PDF Version

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 22 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 iden