November 23, 2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 39
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we'll hear statements
from the hon. Members for the Districts of Lewisporte – Twillingate, Topsail –
Paradise, Exploits, Torngat Mountains, Stephenville – Port au Port and Placentia
West – Bellevue.
The hon.
the Member for Lewisporte – Twillingate.
MR. D. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today in this hon. House to congratulate a true entrepreneur from my district,
Mr. Gary AuCoin. Gary has been working in the accounting field for 30 years; 25
of those years has been with H&R Block.
Today,
he owns and operates five of the 900 Canadian franchises, with businesses in the
communities of Lewisporte, Gander, Clarenville, Marystown and Placentia. Gary
has over 35 staff members to his team.
On
October 31, Gary was presented with the Canadian H&R Block 2017 franchise of the
year award at the company's national convention in Calgary, Alberta.
Mr.
Speaker, Gary served for six years on the national leadership franchise council
of Canada. In the community, Gary has been a very active volunteer with the
Lewisporte Craft & Trade Show, school council, Lewisporte & Area Chamber of
Commerce and Ducks Unlimited, to name a few.
Mr.
Speaker, entrepreneurs like Gary AuCoin play a tremendous role in Newfoundland
and Labrador's economy. I applaud him and all small business owners for their
dedication and the contributions they make to their communities and our
province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
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.
Mr.
Speaker, Light The Night is the signature event of the Leukemia & Lymphoma
Society of Canada. Each year, in communities across our country, teams of
families, friends and co-workers come together to raise funds for the Leukemia &
Lymphoma Society of Canada's Light The Night Walks and bring help and hope to
people battling blood cancers.
Newfoundland and Labrador held its first ever Light The Night event in Bowring
Park this past September and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, as a lymphoma survivor
it was a privilege for me to attend.
The
event was a huge success, with more than 1,000 people in attendance and over
$100,000 raised. The money raised goes to support patients in Newfoundland and
Labrador, including important research on improved treatments, provides
educational materials, supportive programs such as family support groups and
peer-to-peer counselling.
Light
The Night Walks are evenings filled with inspiration. During this, what's
designed to be a leisurely walk, families and friends gather to bring light to
the darkness in the world of cancer.
Thousands of walkers carry illuminated lanterns and the colours showcase their
relationship to the cause: white lantern for blood cancer patients and
survivors; red for supporters; and gold in memory of loved ones lost.
Mr.
Speaker, please join me as I congratulate the organizers of this successful
Light The Night event. I look forward to next year's event as well.
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 to congratulate Effie Jewer on celebrating
her 100th birthday on August 22.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DEAN:
I was extremely pleased to
have attended the birthday festivities with Effie, her family and friends at
Golden Years Estates in Grand Falls-Windsor where a memorable time was had by
all.
Born in
Hodge's Cove, Trinity Bay, she moved to Botwood after her marriage to Frederick
Jewer, where she was employed as a clerk with Thompson's Stores for 60 years.
Her commitment to community was reflected in countless hours of time devoted to
the success of events hosted by the town, as well as the Trinity United Church.
Effie
continues to embrace all activities to the fullest and insists as well in
helping staff with other residents, to the point where I have been told she
could pass as one of the staff.
I would
ask all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating Effie Jewer on her
milestone birthday of 100 years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
acknowledge the 150 individuals who have been recognized as Labradorians of
Distinction.
The
Labradorians of Distinction Award was created by my federal colleague and fellow
Labradorian, MP Yvonne Jones, to celebrate achievements of exceptional
Labradorians who made outstanding contributions to Labrador culturally,
socially, environmentally and economically.
One
hundred and fifty Labradorians were honoured at ceremonies last week in Nain,
Hopedale, Makkovik, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador City, Port Hope Simpson and
L'Anse-au-Loup, many, Mr. Speaker, who are no longer with us.
Labradorians of all backgrounds, cultures and regions were recognized. There
were artists, advocates, athletes, environmentalists, community volunteers,
municipal leaders, business people and medical professionals – all of those
honoured last week have helped shape their communities and are true ambassadors
for Labrador.
Recognizing Labradorians, past and present, is an excellent way to celebrate
Canada's 150th birthday. An exciting event for Labradorians has been established
and will continue to honour Labradorians for years to come.
As
Labradorians, we are fiercely proud of our region and our heritage. Thank you,
Yvonne, for introducing a program that honours extraordinary Labradorians and
for sharing their stories and accomplishments with the rest of Canada.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville – Port au Port.
MR. FINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand
to recognize Radhika Verma. The 17-year-old Stephenville High student is an
active member of her school's humanitarian club, student council and Community
Youth Network. She is also a passionate volunteer with Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, winner of the Lions Club local and regional speak-offs, former
Stephenville Youth of the Year and a Rotary Music Festival Rose Bowl winner.
Most
recently, Radhika was selected to sit on the Premier's Youth Council and also
named a SHAD fellow, attending Lakehead University for a month to study science,
technology, engineering and math. In addition to her extracurricular activities
in school and her volunteer work in the community, Radhika is a strong academic
currently holding a 97 per cent overall average.
The
culmination of her accomplishments, academics, passion and dedication to her
school and community was acknowledged this past weekend. On Sunday evening,
Radhika was awarded the title of Miss Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador.
Miss Achievement Radhika Verma is a true role model for all youth and ambassador
to her community and the province.
I ask
all Members to join me in congratulating Radhika for receiving this very
much-deserved prestigious award.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of Placentia West – Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, Christmas is joyous occasion, especially for children who marvel at
the splendor of the season. For children, it is also a time for the anticipation
of the unveiling of those brightly wrapped gifts.
However,
for some less fortunate families, it is a time of melancholy. Fortunately, Mr.
Speaker, there are organizations out there that recognize this fact and work
tirelessly to bring a smile to the face of a child or to relieve some of the
burden endured by parents during this season.
Just
this past weekend in Marystown, I participated in the lighting of the VOCM Happy
Tree where residents are invited to donate gifts to be distributed amongst
families in need. Throughout Placentia West – Bellevue, and indeed throughout
the province, the Salvation Army is manning their iconic kettles, with funds
raised also being used to brighten Christmas for those without. In some areas,
first responders will park their rescue vehicles outside supermarkets on a
selected date and gather donated non-perishable food items to ensure food banks,
such as the Sacred Heart Family Aid, are well stocked during the holiday season.
Mr.
Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank all those volunteers for their time to
help the less fortunate and encourage the people of our province to give
generously to help make it a truly Merry Christmas for all.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to highlight that the Purple Ribbon flag will once
again be raised at Confederation Building this coming Monday, November 27, at 1
p.m. This is to mark the beginning of the annual Purple Ribbon campaign to
increase awareness and responsiveness to violence against women. The flag will
remain in place until December 10, coinciding with the International 16 Days of
Activism Against Gender-Based Violence.
Violence
against women and girls is a very important issue for all of us in this
province. The rate at which women and girls experience violence in our province
and across the country is much too high and is unacceptable. This must stop, and
I extend my sincere sympathies to the women and their families that have been
impacted by violence.
Mr.
Speaker, our government continues to work to address the ways violence is
perpetrated in our communities through initiatives that directly target violent
behaviour and fight social normalization of violence. We are working with
representatives from the women's community, regional coordinating committees
against violence, the indigenous community as well as new immigrants, to
identify collaborative, culturally appropriate ways to address this in our
province and throughout Canada.
This
includes continuing the work of the Action Plan for the Prevention of Violence
in Newfoundland and Labrador, stakeholder consultations and engagement, regional
outreach on violence prevention, continued financial support for the indigenous
Violence Prevention Grants Program, as well as the Intimate Partner Violence
Unit, which is a province-wide law enforcement effort.
Mr.
Speaker, violence against women is simply unacceptable, in any form and by any
means. Violence is an issue that, unfortunately, has not been successfully
eliminated. Together we must continue to make change happen by bringing our
collective voice and strength to address the many complex reasons why violence
occurs. We must teach our children what is right and what is wrong.
We must
work collectively to end violence so that all women and girls can live, work and
play in a society where they feel safe and can pursue their full potential.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of her statement. We, on this side of the
House, encourage individuals to do their part in increasing awareness of the 16
Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence commencing with the annual Purple
Ribbon campaign.
Violence
against women and girls is a very important issue in our province. I, too,
extend my sincerest sympathies to the women and their families who have been
impacted by violence. I also wish to thank those who work each and every day to
provide supports to those whose lives have been affected by gender-based
violence and to those who work diligently to prevent violence.
We must
all work together to stop violence against women and girls. There must be zero
tolerance. I hope to see stronger mechanisms across Parliaments, the public
sector and the private sector as we say this will no longer be tolerated.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
I thank the minister for an
advance copy of her statement.
Mr.
Speaker, I thank women's groups who have been tackling this problem for decades,
often with very few resources. I thank our allies and organizations working to
eliminate violence against women and girls, including the police, the courts,
social workers, health care workers, teachers and the general public. We all
have to work together.
On
behalf of these experts, I must stress once again the critical need for a task
force to start immediately to develop direct actions and solutions to deal with
the increasing violence against women. It must happen now.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House to highlight the strides being made through our three-year multi-year
infrastructure program to build safer and sustainable communities.
We have
been working together with municipal councils and residents, and in September,
along with the federal government, announced that $29.3 million has been
allocated for 77 municipal infrastructure projects under the Small Communities
Fund of the new Building Canada Fund. We also announced $9.5 million for 28
communities under our provincial Municipal Capital Works program. This is in
addition to the $70 million allocated in
Budget 2017 over the next three years for the Multi-Year Capital Works
Program.
Recently, we issued another call for applications that included municipal
capital works projects and Small Communities Fund Projects, as well as those
that may be available under new federal infrastructure programs. This
application process will allow us to commence project funding earlier in
2018-2019 as priority projects will have been identified well in advance of the
budget.
Mr.
Speaker, by laying out our long-term plan in 2019-20, we are allowing
communities to start projects that respond to their individual needs. We
continue to update information so that municipalities can better plan and manage
budgets, resources and ongoing infrastructure projects with upcoming
infrastructure investment opportunities.
As part
of The Way Forward, we committed to
strategically leverage all federal funding. This includes Phase 2 of the
Investing in Canada Plan: a 10-year program to be announced in 2018.
Infrastructure projects that support clean water, waste water management and
disaster mitigation have been prioritized by the residents and our government.
The initiatives we are investing in drive industry, improve the economy and
promote employment, which in turn gives our young people greater opportunities
within their communities and greater opportunity to raise their own families
here.
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 his statement. Mr. Speaker, I am
very aware of how important municipal infrastructure programs are to building
and improving sustainable communities. I know how important the funding is to
municipal councils and residents across our province.
I
certainly am supportive of allowing communities to select projects that respond
to particular needs. While some may identify water and waste water management as
a priority, there are municipalities where other infrastructure, such as
roadwork, recreation, municipal buildings would be identified as their priority.
Unfortunately, due to the change your government made in the cost-shared ratio,
there are many projects now becoming unaffordable, particularly for small
communities. I would hope that consideration would be given to communities that
find themselves in this situation.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. It's good news that
more funds are coming from these federal government funding programs. It's great
that funding is going to be coming early in 2018 for priority projects and that
municipalities will be able to do more long-term planning of their
infrastructure needs. But it doesn't change the fact that many communities still
have a hard time maintaining the roads, buildings and other infrastructure
because of the funding arrangement of this government, which does not meet their
needs.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Premier: What assurances can he provide to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador that the province will be ready for the implementation of marijuana for
July 2018?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First
and foremost, I think we need to remind ourselves why we're in this situation,
why it is that we're working towards a July '18 deadline.
This was
an initiative and a campaign promise made by the federal government, at the
time, in 2015. It was based on this: Keeping dollars out of the hands of
organized crime. That money, from young adults in many cases, was finding its
way to organized crime.
Secondly, it was easier for young adults, young Canadians, to access cannabis
than it was alcohol, Mr. Speaker. Also, getting in place regulated products –
these were key initiatives around this announcement for legalization. So this
government will be ready, we gave an update to the people of the province today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Premier for his answer. I asked the Minister of Justice and he stated, and I
quote: There will be significant costs borne when it comes to safety, education,
health and addictions.
I ask
the minister: Can he give us a detailed anticipated cost?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
simple answer to the question would be no. There is no detailed answer that can
be provided at this point. It's the same, I guess, situation that all provinces
and territories are dealing with. You can anticipate what revenue might be, and
even that can be difficult to calculate. When it comes to safety, what we are
doing is working with our federal colleagues, with the other provinces and
territories to get the best analysis on this.
Obviously, when we have something as momentous as this, the legalization of
cannabis, we know there's a huge responsibility comes with it. We'll continue to
work with others and, at the end of the day, there will be a cost and we need to
ensure that protection of our people is a priority.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Alberta's Premier has said that she's worried that the legalization of marijuana
could increase policing costs and court costs.
I ask
the minister: What is his plan to address increased pressure on our justice
system?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One of
the reasons the federal government decided to move forward with the legalization
is the prohibition system simply was not working. In fact, one of the statistics
I referenced today is when you look at roughly 10,000 drug charges in the last
year, about half of that was for cannabis possession. Those are matters that are
clogging up our courts currently.
With
this, we are going to see a decrease in that. That being said, obviously, we
know there is a need for an increased presence on our highways and on our roads.
It is something we are working very closely with our police chiefs on in terms
of drug recognition experts, in terms of technology. We'll continue to do that
and we will be ready for the implementation of these pieces of legislation.
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 ask
the minister: Will Newfoundlanders and Labradorians be permitted to legally grow
marijuana for personal use?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When the
federal government brought forward their legislation, they put in a limit of
four plants per household, but they also left it open to provinces to make their
own rules on this. Some provinces have already moved forward to come up with
their own regulations on it.
As a
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we are not ready to unveil our policy and
our legislation as it relates to this. That's something we are still working on.
It will certainly be in place well before the legalization in July 2018.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
They're
not sure yet. I appreciate that.
I ask
the minister: Will people be allowed to legally grow marijuana for commercial
use?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When we
did the announcement today, one of the questions that were asked was about
supply. Supply is an issue that is being discussed amongst all the provinces and
territories, because with the impending legalization we know that there is a
demand that we will need to meet.
Obviously, this province is open to economic development. That's one of the
things that multiple departments are working on now, so we'll continue on with
that.
The
legislation that we have in the House of Assembly today deals with the
distribution side, which we need to be ready for. We also put out some of our
other policy planks. We look forward to more announcements in the coming future
as it relates to this very important policy initiative.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the minister: What quantity of marijuana will any individual be permitted to
possess at any given time?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
this is another one of the aspects where the federal government has set rules
but allowed provinces to make their own decisions on this. This is not something
that we've announced publicly yet.
Again,
we've done a significant amount of consultation with the public, with our police
forces, with the health professionals, with business and with other provinces
and territories, as well as the States. That's another announcement that we'll
be prepared to make in the future. Certainly, we will have rules and regulations
that are both put in place and well communicated to the public as we make these
decisions.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the minister: What will the tolerance be for vehicle drivers in our province?
Will it be a zero-tolerance policy?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is
something that is being worked out throughout the provinces and territories and
with the federal government. What I can say is that we, as a province, do not
tolerate impaired driving of any way, shape or form, whether it's drugs, whether
it's alcohol.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
So the easy answer that I can
provide at this time is that if you indulge in alcohol or drugs, stay off the
road. But there will be more decisions coming and we're working with experts on
this to make sure that we bring in the best legislation that protects
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the minister if this province will use saliva testing to determine the level of
impairment on our highways.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That's a
very important question and one that we're working with our law enforcement
colleagues across the country. I'm in very close contact with the RNC and RCMP.
It's one of the issues.
