PDF Version

May 28, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 25

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I'd like

to welcome everyone back for another week in the House of Assembly. Joining us

today in the public gallery, I'm very pleased to welcome Sir Paul Rose and other

Shriners from the Mazol Shriners Club, who will be referenced in a Member's

statement this afternoon.

A big

welcome to all of you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Also joining us in the public

gallery today is Jamie Lundrigan, President of the Child and Youth Care

Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, who will be the subject of a

Ministerial Statement today.

Welcome

to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will start with

Members' statements from the hon. Districts of Ferryland, Exploits, Labrador

West,

Burin - Grand Bank and St. John's West.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate a

constituent of mine from the district on receiving the Canada 150 Local Heroes

Award. Genevieve Howlett received her Canada 150 Local Heroes Award on Sunday,

January 14, 2018 during the second annual Local Heroes Award ceremony.

For the past 50 years, Gen is a very active volunteer

within her community. She has volunteered her time with groups such as the

Goulds Lions/Lioness Club, St. Kevin's Parish, the Goulds Winter Carnival ,

Goulds Minor Hockey, Goulds Daffodil Club and many more groups and organizations

within the area.

Gen has

given so freely of her time to many organizations and plays a big

part in

helping those in her community. She also delivers Christmas hampers to families

in need during Christmastime. She visits the nursing homes in the area just to

chat and visit with the residents. Gen is called upon frequently in the region

to give a helping hand.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members of this House to join me in congratulating Gen

Howlett on receipt of the Canada 150 Local Heroes Award.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DEAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge the Special Olympics

Chapter of the Exploits Hurricanes.

Special

Olympics Newfoundland and Labrador is a non-profit organization serving

individuals with intellectual disabilities. The Exploits

Chapter originated in

the mid-1980s, and after a declination, was revitalized again in 2003 by

dedicated citizens. Programs are offered to eligible children, youth and adults.

The

Exploits Hurricanes have 68 athletes ranging in ages from eight to 65

participating in various sporting events throughout the year at local,

provincial and national levels. The chapter's coaches, parents, respites and

executive share the belief of dignity, equality and opportunity to improve the

lives of these individuals. In return, the participants in the programs

transform the lives of these facilitators and make the world a more accepting

place.

The

Exploits Hurricanes have enabled many successful outcomes at the many

competitions and provides an opportunity for social interactions resulting in

life-long friendships.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon Members to join with me in recognizing the great

contribution of the Exploits Hurricanes to some really amazing individuals in

our region, and as to quote the athlete's motto: Let me win but if I cannot win,

let me be brave in the attempt.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize our locally owned not-for-profit

organization in Labrador West, CRRS TV.

The

organization is a community-based co-operative governed on a volunteer basis by

a board of directors. CRRS has grown to be a communications leader, offering the

area a full suite of television, Internet and phone services to our residents

since 1979.

mid-March, CRRS entered their name in The Tuned-In Canada: Canadian

Communication Systems Alliance Awards under the category, “Best content:

community channel programming,” where they submitted their coverage of Cain's

Quest which was viewed in several countries around the world.

Winners

in each category would get to take home a trophy for their excellent work, and

bring $1,000 back to a community charity of their choice.

CRRS was

notified on May 23 that they had won their category and would be receiving

$1,000. They chose to share the donation with $500 for Faith Haven Animal

Shelter and $500 for Hope Haven Women's Shelter.

Congratulations to the technicians and staff of CRRS for a job well done.

I ask

all hon. members to join me in extending our sincerest congratulations on their

win and the exemplary service they provide to the District of Labrador West.

Thank

you Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Burin - Grand Bank.

MS. HALEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, though Volunteer Appreciation Week was recognized back in April, I'm

sure all would agree there is no wrong time to thank a volunteer. Today, I

recognize a man who truly epitomizes the community spirit so many volunteers

possess: Mr. Kevin Pike of St. Lawrence.

Mr.

Speaker, I would need triple the allotted time to speak of the extent of this

man's volunteerism over the years. The countless hours spent with organizations

that have been impacted by Mr. Pike's patronage is truly commendable. His

advocacy on behalf of others has spanned decades and generations, and has

touched on practically every field. From education to culture, recreation to

community service, church choirs to development associations, Mr. Pike has been

at the forefront in looking out to the common good.

