent of
$40 million of public money to set up shop here in Newfoundland and Labrador? I
think not.
But
let's take a look at this. Again, this is a multi-national company who's going
to get the benefit of $40 million directly from government, who will be almost
the sole supplier of their product in Newfoundland and Labrador. So they will
also get the profits from those sales. And you can be darn sure, Mr. Speaker,
that every cent of profit is going to leave this province. It's not going to
stay in Labrador and it's not going to stay on the Island. It will be flying out
the door.
So we
can't imagine government giving a break of public money to Walmart to sell weed,
to grow weed and to sell weed, but that's what this is equivalent to. I believe
it's shocking and it's shameful and it's so short-sighted, Mr. Speaker. This was
an opportunity to support local entrepreneurs in a high-tech industry that's
also linked with the agricultural industry. Again, we know that it would have
taken longer to get set up. However, there were opportunities to secure safe
supplies, because I believe that it's important to ensure that we have a safe
supply for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador once cannabis does become
legalized. And they gave it away. They gave that opportunity away.
The number of jobs that could have been generated within
this province by a local company who then also could export, not only serving
the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador but they also could be a point of
exporting. They could actually develop product and export it on the
international market – missed opportunity. They were asleep at the wheel at
this. I don't know what they did. Maybe they panicked. Maybe that's what it was;
they panicked and ignored the opportunities that were before the people of the
province.
So who controls the supply? Who's going to get the benefits
of the profits of the sales? Because again, most of the product in Newfoundland
and Labrador will come from Canopy Growth, so that's a missed opportunity. ‘Weed
Walmart,' that's what we're going to get, Mr. Speaker.
We thought, here in our caucus, that the best way to sell
the product would be through a model we already have. A model that is secure,
that is dependable, that provides good people good jobs for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and that's through our Newfoundland and Labrador
Liquor commission.
We already have people who are well trained in the
retailing of regulated substances. They do that through the sale of alcohol.
They know what they're doing. They're well trained, they're proud, they know
their products and they know what it means to make sure that products are not
sold to minors.
We already have an infrastructure in place right across the
province in a number of different approaches, whether it be the liquor
expresses, whether it be a full Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Commission
outlet. That infrastructure is there, the staffing is there – we might have to
increase the staffing, but those are good jobs with good benefits that are
sustainable jobs embedded within communities right across the province. But they
missed that opportunity as well.
Instead, now, they put out a request for proposal, and the
ideal model they want was they had four tiers, examples of four different tiers to sell cannabis in the province. Tier
one was their ideal tier and that was a retail outlet dedicated solely to the
sale of cannabis. That's what they were hoping for. Now, we know their request
for proposals closed at the end of last month.
We've
asked the minister's department, we've also asked the liquor corporation how
many applications they got for tier one, how many applications they got for tier
two, and they're not telling us. I'm not sure why there's being secretive. It
reminds me of the secretive behind the scenes deal that this government made
with Canopy Growth. It was a secret behind the doors, late at night deal. We
were asking about it in the House for weeks before the deal was announced and
they said, no, there's no deal happening; but, in fact there was, Mr. Speaker.
We also
don't know how many proposals were submitted for this request for proposal
because we know their tier one model doesn't work. If a gram of cannabis is sold
the retail price is $10, and if the retailer gets an 8 per cent commission, they
would have to sell almost 500 grams of cannabis a day just to cover their costs.
It's not possible. It's not possible for retailers across the province to be
able to do that.
Now
they're saying they want to support independent and local retailers and
entrepreneurs to be part of the sale of cannabis but it's not possible on the
business model they are presenting. I know because I'm an owner of two small
retail operations, and many of us here in this House know that and we've spoken.
I've spoken to a number of people who were getting their businesses ready to be
able to respond to the request for the proposal and they've all folded. They
said it's not economically possible. It simply isn't possible. The model does
not work.
Now the
liquor commission may say that's the commission we take for the sale of alcohol,
but the sale of alcohol is happening in that case when there's a commission of 8
per cent in stores that are selling all kinds of things, convenience stores.
Buying a $35 bottle of rum and getting an 8 per cent commission is very
different than someone coming in and buying a $10 gram of cannabis; 80 cents,
that's what the retailer will get.
Mr.
Speaker, this government has ignored best approaches. This government has missed
opportunities on behalf of the people of the province. They are giving the
people's money away and they are preventing entrepreneurs from –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
– really having economic
opportunities.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand and speak to this private Member's resolution from the Official
Opposition.
Just for
those people that may choose to be tuning into this right now, basically, in a
nutshell without reading through the full thing, what we're dealing with today,
April 18, 2018, is the Progressive Conservative Official Opposition has asked
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to urge the Government of Canada to
delay marijuana legalization unless we can make assurances. They listed a number
of assurances here.
Now what
I guess I can say here – I have a number of things to say to this. The first
thing will be that I certainly will not be supporting the PMR from the Official
Opposition.