One of
the biggest issues that are being discussed across the country is what we do to
protect road safety. Saliva detection is one of the models that's being
discussed, but with something as significant as this, there's still more work to
do. We'll be continuing to do that work and to make announcements as we move
forward.
We still
have a lot of time left before July 2018 to make these decisions. Rest assured,
we had to make sure we consult with everybody before we bring in something like
this and we'll continue to do that.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
federal government's proposal is that Ottawa gets a 50 per cent cut on excise
tax on marijuana products.
I ask
the minister: What is the minister doing to address this federal tax?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member for his question. It is an important question because most of the
costs to legalizing cannabis will be borne by the province. We're simply not
satisfied with the 50/50 cut that is proposed by the federal government. We
continue dialogue with the federal government, as well as all ministers from
across the country on this particular issue.
It's
important that the federal government recognize that the provinces will bear
most of the cost.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister said this morning that Newfoundland and Labrador will get between $28
million and $41 million annually in revenue based on the sales of marijuana.
I ask
him: What is that assessment based on?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
He's pretty close in what I
said this morning. What I said was it's very difficult to estimate what we will
receive in revenue because this, right now, is an illegal substance that's being
sold. There's no way to really quantify the amount of sales in this province,
but our best guess on what will be received is between $28 million and $41
million.
Out of
that, there will be considerable costs to the province for additional
enforcement, for social issues and for education, for example.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the information from the minister.
Can he
tell us what his best guess is based on?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
The best guess was put
forward in part by federal numbers and by the work of the officials in the
Department of Finance. The officials in the Department of Finance made an
estimation which was to their best ability because, again, Mr. Speaker, we have
no idea the volume of cannabis sold in the illegal market at this particular
stage.
So it is
a best guess put forward by the officials in the Department of Finance. Once we
get into the actual sale of the product, we'll probably have a much better idea
of the amount of revenue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the minister: Will there be a provincial tax on the sale of marijuana on top of
the federal excise tax?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, we're still in
the early stages of this. My guess is that the tax that's put in place by the
federal government is the tax on cannabis.
We do
have retail sales tax in the province that's also applied to alcohol. It's my
guess, at this particular stage, that the retail sales tax would be applied to
this as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the minister if municipal councils will have the ability to block sellers from
establishing a marijuana business in their municipality.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, there's a lot of consultation that has been done on this. I think MNL
would have been one of the consultations that did take place.
We all
know what the intent of the upcoming federal and provincial legislation is,
which is to legalize the usage of cannabis, consultation we'll continue to have.
That's not a concern that's been expressed to me directly by any municipality.
But, as
with anything, we're certainly open to hearing from them to discuss this and to
deal with the legislation that's coming in. The fact is that cannabis will be
legalized in this country in the very near future.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the minister: Who will regulate growth and quality of marijuana products sold in
our province? Will it be Health Canada or will it become a provincial
responsibility?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you.
I thank
the Member again for his question. The production of cannabis is regulated by
the federal government.
The
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation is the regulator and distributer of
alcohol products in this province. As far as distribution and the regulation of
the sale of the product in this province, Mr. Speaker, it would go through the
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My
question was more specific on regulating growth and the quality of the product
that's being sold, standardized product being sold, the safety of what's being
sold.
Maybe
the minister can tell me: Will that be Health Canada's responsibility or a
provincial responsibility?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the parliamentary
secretary for Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As we
anticipate the legalization of marijuana, anticipated in July of next year, we
have to ensure we have adequate supply and demand and that production is
available. That licensing will go through for cannabis through the federal
government. It will be the same process as is maintained through Health Canada.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the minister: With the legalization of marijuana, can the minister advise what
changes will take place under Occupational
Health and Safety Regulations and the act with respect to the use of
marijuana in the workplace?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Justice
and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the questions coming from the Leader of the Opposition. You know
what? The questions that he's asking are certainly ones that are shared by
people throughout this province.
With
this upcoming policy change – one of the most significant we've seen in decades
in this country – there are going to be changes required to numerous pieces of
legislation. One of the big issues is the employer and employee situation.
What I
can say is while we have not made changes to that yet – today we're dealing with
the Liquor Corporation Act to talk
about the distribution side and the retail side – this is one aspect that will
be covered off in the near future and likely through this House.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We've
asked several questions today on cost and revenue, on safety and other impacts
in which the government still does not know the answers of. This is a federally
mandated initiative.
I ask
the minister: When will you release a comprehensive, detailed plan for the
sales, distribution and use of marijuana for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
first thing I would point out – that we made it quite clear during our press
conference today – is that there is still more work to do. This was a huge
issue.
I'll
take an opportunity now to thank all the people behind the scenes, people within
just about every government department, that have put a significant amount of
work into this.
We're
moving forward today with some policy announcement and some legislative changes,
but there is more to come. What I can say is that we're well positioned to be
ready for July. We're certainly further ahead than some other provinces that
haven't even begun public consultations yet.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the
Minister of Tourism confirm that the individual who was appointed the interim
chair of the board of directors of Marble Mountain Corporation is still in that
role today?
MR. SPEAKER:
The parliamentary secretary
for Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member opposite for the question. In our province, we're blessed with a
tourism industry that employs some 18,000 people and generates a billion-dollar
industry here in the province. Marble Mountain is a key facet of that in our
tourism product for the winter season, particularly, and is central to the
economy on the West Coast of the province and the province in general.
I can
confirm that the interim board that is in place is currently chaired by the
assistant deputy minister of Tourism within the department.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Fortune Bay –
Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you for that response.
You should be informed that, as of today, the Registry of Deeds and Companies
Online lists the interim chair as the director and the IAC is advertising for a
new chair.
Can the
minister provide the amount that Mountain Consultants has been paid by Marble
Mountain since April 5?
MR. SPEAKER:
The parliamentary secretary
for Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to
take responsibility if the Member's researcher is too busy on Twitter to provide
her with the accurate facts as it relates to the board composition with Marble
Mountain.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
It's very clearly known
publicly that the interim board chair is the assistant deputy minister. I
emphasize the word “interim.”
There is
a recruitment process underway through the Independent Appointments Commission,
a merit-based process – something that eluded the former administration, I might
add, Mr. Speaker. That process is ongoing. The interim chair of the Marble
Mountain board is the assistant deputy minister for Tourism within the
department.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Fortune Bay –
Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Mr. Speaker, we all know how
much merit is in Bill 1's process.
Documents we received indicate that Mountain Consultants has received $67,620
since April 5, 2017. Can you confirm if this is correct?
MR. SPEAKER:
The parliamentary secretary
for Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
will reiterate the commitment that this government has towards Marble Mountain
and enhancing the winter tourism product in our province. We want to enhance the
quality that visitors, non-residents and residents of the province have within
Marble Mountain.
The new
board, the interim board that's in place, Mr. Speaker, has made good strides
towards that with a number of initiatives: low-pricing options for early birds.
We're very proud of the bold set of initiatives that have been led by the
interim chair of Marble Mountain.
With a
specific response, Mr. Speaker, I can consult with the department and return
with that information.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Fortune Bay –
Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mountain
Consultants' only director is the same person you appointed as the interim chair
of Marble Mountain and who has received over $67,000 since the appointment.
Is this
a conflict of interest in your opinion?
MR. SPEAKER:
The parliamentary secretary
for the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Immediately following the new board – the interim board being put in place in
April – an operational review was conducted. Tony Abbott has been appointed as
chief of operations at Marble Mountain. That appointment is still in place, Mr.
Speaker.
The
interim board chair, I should repeat, is not Mr. Abbott; it is the assistant
deputy minister for Tourism. We are very pleased with the work that Marble
Mountain has done.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, on May 5 our office wrote the former minister of Finance and asked for
additional detail on Budget 2017
information. On Monday past, we did receive some information, but there were
other details that were lacking.
We asked
for the detail as it relates to $6.5 million identified as savings from salaries
and benefits from ABCs. The minister responded just recently that it was related
to MUN.
I ask
the Minister of Finance today: Have these savings been achieved? How much has
Memorial University actually cut from its salaries and benefits since announcing
Budget 2017?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
information that we provided the other day was the information that was prepared
based on the request that the Opposition had put forward in May. I'm just having
a look here now. As it relates to Memorial University, I believe you said.
I'm not
sure at this particular point, Mr. Speaker. I don't think I have the breakdown
of the amount that was saved for Memorial University, but I will certainly
endeavour to get that information for the Member.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We also
asked for a breakdown of the $38.3 million in new spending initiatives, and were
provided a list which also lacked some details.
Can the
minister explain the $3.1 million for financial support for departments and
Crown agencies for initiatives consistent with government's objectives?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member for his question again. Part of what we've done here through the
agencies, boards and commissions – I believe that's what the Member is asking
about – is trying to ensure that we have consistency throughout agencies, boards
and commissions, as we do with government departments. Part of the funding that
was provided was to ensure that we have that consistency in the way that
programs and so on are carried out with the agencies, boards and commissions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
ask if he could table in the House a list of how much of that $38.3 million went
to each agency, department and for which projects.
We also
asked for details on the $25.5 million in other savings in ABCs.
Minister, how could the budget forecast $25.5 million in savings when in the
fiscal update you indicated that ABCs had gone over budget by $18 million? Are
there any savings in this other category and, if so, how much?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
A couple of things, on the
$38.3 million, we did provide a very detailed list to the Opposition of where
the funding had gone. I can go through that list here, if you wish, but I think
you have the list in front of you. As far as the $18 million, most of that was
for pensions through Memorial University.
Part of
the reason that we've indicated that we're asking the agencies, boards and
commissions to come online and co-operate with government departments, what
we've done through government department is to realize the savings through
attrition, Mr. Speaker, through finding efficiencies and through zero-based
budgeting.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, within that category I just mentioned, there was a forecasted $20
million savings from the regional health authorities and other province-wide
programs.
I'm just
asking the minister today: How much is actually being saved to date related to
2017 fiscal budget?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, as I outlined
during the mid-year fiscal update, we realized savings within government
departments of over $20 million. Within agencies, boards and commissions, it's
$18 million that we didn't realize. If we'd saved the savings that we had
anticipated at the beginning of the year, we wouldn't be taking the measures
that we're taking to try and realize the savings through the agencies, boards
and commissions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
understand the minister, but he did indicate that they hadn't reached their
target and he was looking for additional monies from the agencies, boards and
commissions as they move forward to the last part in their fiscal year.
Minister, within this category there has been forecasted $5.5 million savings
related to The Way Forward. I'm
wondering, halfway through fiscal year or more, can you give us an update on
what actually has been achieved to date?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I can certainly get that
information for the Member. I'm not sure which category here he's referring to,
but I will certainly get the information for the Member opposite.
We did
get the information very quickly for the Members when they asked for the
information. I will ensure, Mr. Speaker, that there's no delay in getting that
information for the Members opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Will the
Minister of Education be expanding the operational grant program for early
learning and child care programs as recommended in the Premier's task force on
education?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
believe the Member is asking about the Operating Grant Program. I'm pleased to
say that, please God, the weather remains fine, the federal minister will be in
town next week and we will be signing an agreement that will see the province
get some $22 million in federal funding for child care –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
– over the next three years
and, as part of that strategy, we will announce the details next week. If the
Member is interested in that, I say, stay tuned.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
good to hear that there's going to be additional money put into early childhood
development – well needed.
I do ask
the minister: Has the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development
undertaken a full review of the Teacher
Training Act?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development for a quick response, please.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, just to address
the Member's preamble, we always hear from the Opposition that the sky is
falling in. This year alone, with the federal funding, we will see $10.7 million
of additional funding this year for early learning and child care.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How much?
MR. KIRBY:
$10.7 million to help
families get quality early learning and care for their kids, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Third
Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Government's own public consultation on the sale of cannabis shows the top
choice overall of the participating citizens was selling cannabis at an existing
or new Crown agency, such as the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation.
I ask
the Premier: Why is his government choosing to work the NLC out of the picture,
eventually causing a loss of profits and, therefore, revenue that could go to
the province's social programs?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm a
little bit confused over the question that was asked by the Member opposite
because I don't recall the consultation we did saying that. In fact, there was a
very large majority of people that said they wanted to see private industry have
their say here. I think we've struck a very, very strong balance here where we
have a very strong regulator in the NLC and we're reaching out to the private
business community of Newfoundland and Labrador to be involved with this.
I think
we've struck a strong balance. We look forward now, with the passage of this
legislation, to allow for the NLC to get the RFP process ready and to have
private industry come in and be a part of this.
Thank
you so much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Third
Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
There
were two questions with regard to corporations: one was the existing one or a
new one. When you put the two numbers together, I think he'll find a different
number than he's speaking to.
Mr.
Speaker, officials say there is, to date, no tax structure in place for the sale
of cannabis.
I ask
the Minister of Finance: Will he ensure that revenue from the sale of cannabis,
like revenues from alcohol, return to government to be used for the public good?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
always quite interested in listening to the questions from the Member opposite.
A little while ago she was asking what we were going to do to increase economic
development in the province. Now, she's saying not to allow private businesses
the opportunity to sell cannabis.
Mr.
Speaker, more to her point, we've outlined today very clearly that there are
social costs, there are health costs, there are legal or justice costs
associated with the sale of cannabis. So, yes, obviously we are going to use
some of the revenue and put it back into government programming to deal with
these issues.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Despite
launching an environmental assessment on the proposed Grieg aquaculture project
for Placentia Bay, government is appealing the judicial decision that led to
government having to authorize this EA.
I ask
the Premier: If his appeal is successful, will he still commit to completing the
Grieg aquaculture environmental assessment?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member for the question. As the minister responsible for Environment, my
number one priority is the environment and to do what we can do to protect the
environment. Also, on the other side, there are economic benefits, but there is
nothing from the economic benefits that we'll ever do to hurt the environment.
As for
the question about appealing the case, Mr. Speaker, the Justice Department felt
there was some interpretation that we needed in the legislation that we had.
Also, after sitting down with Grieg, they said we can go ahead and continue on
with the environment – which we ordered them to do.
What
we're doing, Mr. Speaker, is we're doing the prudent thing. We're asking the
court what could be done and we're also doing the environmental impact study to
ensure that we're protecting the environment.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for St. John's
Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I ask
the Premier: Why is he refusing to meet with the Newfoundland and Labrador
Coalition for Aquaculture Reform, a coalition of over 20 groups that have
serious concerns surrounding the aquaculture industry's impact on our ecosystems
and wild salmon stocks? They've been asking for this meeting for over six
months.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure who
the Member is speaking to because I have no requests, as the Minister of
Environment, for it.
There
was one person, Bill Bryden, I think, who requested, to a friend of mine in
Corner Brook, a meeting. I picked up the phone and phoned Bill Bryden. I offered
the meeting.
What
Bill Bryden said to me was: We're setting up a coalition, we may ask for a
meeting later. To this date, I have yet to get a request for a meeting from that
committee. I phoned Bill Bryden, personally, and offered a meeting through a
contact in Corner Brook who said Bill Bryden wants to speak to you.
I have
no idea what you're talking about. If they want to meet, they know where I am.
I'll definitely sit down and meet with the group.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Oral Questions
has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
During
Question Period earlier this week, I was asked to provide this House with some
data as to the usage and cost of running the gas turbine in Holyrood. I'm happy
to provide that information, Mr. Speaker.
So far,
to date, in 2017 we've spent $12,420,000 as compared to 2016, it was
$19,900,000. I'd like to table this information for the House.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Given
the recent topic of discussion, I'd like to table a document here published by
the Canadian Institute for Health Information entitled
Pan-Canadian Trends in the Prescribing of Opioids, 2012 to 2016.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have
two; one is quite lengthy. I'll do the shorter one first.