A former

councillor himself, it is obvious he has passed that torch of volunteerism to

those who follow, with his son, Paul, currently serving as the town's mayor.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in thanking Mr. Kevin Pike for his

tireless efforts in making his hometown of St. Lawrence, and, indeed, his

province, a better place to live.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's West, who will need to seek leave before proceeding.

MS. COADY:

I thank my colleagues for

leave to be able to do a Member's statement today.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the dedication, hard work

and leadership of the Mazol Shriners.

As MHA

for St. John's West, I had the pleasure of attending the official installation

of the illustrious Sir Paul Rose and Lady Sharon Rose as Potentate and First

Lady of the Mazol Shriners, Newfoundland and Labrador. As potentate, Sir Paul

Rose provides support and leadership to 10 Shrine clubs in the province with

over 450 volunteer Shriners.

Shrine

clubs in this province are well known for their community endeavours including

helping, on average, 85 children travel to Shriners Hospitals including the

Boston burn unit, the Philadelphia spinal cord injury unit and the Shriners'

Montreal and Gander facilities. They raise over a quarter-million dollars

annually to support this great effort.

Shriners

International Awareness Day is held on June 6 every year. It gives us a time to

reflect on the volunteerism, leadership and achievements of the Shriners. Their

organization is dedicated to fun, fellowship and philanthropy.

I ask

all my colleagues to join me in wishing Sir. Paul Rose and Lady Sharon Rose the

very best as they lead the Mazol Shriners this year, and in thanking all

Shriners in Newfoundland and Labrador for their humanitarian efforts.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Jaime Lundrigan, who

was recently presented with the National Child and Youth Care Award by the

Council of Canadian Child and Youth Care Associations.

This

national award is presented every two years to a practitioner who has

demonstrated outstanding skills, knowledge and advocacy on behalf of clients and

dedication to the profession.

Jaime is

president of the Child and Youth Care Association of Newfoundland and Labrador

and is also the manager of out-of-home care for Key Assets, a non-profit

organization that provides residential care and support to youth and families

with complex needs.

Jaime is

a dedicated professional who has embraced caring for children and youth as a way

of life. Four years ago, Jaime and her husband, Kyle, became live-in caregivers

for two adolescent siblings. In 2017, Mr. Speaker, Jaime adopted those young

people giving them a place to call home and a family to call their own.

Those

who nominated Jaime for this award say she is one of the most skilled and

dedicated child and youth care practitioners they have ever known. She is a

fierce advocate who is passionate about her work in supporting and helping the

children and families she works with every day.

Mr.

Speaker, you've heard me say it a number of times already in this hon. House,

but I do believe that every child is just one caring adult away from being a

success story. In the lives of many children in Newfoundland and Labrador, Jaime

Lundrigan is that caring adult.

I invite

my colleagues to join me in congratulating Jaime Lundrigan on receiving the 2018

National Child and Youth Care Award.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. 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 join

with the minister in recognizing Ms. Jaime Lundrigan on recently receiving the

National Child and Youth Care Award by the Council of Canadian Child and Youth

Care Associations. It's a significant achievement that celebrates and recognizes

outstanding individuals who demonstrate remarkable skills on behalf of clients

and the profession.

The

province, in the field of child and youth care professionals, is so fortunate to

have Ms. Lundrigan in their midst. Through her practice, advocacy work and

goodwill she has made such a significant positive impact on the lives of so

many, the likes to which we may never know the full extent.

I wish

to congratulate and thank Ms. Lundrigan for her tremendous service and care, and

would also like to extend that same appreciation to all those who contribute to

the child and youth care system in our province. You're all to be commended.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for the

District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

I'm very

pleased to rise and congratulate Jaime Lundrigan on winning this national award.

Her recognition offers an opportunity to recognize her co-workers as well and

all those dedicated people involved in caring for children and youth.

I would

like to commend Key Assets, under Jaime's management, in their new role of

supporting foster families and all those organizations who are providing

essential home-like settings for children and youth who need them. I'm also glad

to see government playing a stronger regulatory and monitoring role in the

provision of this care through the new

Children, Youth and Families Act , which brings government, groups like Key

Assets and people like Jaime together in working for the good of our youth and

children.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to

rise to recognize Tourism Awareness Week May 27 to June 2 as it provides us all

an opportunity to highlight the tremendous value of tourism to the provincial

economy.