Sidebar
for just a second, I'm not going to speak about the – again, this is an
Opposition PMR. I'm not going to speak to the Leader of the NDP who just made a
number of comments. Her biggest issue, I think, was talking about government
won't even tell how many applications were made to NLC as it relates for
cannabis retailers. What I'll do is I'll inform the Member opposite; this is a
public document that was put out today that says there were over 80. So I would
direct her to that.
Again,
that wasn't from government. That's from Cannabis Newfoundland and Labrador
which is the off shooter subsidiary of the NLC. My advice to the Leader of the
NDP is before you criticize somebody get your facts straight. That's the first
thing, okay. She's saying we're misrepresenting, the comments themselves made
there were misrepresentation. That's a public document. Anyway, I digress; I go
back to the PMR by the Official Opposition.
I want
to lead off, Mr. Speaker, with just the premise. We are here April 18, 2018,
three months or so before what was intended to be the legalization date, July
2018, that was imposed by the federal government and the Leader of the Official
Opposition is saying delay it.
Just so
people aren't wondering, in case there's somebody that hasn't listened to
Open Line or any form of news show for
the last two-and-a-half years or so, the federal government has been talking
about this since 2015 – 2015. Now in 2018 the Opposition shows up a day late and
a dollar short and says: we think you should delay this. So the first question I
would say to them is where have you been? What have you been doing? Have you not
been watching the news?
Again,
I've answered my own question because, no, they haven't been watching the news
according to the questions they ask. That's the first thing I would say. I just
don't know what they're doing. They're had multiple sessions of the House to
discuss this. They haven't talked about it. They've missed the fact – they talk
about, what are we doing? There's a press release here published July 2017 that
talks about what the premiers are doing on this. Where was he then? What is he
doing?
Hopefully, the new Leader of the Official Opposition will be a little more on
the ball and will hopefully ask questions on a topic a little less than two
years after it was discussed publicly. That's what I'm hoping. I hope that works
out for them. Keep in mind, the Leader of Official Opposition talks as if this
is a provincial government decision. It's been known for some time this is
federally mandated. They've made quite clear, you will comply. You will come up
with your own regime and structure on how to address this huge public policy
shift, but if you don't, we're going to do it for you.
What
we've done here in our province is since that time we've been working diligently
to be ready for when that time comes. What he should also know, but clearly
doesn't, is a lot of the decisions we will make are based on federal government
decisions. The federal legislation has not even passed yet. What he would know
is if he talked to his federal colleagues, like Mike Duffy, Dave Wells, Fabian
Manning, they are the ones that are holding this up.
Do they
talk? I don't know. Maybe they can have a little chat and talk about what the
Conservative senators have been doing as it relates to this legislation up in
the Senate. I don't know if they meet. Maybe the relationship with them is the
same as they had with the previous federal government, which is when they go for
a meeting they end up out on the street corner after out in the snow and never
had a chat. I don't know.
Again, I
digress; I come back to the point here. Going by the tone of the questions asked
by the Leader of the Official Opposition, and going by his comments just a
couple of days ago when he spoke to the budget, the Member suffers from – and I
spoke to this in Question Period – he's putting out a
Reefer Madness mentality about this topic. Okay, I'm going to – as
I've done on many occasions, I don't need to say what I thought he said. I'm
going to use what he said.
He said
this just two days ago: “I was reading on some of the jurisdictions … where
they've legalized” it. “Colorado was the first one that legalized marijuana.
Their state has changed. There's no changing it back. Once it's changed, once
they legalize it, life, the focus of life and quality of life and all that stuff
is changed and it's never going to change back.”
That's
fear mongering type of stuff, Mr. Speaker. You're talking as if this is the end
of the world. These states changed years ago, and from what I recall they still
exist. They may have a new president that's caused some issues, but from what I
gather there has not been any kind of collapse in the State of Colorado,
Washington, DC, Oregon. It's not like all of a sudden – I've got to use one of
the comments here. I don't need to use the Member's words: “If we have a small
community and it has a skyrocketing usage of marijuana, what's the potential
impact?”
All of a
sudden the legalization date comes and everybody starts using cannabis, but I
don't need to just speculate on this. What I can do is rely on the best data we
have, because I rely on those things – what are they called – facts. That's what
I rely on.
I'm
going to use a little fact here. I'm going to rely on a little fact here. The
University of Calgary published a cannabis evidence series in 2017. The study
looked at the experience of other jurisdictions, and what they said is Canada
can expect negligible or modest increases in cannabis use. They also looked at
four different jurisdictions in the States: Colorado, Washington, DC, Oregon and
Washington State, talking about prevalence of use.
Colorado
and Washington, the prevalence did go up. Now one would say, well, here it is.
Here's the evidence. It went up, skyrocketed. Well, Colorado went from 26.4 per
cent usage to 31.2 per cent, and Washington, DC – that did actually go up a
little bit more – 11.7 per cent to 24.44 per cent.
Let's
look at Washington State and Oregon, both states upon the legalization, the
prevalence, the usage decreased. Washington State went from 26 per cent down to
23 per cent, and Oregon went from 24.7 per cent down to 24.5 per cent. So
contrary to the belief that the numbers will be skyrocketing, the evidence
shows, from looking at other jurisdictions, it won't.