I give
notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled An Act To Amend The
Independent Appointments Commission Act, Bill 28.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a resolution respecting the reinstatement of the point-of-sale
rebate of the provincial portion of the harmonized sales tax on qualifying
printed books purchased by individuals.
I give
notice that I will ask leave to move the following resolution:
BE IT
RESOLVED by the House of Assembly as follows:
WHEREAS
on August 22, 2017, government announced its decision to reinstate the original
point-of-sale rebate on purchases of qualifying printed books made after
December 31, 2017; and
WHEREAS
the harmonized sales tax is levied by the Government of Canada pursuant to the
federal Excise Tax Act and the
collection of harmonized sales tax is administered by the Canada Revenue Agency;
and
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador entered into a federal-provincial agreement called the
Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement which allows the province to
introduce federally administered tax exemptions with certain conditions; and
WHEREAS
a condition of that agreement is that a change in the provincial tax policy must
be brought before the House of Assembly for a vote ratifying that decision;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the point-of-sale rebate on the provincial portion
of the harmonized sales tax on purchases of qualifying printed books made after
December 31, 2017, be reinstated in the same manner and form that it had been
employed prior to January 1, 2017.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In
accordance with provisional Standing Order 11, I give notice that I shall move
that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, December 4, 2017.
Mr.
Speaker, I further make notice under provisional Standing Order 11, I shall move
that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 5, 2017.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
deaf and hard of hearing children in the public education system of Newfoundland
and Labrador are not receiving full and equivalent access to a quality education
because of the lack of appropriate full-time resources; and
WHEREAS
from 1964 to 2010, deaf and hard of hearing children were provided with a
full-time quality education in the Newfoundland School for the Deaf, but deaf
and hard of hearing children currently placed in mainstream schools receive only
a fraction of a school day with a teacher qualified to instruct deaf and hard of
hearing children;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to undertake an immediate complete and thorough
assessment of the supports in place for deaf and hard of hearing children by a
committee of at least two independent and recognized experts in the field of
deaf and hard of hearing education, and to accept the recommendations of these
experts, and in the interim, take measures to honour the support commitments
made to all current and future students upon closure of the Newfoundland School
for the Deaf in 2010, to ensure that all deaf and hard of hearing children are
provided with access to a quality education equivalent to hearing classmates as
well as access to sign language.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Once
again, Mr. Speaker, I stand with this petition that this time has come to me,
again, from all over the province. It looks like the Bonavista Bay area is big
for this one because I see Musgravetown, I see Cannings Cove, I see Bloomfield,
so people all over the province concerned about what's happening to our deaf and
hard of hearing children. As long as these petitions come to me, I will stand
and present them.
Promises
were made to the deaf and hard of hearing children when the School for the Deaf
closed in 2010 that they would get the same services that they had in that
school. That hasn't happened, Mr. Speaker.
This
government has to look at the fact – one of two things: either they make sure
that in an inclusion education all of those services are made available to the
children who are deaf and hard of hearing; if not, they have to look at
reopening the School for the Deaf, as other places in the country have done,
having closed schools for the deaf.
The
recognition of the very, very special needs of deaf and hard of hearing have to
be paid attention to by this government. We have to make sure that children who
are in classrooms, who are deaf and hard of hearing, are getting more than two
or three hours a day of education from teachers who are trained in deaf
education. It is special training. It is special needs.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
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
emergency responders are at a greater risk of post-traumatic stress disorder;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to enact legislation containing a presumptive
clause with respect to PTSD for people employed in various front-line emergency
response professions, including firefighters, emergency medical services
professionals and police officers not already covered under federal legislation.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, it's not the first time I've presented this petition. I've asked
questions in the House of Assembly and the minister did indicate that there was
some work underway and, as a matter of fact, when I asked questions the last
time said that very day she had asked for some work to be done by her officials,
and I'm glad of that.
Mr.
Speaker, it's a very important matter for first responders and Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians and even beyond those traditionally seen. If we look at
legislation in other provinces, most recently in Nova Scotia, who has enacted
presumptive legislation for first responders, they've gone on to include some
youth care workers and 911 dispatchers. To be clear, any employee in any
profession in the province entitled to workers' compensation would include
post-traumatic stress disorder or occupational injuries as such.
What
this is for is a presumption because first responders can respond to literally
hundreds – hundreds – of chaotic and traumatic events and we now know in the
most recent health care that it can be impossible to determine which event
actually caused the illness. That's what we're asking for here, that's what
these petitioners are asking for, Mr. Speaker, and it's my pleasure again to
rise and to raise this very important issue.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
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
the Indian Meal Line and Bauline Line are maintained by the Department of
Transportation and Works; and
WHEREAS
these roads have very narrow shoulders and are particularly hard for pedestrian
traffic; and
WHEREAS
excessive speed is an issue on these roads;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to implement traffic-calming measures, such as
speed bumps, electronic signage, et cetera, to reduce speed and ensure the
safety of all residents.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this is the second time I presented this petition. In actual fact, I
have quite a number of petitions to present on this particular act because there
were over 300 people that signed this petition.
Just to
give a little history – and more so on the Indian Meal Line than on the Bauline
Line – that road goes between the towns of Torbay and Portugal Cove. One time
you could go in probably about three or four kilometres and you'd hit a dirt
road and you'd get to Portugal Cove; there were no houses there at all. Today, I
would estimate there are probably handy to 1,000 homes on the Indian Meal Line
between the Town of Portugal Cove-St. Philip's and the Town of Torbay.
This
road has a very narrow shoulder where people are walking along. There's a lot of
dump truck traffic. There's a lot of traffic that goes back and forth. It's a
shortcut to get to St. Philip's. As we know, there are a lot of residential
areas in St. Philip's. A lot of people from the Torbay area live in that part of
it and a lot of people from that part live in Torbay.
These
roads are used like you wouldn't believe, but there are families, and a lot of
young families, on this road, where you can see a young mother walking along
with a stroller. When you look at a shoulder of a road that's probably 24 inches
or less, it's very difficult and it's very unsafe for that young lady, or
anyone, to be on that road. It's just an example I'm giving you. It could be a
bicycle of a child or anything at all.
I've
spoken to the RNC. I have to thank the RNC because they do put extra patrols on
the roads, but we need to do something to slow the traffic down. The reason
being is this road, first when it was constructed, was for very minimal traffic.
Today, it's like a major thoroughfare where there's a lot of traffic. People
need to slow down.
I'm
calling on the Department of Transportation and Works to go down and have a look
at these roads. I'm sure there are other districts in the province that are
similar. The Bauline Line is another one that's similar in my area.
There
needs to be something done to ensure – work with the municipalities, work with
the Town of Torbay. They're willing to work with the department, just to make
sure that safety comes first and we do anything we can to make sure these roads
are safe for pedestrians and all users in the area.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
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 humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
a 2013 risk assessment report made public in June 2017 makes it clear that
initial cost estimates and financial risks for the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric
project were understated; and
WHEREAS
the Muskrat Falls Project is way over budget, diverting funds from other needs
and potentially doubling electricity bills, and it has raised serious concerns
about damage to the environment in downstream communities; and
WHEREAS
Nalcor and the provincial government have not been transparent or accountable as
to why the 2013 report was not previously made public, and the people of the
province are left with many unanswered questions;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to immediately conduct a forensic audit of the
Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, we know that there have been announcements of the inquiry, but people
really want something immediate as well in terms of a forensic audit. People
have lost faith in government's ability to manage this project and manage the
people's money as it relates to this project.
People
know there have been great wastes. We all know that. There have been types of
mismanagement on this project. We all know that. We've all heard the stories.
We've heard stories from workers; we've heard stories from contractors. We've
seen the budget double.
Although
the budget has doubled, it hasn't improved the project. It hasn't doubled the
scope of the project. It hasn't doubled the output of the project; it has simply
doubled the cost of the project with no apparent benefit to that doubling of the
budget.
Mr.
Speaker, people want to know: What went wrong and how did it go wrong? This is
the people's money – $12 billion and rising. It's a serious issue because we
know it will affect our social programs, it will affect our current situation in
the province's economic situation and the future as well.
I
believe that when people are asking for a forensic audit, they have a right to
the accountability of what happened to their money, what went wrong, how was it
spent and what's happening going forward.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The
Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
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
the Adult Dental Program coverage for clients of the Newfoundland and Labrador
provincial drug program under the Access and 65Plus Plans were eliminated in
Budget 2016; and
WHEREAS
many low-income individuals and families can no longer access basic dental care;
and
WHEREAS
those same individuals can now no longer access dentures;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the Adult Dental Program to cover
low-income individuals and families to better ensure oral health, quality of
life and dignity.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I have stood a number of times now in this hon. House to bring this
petition forward and we're going to continue to do so, as Members of the
Opposition, because we believe this is a very, very important issue.
Health
care today is identified as one of the most significant expenses of our
government. It is well known that your teeth are a very important part of
maintaining optimal health. Problems with your teeth and with your gums can lead
to problems with heart failure and all other kinds of complications and
infections, Mr. Speaker. They can prevent a person from being able to eat
properly which in turn can lead to conditions like diabetes.
In the
interest of preventative health care and ensuring that health care costs can be
kept lower in the long term, we truly believe that having a good set of teeth is
fundamental to that. For those individuals of society who are unable to afford
these dentures, I think it's incumbent upon us as a government and as a people
to return and give back to society and help those most in need, Mr. Speaker.
I call
upon government to truly reconsider this decision in the upcoming budget or
sooner, to give very serious consideration and action towards reinstating the
Adult Dental Program for those who really need it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The Deputy Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that the House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 25.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
This
motion is carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
considering Bill 25, the Prescription Monitoring Act.
A bill,
“Prescription Monitoring Act.” (Bill 25)
CHAIR (Warr):
At this particular point in
time we're going to recess to consider the amendment to clause 22.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
We have
considered the amendment and it is deemed to be in order.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again,
that was the last amendment with one we're going to ask leave for to go back on
one that we had a discussion on, with the House's indulgence a little bit later.
On this one, what we were proposing here was just to go back to section 7 and 8
where it outlines the definition and responsibilities of prescribers and
dispensers and have that in line with the act itself as it follows through.
We were
proposing to take out, under section 22(d) immediately following the word
“respecting,” the words “for the purposes of sections 7 and 8 of the act.” Our
only argument and our only issue was that the minister would have full
prescribing powers over outlining exactly what could and couldn't be done.
We
weren't overly averse to that, but we want it to be in line with the previous
part of the act which was section 7 and section 8, which already outlined. So we
were trying to say we didn't want it to be confusing and we wanted the
prescribers and the dispensers to have a clear understanding of what their
responsibilities were and what they could have direct input to.
It was
just sort of clarification in saying there might be some confusion there, but
there may be some rational arguments as to why that clause may have to stay in
in unique situations that we weren't aware of. I'll ask the minister if he has
some particular issues around that that he could clarify.
That was
my only point around that particular one.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
The
rationale behind this and our desire to avoid visibly linking it directly to
section 7 and 8 stems from, in a sense, things we don't know, but we anticipate
trends. This is the flexibility of the regulation in the future to deal with
situations that don't currently exist.
Section
7 and 8 are very good enshrining, if you like, the status quo. Just to
illustrate both, a simple example from the point of view of prescriber and then
from dispenser; there are trends now for certain medications which have come out
in other fields and are not the subject of this bill, that there is a
recommendation, for example, for an educational requirement or some particular
skill for the prescriber in order to make that prescription safe.
If that
approach were transferred to opioids with new delivery techniques, we would then
have to come back to this House with the wording suggested in the amendment to
actually reopen the act to allow that to happen. Given the length of time it
took to persuade Purdue pharmaceuticals to change from OxyContin to OxyNEO,
which is a safer option that could result in fatalities.
From the
point of view of the dispenser, there are methods now in some of the ones that
are fairly well established around certain ways of packaging, may actually be
something that we'd like to look at in terms of specifying how opioids are
dispensed, particularly with a view to avoiding diversion or inadvertent use by
minors.
Again,
these are things we can't fully anticipate and we can't fully prescribe in the
act because we don't exactly know where we're going to be in two or three years'
time. This is the nimble piece, it would again be done on the basis of
consultation with the advisory committee which would consist of dispensers and
prescribers and clinicians and expert advice.
I
understand the Member's concerns to try and tighten this up, but this is an area
where we need a little bit of flexibility to bring in expert advice in the
future.
I would
recommend that this amendment not proceed and we stick with the original wording
of 22(d).
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
CHAIR:
The amendment has been
defeated.
On
motion, amendment defeated.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 22 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 22 carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
Clause 23.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 23 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I
appreciate the minister's sense of urgency. We all appreciate the sense of
urgency on this act and how important it is to get going and to make our
province a much safer place, but I would like to state, once again, the Canadian
Medical Association has also written the minister asking him to just slow down a
bit. It might only take a few days to really address the concerns they have
raised, that the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has raised and
the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has raised. I appreciate
the minister wants the act to come into force January 1.
I
believe the outstanding work that has been identified by these experts in this
area, very important stakeholders, that to take the time to engage with them, to
see what their concerns are, will not impede the enforcement of this act. The
enforcement of this act for January 1 could still proceed.
I
believe, Mr. Chair, if the minister is true to his word on consultation and he
wants to make this the best possible act that it can be, to enforce it for
January 1, to honour his sense of urgency and the sense of urgency of even all
the people who has written to him, who have consulted with him, that it is still
possible. It won't take a long time to deal with these issues and it would not
impede enacting this act.
I plead,
on behalf of those who have raised these issues, for the minister to take them
seriously and to engage with them so that we can then move on with a confidence
that this bill, this act, is the best it can be to deal with this very critical
– very, very, extremely critical – problem that also affects, for some people,
matters of life and death.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 23 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 23 carried.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With the
leave of the Government House Leader, the government itself and the Minister of
Health, we would like to propose to go back to clause 14, another sub-amendment
here, that would have a discussion on the particular issue here related to
prescribers and dispensers.
It
reads: Subclause 14(3) of the bill be amended by deleting the words “one
prescriber and one dispenser” and substituting the words “two prescribers and
two dispensers.”
Mr.
Chair, as we've talked about here – and we've all had concerns of ensuring that
the appropriate people involved here, the appropriate experts, have an
opportunity to have input. This is a great piece of legislation because it deals
with an entrenched issue that we have here.
Everybody is on the same side of wanting to deal with this immediately. That's
the reality here, but again, we need to ensure that the people who are at the
front line, who are dealing with this continuously, particularly dispensers and
the –
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. BRAZIL:
Oh, sorry.
CHAIR:
I just want to remind the
hon. Member that I should ask for leave prior to.
MR. BRAZIL:
Oh, sorry.
CHAIR:
Leave granted?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MR. BRAZIL:
Sorry, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Continue, please.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you.
We just
want to clarify that we ensure what we're proposing here would give appropriate
numbers and the appropriate people, along with others that would be added to the
committees that the minister would put in play. Because there are dispensers and
prescribers who come from different sectors of that particular industry, this
would add the proper input and the proper expertise to ensure that the two
front-line components here, along with all the other people who have a stake in
this, have direct input to be able to advise through the committee and the
minister on any changes that may be necessary, or how you roll out the program
and how we best get to the end result, which is curbing the abuse, particularly
misuse and diversion of opioids in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We're
hoping this passes the Table. Then we're hoping we'll get support from all sides
here to move this amendment forward.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
subclause 14(3) was provided to us in advance. It has been reviewed and it is
said to be in order.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I see
merit in the Member opposite's recommendation. I would be happy to support the
amendment as he's proposed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The same
here; I think it makes all the sense in the world to prescribe two prescribers
and two dispensers. The broader the participation of prescribers and dispensers,
I think, the better.
Thank
you very much.