Tourism

has grown to support over 2,600 businesses and nearly 20,000 jobs in

Newfoundland and Labrador. In 2017, the province welcomed over 553,000 visitors,

and associated non-resident visitor spending reached an estimated $575 million.

Mr.

Speaker, this is the highest level of non-resident visitation and tourism

spending in the history of the province.

Newfoundland and Labrador is known for its scenic coastlines, culture and

welcoming hospitality. Our travellers are seeking authentic travel experiences

and the Provincial Tourism Product Development Plan, released in 2017, is

setting the direction for new and enhanced tourism offerings to attract more

visitors – to encourage them to stay longer and to increase spending.

Growing

the tourism industry in Newfoundland and Labrador is an enormous collective

effort. Guided by The Way Forward ,

together with the Newfoundland and Labrador Tourism Board and Hospitality

Newfoundland and Labrador, we are working towards the goal set in

Uncommon Potential , Vision

2020 to double resident and visitor spending by 2020.

I invite

all Members to join me in celebrating this success and the dedication and

commitment I see from those working in our tourism industry.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. 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 his statement. We join with government in

recognizing Tourism Awareness Week and the many achievements that have occurred

within the industry over the past number of years.

The

previous administration made great efforts to grow and develop the tourism

industry. Through co-operation with business owners and operators, so much was

achieved. We encourage government to continue to grow this industry based on our

Vision 2020, as the sky is really the limit.

While

government has continued much of the good work, there are issues of concern

hindering the industry such as the Liberal's high gasoline taxes, which

restricts people's ability to travel, not to mention the sting of all the

additional taxes and fees laid at the feet of operators and potential customers.

Government must do better.

I wish

all industry stakeholders a successful and very busy summer season. Thank you

for your dedication. Your hard work and investment has created a product that we

can all be proud of.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. What has happened in the

tourism industry is amazing. Everyone involved is making this happen and

ensuring the industry remains strong, must be congratulated.

The fact

is the vast majority of the people who make this happen are minimum wage

earners. It is mostly their front-line work which has been part of earning this

success. Why is it that government cannot see fit to raise minimum wage to $15

an hour so they, too, can have a fairer share of this prosperity?

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers.

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the government has waited until the final days of the spring sitting to

introduce important policy discussions with respect to implementing legalization

of marijuana.

Why did

you wait until the last minute to introduce legalization?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because

if we did it earlier, they'd say we rushed it.

The fact

remains that this is a huge public policy shift, in not only this province, but

across this country. It's one that every province has been working together on

for some time, making sure that we take the necessary legislative policy steps

to make sure we are ready for this huge change when it comes to the legalization

of recreational cannabis.

There's

been a significant amount of time that's been put into this over the last couple

of years. At this time, I would like to thank all those public servants and

individuals in departments across government who have worked tirelessly to make

sure that we have the best legislation possible for this new change.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I

will say to the minister is that we want to have time to have a proper debate so

the people will know what's being legalized here will be in the best interests

of people who are going to be using it.

The 24

retailers announced by government as approved are now identified in legislation

as pre-approved.

Will the

RFP process be restarted under the new laws that weren't originally in place to

ensure that retailers meet the requirements identified in legislation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

We brought legislation in in

November to give NLC the authority and the ability to carry out the process that

they did to identify the 23 or 24 retailers that have been successful in getting

to the place they are.

Mr.

Speaker, the legislation that we're bringing forward today will further NLC's

ability to work with these retailers and will allow the retailers and producers

of cannabis to carry on and do what's necessary to legalize cannabis, as we are

required to do under federal legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The new

legislation outlines now that there would have to be a public posting. That

wasn't done in the previous outline to identify the 24 noted retailers.

What are

the guideline regarding the sale of marijuana near schools? Surely there must be

criteria during this site selection.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

There were criteria, Mr.

Speaker. There were points deducted for proximity to schools. There are many,

many alcohol retailers that are in closer proximity to schools than there will

be cannabis retailers.