I can
tell you, I personally met with the regulator from Oregon. This was a gentleman
that was involved in this process for the entire time. I sat down with him and
talked, and you know what? He looked all right. The state didn't seem to be
collapsing. He looked like things were all right.
The
other thing I'm going to do is I'm going to rely on another stat, and this is a
really interesting one because it's right here from Statistics Canada. It's a
survey that just coincidentally came out this morning. In the study it asks
people about current use of cannabis and their plans for use post-legalization.
Seventy-nine per cent of respondents said legalization would have no impact on
whether they would try it or increase it. So the assertion, the fear mongering
that all of a sudden we're just going to see a state of people, a province of
people that are intoxicated, impaired, is just not borne out by the evidence.
I would
still say – I'm not going to worry about evidence I guess. What I would say is
you know what? I still understand the concerns that are expressed by some out in
the community as it relates to road safety, as it relates to usage amongst kids.
There are concerns, and I appreciate that because I share concerns. That's why
I've spent the last two years working on this with my colleagues, with
bureaucracy, outside jurisdictions, my federal colleagues, the federal Minister
of Justice, the federal Minister of Public Safety and individuals in the States.
The fact
is when the feds talked about the legalization they had some main areas they
wanted – this is why they did it. It was still to ensure that it was kept out of
the hands of kids. But, this is a newsflash here, kids use marijuana, kids use
cannabis. It's being done right now. It's being done across the province. We
have, unfortunately, a higher percentage of usage right now than in other
provinces. So that is a concern.
The
concern was keeping the profits out of the hands of the black market, out of the
hands of criminals. The longer this is held off the more profit that goes to
that. Is that what the Member of the Opposition wants, for us to keep money
going in that area? I say, no. I prefer for us to continue on with legalization
plans.
The
other thing here is we wanted to talk about the reduction in criminalization.
The PMR talks about, what is the impact on corrections? What is the impact on
courts? We want less people going into our courts and going into our
correctional institutions for the usage of cannabis. Does he think there's going
to be more people going in? There's not. There are going to be less. That's the
whole purpose of it.
I went
out on a drive along with some RNC officers, and I saw them stop somebody with
marijuana, and the amount of time that went into that stop was ridiculous. They
even said it. It's just no need. It's absolutely no need. I understand there are
concerns, and we are going to do everything in our power to alleviate that. I
don't –
MR. K. PARSONS:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now, if the Member for Cape
St. Francis wants to ask me a question, I say get up and ask it, but I can't
hear you. I'll sit down, get up and ask.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair recognizes –
Order,
please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
(Inaudible) smoking marijuana? That's what you just said.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I refer the Member opposite
to every interview I've done for two years. No. The answer is no. It's not what
I said. My God, listen. Please, for the love of God, listen.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Obviously, you didn't listen;
driving along with the RNC (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order,
please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
I didn't say he was driving.
My God!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
My God, I can't –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
There's the problem. It's the
mentality of Members on the other side that's from the 1940s. Sorry, I don't
refer to the NDP; I don't refer to the independent Member.
The
Member opposite, what he's doing – there's prevalence in fear mongering. The
Member opposite has done zero research on this, zero. He hasn't done a tap. If
he did some of you would have spoken to this today, but he didn't speak to this
today.
MR. K. PARSONS:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
He didn't say a word, and
he's over there heckling about it now. Do you know what? He's attributing quotes
that were not there. Again, what I'll do is I'll continue to rely on those
things that scare them: facts and evidence – facts and evidence.
Now, we
have concerns but they are the concerns that are felt –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
The Members on the other side, Mr. Speaker, they're chirping over there and
talking, but they're not obviously listening to the news or any public outlets.
They've obviously not heard a single word I've ever said about this topic.
They've never said it, but they like to put out falsehoods. That's what
they're doing.
I'm
going to continue doing what we have to do, which is preparing this province for
the legalization of cannabis which is being imposed by the federal government.
We're going to take the money that comes in and we're going to put it into
education, into safety and into ensuring that this system rolls out in as smooth
a fashion as possible. I'll work with my colleagues in every other province who
are going through the same process right now.
The
Members opposite were so concerned that they wait until three months before they
say anything. It's amazing, it's amazing. They wait until three months before.
Talk about, you know, we're going to bar the door after – this is absolutely
amazing.
Again, I
say to the Member for Cape St. Francis, when you get a chance I'll send you over
a briefing book with everything I said so you can educate yourself on this
topic.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to get up and speak on this PMR today. I'll try to be a bit more calm
and more relaxed than our last speaker, because it's a serious issue and it's
one that's worthy of debate.
I just
want to dispel a couple of misquotes that have been said this afternoon. We are
not opposed to the legalization of marijuana. We have never stated that, ever.
We want to make sure it's done right. Make sure we're ready. It's not just –
they think they're ready. Okay. Right now to date, every time we ask a question,
we can't get answer.