CHAIR:
Is it the pleasure of the
Committee to adopt the amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, amendment carried.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Shall
clause 14 carry as amended?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 14, as amended, carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
Prescription Monitoring Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 25 with
amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Mr. Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 25.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 25.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for
Baie Verte – Green Bay, Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have carried Bill 25
with an amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and carried Bill 25 with an amendment.
When
shall the report be received? Now?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
On
motion, report received and adopted.
MR. SPEAKER:
When shall the said bill be
read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call
Order 2, third reading of Bill 25.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that the amendments
be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the amendments be now read a first time.
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.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK:
First reading of the
amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that the amendments be now
read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the amendments be now read a second time.
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.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK:
Second reading of the
amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call Order 2,
third reading of Bill 25.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 25, Prescription
Monitoring Act, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
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.'
This
motion is carried.
On
motion, amendments read a first and second time. Bill ordered read a third time
presently, by leave.
CLERK:
A bill, Prescription
Monitoring Act. (Bill 25)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its be as on the Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “Prescription Monitoring Act,” read a third time, ordered passed
and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 25)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave to
introduce a bill entitled An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No 2, Bill 27,
and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety shall have leave to introduce a
bill entitled An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2, Bill 27, and that
the said bill be now read a first time.
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.'
This
motion is carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The
Highway Traffic Act No. 2,” carried. (Bill 27)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Highway Traffic Act No. 2. (Bill 27)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 27 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call
Order 7, second reading of Bill 23.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill
23, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.” (Bill
23)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today,
we unveil government's first piece of legislation relating to the legalization
of cannabis. This, Mr. Speaker, is a required step to allow the Newfoundland and
Labrador Liquor Corporation to carry on the work they need to do to get us to
the next step. I will say that in the spring session of the House of Assembly we
will be coming forth with additional legislation.
This
piece of legislation is required as currently Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor
Corporation does not have the authority to carry out the piece of work they are
required to do, Mr. Speaker, to allow them to move forward and get us closer to
the implementation of what is necessary to legalize cannabis in the province and
be ready for the distribution and sale of cannabis in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
Liquor Control Act regulates the
operations of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation. As we announced
earlier today, Mr. Speaker, amendments are needed to the act in order to grant
NLC the authority to act as distributor, regulator and, possibly, a retailer of
cannabis should that be necessary.
As we
outlined earlier, that will be a last-resort scenario because we will be looking
for private retailers of cannabis throughout the province; however, I will say
that NLC initially will be the online distributor of cannabis in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. These changes are the first step so that we can
proceed with the considerable work that's required to establish a retail
distribution model and to ensure that cannabis is available to purchasers when
it becomes legal next summer. Today, the main changes that we are making
include: repealing section 33 of the act to make substitutions and to add
section 34 to include cannabis into many of NLC's existing authorities around
alcohol.
Mr.
Speaker, along with my colleagues, the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry
and Innovation and the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, we will be happy
to answer any questions specific to the changes once we get into Committee. But
for now, I would like to explain that these changes are broad and the reasons
why we are making them.
The
first change we are introducing to NLC's role is as distributor. The Liquor
Corporation is ideally suited for a role as distributor as it already has the
infrastructure in place to distribute alcohol, both through its own stores and
through private retailers across the province.
The
change we are making is that we are taking the clause that originally said that
NLC has the authority to buy, import and sell alcohol or articles associated
with alcohol and we are adding the same authority to cannabis or articles
associated with cannabis. Similarly, we are amending the clause that lets NLC
control the possession, sale and delivery of alcohol to include cannabis. The
NLC will also be empowered to set the price of cannabis in the province, similar
to its current authority with alcohol.
With
cannabis, we are dealing with a controlled substance that requires diligent
oversight by an experienced regulator. NLC has the experience in licensing
retailers and enforcing regulations. Already, as they are required, they have
the resources and infrastructure in place.
With
these amendments, NLC will be able to grant licences to possess, sell and
deliver cannabis to persons or organizations. They will also be empowered to
determine the forms, manner and fee associated with these licences.
Through
these licences, NLC will have the authority to ensure that private retailers
comply with relevant laws, such as selling only to individuals of legal age and
regulations on how cannabis is displayed in outlets. Many of these laws will be
determined through future legislation. Again what we are putting forward here is
the first step, a necessary step that will get us to the next stages of what we
need to do.
NLC will
also set regulations for such things as the days and hours during which cannabis
stores are open for business. Finally, we are making amendments that would allow
the Liquor Corporation to establish, maintain and operate cannabis stores should
it be required. As we stated earlier, we are looking for a hybrid model of
retail operations.
I will
reiterate, Mr. Speaker, they will only operate as a very last resort as our
primary focus is on finding private business to retail cannabis in this
province. Our focus is on supporting independent licensed retailers; however, in
communities where there is limited interest from the private sector, we will
allow NLC the authority to provide retail options as a backup. It is for this
reason that we need to make amendments around the retail sales for NLC. NLC will
also undertake online sales at the beginning of this process. We believe this
approach will help encourage small businesses and entrepreneurs to set up in
this province.
In
conclusion, there is still a great deal of work to be done on this file, Mr.
Speaker, but this is the first step in our efforts to regulate cannabis. We will
bring further legislation to the House in the next session, as the work gets
carried out by the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation.
Mr.
Speaker, we've had a number of our departments in government working
co-operatively on this. They've put a great deal of time into this. I'd like to
thank the officials throughout those many departments. We've had NLC involved;
I'd like to thank the folks over there. We have looked at what has happened in
other jurisdictions and tried to gauge the best approach for this province.
Mr.
Speaker, as I've indicated, this is a necessary step as we proceed and as the
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation puts the pieces in place that they
need to put in place and carry out the work they need to do. We will continue to
work within government departments and as government to bring us to a place
where next spring we will be able to bring in further legislation with a better
understanding, Mr. Speaker, of the enforcement that is required of the social
demands that will be in place and additional requirements on the health care
system.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to rise today to speak to Bill 23. As the minister has just gone through some of
the particulars of the bill, An Act to Amend the Liquor Corporation Act, which
deals specifics with – I guess, it doesn't deal in totality with the
legalization of marijuana, but deals with the first step from the government's
perspective, in terms of who and what entity will be in charge, beginning with
the licensing and distribution of the product, and has identified the
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation to do that.
In doing
that, their first step has been to amend that act to allow the corporation the
ability to regulate, distribute and do business in cannabis, similar to its
authority today in respect to alcohol.
If we go
back and look at why we're here today and why we're going through this process,
the federal government, as an initiative of the current prime minister and the
federal Liberal Party, had made the commitment for the legalization of cannabis.
This process we've started here, and is undertaken at the provincial
jurisdiction, is to start to engage in that process which has been set to begin
by July 1, 2018.
Really,
the provinces have been mandated to do what they need to do, find the mechanisms
and the entities to allow the legalization of cannabis to flow within their
provincial jurisdictions and what that would look like. My understanding from
what the federal government has said, it's open to the province how they would
do that. Today, the government has announced the first step would be to align
that with the current Liquor Corporation, and as well the act as we're
discussing here and the minister has just talked about.
The
bill, as we have here, indicates the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor
Corporation will be the regulator at the outset and will be a distributor of
cannabis in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think the minister spoke about online
and through other means as well.
I know
there were briefings done for our staff as well. The feeling, from government
and officials, is that Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation has the
experience to be the appropriate regulator and distributor to ensure the product
will get provincial reach.
That
would be similar to, I guess, when you look at the distribution and regulation
of alcohol and in the more urban and more high-density areas in regard to the
full gamut of liquor stores and facilities. Then you get to other areas where
there are smaller entities that are attached to small businesses in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador in different regions. Will that be replicated as we go
through here? There will be a lot of questions asked in terms of how that will
be done.
I know
the minister spoke of the private sector and wanting to engage the private
sector. I certainly applaud that. The private sector would be involved and given
an opportunity under the regulatory framework that's outlined by the Liquor
Corporation to engage in this activity, to be able to provide the means, the
structure and the focus to be able to do this. So that's certainly encouraging.
As well,
we need appropriate legislative authority to implement a retail and distribution
model, which this will be non-medical cannabis, in time for the 2018
legalization deadline that's been put in place by the federal government. I
guess we'll talk about this as we go through as well, in regard to legal
cannabis, is what we're talking about here in terms of 2018 and non-medical
cannabis, which is now available based on a number of criteria related to health
and specific designation related to health care conditions. Bill 23 is intended
to deal with these issues that I've just talked about.
Some of
the specifics related to Bill 23 and the amendments to the
Liquor Corporation Act to start this process specifically looks at
or enables the Liquor Corporation to look at the whole gamut in regard to the
buying, the import and sale of cannabis. That's interesting as we go through,
and we'll have questions as we go through, how the oversight is there as the
regulatory body in regard to the production of cannabis here, who can produce
it, farm it, those types of things.
In
regard to the import, it would indicate there would be interjurisdictional in
regard to province. It could be imported from other provinces in regard to a
product. I guess that's what the legislation is referring to. We'll probably
have questions on that as we go through.
We heard
some time ago in regard to an agreement related to the Canadian Free Trade
Agreement, but I'll discontinue for a moment. I think the Speaker would like a
moment to intervene.
Go
ahead.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I thank
the hon. Member for just taking a little pause in his commentary.
I would
like to call all Members of the House to the attention of some very special
guests. If I may, I would like to welcome His Excellency, Alexander N. Darchiev,
Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Canada; Sergey Strokov, Counsellor with
the Russian Embassy in Ottawa; Kirill Kalinin, First Secretary and Press
Secretary; Dr. Stuart Durrant, the Honorary Consul of the Russian Federation and
Ms. Thomasine Barry, Protocol Office.
(Russian spoken: If I could say a few words, please. I am so appreciative
to see my friends from Russia here. We had an excellent evening of interesting
discussion. It is truly good to have them here with us today.
Translation provided by the Member.)
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If I may continue, just for
the benefit of our guests, you may find this discussion quite interesting. I
know your agenda is quite full, but we're discussing the legalization of
cannabis, of marijuana. So you may want to stay the whole day.
Thank
you very much for visiting. Please enjoy.
Thank
you.
Please
continue.
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We'll
revert to discussions on Bill 23. We're speaking today in regard to the
amendments to the Liquor Corporation Act.
As I've
said, the primary focus of the act, what we're talking about today and the
amendments, is related to the buying, importing and selling of cannabis, which
will be done under the Liquor Corporation. I was mentioning the fact of the
import component of it and how this will be worked out in the months ahead in
regard to who would grow it, could individuals grow it, could it be commercially
grown and, as well, the import or trade from out of province or interprovincial
trade and how that would apply.
A number
of months ago, the provinces signed the Canadian Free Trade Agreement in terms
of exchange of goods and services between provinces. Would this be applicable? I
assume it would. That would have to be worked through as well.
Under
the corporation act as well, there would be the control, the possession, sale
and the delivery of cannabis as well, looking at establishing, maintaining and
operating cannabis stores.
I know
earlier the minister, when he spoke, talked briefly about wanting to entice and
provide opportunity for the private sector, but initially, based on the capacity
of the Liquor Corporation and their experience with alcohol, they would be the –
it's government's proposal that they would be the mechanism to provide the
operation of cannabis stores, maintain those and regulate them. I guess similar
to the current model, up until some point that the private sector may be able to
be at such a level that they would be able to offer the service. If not, I
understand that the fallback is that the Liquor Corporation would provide it.
As well,
the act would look at determined price and the forms, manners and fees
associated with what we're talking about here with licences for cannabis. So
with approval, and our understanding from the briefing, there was consultation
done, I'm sure there's more to come as we move forward in the months ahead.
The
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation will develop and issue requests for
proposals for retail licences. That will go forward, I assume. I know looking
through the bill it's very similar to what happens today in regard to the
application for a liquor licence.
The
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation will be the regulator and, as I
said at the outset, the distributor of cannabis. The minister also mentioned
online retail will be carried out as well by the corporation. Retail store sales
will be through licensed private retailers to be expected and the Newfoundland
and Labrador Liquor Corporation stores only where necessary. I assume,
initially, with the time frame, even though there's a request for proposals
going out, we may see initially significant involvement of the corporation and
then maybe as they work through it, more private sector involvement as we move
forward as well.
When we
went through this and looked at the amendments to this particular act – and this
is the direction government's going to take – there are many other aspects to it
as we move out and look at the process. Some of those questions were asked today
in Question Period by the Leader of the Opposition in terms of many particulars
in regard to the legalization of cannabis and what it means in a number of
areas, in a number of pieces of legislation.
Areas
like the Highway Traffic Act in
terms of enforcement, legal limits. How testing would be done in regard to
someone under the influence, restrictions and penalties in regard to that and
how that would all flow through the
Highway Traffic Act. So there's the whole policing piece of that and how
that would be developed.
That's a huge component of it, too, as we move forward to
July 2018 to get that done. We've got a week left here in the Legislature in
this particular year, there will be another session in the spring and then that
would all have to be determined, consulted, debated here to be ready to go for
July of 2018.
The Highway Traffic
Act would certainly be one that would have to be looked at. Other areas that
would be looked at, obviously, there's a concern related to the workplace –
employer, employee and those relationships. I think the Minister of Justice
spoke to that today in regard to a question in regard to working through those
particulars of that.
We have various pieces of legislation that's part of how we
oversee and regulate the workplace, the
Occupational Health and Safety Act in regard to
what is the requirement on an employee in a workplace in regard to being
under the influence of cannabis? Is it zero tolerance? When you look at such
things now as possible drug testing and what the results would be if someone was
in contravention of those requirements in terms of operating in the workplace.
Liability issues much like alcohol, if someone was under the influence at a
particular time, what would the result be of that in the workplace? All of that
needs to be looked at, oversight through the
Occupational Health and Safety Act and
all the provisions related to that.
Further
to that, in regard to the Workplace,
Health, Safety and Compensation Act, in regard to particulars there, in
regard to workplace injuries, those types of things, if something was to occur
in the workplace related to the influence of cannabis and someone in the
workplace. So these are all significant issues that need to be dealt with as we
move forward on this particular piece of legislation.
Other
areas as we go through, too – we talked about distribution and those decisions
that need to be made to look at the amounts that are allowed to be purchased at
any one time. The age limits have been established, the age of 19 by looking at
the legislation; and as well from the growing point of view, who is able to grow
the product, the regulatory framework around that, the sale of the product, all
those types of things.
One of
the things that's derived from all of this when we look at the fact that the
federal government is basically saying we've set a date for July 2018. As a
province, you need to become compliant. There was some discussion from the
federal government with regard to any federal tax will be shared on a 50-50
basis.
I know
for many jurisdictions in Canada – and I think the minister here has referenced
it – they have huge concerns with that in regard to what that's going to
actually reflect and how much that's going to be. Even today in Question Period
from the Leader of the Opposition to the current Finance Minister, the question
was related to the estimated revenues that are going to be generated from the
sale of cannabis here in the province. I think there was a reference to maybe
$28 million to $30 million, in that range.
The
minister was further asked: Where did you come up with that and what's that
figure based on? I don't think to date there's real clarity in what that would
be. Understandably, not because it's tough to go from an illegal process to
legalized cannabis now in society and what that would look like. I guess the
concern from our perspective would be in terms of the province picking up
additional costs or expenditures for something that's coming so quickly,
realistically, when you look at all the legislation and everything that's got to
be changed to get us to July. What's that going to cost the Treasury of
Newfoundland and Labrador? We don't know, really, any sound determination of
what's going to be sold, how much is going to be sold for the taxation model –
all of those variables – what it's going to cost the Liquor Corporation.
That's
the revenue side. Then, on the expense side, what are we going to have to pay to
implement this and get it up and running? Because it is driven by the federal
government to make sure the province puts it in place. That's certainly a
concern.