I will

say that under tier one and tier two, minors are not allowed to enter tier one

or tier two stores at all. Under tier three and tier four stores, minors are

able to enter because these are stores where other products are advertised, but

are not permitted to purchase. In fact, the products are concealed from public

view.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I need

to outline that in the new piece of legislation that we're going to debate over

the next number of days here, under

section 18, it outlines a new process. The

process that wasn't used previously in identifying the 24 individual companies

that will be able to sell cannabis. So we're asking: Why would the same

legislation not be implemented for the ones that have already been put in play?

If a new

school is built, will nearby sellers be evicted and compensated or will the

school board have to choose another site?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, as I've said,

there are many, many alcohol retailers in closer proximity to schools than there

are the cannabis retailers.

Mr.

Speaker, I have great confidence in the ability of NLC, who have been in the

business of selling controlled substances for decades, to ensure that it will

not be sold to those who are minors, that the product will not be visible to

those that are minors and that they will ensure that the product is sold in a

way that protects minors, just as alcohol is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

We all want the same thing and are very hopeful that will happen, but until

we're clear on exactly how that's going to be implemented, we're very skeptical

on how this is going to play out.

Will all

applicants be subject to regular review and will inspection reports be

immediately published and made public?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, the applicants

that have made it to this stage still have some work to do in order to receive

final approval from NLC. They still need to receive permits and so on from

municipalities in certain cases. They need to design and construct stores.

There's a great deal of work that needs to be done and that work will be done

under the new legislation.

To a

point based on what he said in a previous question, Mr. Speaker, there are very

strict penalties, up to $100,000 for selling cannabis to minors. I wanted to add

that, as well

NLC is

taking this very seriously. I commend them for the work that they are doing. It

will be covered under regulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

We too ensure and do ask that the NLC very diligently do that, but we need to

make sure that they have the resources and the ability to do it, and the

legislations and regulations reflect that. That's what we're going to be

debating here over the next period of time.

Will

communities be able to declare themselves dry communities forbidding the sale of

importation of marijuana?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly we've been consulting with municipalities throughout this process.

Right now the concern mainly has been dealing with not whether they can declare

themselves dry – we have to remember that if the province does not impose its

own legislative regime, the federal regime will apply. They will come in and

apply the laws there.

So what

we've been doing is coming up with our own legislative framework that will apply

throughout our province and in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. We've been working with MNL. One of the biggest issues that

they've been dealing with is on zoning and permits and figuring out as it

relates to businesses setting up in their area. Most of the areas I've been

talking to are looking forward to the opportunity for new business in their

communities.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Can a

person eligible for medical products also have 30 grams of non-medical product?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Certainly we know that there are some exemptions as it relates to medical users.

Right now as it stands, the limit, what you can carry in public, is set at 30

grams. There is no limit to what you have in your own private residence.

Again

when it comes to public consumption, what you can carry around in public, the

limit is 30 grams.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Where

there are so many unknowns here now, we're trying to get some clarification so

that people themselves in the general public would have an understanding of what

this new legislation is going to entail.

Under

new legislation, will individuals residing in personal care homes be permitted

to grow four plants in their rooms?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

They're

certainly asking the pressing questions today.

What I

would suggest is that the legislation's very clear as it relates to a dwelling

home. Each situation would be dealt with differently, whether we're talking

about a personal residence, whether we're talking about a dwelling house,

apartment building. So we'll have to deal with landlords in every situation.

But as

it relates to personal care homes we'll have to see what the qualification

relates to, and again all of these will be tested as we move forward.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

As the opposition laugh at the fact that every citizen needs to know their legal

rights, and also any privileges they may have under this piece of legislation –

so these are important questions that have been posed to us. And not only do we

have a right, but we expect an answer from the opposition, from the government,

to ensure it represents the legislation that's being presented in this House.

Are

there any restrictions around growing marijuana plants in households where

children are present?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

The

first thing I would remind everyone is that the four-plant rule is actually what

was decided by the federal government and was certainly part of the federal

regime that was put down. Some provinces have chosen not to go with this, some

provinces have. We've chosen that each dwelling house can have four plants per

household.

What I

would suggest is that as parents we all have a responsibility. In fact, as a

parent of small kids, I have a responsibility to make sure that children do not

get into what's under the sink. I have a responsibility to make sure that they

don't get access to alcohol and I'll have a responsibility to make sure they

don't get access to cannabis.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

But you also, as the

government who's bringing in this legislation, have a responsibility to do

everything possible to ensure children are safe in any environment.