Yesterday it was the win free weed for a year contest. My colleague from out in
Mount Pearl North had brought up: Minister, that's a grey area. He said to the
Minister of Finance: that's a grey area; we're not sure about that. That's fair.
I'm not criticizing that. That's a fair statement. I take him to being honest,
but every question asked by my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, that's
the answers we get back; very vague, not certain.
That's
not a matter of criticism, Mr. Speaker. We are saying do it right. How you can
turn that into being – like getting all out of sorts like we just seen. That's
not what we're saying. We've never felt that. We think this is a very serious
issue. It affects the people of this province.
Psychologically, the legalization of marijuana, it's not going to fill the
prison, no, but it's going to create unknown – unknown, and this is the problem.
A lot of unknown situations we're not really prepared for, or maybe we are and
we're not realizing we're prepared.
How
about the roadside test? We were just talking about policing today and it's
great news in my district, but if a police officer hauls someone in today and
they suspect they're under the influence of drugs, right now, as far as I know,
they have to go to a hospital to get a blood test. It's no easy task. It's hard
enough now if you pick up someone impaired you have to go to the breathalyzer.
You have to go get a blood test. There may be more or better products elsewhere
we are unaware of. There may be other training required.
The
Minister of Tourism was talking about educating ourselves, using our facilities,
like MUN and that, for more awareness. Education is key to a lot of this, Mr.
Speaker. I feel a lot of the general public are really uncertain about what the
impacts will be.
There
are lots of impacts that you can associate with. Do I think it's going to lead
to other drug uses? I don't know, I'm not an expert in that regard. I know
people feel that way. Some people go to the other end of the spectrum. That's
not where we're to – that's not where I'm to, anyway. I really feel it's
important enough, and in the PMR, to make sure we're ready.
All we
said when we did the PMR is we want to make sure; slow down, pause and reflect.
It's taking a six-month break, according to what we heard today, but take time
to make sure – and these were like one of the lines: “inform people of the
impacts of legalization; monitor, evaluate and respond to the impacts in real
time; address any social and medical consequences as they arise; protect people
from marijuana-impaired drivers.”
I think
that's one of the more important lines of all this stuff, because that's going
to be out there. We're legalizing it, we have to make sure we protect the
public. We say it's all about the people. That's a big one. If you're
marijuana-impaired, you shouldn't be driving. Just like being alcohol-impaired,
it's the same thing.
“Protect
people from second-hand exposure to marijuana products.” You got a smoking
entrance, what's the regulation on marijuana? I've travelled outside of this
province. I've gone to places where marijuana's legalized. It's kind of
loosey-goosey on the regulations. It's pretty much everywhere you go, you see it
around. When you're not familiar with that and you're not used to that, Mr.
Speaker, it kind of intimidates you a bit and you're kind of uncertain it fits
in.
I'm
going to just, on a personal note – it was last week, I told my colleagues. I
hauled into the parking lot of this store, a fast-food outlet, actually. As I
got out of the vehicle, there was a man and his daughter walking in. I could
smell the smell of marijuana coming, and it was no – they were sat in the car,
two people, windows down. Now it's still illegal. What they were doing was
illegal. I get that, but it just shows – I don't think a couple of years ago I
would have seen them that bold in a parking lot. I know I wouldn't.
We know
everything changes in our community. That's getting pretty bold. They would have
gone elsewhere; they would have tucked away somewhere away from the public eye,
but it's becoming normalized. Now we're normalizing something that's been
illegal forever and we're saying, fair enough.
Justin
Trudeau got a lot of votes for announcing this, a lot of support. A lot of
people in my own district in this province support that. We're not saying we
don't support it, but what's wrong – would we be irresponsible? I don't think
we're one bit irresponsible. We've been criticized from the other side on
whatever, and that's fair enough, that's politics, but how can you criticize us
for wanting to make sure this is done right? I really think that's the crux of
the issue.
My
colleague, the Leader of the Third Party, gets up and they're against our PMR.
She's in favour of legalization of marijuana. Well, thank you, so are we.
If you
read this closely, I don't think a lot of people would disagree with what is
written on this PMR. It makes a lot of sense. You can get up in antics back and
forth, and that's part of the House. I get that, that's fine. We all do it, and
I do it like the rest, but on this one we need to get it right. It's as simple
as that, Mr. Speaker, we need to get it right. We have all kinds of time.
There's no rush on it. I don't know where the rush is with this.
Members
opposite mention like the black market I'll call it. You go in a corner – that's
still going to exist. You won't stop that. You may reduce it; it's still going
to be there. There are still going to be dangers involved with black market
marijuana, what's in the product. That's still going to be an issue. You're
still going to have it affecting through society and through our youth. There's
a lot of uncertainty. A lot of people don't want their child or they don't want
their teen to be around marijuana. Now there's a barrier being removed. That's
fine.
Whether
I personally, me personally agree with this, I got my issues. I'll be the first
to say it, but I respect it's the federal government that's bringing this down.
It's brought in all provinces. It's a federal regulation. So, okay, that's it.