As we go
through in the weeks and months ahead – and I'm sure we'll, hopefully, get more
details on all of that, on how this is going to be implemented and what the
details are going to be. It is a big change, no doubt, in regard to our province
and right across the country, in regard to how this would roll out.
We look
forward to having that discussion as we go forward on the various pieces of
legislation that would have to complement the changes here to the
Liquor Corporation Act and what those
changes would be. Many of those would be different in society in terms of what
we've experienced in the past in regard to cannabis being an illegal substance,
and what it would be under this new proposed bill, which is the first step in
looking towards getting it to where it needs to be.
There's
some benefit here to try to avoid location with alcohol, to have it separate.
Some of the information released from officials acknowledged there will be
possible instances whereby stores could set up in a secure area, off to a side
with some retail spaces, similar to what you might see today with tobacco and
liquor stores located within supermarkets.
The
amendments, what we're talking about, are required now, as we said, to hopefully
allow time for potential retailers to examine what they would need to become
involved in the business and to respond to any requests for proposals. Any
business proposal, business plan, would have to look at what's my capital
investment to get set up for this? Is it infrastructure, is it fees, is it
licensing, is it staff? All of those components. What's that going to look like?
Then, from that perspective, right now they don't know what's going to be
charged, what taxes are going to be on it, so what's their revenue potential?
To bring
both of those together, there's a lot of information that needs to come forward,
I would think, to allow someone to suggest an entrepreneur or business owner, a
current business owner, to expand their operations to avail of the legal sale of
cannabis.
Many of
the proposed changes in regard to the legislation, and the reading through it,
just added in addition to alcohol the word cannabis. That allows, obviously, as
we said when we started – it's an act that's currently in place. The framework
is there in regard to the sale of liquor, alcohol, so this would parallel that
from the whole process of regulating, distribution and doing the business of
selling the product.
While
many of the proposed changes I mentioned just add the word cannabis into
existing legislation, there are several new components that I'll just mention as
we go through.
Under
section 2(1), paragraphs are added to define cannabis and what that actually
means. If you were to go to the definitions it would outline what that is meant
to be, a cannabis plant. It talks about a part of the cannabis plant and then it
looks at, but does not include, impartial roots, plants, all those kinds of
things that would not meet the definition. That's defined clearly, we think, but
we'll certainly do more work on that in regard to looking at it, but that's
broken out and defined in what it is.
If we go
to section 34.1 in the proposed bill, we have the licence of cannabis and talks
about what information would be included and how that would be done. Section
34.1 talks about the board issues licences and sets the licences terms and
conditions. Licences will only be granted to people 19 years of age and older.
I'm not sure if the legal age of consumption – because that's something that
wouldn't be part of this piece of act or legislation. That's something that
would come later. We're not sure of the legal age of consumption, what that
would be.
I know
there are some studies that have been done in the past in regard to the effect
of cannabis and some of the growth, the development of the brain and how there
are some scientists and experts who would talk about the fact that it should be
to the age of 25 because that's when full growth occurs in regard to brain
development and maybe some of the negative effects of some of the contents of
cannabis on that, if the age was lower than the age of 25. That's something I
guess, again, that will have to come in future legislation to suit your policy
or regulatory frameworks that are outside the purview of this particular bill.
In this
bill the board can deny a licence application for various reasons, including if
it is of the opinion that the applicant is not a fit and proper person – that's
what is written in the bill – and/or there's a concern about the applicant's
conduct, and/or where a licence would not be in the public interest, given the
needs and wishes of the public in the community.
I know
there was a question today as well in Question Period that the Leader of the
Opposition asked in regard to the
Municipalities Act and some of the framework that's within that legislation
in regard to could a municipality actually not support the legalized sale of
cannabis within their jurisdiction. In most cases, the municipality would have
to issue an occupancy permit, a building permit, or something of that nature to
allow the operation of the private operator to operate in that jurisdiction.
I think
that's something we'll find out as we move forward in regard to the municipality
because the act does talk about the needs and wishes of the public in the
community. So if the public or community in a particular area had said we don't
think we want this sold, could there be a restriction there to disallow it? I'm
sure we'll have discussion about it as we go forward.
The
board can also deny a licence where the applicant or agent in charge of a
premise has been convicted within the preceding five years under either the
Excise Tax Act or the
Customs Act related to liquor or
cannabis and the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act with respect to trafficking in a controlled substance.
Other acts that would be reviewed for contravention in the past related to this
would be the Food and Drugs Act with
respect to trafficking in a controlled substance or restricted drug; the
Criminal Code for an offence
punishable by imprisonment of one or more years.
Obviously, that speaks to the regulatory framework and
oversight that the Liquor Corporation would be expected under this bill to
operate in regard to cannabis and the terms and conditions of that regulatory
body, what they would do and whether they would apply and approve a licence
application, or whether they would not. Obviously, related to past conduct of an
individual, it would be relevant in regard to the issuing of that licence and
the ability to operate. Those are outlined in the bill and the various
contraventions of various federal statutes as well, in regard to contravention
and what it would mean.
The
board, as it exists in the bill, may also suspend or revoke licences where there
exists a reasonable cause for doing so. I would suggest that would be very
similar today to the liquor licence that was issued by the corporation that
we're talking about here today. There's a certain requirement or conduct
requirement or code of operations that would be required for the selling of
alcohol by a licensed operator and that standard would exist and be transferred
over to someone that was involved in the sale of cannabis.
That's
the oversight piece this bill is suggesting that the regulatory body, the Liquor
Corporation, would oversee. The board may as well, in discretion, limit the
number of licences. That's certainly an interesting one when you look at our
province and our density, our population and our geography.
As I
mentioned earlier, I talked about larger urban centres where you have higher
density but you get into regions of the province in regard to smaller
communities, less populated regions. Under the current model with the
corporation you have express liquor outlets that are added on to small
convenience stores, maybe added on to the local gas bar, those types of things.
I know government is talking about the private sector being the first priority.
So in cases like that where someone has an establishment already, would this be
allowed to be part of that establishment in regard to the local sale of
cannabis? Those are things as we move forward, I guess, we would find these out.
Section
55 is of note as well. That allows the minister to set the fees and establish
the forms to administer the act. That goes to the business model piece I spoke
of earlier in regard to some entrepreneur, a small business owner that wants to
expand their current operations. What's that framework going to look like?
Before you put out an RRFP, someone is going to want to know that. What's the
cost? What's my capital cost? What's my investment? That would be all part of
that in terms of how you would operate.
The
other one in the bill is the tax design. What's that going to look like?
Obviously, that fits into the business and private sector part of it, too, in
terms of what that taxation is going to be like. As well to the province
perspective, as I spoke of earlier, in terms of that whole thing of expenses and
revenues. What's it costing the province to implement this through this agency
and how particularly is it going to work?
As I
mentioned, there were a number of provinces – and I think our government has
basically said to the federal government, 50 per cent of any federal tax is not
going to cut it in regard to an investment we have to make and what that's going
to mean, as well as other provinces said. Is there going to be a provincial tax
here over and above the federal tax? Is there ability for municipalities to tax?
From a
provincial concern or from the Treasury's concern, this is being mandated by the
federal government. It should not, in any way, affect the Treasury of
Newfoundland and Labrador. It should be a means.
As I
said earlier, the Minister of Finance spoke today in Question Period and gave a
number in regard to what possible revenues could be. But when asked how do we
justify that number and what's your expectation on where that number came from,
what's it based on, there was certainly limited response to that. That gets the
whole issue of having the full plan in place of bringing this in and allowing us
to do it by July 2018 with the confidence that we know what we're getting into
and taking on the administration of this, and we're confident that it's not
going to have a negative effect on the Treasury by this date that's been
mandated by the federal government.
If you
look at just a few of the jurisdictions and what some jurisdictions have
actually said in regard to the issue of getting to July of 2018 and what it's
going to mean, in British Columbia they have unveiled a plan. They're looking
into a mixed model, both private- and government-run stores which would sell
marijuana, which is somewhat similar to what's been talked about here today and
was announced earlier today in the bill.
What
that would look like, we don't know. I guess all jurisdictions are looking to
what options are there and what it's going to look like. Each is looking at
other jurisdictions, I'm sure, and what their intent is and what they may or may
not do.
In
Alberta, they introduced a bill that would make the government responsible for
any online retail marijuana sales, but the private sector could certainly be
involved. Much like, I think, what's been proposed here, retail locations would
be operated by private companies. The Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission would
be responsible for oversight of private retail. The details on licensing are
expected to be available within the next year. That's where the province
perspective in Alberta is going.
The bill
would set the minimum age for purchase and use at 18 in Alberta, it's proposed,
the same as the province's legal drinking age. It would also ban the sale of
cannabis alongside alcohol or pharmaceuticals or tobacco. So they're making the
distinction between their actual sales of alcohol, pharmaceuticals and tobacco
related to the sale of cannabis.
Also, in
terms of the consumption, the proposed legislation outlaws use in places ranging
from schools, daycares and hospitals. That's the other part, I guess, in terms
of getting the plan and the framework of what we're talking about. Where is the
consumption of cannabis going to be allowed, looking at all aspects of society
as we move forward? It could possibly, in terms of cigarette smoking, alcohol
consumption, where you can consume it – all those types of things could be
parallel to what's currently being done today in regard to cannabis, but that's
something, as I've said, that's not available yet. We'll have to see as we move
forward.
Further,
in Saskatchewan, they haven't rolled out a plan as such; they're still gathering
feedback and consultation online. I think they're having consultations with
municipalities as well in terms of the concerns on the local governance level
and how that would possibly work.
Quebec
is looking at 18 years old. That would mirror the age for buying alcohol. Other
things they proposed in legislation, certainly in Quebec: bar people from
growing cannabis for personal use at home and would limit smoking to the same
places where people currently would smoke a cigarette, so looking at combining
the activities.
New
Brunswick has laid out, somewhat, how it intends to proceed. Under that
proposal, there certainly will be no smoking in public places and there will be
a limit on how many grams a person can carry. That would be a restriction with
regard to possession and things. I don't think in this province we have gotten
to or amended or looked at amending the particular legislation to do so.
In New
Brunswick, there would be up to 20 government-run stores. It would be
established with strict policies in place that will be located at 300 metres
away from schools – so they're looking at adjacency to particular public
activities and public buildings – will only display products under glass and
customers will need to show identification to prove they are of legal age.
In New
Brunswick it would be 19 years or older before they can even get in to even
review what is available and to make a purchase. Again, they're at the point
where there is no word on what the stores will be called, the pricing scheme,
what that would be, but they do indicate there would be online sales as well.
In Nova
Scotia they're looking at unveiling a marijuana regulatory framework, those
types of things, by the end of 2017, which is quickly approaching. They haven't
really gotten to releasing anything to date.
Territories, as well, would be looking at very similar or somewhat similar from
other jurisdictions of what's being done. In the Yukon, for example, the legal
age to buy marijuana would be 19. Their intent there is that the Yukon would own
and operate at least one retail store and provide an e-commerce option as well.
They're working through it as well.
All of
these jurisdictions are looking at and comparing what others are doing. Most
have expressed concern about the timeline, I think, in terms of getting there,
in terms of July of 2018, as well, the whole revenue generator, the taxation and
how that's going to work. That all flows into what the responsibility is of the
agency that's going to be responsible to regulate, distribute it and carry out
the business of cannabis.
The same
as here in this province; that's some of the concerns we have. We'll talk as we
go through this bill in regard to how that would fall out.
Today, I
know in Question Period the Leader of the Opposition asked a whole array of
questions in regard to where we are, what's the plan, can we meet the 2018
deadline, the expenses and revenues. Are we assured that the Treasury is not
going to be negatively affected? Do we have the programs, the educational focus
starting out, all the information we need as we go through for our demographics,
from our very young to those older in society in regard to access and what it
would mean for them as we move forward with this proposal.
This
signals, Mr. Speaker, Bill 23, a small part of the start here for this. The
government has chosen to go with the Liquor Corporation and the distribution and
regulatory framework in giving it to this entity to do without doing a lot of
the other areas that need to be addressed in regard to other pieces of
legislation, the sale, taxation, consumption and, as I said, enforcement.
We
talked about things like the Highway
Traffic Act. We talked about things like the workplace, which is so
important, the Occupational Health and
Safety Act, the Workplace Health,
Safety and Compensation Act as well and all those components that feed into
this. Some are directly involved and some are not, but they're all
interconnected and are concerns and things that people want to see worked out
and be articulated very clear by this government before we get to the July 2018
period.
We've
been assured that we're ready. We can do this. We'll have this done. We just
think that you need to make sure you have everything you need done. It's not so
much about July 2018; it's about if we're going to do this, we do it right.
We're well informed. The public is comfortable with it, understands how it will
work. The private sector understands how it will work. Distribution and all of
those variables that are talked about in this bill can be executed and executed
at a level that gives confidence to the public that we're doing this and we're
doing this right.
Mr.
Speaker, those are the comments I have for now on Bill 23. I look at further
discussion as we move forward and go into Committee and hearing specifics from
the minister and from government on how this would roll out and how we move
forward.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I've
very happy to stand here today and speak to Bill 23, An Act to Amend the Liquor
Corporation Act. When you look at it on its face, when you look at when we
actually gave notice of this bill and talked about it, on its face it just
appears to be changes to a currently existing piece of legislation which could
seem very innocuous, seem very small, but the reality is this is a huge, huge
change in this province.
What we
have here is the advent of something, a huge policy shift in this province, in
this country. What we have today, our announcement today, is the start of the
legalization process of cannabis in this province. This bill, these amendments
are the start to that as well, to deal with the retail side of cannabis
legalization.
I think
the minister did a very good job of explaining how this bill works and what the
purpose of this bill is. I guess what I want to talk about is maybe a little
more general. I can say that well over the last year, ever since I was tasked as
being one of the leads on this file, I've been immersed in cannabis
legalization, in policy and analysis.
It hit
me, as I go through this, just how huge this is because a lot of people start
off with a very simple concept. When you talk about legalizing cannabis, the
picture in your head is that smoking a joint – which is something that was
illegal but widely done – was now going to become legal. You just think about it
from that view, from that perspective. Then, when you get into it, it's amazing
how deep this goes, how broad this is, how extensive the work is and, really,
how it affects every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.
A lot of
people look at it from the perspective that, well, I don't consume cannabis,
therefore it doesn't affect me. But it does. It does affect you, even
indirectly. It has been a tremendous process.
What I'd
like to do – I did it today in the announcement, but I'd also like to do it here
in the House. I always say that we get to stand up here and talk about the
legislation as the actual MHAs, as this is part of our duty. But this has been
formed by a significant amount of work done by people behind the scenes from
just about every department. I'd like to thank them for the work they've done.
This has been a significant education for me. I'd like to thank them for the
work they've done that affects everybody in this province.
What I
would say is a lot of times when we do our meetings – I'll say I'm pretty
immersed in this now. I have a pretty good background in what I've learned over
the last year. Part of our job over the next coming months and years will be
talking about this change, how big it is, how it affects people and the
different ways it affects people.
I can
just look down across this frontbench here, when I look at Tourism, Culture,
Industry and Innovation, the minister is a big part of this, as we deal with the
fact that this will have an effect on industry and innovation in this province.
There's a business component to this. Certainly, we are very happy to deal with
economic development in this province as it relates to the cannabis industry.
Then we
look at Education; this is huge as it relates to the children in our province
when we look at education, especially the K to 12 system. We have a lot of work
on our hands to make sure we educate our youth, because this is contrary to a
lot of what we've done in the past when you look at things – again, tying in
Justice and Education: the DARE program. We're changing that now. So we have to
get out into our school systems. That's why the minister is so heavily involved.