We'll live with it, but do it right. I don't see why we get up and we get a lot
of the antics and a lot of the back and forth. We're asking to do this right.
On that
note, there are a few other comments I'll make along the way, Mr. Speaker. I
felt it very important; that's where we stand. It seems like a lot of people in
this Chamber today are not getting where we're to with this. It's a simple
thing. We're not opposed to it but we want to make sure we're ready and take our
time and get it all right. At the end of the day, in five years' time, whether
it be in 10 years' time, we can look back and say at least we had the i's dotted
and t's crossed. We did it right.
I've
heard Members opposite say about some legislation over the time since I've been
elected, since 2015: you rushed it, you never got it right, you made mistakes.
Had you taken your time – what was the rush? It's simply the same thing I'm
asking them now, what's the rush?
Right
now, the federal government already pushed it back six months. So we're saying
take that time, get more if you need to and get it right. Now that could mean
having to oppose Justin, but I'm sure some over there probably would like – you
don't mind that, but not everyone. I encourage them to have a talk to him.
Mr.
Speaker, in order to measure the impacts of marijuana legalization you need to
gather in a great deal of data right now before the legalization kicks in. How
can you measure change without a good baseline data? This sees something and we
come back, what's the analysis? For a split second there I'll move off. Like we
say about carbon prices, what's the analysis? It's the same thing with
marijuana, what's the analysis?
If we
don't get anything as an Opposition it's important, it's incumbent upon us to
ask for those details. We have a job to do. As I say in this House, and we stand
up in our place all the time in Opposition, we have a job to do. We have to
oppose government. We have to ask questions. We have to make sure we get the
best legislation. We have to make sure our money is being spent properly. That's
our responsibility, not only to our districts, but to our roles, to government
and to the people of this province. This here is the same thing, Mr. Speaker.
Have all
baseline studies been done in the province on marijuana use, smoking prevalence,
health impacts and so forth? What studies will the province do to determine the
impact of marijuana use on smoking prevalence, for example? A great point. Will
the general behaviour of smoke be renormalized? Will progress we made in
anti-smoking campaigns be undone? We need to study that.
Will you
be gathering data on marijuana use, second-hand exposure in order to measure the
impact of the legalization of smoking related illnesses, lung disease,
cardiovascular disease, cancer and so forth? How will you determine the impact
of legalization on mental health and addictions?
We're
told today's marijuana is more potent than stains in the past, and some users
have mental health issues. Will our emergency rooms and mental health system be
ready to deal with that? Are we going to see first-time users showing up in
hospitals worried about what they are experiencing? Are we going to see
accidental overdoses? Will there be a educational campaign to warn people about
the possible impacts?
On that
note, Mr. Speaker, in the budget, I know it's the federal budget. I don't have
the numbers but I remember in the budget the cost to deal with the addictions
and education almost outweighed the revenues. That's fine, I guess it wasn't
about creating income and revenue for the province, even though I think deep
down that was the plan or behind the scenes there was some anticipation or hope
that it would be an extra source of revenue for all governments in all
provinces.
In the
line item, I noticed it was a moot point. I'm thinking like, we're creating
another layer of issues within our society. Again, I'll say that's the federal
government and we're accepting of that, but they're putting these numbers in
there in anticipation. They have not done the analysis to know what the real
results will be. So they need to slow down too, because I don't get the rush to
get this done other than a 2019 election to make sure you tick the box and that
was one of your election mandates you got completed, because there's a couple
that they never and they've gotten grief over it. I'm assuming this will be
another.
Right
off the bat, there's a delay in that. The carbon pricing that was coming in is
delayed. So there are a lot of things that I think they're going back to the
drawing board and rethinking to make sure we're not missing something. I
certainly hope it's the same thing with this one, Mr. Speaker, because as the
Minister of Finance said yesterday, there are a lot of grey areas, and we agree.
Absolutely, totally agree, there are a lot of grey areas as evidenced by his
commentary yesterday, and as evidenced a lot of days in this House by a lot of
comments he makes.
Mr.
Speaker, federal Bill C-45 is supposed to be about protecting young people from
exposure but avoid criminalizing youth. It will allow them to carry and
presumably use up to five grams of weed at a time. Where are they getting this
weed to? Will the penalties for supplying youth become so severe they will
likely have to turn to suppliers who are less afraid of penalties? Which means
organized criminals will be dealing with all sorts of other drugs? This is the
preverbal tip of the iceberg that sometimes I kind of personally sit back and
wonder – and I know probably you could go to the extreme on thinking this, but
that's very good.
When you
look at our youth, and I think the youth is one of the biggest factors that I
see with us in our province and our people is the youth. If we fail everywhere
else, we can't fail our youth. Our youth and our seniors cannot be failed. We
have to protect our youth. We're bringing in this legalization and it's been
heralded by a lot of youth across the country. I've talked to a lot of young
people who thought this was a great thing. I certainly hope it works its way
out, but do it right.
Mr.