We look
at the Minister of Finance; we look at the fact of the taxation side here. We
look at the fact that NLC, by virtue of this bill, will be involved in this
process. There's a huge financial component to this; the taxation side, the
black market side, the revenue side. So, again, what Finance has been doing,
this is a huge part. Obviously, our Premier, as the leader of this government
and as the leader of the province, is spanning everything.
Justice;
I look at what we deal with, especially when it comes to – one of the big things
I deal with, obviously, is the road safety matter when we talk about impaired
driving, when we talk about enforcement, when we talk about our police forces
and the work we have to do there. It's a huge part of this when we talk about
the change in legislation, when we talk about people formally going through the
court process, Crown prosecutors, defence. There are going to be changes to our
Criminal Code. So there's a big Justice aspect to this.
Now,
it's funny, because I don't know how much Natural Resources has to do. Although,
someone jokingly said to me, this may be one of our greatest natural resources.
There was a bit of joke there, but I look forward to municipalities and
environment. There were questions in this House today from the Opposition about
how does it affect municipalities? And it does.
Then we
continue going down; we look at Fisheries and Land Resources, Crown Land. Crown
Land has been a big part of this because we have individuals out there and
companies that want to get into this business and they need to avail of Crown
land.
We look
at Health and Community Services; obviously, Health has a big role to play here
because of the health impacts of this policy change.
We go
then to Advanced Education, Skills and Labour; again, another significant
involvement there. Memorial University has been a part of this discussion. We
just talked about students when we talk about cannabis usage.
Finally,
we go down to Transportation and Works; again, more indirectly than anything,
but when we talk road safety, Transportation and Works has been a part of that.
I go
back when I look at CSSD, when I look at Service NL – this really does span the
entirety of government.
The
first thing I want to put out to people is that everything is not known yet.
This is just a beginning of a roll out of the policies which will govern this
province as it relates to cannabis legalization. I'd like to think we're ahead
of the curve in many ways when it comes to this process. We have some provinces
that have not made these announcements yet, have not made these policy
decisions.
We have
some provinces that are ahead of that. In fact, I can remember going to my fist
FPT meeting, federal- provincial-territorial meeting, in January of 2016. What
New Brunswick was bringing up was very much ahead of where we were at that time,
especially with a new government coming in. They had been ahead of that. I even
still have a binder upstairs of the work they had already completed.
What I
can say, there's very much been a consultative process taken when it comes to
talking to the other provinces and the other territories, talking to the feds on
where we need to go with this. The feds laid out the groundwork, laid out the
framework, but provinces have had a lot of decisions to make on where we want to
go with this. In every province there are some similarities in how we operate
and there are some differences in how we operate. Every province will say the
same thing, and I'm certainly going to say it.
I think
we're taking the best approach for Newfoundland and Labrador. There are some
things I look at in other provinces that I agree with; there are some things
that I disagree with, and that's fine. Again, while this debate I'm sure will be
very specific in certain ways when we talk about what the purpose of this
legislation is, I'm sure we will get very general questions as well about
decisions we've made, what decisions are left and how we want to go forward.
When we
talk about the policy we announced today, even as it relates to the age of
majority 19, that's not part of the legislation we're dealing with, but it is
part of the policy that we've announced.
One of
the big reasons we need to go forward with this, though, is that when we look at
the act itself, it's already combined the sale of alcohol, the distribution of
alcohol in this province, for some time. Now we're dealing with the sale and
distribution of cannabis. So that's why we need to change this.
We know
that, basically, the NLC will be the distributor; they'll be the licensor of
this process. We're very happy that private industry will be a part of this and
we need this to move forward with that. I had a question the other day: When are
you going to make these decisions? Because there's a lot of lead time necessary.
To that, I said: Yes, there is a lot of lead time necessary.
This
will allow the NLC to start the RFP process to go out across the province and
say: Who is interested in this? Who wants to be a part of this? There's work
that has to even be done for that RFP; it's something that's very new. I'm sure
the NLC has the resources and ability, given what they've already dealt with.
But there are also some intricacies that have to be dealt with here when it
comes to cannabis, which is different than alcohol, which is different than
tobacco.
It's
going to reach out there to the private industry and say: Who wants to be a part
of this process? Any RFP process takes some time, it takes some consultations,
it will come back. Then we have to figure out, okay, where are we? Where do we
have the interest?
Again,
there are very stringent regulations here. Even though there's the legalization,
cannabis, like alcohol and like tobacco, is a very serious substance. It has
negative health consequences in certain aspects. There are obviously positives
to it. The fact it's already used medically says that, but the fact is we have
to treat this seriously, especially when it comes to the youth of our province.
What
we're going to see here, the sections we're dealing with in this piece of
legislation, just to go through them very quickly, part one, we're dealing with
the definition aspect. Basically, we're adding cannabis. What does cannabis
mean? Even when we first started, this was the marijuana file, but that's not
accurate. That's why it's gone to cannabis. That's what we're dealing with here.
Cannabis
means a cannabis plant, any part of the cannabis plant, including the
phytocannabinoids, any substance or mixture of substances that contain or has on
it any part of a cannabis plant. But there's also what it does not include,
including non-viable seeds of cannabis plants, mature stalks. So there are the
inclusions and the exclusions of what actually constitutes cannabis. There's a
cannabis plant definition and a cannabis store definition.
The next
section – which I also think is very important, because I can tell you I don't
mind saying here, obviously, ever since the federal administration said they
were going to legalize this, there's been a lot of interest in this, both from
those interested in the production side, the distribution side, or just the
usage side – people that want to know more about this.
I've had
a significant amount of contact on all levels. It might be people that come in
for official meetings; it might be people sending you an email. It might be just
if you're out at the hockey game and somebody says what's going on with this.
The interest that it's generated is tremendous and I like to see that.
I look
at some of the consultations that governments have done in the past. For
instance, in the House we talk about the MCRC, Members' Compensation Review
Committee. That committee goes out and holds meetings across the province to
talk about things like MHA compensation. At some meetings they have, nobody
shows up. They get very few written submissions. We've had budget consultations
by multiple governments. They go out and have the road show, meet up and a lot
of times they don't get a great attendance.
When it
came to the public consultation we did here, we did it online. There were also
some targeted stakeholder meetings. The one we did online had just about 2,600
responses. That's huge. That's excellent. To see that amount of interest of
people that contributed was really promising. Then to see the targeted
stakeholders where we reached out to, whether it was health, safety, business,
education, you name it, just about any background, brought in to the room and
were formed a part of the study.
Which
then we got it, we compiled it, we analyzed it and we put it out to the public
some time ago so people could see this, could have a look and see what the
thought process was of the people that took the time to respond. That's just one
part of what we used to help us, to guide us in drafting our legislation here.
So I'm really happy to see that consultative approach.
Moving
forward with the legislation, we have the conflict of interest section here that
I think is obviously very important when we talk about the interest and we talk
about people that are a member of the board or an officer of the corporation,
talking about them directly or indirectly, having an interest in or receiving a
benefit. That brings me back to what I was going to say.
Even
today, since we made the announcement, the amount of feedback I've received via
email, via Facebook, via Twitter, via phone has been tremendous. People are
interested in this process, especially on the business side. People are
extremely interested in this, so anything a government does that generates
interest, I think, is a positive. That is a positive.
Now, we
move forward: “Section 33 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted
….” This is where we're changing what the corporation may do. Basically, there's
the addition of cannabis to what they already do when it comes to controlling
possession, sale and delivery of liquor. Now we're adding cannabis to this.
Previously, you could establish, maintain and operate liquor stores. Now we can
establish, maintain and operate cannabis stores. That's basically the big change
when it comes to that aspect.
We're
talking about how the board may grant a person a licence to possess, sell or
deliver cannabis. The application has to be made to the board in a certain form
and manner. This is where we'll get into a section, I think, that's important
because I actually had this question come up to me just after the press
conference this morning.
It says
under subsection (5) of section 34.1: “The board shall not grant a licence under
this section where ….” The first part is they obviously have to pay a fee, they
have to satisfy requirements in subsection (3) and (4), that being that they
have to make the applications in a certain format. “The board, in the board's
absolute discretion, is of the opinion that the applicant is not a fit and
proper person to keep and operate a premises where cannabis will be sold ….”
Obviously, we have to put checks and balances, regulations and standards in
place as it relates to this.
At the
end of the day, like anything, we're allowing for it, we're legalizing it, but
we need to have the safeties put in place to allow for the prevention of it
still being distributed and sold to youth. That's not what we want. We're not
encouraging that. We don't want that. As I said today, nobody wants to see youth
consuming alcohol, consuming drugs, smoking cigarettes, consuming tobacco, you
name it. It's no different from this.
The
board can also not grant a licence where they believe that “(i) the applicant is
applying on behalf of a beneficial owner, and (ii) the beneficial owner does not
satisfy the requirements of this Act ….” Again, there are some controls in place
there.
“The
board reasonably believes that the past conduct of the applicant establishes
reasonable grounds for the belief that the applicant will not carry on business
in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty ….” Again, we need to
make sure this business – because it is now going to be a legal business – is
done in an upright fashion, in a legal fashion, in an ethical and moral fashion.
That allows this.
“The
applicant is carrying on activities that are, or will be, where the applicant is
licensed, in contravention of this Act;” the granting of the licence would not
be in the public interest; the applicant and where the applicant is a
corporation have been convicted within the five years previous for a violation
of the Excise Tax Act, the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the
Food and Drugs Act and the Criminal
Code. There are some strong conditions here.
What I
will say on the federal side, when it comes to the current production of
cannabis across the country, there has been some very strong and stringent
conditions put in place to ensure that we don't have non-reputable people. One
of the big things here has been underground organizations, criminal
organizations, black market; we're trying to eliminate that.
We
continue on here with some conditions. It talks about the price fixing here that
has to happen. The board fixes the price for when it comes to wine, beer and
spirits. The same thing is going to be here. But, believe me, we are extremely
cognizant, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that – because there are a lot of people out
there saying is government going to tax it, well, yes, there will be taxation
applied, but if this product is so expensive that the person is going to get it
on the black market for a much lower price, then you've failed before you
started.
We have
to be cognizant that no matter what happens here, the same as there is a black
market for liquor and there is a black market for tobacco, if we are not
competitive with what's out there, people will stick with the avenues in which
they currently avail of the substance. We need to be competitive.
That's
one of the reasons that we are still in negotiations and in discussions with the
federal government on a number of fronts, including taxation. This was a federal
government decision. A lot of the responsibility falls to us so we have to
ensure we get the resources that we need to do this and that it's not just a
federal – I'm not going to use the term tax grab but, again, the feds have to
work with us here. We have to work together to make this a workable policy item.
I'm
going to take my seat now. I will look forward to the opportunity, during
Committee stage, to answer as many questions as we can, to debate this. I'm sure
there's going to be debate. Just as sure as I had people coming to me today
saying way to go, we're so happy to see this happening, there are also people
out there that don't like this. They don't like it.
Surely,
this is not a policy discussion where you're going to have universality or
you're going to have everybody that likes what you do. There are a number of
people out there that do not agree with the legalization, and that's fine. I get
that. I understand that. What we need to realize is that the federal government
is moving forward with this and if we don't do our part, the feds will do it for
us. That's not in our best interests. We need to do what is necessary and in the
best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
I'd like
to think that Bill 23, the amendments here, are a start to that. There are more
pieces of policy, there are more pieces of legislation that are going to come
forward as it guides the legalization of cannabis in this country and in this
province. On that note, I look forward to continuing the debate on this and I
certainly look forward to us moving forward.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a
pleasure to get up and speak on this piece of legislation, Bill 23, being
debated here in the House today by my colleagues and Members opposite. It's an
interesting piece of legislation, actually, when you sit down and you listen to
the debate and the conversation. I think probably most Members in the House
would agree that it's kind of a cultural thing. It's an adjustment to the train
of thought, to getting their head around to the reality of what we're actually
debating. I guess it's a show of progress and how life changes.
There
was a time, I guess, when alcohol was – we had prohibition back in the day.
They'd have to go and get their books signed to get their allowance, it was
regulated to that degree. We've come a long way, obviously, Mr. Speaker.
My
colleague from Ferryland, the Government House Leader, and the minister have
spoken on it. We got into the details of the legislation and the bill itself. I
know at the news conference held earlier today there were some briefings and the
media is reporting on it. I guess we've talked about a lot of the fine details
of this legislation, but I kind of wanted to put the human terms on it, the
average person.
When I
speak in this House, a lot of times I try to put it to the common Joe, the
coffee shop conversation that most people have about this sort of thing, outside
of getting into the weeds of the legislation because sometimes that can be very
confusing to the average person.
I had an
opportunity to speak about this to many of my constituents and they all accept
that it was a promise made, the federal government brought in this change. Prime
Minister Trudeau made this promise, an election promise actually in 2015. It
garnered a lot of attention, a lot of support for him and his government back
then. It was a known fact, he did garner a lot of support right across the
country when he announced this, but in saying that, he had a lot of naysayers.
I heard
this morning on the radio, there's a guy, a federal MP, who was comparing it to
fentanyl, the use of marijuana to fentanyl. That's the extreme example. I don't
think anyone in this House could take – that's a bit over the top, but to put it
in the context, there are concerns out there. It's something that under the
regulations, when the bill is enacted there will be certain legislative changes
or adjustments.
It's
going to be just a full cultural shift in how we deal with this because we spend
so much time – there are organizations dealing with it. You have MADD who are
very big advocates on drunk driving, drinking and driving; Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, they do a lot. I mean, this organization is well known. They promote
awareness and prevention. I mean, it's not a matter of the use; it's always the
abuse and it's something that they've always done since their organization –
they've done a lot of good work.
Just
recently we increased penalties for drunk driving, zero tolerance for our young
drivers, in an effort to curb drinking and driving, the unnecessary deaths that
happen on our roads.
Introducing marijuana as being legalized and trying to regulate it, we are, in
essence – in one form, you're opening the door. It's a federal regulation and
we're changing our legislation to accept it. As we open that door, we also open
another door to creating a new problem that we're going to have to find ways
around, and there will be issues with that. That's something that I think needs
to be a more broad discussion on because I know that we speak about it, we hear
about it now, it's the federal initiative, legalization of marijuana.
When you
take that word – we're getting immune to it now in the last two years because
it's over the news – the legalization of marijuana. You hear it every day and
it's just like, okay, that's going on and you just don't pay attention, but when
you sit down and you start really paying more attention, reading, digging into
the details of this legislation, digging into the commentary on it, it makes you
take pause and have that sober thought.
The
Government House Leader made a great point there when he mentioned the DARE
program. I know I, and I'm sure a lot of colleagues here in the House, they
attended DARE graduations. My own children went through that program. That's one
of the big things that they're told at the drug awareness program: it's
marijuana, it's one of them listed, tobacco, alcohol and, obviously, many of the
other drugs.
You're
teaching the children – the RNC has this great program and it's a good program –
these are the no-nos, stay away. They are taboo, yet we're going to legalize it.
I think that's going to be the cultural shift, psychological shift, what have
you, that we're all – all of us, not only in this Legislature, in the province,
in the country, it's going to be a huge adjustment to us.
I'll go
a step further on this whole concept. Every one of us have constituents who work
out west, out in Alberta. They commute to the oil fields or what have you.
Mandatory drug testing is a huge component of those jobs. You have to comply
every time. It can be random drug tests and apparently marijuana will stay in
your system for upwards of 30 days. The cocaine and the heroine and other
heavier, obviously more dangerous drugs, when you look at the level of danger,
they stay there for a lot less time.
It's a
known fact – I've talked to other Members in this House and I know lots of
people in my own district – they go to cocaine because marijuana stays in your
system for 30 days. We're going to legalize marijuana now, so will that still
apply for the mandatory drug testing? If they're not impaired when they show up
to the job site, they haven't done anything illegal. Will that affect their
jobs? That is a valid question.