Speaker, if a dealer offers many drugs they might choose a dangerous option
under marijuana when I reference youth. They might end up also with marijuana
that's contaminated with who knows what, an unknown potency. How at risk are
they?
The
minister stated earlier that this streamlining and having a supply of marijuana
– Canopy Growth are supposed to be coming here and whatnot – will eliminate that
issue. If they don't buy it from them and they go off to the other market, well
nothing is going to change. Then their argument is it's legal, you're allowed to
do it. You're not supposed to buy it off a supplier, but they're going to
probably do that.
There
are some other issues, too, Mr. Speaker. This is an issue when you look at it
socially. You have a youth, a group of youths, the local marijuana store –
picture this – is in your district, community. They know the people who work in
that marijuana store. They aren't going in to buy marijuana. They won't do it.
Even though it's going to be legal, there's going to still be that taboo thing.
It's like going and buying a pack of cigarettes when you're not supposed to.
For
youth, I'm talking teens, it will still be a socially awkward thing for a long
time. They are still going to go to the supposed black market. That's not fear
mongering, that's fact, Mr. Speaker. I think that's a very good point and it's
something that – among other things.
Mr.
Speaker, The Globe and Mail story
talked about certain chemicals and whatnot. In my last minute, I just want to
point this out. They purchased several hundred grams of dried cannabis from nine
dispensaries across the city, most of it marketed as medicinal. When they tested
this product for harmful contaminants, chemicals, mould and bacteria in a
federally certified laboratory using the same guidelines prescribed for Health
Canada for licenced marijuana growers and retailers, of the nine samples
The Globe tested, one-third of them
would not pass the safety standards set up by Health Canada for the regulated
medical medicinal industry. Three samples tested positive for bacteria with
numbers that exceeded federal standards, and one of those also tested positive
for potentially harmful mould. That's in a regulated facility, Mr. Speaker. It's
not a perfect science, I get that, and there are going to be mistakes. That's
one of many issues.
I'll
finish up with what has been my theme throughout this: We, as an Opposition, are
not opposed to the legalization of marijuana, but we want to make sure the
regulations are in place, we want to make sure people are safe. We want to make
sure, Mr. Speaker, we get it right and we do it right when we have the
opportunity.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise to close the debate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's
been an interesting afternoon. I'd like to begin my remarks, on speaking on
closing of debate first of all, in thanking Members of the House who
participated in the debate today. Some of the commentary you hear sometimes is
beneficial, sometimes it's not, but there was some of that as well, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to thank the Member for Ferryland for his comments, the Member for Conception
Bay South who we just heard from now, the Leader of the NDP this afternoon, also
the Minister of Finance who spoke directly after I first entered debate this
afternoon and the Minister of Justice. While I don't agree with what everyone
has said here today the fact about debate is it leads to a discussion. It
creates a discussion and an opportunity for an exchange of views.
What
this motion is about, Mr. Speaker, to get down to the actual basics of the
motion, the resolution asks that the House call upon the government to release
all the analysis on the impacts of the legalization of marijuana, including
social, medical, physical, economic, legal, penal, educational, residential, and
cross-jurisdiction impacts. Also, for the government to urge the Government of
Canada to delay the legalization until such time that all of this is known, and
that effective measures are in place to inform the people of the impacts; to
monitor, evaluate and respond to the impacts; address any social and medical
consequences as they arise; protect people from marijuana-impaired drivers;
protect people from second-hand exposure to marijuana products; and compensate
our province promptly and fully for any net negative fiscal impacts of
legalization.
Mr.
Speaker, when the marijuana debate started in the earlier days on the federal
level, one of the key aspects that we always heard – we always heard from the
federal government saying we want to take the marijuana out of organized crime.
That was one of the areas they wanted to do. They want to make sure there was a
solid product and that people knew exactly what they were buying.
I
understand those efforts, Mr. Speaker. I understand those goals, but the fact of
it is with that comes a risk. It's not fear mongering, as the minister said. Our
job is to ask questions in the Opposition. The minister stood up and wants to
quote me from Question Period. I'm fine, I'm okay with that. I don't have any
issue with that.
It gets
a little bit frustrating on this side, Mr. Speaker, when we ask questions of the
government about give us the facts, give us the analysis and tell us how you're
prepared for the impacts. What do you anticipate the impacts will be? They don't
have any of that. They haven't offered to table or give us any of those items.
I
referred in debate earlier today to a senator in the Senate of Canada, the hon.
Judith Seidman.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When she
rose to speak to Bill C-45, she talked about how 38 different countries – the
minister referenced to me in Question Period about go look at the senate and see
what some of the people in the senate are saying and I've done that. I'll read
the paragraph, Mr. Speaker: “And a cross-national peer-reviewed study published
in the journal of the Public Library of Science conducted to understand the
effects of cannabis legalization on adolescents found that cannabis
liberalization in 38 different countries” – it's supposed be legalization, I'm
sure –“was associated with higher levels of more frequent ….”
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
I count six separate
conversations. I just want to hear this gentleman speak. Please respect that. We
have a few minutes left for the debate.
The hon.
the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I had a
job to follow what I was trying to read here myself. I'm reading from an excerpt
of the hon. Judith Seidman, who is a senator, when she rose to speak to Bill
C-45. I'll read the paragraph again: “And a cross-national peer-reviewed study
published in the journal of the Public Library of Science conducted to
understand the effects of cannabis legalization on adolescents found that
cannabis liberalization” – it says liberalization but I'm sure it's supposed to
be legalization – “in 38 different countries was associated with higher levels
of more frequent cannabis use among teenagers.”
Mr.
Speaker, I think that's a pretty important factor. We've asked the government:
What is your analysis or study or impacts? What are you going to do to educate
the public? How are you going to protect our children and our youth? This study
referred to by the senator – which was a peer review published in the journal
the Public Library of Science –
identifies 38 different countries that saw an increase in use on legalization.
What are we going to do as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to ensure that we
don't have an increase in use in Newfoundland and Labrador?
One of
the comments the senator made is that she talked about “public health experts
have pointed out, the government's approach to regulating cannabis promotion has
far more in common with how to regulate alcohol ….” Mr. Speaker, the approach to
alcohol has failed to protect underage users. That's only one aspect that was
referred to. It's a lengthy commentary by the senator. I don't have time to go
through all of what she said today but I pulled it out. It was sent to me as an
interesting commentary.
I'll
tell you who sent it to me, actually, it was sent to me by an MLA in Nova
Scotia, John Lohr. I met John last year at a parliamentarian's conference. Mr.
Speaker, you yourself were there and probably met Mr. Lohr as well. Mr. Lohr has
been very outspoken about marijuana. He spoke to it in second reading in debate
in Nova Scotia.
When he
spoke to it he talked about his own personal experience and his own family
experience having had a son who had psychosis due to marijuana usage. MLA Lohr
lost his son to what they believe was psychosis from marijuana usage. I think
that makes him a bit of an authority on experience with a young person and the
usage of marijuana.
He has
spoken extensively in Nova Scotia on his own personal experience. I've spoken to
him myself and we've had discussion about marijuana because we know marijuana is
used in our communities throughout – not only Newfoundland and Labrador, in
Canada today.
When you
look at the aspect that legalization could increase usage, especially for young
people, then the authorities who are going to legalize it have a responsibility
to ensure they take steps to protect young people before its legalized. That's a
key factor because as my colleague here said, we're not standing up here
pounding our chests saying don't legalize marijuana. We're just saying do it
right because once it's done, it can't be undone.
I'll
refer to a jurisdiction in the United States and the minister referred to it as
well. In Colorado, there was an opinion piece – it's clear to say it was an
opinion piece that felt that Colorado is different today than it was five years
ago, being one of the first United States jurisdictions to follow a legalization
plan. Once those aspects of communities and so on change, it's virtually
impossible to change them back.
Mr.
Speaker, what we're looking for and what we're suggesting by this very bill this
afternoon is to say to the government: There's no rush, there's no panic,
there's no race to the finish line on this. The Minister of Tourism, Culture,
Industry and Innovation has said here in the House of Assembly we had to ensure
we had a supply. That's why they ran out and did the sole source with Canopy
Growth. In other provinces, they've had competitive processes that have great
outcomes that don't include $40 million gifts or offsets and supports to a
company to come in and set up.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Tax breaks.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Tax breaks, yeah. It's going
to be recovered through tax, I get all that, but it's the $40 million to say
come in here and operate when there was a competitive process they could have
followed. The minister takes the position: We had to find a source. I say to the
minister – I say to all ministers – you also have a responsibility to protect
people and protect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. You have a responsibility
to protect our youth and to protect our communities. You have a responsibility
to protect our health care system. What needs will come from the legalization of
marijuana? What happens to communities, families and workplaces?
What are
the rules going to be in workplaces? What's the rule going to be for a taxi
driver or for a person who operates heavy equipment? We don't know, Mr. Speaker.
We've asked for the analysis, we've asked for what the government has done to
ensure – and what we get back from them is, oh, but you guys did this and you
guys did that, you guys are fear mongering and you guys are something else, but
we don't get those answers.
Even
their own financial documents on the budget, they can't speak specifically to
what the sales are going to generate, what the cost is going to be and how much
money the federal government is going to pitch in so it doesn't cost
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to legalize marijuana. They can't give us a
solid answer. They're essentially making guesstimates. We think this is what
we're going to receive but we're really not sure. We think this is what
potential sales are going to be but we're really not sure. We think this is what
the costs are going to be but no one can give us an analysis to show us.
I know
the minister took some comments against my comments today about officials. I
have the fullest respect for officials in their department. I'm sure the
officials just didn't sit in a room and say: By the way, we came up with $28
million to $40 million is the cost or the revenue that's going to be generated.
I'm sure there was some documentation to say here's what we think and here's how
we've evaluated that.
We're
just asking for it. That's what we're asking for. Show us what you've done to
consider the potential implications of legalizing marijuana because once it's
legalized, you're not going to be able to un-legalize it again in the future.