I have
had this conversation with several people about this particular issue. In one
sense, they're saying: How does this work? You're promoting – well, not
promoting, but you're legalizing it, making it okay to use marijuana. Will the
legislative change affect my job site when I go for the mandatory drug testing?
Will that drug remain on the list? Will I be terminated from my job if that
shows up in my system even though I'm not impaired and I had that three days or
four days ago? With alcohol and the heavier drugs – as I said, cocaine and
heroin – it's okay, it's not in your system. I know all through this
conversation of legalization of marijuana, that's something I've thought about
and it's been one that I questioned.
I mean,
we are looking at the Workplace Health,
Safety and Compensation Act, that's one, but you're looking at, basically,
your Highway Traffic Act. You're
looking at, basically, the legislation and laws of the land, what's legal and
what's not and what employers will be able to apply against their employees if
they do show up with a trace of marijuana in their system.
If
you're looking at 30 days, Mr. Speaker – and I'll use a crane operator,
actually, because it was the one person I had spoken to and they used that
example. So if you're a crane operator and you had marijuana two weeks ago,
you're going to show in your blood test when you go back to the job site you had
marijuana. You've never done anything illegal and it was two weeks ago, but they
have a zero-tolerance policy.
Now that
we've made it legal, it's no longer a criminal activity, I think that's a big
issue, especially in Newfoundland where we have a lot of those workers who work
in offshore and work in construction, trades workers. Mandatory drug testing
policies are in place in all of those job sites for the safety of all. Not just
them, the safety of everyone on that job site because that's a domino effect,
Mr. Speaker. One person does the job wrong and makes one accident, a chain of
events could happen and it could end up being a catastrophe. It could cause a
lot of deaths.
It's
very strict rules, but I think those rules are going to have to be revisited in
light of this legislative change. I want to be on the record as saying that, Mr.
Speaker. I hope government gives that some serious consideration when they're in
the process of bringing in this legislation. I'll say it again: Newfoundland is
very unique to that turnaround worker, that turnaround and work away. That's our
culture. We've always worked away and that's not a new thing. It's a very common
issue. I think all of us in this House, if you want to go and talk to people in
your district, you would find that is a big issue.
A couple
of other things on that, too, Mr. Speaker. I noticed the minister got up today
and answered our leader's questions. We had some questions. He came out publicly
and stated the 50-50 tax breakdown that the federal government is offering or
proposing is not satisfactory to the province, which is good. That's a good
thing. We are glad. We had concerns. Why would the federal government still get
50 per cent of the revenue from sales and taxation when the province is bearing
all the cost? I'm glad to hear the minister actually stated this.
Mr.
Speaker, something else, too – and again, I'm trying to speak to the common
man's thoughts and concerns and what have you. My colleague for Ferryland made a
good point when he spoke and I know I've heard the same story. Young people and
the development of the brain, it's up to 25. There are a lot of experts out
there that say the brain is still developing until you're 25, but we're going to
legalize and allow the use of marijuana at 19.
Again, I
hope government takes some serious time to consult with those experts on that
issue because it's not a matter of being opposed to legalization of marijuana.
It is what it is. It's being done; it's a new age we're coming into. But I think
it is incumbent upon all of us to look at all of the possible pitfalls and
concerns. Not only concerns we have in this House – but better still, yeah,
maybe it is the concerns we have in this House because we represent the
population of this province. Forty of us in this House represent the entire
population of Newfoundland so, yeah, maybe we should.
Those
are concerns I hear. My colleagues brought it up here today. We all hear it. I'm
sure Members opposite do, too. It's not criticism. None of this is intended to
be criticism and I hope it's not taken that way. It's more of bring the issues
out there. It may catch someone's attention and it may not, but it's incumbent
upon us to speak for the residents we represent.
Mr.
Speaker, last year I had the privilege of serving for the last six or eight
months on the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. I'll come
back to the cultural shift of use of marijuana in today's society. Addictions in
general, I'm sure that a lot of people in this House – I know me, personally,
addictions have hit close to my home.
The open
question is: Are we aware? Are we all comfortable of where we're going with
this? I'll go back to my initial comment. Marijuana has been legalized; it's the
legalization of marijuana. It is what it is and we're going to have to live with
it, but we're all becoming very immune to the subject of the legalization of
marijuana.
My mom
is in her 70s and she's in a different culture of this stuff. She has different
visions on this. She was well behind; she had a different view on it altogether.
But she hears it and when we get talking about it, then it is like: That's
right. Yeah, that's true. When you start really thinking about it, it's not just
the word when you start putting to practice.
Is it
going to be fine to go over and walk in the hospital parking lot and the smell
of marijuana waffling through the parking lot? Cars driving on the road – it's
going to happen. It's not a manner of it not happening. You can be rest assured
you're going to have this in private homes. I don't know how you're going to
control that. I really don't. In reality, I don't really know how you control
it. Are you going to limit the amount that an individual can grow? I don't know
how you control that. You can put any regulation in; it's just how do you
control it?
Again, I
started off by saying the prohibition days when you had your book. It used to be
the bond book, I think they called it, and you'd get signed off for your weekly
or monthly supply. We've gone a long ways from there, but in today's world of
2017-2018, when it's going to be enacted in July 2018, we need to still have
that cultural shift.
We need
to really have a serious look at all of this stuff. Right now, you're caught up
in – the regulation is coming down and it's here. I repeat: It is here. That's
what struck me about this bill. We talked about it in our caucus, we have lots
of discussions and reading the media, the briefing notes you get and here in
this House.
I would
guess most people in this Legislature, some of what I'm saying hits home with
their own thoughts. When you move out of here, you're not at all against
everything. I'm far from that, but when you put it in practical terms, I think
it's a bigger thing then saying – I'll go back to my words again – legalization
of marijuana. We all just say that and just move on to the next topic.
I think
we all need to take that sober second look and thought. This will come. It's not
a matter of stopping anything from coming. I just think we need to be, as a
government, as a people, very cognizant of the possibilities, the pitfalls of
this. There are always pitfalls. No matter what you do, there'll always be
pitfalls.
There's
going to be revenue generation. We're setting up the country. It's a new age.
We're trying to make this legalized because medical marijuana, people believe in
this. There's a big chunk of the population believes in this initiative. There's
no doubt in my mind, I know that and I accept that. It's a very popular thing to
do.
What
Prime Minister Trudeau has done is a very popular move. It definitely garnered
him a lot of support. I guess, who are we to question it? Maybe it was a
brilliant move, but I still think in doing that move we need to have a serious
conversation in this Legislature and around through the public consultations. I
really think there should be more consultations done.
Right
now we're bringing in legislation, but has there been any talk of having public
consultations? I think that would be very interesting to have those
conversations. Then you'd hear the crane operator that I was just referring to;
then you'd hear the 70-odd-year-old grandmother, who has concerns; then you may
hear the teacher come in; you may hear the police officer; you may hear the
lawyer, the judge. That's where it's to. I think that's where it's at. This is
not stopping – again, I'll go back, this is not stopping anything.
Instead
of us using the buzzword of legalization of marijuana, maybe we can go a little
bit deeper and say, you know, there are real concerns here. Maybe we should look
at that. Maybe that's something we should bring back to our federal
counterparts.
You can
go to the extreme of what I heard this morning on the radio, a federal MP
comparing marijuana to fentanyl, which I started – I mean it's not funny, but I
couldn't believe he actually used that term. I was blown away by that. All I'm
talking about is more openness, more educational, more involvement.
I know
we hear the word consultation is an overused word, and it is one of the words
I'm very critical of a lot of times, but on something like this, I don't think
that would be a bad thing to do. I don't think it would be a bad thing. I think
we'd have consultations throughout the province, just to get feedback of what
people feel.
Everything government are proposing people may say they love it, they think it's
100 per cent accurate. I think we speak for the population of the province, but
it's not a bad practice either to sometimes on stuff like this, not everything
because you were elected to govern. We've been critical of some things, you have
consultations on too much stuff, but on something like this, I don't know if we
know all there is to know about the effects, the impacts, the consequences this
legislation is going to have on our province.
Maybe we
should go and talk to all those individuals because they have their own
expertise. We have former police officers sitting in this Legislature, we have a
doctor, we have lawyers, we have all walks of life here, Mr. Speaker.
I think
sometimes we pass legislation, we debate, we go through the back and forth and
we think we hit all the marks, but on something like this I think we need more,
I really do. I think there's a bigger picture out there. When I get up here and
spend my time talking like this, and other Members do too, I hope the general
public pose some questions and share them with the government, share them with
the minister.
At the
end of the day, hopefully we can make a better piece of legislation, a stronger
piece of legislation that will deal with a lot of societal concerns because, Mr.
Speaker, that is the big key. So instead of saying the legalization of
marijuana, there's a full pyramid under that. That's only the tip of the
iceberg. There are a lot more things involved in that conversation than just
that term. No doubt, there are positives to it, but there are negatives and we
need to make sure we mitigate all of those things.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure for me today to rise in this hon. House to discuss Bill 23, An Act to
Amend the Liquor Corporation Act, which I think is probably one of the most
progressive pieces of legislation that we've seen in this House for a long time.
It's here today because we have been, I guess, legislated by the federal
government to move ahead with our own legislation to implement what we think is
the best approach to the legalization of cannabis in this province.
First, I
will say that this bill does not legalize cannabis in this province, but it
certainly is the first step toward that process. We will eventually come to a
time in this House when we will have an act that will legalize.
What I'm
going to do with my time, Mr. Speaker, because I don't want to be too
repetitive, but we have prepared, I would say, a question and answer document
for our youth. Based on what we've heard from the people of the province, it's
really a question and answer document on how we got where we are today and what
we intend to do between now and July of 2018.
The
first question I would say is: Why is the province legalizing cannabis? Some
people have referred to this – as did the last speaker, the hon. Member for
Conception Bay South – in the 2015 federal election the Liberal Party committed
to legalizing cannabis. They introduced a bill, C-45, which was An Act
respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act, the
Criminal Code and other Acts, it's known as the
Cannabis Act, was introduced in the
House of Commons on April 13, 2017. If this act is approved by Parliament, the
bill could become law with a target date of no later than July 2018. When you
think about it, Mr. Speaker, that's not all that far away.
Why has
the federal government chosen to legalize cannabis? Well, according to the
Liberal platform they put forward, the electoral platform in 2015, Canada's
current system of marijuana prohibition does not work. We all know that today,
that it is not working because we see lots of abuse and lots of misuse of the
product. They stated that it does not prevent young people from using marijuana
and too many Canadians end up with criminal records for possessing small amounts
of the drug; hence, we are where we are today. It's a move by the federal
government to legalize cannabis, which includes marijuana, and to put some
serious restrictions on its use and access.
What
actions has the federal government taken with the cannabis legislation? Well, to
fulfill the federal government's commitment on legalizing cannabis, a task force
on cannabis legalization and regulation was created to advise on the design of a
new system. The task force sought the views of Canadians on issues that are key
to the design of a new system. This information was provided to the federal
government with a final report on December 13, 2016. It was that report that
informed the federal people to put together C-45.
We just
heard the Member for CBS say: Well, we probably need more consultation. Well, I
will go as far to say that in the summer of 2017, the provincial government
sought input from residents through an online questionnaire on the legalization
of cannabis in Newfoundland and Labrador. The consultation process consisted of
an online questionnaire, in-person meetings with targeted stakeholders in St.
John's, Corner Brook, Labrador City and the opportunity for interested parties
to make written submissions.
Close to
2,600 people submitted online questionnaires, making it the highest response
rate for any provincial government online questionnaire to date. Approximately
120 people attended the in-person sessions and seven formal written submissions
were received.
Mr.
Speaker, I will venture to say that this has been the most successful
consultative process that's ever been undertaken by any provincial government in
this province. It was these consultations that are leading us to develop the
made-in-Newfoundland and Labrador legislation that we are starting to process
today. It is because of those consultations that we were well informed of what
the people of this province expect.
The
Member for Conception Bay South was right, not everybody agrees with this, but
it's 2017 and society has moved to a point where the legalization of cannabis,
they feel, is the right thing to do. Every possible group that would be affected
by this were consulted, Mr. Speaker, throughout the last six to eight months.
There's always going to be time for more consultation, but what we're proposing
here today really is the onset of a piece of legislation that will eventually be
put into practice later in 2018.
We all
know that there are risks involved, associated with smoking cannabis. The Member
for Conception Bay South mentioned the one on the job, and that's a very
important one, I might add, because it is a time now when most major companies
do have very strict regulations and guidelines around employees and the use of
any drugs or alcohol.
I would
say to the Member, whether it's illegal like it is now or legal after July 2018,
it's still the responsibility of the employee to govern themselves accordingly,
whether to show up for work, whether they're under the influence of alcohol or
under the influence of cannabis, it's still the responsibility of the employee
to govern themselves.
I don't
know where companies are going to go with this because it goes from illegal to
legal, but I would venture to say that the outcomes and the risks are still the
same, regardless if it's illegal or not.
We've
also heard, of course, that cannabis is more risky for youth. We believe that.
That is why we've chosen – as a first step in our policy – the age of 19 to be
the legal age for the purchase and the acquisition and the use of cannabis. That
would be concurrent with the age now for alcohol and tobacco. It's consistent
and it leaves no, I guess, ambiguity in whether people who can and who cannot
purchase the product.
There's
been a lot of research done on what's the use of cannabis in Newfoundland and
Labrador? Is it above the national average? Is it below the national average or
where are we? Where do we stand on the national stage when it comes to the use
of cannabis?
Currently, cannabis in Newfoundland and Labrador is below the Canadian average;
however, that's a little bit skewed because even though we're below the Canadian
average in cannabis use, we are amongst the worst tobacco smokers and drinkers
in the country. Where we end up, I don't know.
Cannabis
use is very strong amongst youth, currently being above the Canadian average. If
you single out the youth of this province, the youth are above the national
average, which is certainly an alarming fact.
According to the 2012 student drug use survey, that was in 2012, five years ago,
11.1 per cent of Newfoundland and Labrador students used cannabis either every
week or almost every week and less than every week. We do have some statistics
on this.
What
objectives would we have? What are our objectives in legalizing cannabis? What
benefits would come from that? Well, the key objective for the province in
cannabis legalization would include: to discourage the use of cannabis by youth
and encourage responsibility among those adults who chose to use it. By making
it 19 years of age as the legal age to purchase the cannabis, we would be making
it more difficult for youth to access it.
It will
reduce the burden on our criminal justice system, and our objective certainly is
to promote safety on our roads, public places and in our workplaces and to keep
the profits from the sale of cannabis out of the hands of criminals because
that's where it is right now. It's an underground market that is very active out
there and the people who are benefiting from the sale of cannabis and other
drugs, certainly, are the criminals.
Again, I
go back to why we chose 19 years of age. As I said, this is consistent with the
age designated for the purchase of alcohol. In Newfoundland and Labrador,
19-year-olds are considered adults based on the
Age of Majority Act. Having the purchasing age for alcohol and
cannabis consistent is in line with other Canadian jurisdictions such as
Alberta, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec. They have all accepted the model and
have accepted that 19 years of age would be the legal age of purchase.
According to the online survey on cannabis legalization, 53 per cent of the
responders agree with consistent ages for alcohol and cannabis purchasing.
Again, we saw from the consultations that the majority of the people who
responded believe that's the right way to go.
While
some research suggests that cannabis use before the age of 25 is damaging, a
balance must be struck between public health and safety and enforceability. How
will the Newfoundland and Labrador government ensure youth are not accessing
cannabis? This is a very important part of this whole process. By legalizing
cannabis, how do we ensure that youth are not accessing it?