It's just not going to happen. It just can't happen.
What's
being done to make advancements in the DRE program? What's being done for
training? Not only for training, but what's being done to educate the public so
they understand if you decide for the first time in your life you're going to
try marijuana, here are some things you should and shouldn't do. What kind of
development is happening for training programs and education programs?
Is it
going to be sold more akin to how alcohol is sold because NLC is doing it? Or is
it going to be more to tobacco products where they discourage people from
smoking and we hide it away now in store shelves. If you want to ask for
cigarettes you have to ask for it and someone has to open the secret compartment
to take it out. Right on the package it talks about the dangers to your health.
Is that what is going to happen with marijuana?
What
about second-hand smoke? I talked about public parks today and playgrounds. What
about in a campground when someone is allowed to have a beer on their campground
today. The person at the campground down the road, they can't smell that, but
they can certainly smell marijuana if you light up a joint.
What's
going to happen with edibles? Is there going to be a new market started for
edibles? Under the counter we're going to provide a special kind of edibles. How
is that going to be regulated?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Hash brownies.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, hash brownies. I
remember asking the minister one day about hash oil because hash oil is a
derivative of marijuana. Hash oil is a part of this conversation. They don't
like to use it. You'll notice they'll always use cannabis. They'll never use
marijuana or weed or hooch or hash or hash oil. They'll never use those terms,
they'll always talk about them as cannabis because that's the official term.
They get all antsy when we use anything different.
They got
all upset with my colleague from Mount Pearl North yesterday when he was using
the term “weed” in his questions. Everything went all sideways then because they
don't like to do that. That's the facts of it, Mr. Speaker. We're talking about
weed. We're talking about hash and hash oil. We're talking about people who roll
it up in cigarettes and smoke for entertainment. Some people smoke it for
medicinal purposes and for medical purposes. Some people smoke it because it
puts them in a better feeling, makes them more comfortable for one reason or
another. Some of these reasons are very bona fide, good reasons to do so.
One of
the other problems in our province, Mr. Speaker, is I don't believe today that
marijuana is the drug that is causing organized crime to operate. There are so
many other drugs out there that drive the industries of organized crime.
Marijuana is only a small part of that. Marijuana is a problem for some people
because it stays in your system so long. Cocaine is in and out.
Cocaine
was seen as the rich man's drug at one point in time but it's not today. It's
not. Cocaine is prevalent in our communities. I hope we don't go down the road
of legalizing that because we want to take it out of the hands of organized
crime. What about other chemicals, prescription drugs that are being abused?
There are all kinds off complex issues when it comes to drugs.
Marijuana is on the lower end – there are no two ways about it – of how people
feel about it on the impacts, but it can still be an addictive drug and it can
create psychosis. It can cause people to do things they normally wouldn't do.
People become addicted and it can create all kinds of issues in their lives. It
can happen and it does happen. Probably not the same for some of the other
drugs, on a scale of numbers and relative amounts, but it does happen. What
we're asking is, as an Opposition, and what people ask us all the time is: What
if, what about and tell me about this because there are a ton of unknowns.
I
understand the Minister of Justice did a scrum this afternoon. I wasn't out
there, but we had people out listening to what he had to say. In the House he
was saying it's six months – that's what he said in the House – and out in the
scrum he was talking about July again, which is only, what, 70 days away.
The
minister is not even clear when it's going to be implemented, but they don't
have the legislation in place. And not only the legislation, they don't have the
policies, the education and the plan to roll it out. We don't have the plan to
make sure that people are going to be safe from a health perspective either.
That's
why we're asking, Mr. Speaker, give us the information that you have; encourage
the government to slow it down. It's not a race to the finish line here, Mr.
Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Do it right.
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's right; do it right.
Take the time and do it right.
There's
no reason and no rush why they can't do it. And if they're not ready and if the
government says I'm going to stand by the people of the province and I'm going
to go back to the federal government and say we're not ready, we need more
programs – and it can be driven by the federal government – we need more
education, we need to roll out safety protocols, people need to understand the
implications and then slow it down. That's what we're asking for, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.'
In my
opinion –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Please call in the Members,
House leaders and Whips.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour of the motion, please rise.
CLERK (Barnes):
Mr. Paul Davis, Mr. Hutchings, Ms. Perry, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Petten and Mr.
Lester.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion,
please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Andrew Parsons, Ms. Coady, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Crocker,
Mr. Osborne, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Mitchelmore, Mr. Warr, Mr. Bernard Davis, Ms.
Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Edmunds, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Letto, Mr. Browne, Mr. Bragg, Ms.
Haley, Mr. Derek Bennett, Ms. Cathy Bennett, Mr. Finn, Mr. Reid, Mr. King, Mr.
Dean, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Holloway, Ms. Michael and Mr. Lane.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes: six; and the nays: 28.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is lost, defeated.
I remind
all Members of the Management Commission that we will be meeting at 5:15 in this
room right after the proceedings.
As it is Wednesday, and in accordance with Standing Order 9, this House is adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 o'clock.