The
provincial government will enforce a number of specific provisions designed to
help keep cannabis and cannabis products out of the hands of children, including
the following: a prohibition against providing or selling cannabis to youth; the
creation of a new offence of using a minor to commit an offence relating to
distribution, safe sale, import, export or production of cannabis; prohibiting
the selling, packing and labelling of cannabis products that are considered
appealing to youth, much the same as we do today with tobacco sales; prevent
youth from being persuaded to use cannabis products by establishing many of the
same advertising restrictions as exists today for tobacco products – we know
that if you go into a convenience store today, the tobacco products are hidden,
or at least they're supposed to be hidden behind shelving designed not to
promote the sale – prohibiting the sale of cannabis through a self-service
display or vending machine, so you won't be able to buy it through vending
machines; and allowing the making of regulations that will require such things
as childproof packaging and a universal THC symbol.
There
are a number of initiatives that we will be implementing as we lead up to the
legalization of cannabis. But we have to remember that, today, in Bill 23, all
we're doing is giving the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation the
authority and the ability to get ready for July 2018.
When you
think about it, while there are a few months between here and there, those
months go pretty quickly. By legislation, we have to be able to give that
organization the authority to move ahead with the planning and implementation.
That's what we're doing with Bill 23 today.
How much
cannabis can a person carry on them? That's still up in the air, but we know
that the federal legislation and regulations are suggesting that adults will be
able to possess up to 30 grams of dried legal cannabis or equivalent in public.
The 30 grams is the amount that is being used federally. Whether we adopt it
that's, again, something we will be debating over the next little while but,
certainly, it's a guideline for all provinces to follow. Thirty grams seems to
be somewhat reasonable.
I'm not
going to get into the edibles because there are a lot of questions coming around
the edibles. That's something that, as the minister stated today in his press
conference, edibles are not included in this legislation. It's something that
the federal government are looking at for 2019.
When it
comes to edibles, I think you're getting into a whole new area of products
because there are a number of forms, of course. It can be brownies, cookies,
candies, gummi bears, suckers and chocolates, you name it; it can come in any
form.
It's
something that is going to have to be carefully –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Alouettes.
MR. LETTO:
Alouettes, even, yes. So it
can come in any form.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LETTO:
Oh, yeah.
I know
some people in this House who have experienced that through their enforcement
days. I guess they can know pretty well that this stuff can come in many forms.
Sometimes, it's very, very –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LETTO:
Yeah.
It could
come in many different forms and could be well disguised. That's something
that's coming. We have to deal with it and the federal government, I think, have
implemented a target year of 2019 as being able to do that.
One of
the areas, of course, that's concerning for everybody – and it's been brought up
by most speakers – is the fact of the use of drugs and driving. There's a lot of
work to be done there.
We've
been talking to organizations like MADD. I must say they're very interested in
this; they were at the press conference today. They're looking forward to
legislation and regulations surrounding that. We've gone and come a long way in
the alcohol restrictions in the last year or so with regard to the driving
limits and whatnot. That's going to be a very serious discussion that's going to
have to be had by many people, I think, over the next little while, in
consultation with law enforcement and the different organizations around the
province – like I said, including MADD – to come up with a system that will be
able to be used on our highways to enforce that.
We know
that both the RNC and RCMP have officers now who are trained as drug recognition
experts, but there's a lot of work that needs to be done there. It's not as easy
as going out and taking a blood-alcohol test on the highway. It's more involved
than that. We have to come up with a means to be able to determine what the drug
use is and what the drug levels are in those people. There's still a lot of work
to be done.
The
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board also mentioned who would be
selling this. Again, NLC will be carrying out that, going out for RFPs on who
would be interested in providing sales and hosting that. I think it's the wish
of the NLC and government that this would be done to the private sector more
than – certainly, not in all cases because there may be some cases where the
private sector will not be able to do it and, then, the NLC would have to find
other means, whether it was through their own facilities or not.
We hope
the private sector will take advantage of this, get involved and provide good
plans to NLC for the sale of cannabis. It's something that we look forward to as
an economic development generator helping the private sector. Most of these
people, the convenience stores – some of them are struggling, some are doing
well, but this is another means of attracting customers to their premises. We
hope they will take advantage of that.
Mr.
Speaker, my time is running out, but I just want to conclude by saying I want
to, again, thank the minister and all the departments that have been involved in
planning this. I know there's been a lot of work done by a lot of good people
within government.
We're
not finished yet. There are still loads of work to do, but I can assure you –
and as the Minister of Justice and Public Safety said – we will be ready for
July 2018.
Thank
you, 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'm
happy to stand this afternoon to speak to Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Liquor
Corporation Act. Actually, what it has to do with is an act to deal with the use
of cannabis, so that has to do with the buying, the selling and the use of
cannabis. That's really what we're dealing with here today.
I have
to say that we've had a couple of pieces of legislation in the House this week
that are extremely important pieces. One had to do with the monitoring of
prescriptions, which got passed here today in short order, and then the other
one is Bill 23 that we're now dealing with.
I have
to mention the fact that, in both cases, we have pieces of legislation that were
quite in depth. We had a briefing one day and the next day we start second
reading on those pieces. It's very disturbing.
I think
if we used our legislative Standing Committees that are described in our
Standing Orders, and we use them the way that they're meant to be used, these
are pieces of legislation that would have gone to the Committees, while they
were in the stage of being produced, so that the Committees – everybody
together, all parties in the House together – could work on the legislation,
bring forward people to speak to legislation and to have an open and public
process around the development of the legislation.
Unfortunately, that's not how we operate. I'm hoping that when we finally get a
democratic reform committee in place – and I know that's going to happen – I
hope that we're going to be able to sit outside of this room and really deal
with the fact that the process that we use in here to pass legislation is not –
well, I'm not going to say effective. I mean, we certainly use it to the best
ability that we can, but it's not inclusive of involvement of all parties in the
House in the development of the legislation. By the time it comes here,
government, for the most part, figures they've got a perfect piece of
legislation and while we go through a process of trying to make amendments and
get changes, nothing in depth gets changed because they've decided ahead of time
that what they've put together is basically it.
We've
got to deal with that, and I'm sure we shall, but right now at this moment, I
will take the time that I have, even though we didn't get a copy in our hands to
hold onto until yesterday afternoon. We weren't even allowed to take a copy of
the bill with us after the briefing in the morning, but even though we only got
in our hands yesterday afternoon, we obviously are ready to speak to it and we
shall.
My
starting point, having said that, is what the Minister of Finance said today in
presenting the bill. In presenting the bill, the minister said: When it comes to
the sale of cannabis, the main goal of government is finding private retailers.
Private retailers are the goal of the government.
The
minister also said that the use of the Newfoundland and Labrador liquor control
outlets, he didn't use this phrase, but it's a last-ditch thing. It's the last
thing you do. You only do it if you can't possibly get private retailers. You
only do it through NLC in that case.
The
other thing, of course, is it's restricted to private residencies. That was the
other thing. That's not in the legislation either, that the use of cannabis will
be restricted to private residencies.
Those
pieces of information are basically not in the legislation, which I find
interesting, because the legislation initially is allowing and opening the door
for NLC, the liquor control, to be both the regulator and distributor, but in
the presentation that was made to us it was made clear, and the minister echoed
that today, that being the distributor is only at the outset. In other words,
only as they get it off the ground, during that period of time NLC could be the
distributor, but the goal is to have private retailers and this is disturbing.
In the
legislation, and I'm not going to go through the legislation bit by bit at this
time, I think we will be doing that in Committee, but right now, I do want to
point out one thing to the general public who are watching. Section 33 of the
bill – well, actually it says section 3 of the bill replaces section 33 in the
act that's being amended. It's interesting that this gives the powers to the
corporation, and the powers they're giving are powers that have to do with the
buying, importing, selling of alcohol and cannabis or articles associated with
alcohol, liquor or cannabis.
What's
really interesting is the phrase that is used: the corporation may. So it may
buy, import and have in its possession for sale cannabis. The corporation may
control the possession, sale and delivery of all alcoholic liquor and cannabis –
it may. The corporation may, with the prior approval of the minister,
“establish, maintain and operate cannabis stores” at the places in the province
that may be considered advisable for the sale of cannabis.
That
“may” is really significant, because anybody who didn't hear what the minister
said today or anybody who hasn't seen the news release that was released around
noontime will not know from that “may” that in actual fact the real goal of
government is to have sales, in particular, done through private retailers.
Having
the “may” in here in the legislation allows NLC to get all of this started, but
ultimately government wants them out of the sales. The only time they would be
involved in sales is if it was absolutely impossible to get a private retailer
in the community. So the “may” allows for that, but the ultimate goal of
government, according to the minister – and I wrote it down as he said it – the
ultimate goal is finding private retailers.
Now,
that really disturbs me because that in and of itself, I believe, is extremely
short sighted. We all know how much money NLC makes through the sale of alcohol.
It's huge. The profits they gain from alcohol are huge and the profits that
government receives from those sales are huge. We know, and everybody who does
the analysis around the use of cannabis and what's going to happen with the
whole legalization of cannabis in our country, is that there's going to be big
money to be made – really big money to be made.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm having a hard time to speak.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
We know
there is big money to be made and I cannot believe that government, in pushing
private retailers, is giving up the opportunity to make more money that can go
into our social programs in this province.
One of
the issues I have raised many times, and my colleague has raised many times in
this House, is that it is not a spending problem we have. The spending problem
is related to our revenues, and here we have an opportunity to increase our
revenues, to increase them significantly if the sale of marijuana or cannabis is
kept under the NLC as liquor is. So I find it really, really difficult.
Other
places, for example, in Nova Scotia, the union involved with workers who would
work inside of the public system in Nova Scotia and the Nova Scotia government
together did a study with regard to cannabis. In Nova Scotia, they came to the
conclusion that keeping the sale under the public sector was the way to go.
Now, we
know there are places where that's not happening. One of them is Manitoba, but
let's listen to what the president of the Manitoba government employees union
said: “Like with liquor sales, the public sale of marijuana would ensure a
greater level of social responsibility” – and that's important – “while also
ensuring revenue generated from the sales would go back into other public
services such as health and education.”
That's
from the union in Manitoba, the union of government employees. That same
sentiment, one will find, when one looks at the model they're using in Ontario.
Again, in Ontario they are committed to selling it under the public system. They
are committed to maintaining, therefore, unionized, higher paying jobs, and they
are committed to taking revenues and putting them into the social services.
I know
government here has said, yes, they want to take some of the money and put into
social programming, but it would be a lot more money if the sales are happening
under our public system.
I find
it interesting that the Minister of Finance couldn't give a real number about
what the revenues could be. I think he started at $29 million and went to $40
million. I think that's what he said. It definitely went to $40 million, but my
question is: Why couldn't he give us a firmer figure? Why couldn't he show us in
a more firm way how much money will be made by private retailers instead of by
the liquor control, therefore by government because of revenues that would go to
government?
Let's
look at some other points, Mr. Speaker. The reinvestment of money is what
government is all about. The reinvestment of money they get from taxation, the
reinvestment of money they get from royalties, the reinvestment of any sources
of funds that come to government, reinvesting into the people of the province,
and that is not the responsibility of private retailers.
The
responsibility of private retailers, whether it's to themselves or whether it's
to shareholders – although I don't think we're going to be into corporations
that have shareholders – their big goal is to make money. So who is it that this
government is most concerned about, people who want to make a load of money or
the good of the people in the province?
Now,
it's important that the legislation we have does allow for a hybrid way of
dealing with sales. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem when
the Minister of Finance says that the ultimate goal is to have all the sales in
the hands of private retailers.
I heard
it said by one of the government Members, it was during the press conference, I
think, that this will create jobs. Yes, it will create jobs. If it were kept
inside of the public system or whether it goes private, it will create jobs. The
important thing is if it happened inside of the public system under NLC, it
would create jobs that are permanent, well-paying jobs. So that's not the issue
here. You're not going to have more jobs because of the private retailers. It
could very well be you'll have fewer jobs. We can't do that analysis. I don't
have the information, but it could be.
You
certainly will not have people paid at the same rate that they're being paid
inside of the public sector. We know the public sector does well. The Crown
corporation NLC does extremely well. They do that; they pay well-paying jobs,
workers with benefits, workers who are working in safe places. They do that and
still make a huge profit. That profit is going to be lost because of what this
government is doing, and I am really shocked by what this government is doing.
They say they care, but when we look at what they're doing we have to question
how much they care.
Mr.
Speaker, the other thing that concerns me is how the government is going to put
in place, before July 1, what needs to be put in place. NLC has to put out
requests for proposals. NLC has to try to get a network set up. They are the
ones in charge of all of the work that has to be done in preparation. They're
going to have to come up with the regulations with regard to the control, the
possession and sale and delivery of cannabis. They're the ones who are going to
have to get stores established. Whether those stores initially are within their
system or whether they are stores that are private, they are the ones who are
going to have to get them established and set up.
How all
this is going to happen between now and July 1, I really don't know. I'll be
hoping the minister, or one of the ministers because there's more than one
minister involved with this piece of legislation, will give us some answers.
What is their plan to really show the rollout can happen?
Now
they've protected themselves, because by having the Liquor Corporation in charge
initially at the outset, we actually do have the possibility of some structure
being in place, but there is so much that the Liquor Corporation will have to
do, I just don't know how it can be. I'll be looking forward to an answer to
that from the ministers as we proceed with this debate.
I also
will be looking forward to an answer as to why. Will they be accountable to the
people of this province for giving up revenues that could be going to the
people? How can they be accountable for that to the people in this province? I'd
like to know. We need more money in our health, in education. We need more money
in so many of our social programs, and this government is actually going to be
reneging income.
Again,
the Minister of Finance sort of gave a $10 million or $11 million range in the
profits he talked about. Well, that's a big range, number one. And number two,
why? Why only a range? Is he afraid for people to know how much profit will be
lost because it's going to the private retail sector?
I
noticed in Ontario, one of the things they expect to happen in Ontario is that –
because it's going totally under the public system there – people who right now
are entrepreneurs and involved in cannabis and the sale of cannabis, et cetera,
growing, et cetera, they expect a lot of them are going to choose to become
employed within the public sector.
Number
one, they'll have good jobs and they'll be doing what they know. That's the kind
of thing that has happened in other places, as well, where cannabis has become
legalized. People actually leave the sector where they were involved in the
production and sale of cannabis and have become part of the system, and that's
what they expect to see happen in Ontario.
Mr.
Speaker, there are so many issues that we are going to want to bring up and we
will be doing that in Committee. There are so many details that we want to get
at.
The
report – this was something I was looking for earlier – from the study that was
done by the Nova Scotia government, along with their General Employees Union,
their research was really clear: “… a publicly controlled retailing system best
protects the public, including our children, from unnecessary harm associated
with cannabis.” That's one thing that came out in the report.
The
report also shows that: “To maximize monetary gain for the cannabis industry, a
privatized system would be ideal.” However, if we want to protect and promote
the health and well-being of communities, a publicly owned system is the best
solution according to the public health literature.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I leave that for the government to think about. I look
forward to speaking further to this in Committee.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We'll
adjourn debate on Bill 23.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Given
the hour of the day, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that
we adjourn the House.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
this House do now adjourn.
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.'
Before
we do depart, I would like to remind all Members that if you have vehicles
parked in the area just out here, I'd ask you to move your vehicles. We're going
to do some reconfiguration in compliance with the accessibility parking
regulations that we're trying to keep up with. So I'd ask you to move your cars
to parking lot A, please.
This
House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, 1:30 o'clock on the 4th of December,
a Monday.
Thank
you.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, December 4 at 1:30 p.m.