Will

people be able to smoke marijuana in households where children are present?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Justice and

Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Right

now we have a situation where what we can control is what goes on in the public.

We have the Smoke-Free Environment Act,

2005 which will be amended to prohibit smoking of cannabis in outside public

places as per what's already allowed for tobacco.

When it

comes to what goes on inside a residence, I would suggest that as it stands we

are unable to prohibit smoking of tobacco inside residences, which is something

that, in many cases, does go on. It's unfortunate. I would suggest that it's not

appropriate for anybody to smoke any type of substance when it comes to an

inside residence or a personal resident, but when we talk about legislation, it

can be hard to deal with that.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Are

there any restrictions regarding growing marijuana plants in registered day

homes for children?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Justice and

Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of

the things that was discussed in the briefing today is that under

section 5 of

this Cannabis Control Act there's a

phase where we talk about regulations as it applies to the act. There are a lot

of regulations that have to take place over the next little while. We'll

continue to work with educators, we'll continue to work with the NLC and we'll

continue to work with everyone.

This is

a huge policy change and legislative change. One of the big things I would

stress is that the whole purpose of this change was to deal with the best

interests of children. We think the changes we've brought in place here are in

line with the federal government's and are in the best interests of children.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What

delivery services will be used for online products? Will products be specially

labelled and secured?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

will be a common carrier, Mr. Speaker. That common carrier has not yet been

chosen. That will be done through the NLC with regulations in mind once the

regulations are completed.

There

will be a common carrier, Mr. Speaker, to ensure consistency. As we have

products delivered through online sales or from growers to retailers, the common

carrier will be in place. There will be regulations and rules in place for those

common carriers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How

vigorously will the prohibition on public use be enforced and prosecuted? Will

the police and Justice Department prioritize policing public use?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Justice and

Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

already exists, the police do enforce all of our legislation as it relates to

public safety, whether it's the Criminal

Code or whether it's the Highway

Traffic Act . This will not be any different.

What I

would also suggest is that we allow the police discretion as it relates to

operations and how they police. The police are the best equipped to deal with

this job and I'm going to let them continue to do their job.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Where

will products be coming from to sell in Newfoundland for the July 1

implementation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, first of all,

I'm not sure that July 1 will be the date, but we will be ready for whatever the

date is.

Again, I

have confidence in the NLC. The NLC are securing the supply of cannabis, Mr.

Speaker, to ensure that retailers have that cannabis in place for the

legalization date. They're securing supply for online sales. So we will be ready

for the legalization date.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Under

Bill 20, the Cannabis Control Act , it

requires licence applications or people applying for a licence to publish notice

before filing the application.

I ask

the minister: What is required to meet the requirements of a publication?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That

will be set out in regulations and officials with the Department of Justice and

Public Safety, the Department of Finance and the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation

are working now to finalize the regulations. Those regulations will be in place

in due course, once this legislation is passed. As we are debating the

legislation, the regulations are being worked on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

understanding is there are approximately 80 applications for the pre-approved

licensee and there are a couple dozen of those that have already been outlined

by NLC.

Those

applicants, were they required to publish notice before filing their application

to the corporation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

legislation that's before the floor right now has been updated. There are

additions to that legislation than there were in the legislation that we put

forward in November.

November, we put forward legislation to allow the NCL to start this process.

This legislation will be even more stringent on a go-forward basis; but the

reality is, Mr. Speaker, we were required, as a requirement based on the federal

government requirement for the legalization of cannabis to move and to act.

Mr.

Speaker, based on the legislation that we've put in place in November, the

legislation today is more comprehensive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Outlined

in legislation, one of the key factors in requiring applicants to file an

application, or file a publication before they actually file their application,

is to allow the public if they wish to file an objection. The legislation

actually allows a person to file an objection to the board after they publish

their intention to file an application.

I ask

the minister: What are you going to do to ensure proper publication is made so

people understand what's going in their neighbourhood, so if they wish to file

an application they can do so?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is

an important question, it's an important topic. This is the biggest public

policy shift in many decades but the applicants, the 23 applicants that are

currently before the NLC, Mr. Speaker, still have to go through municipal

permitting. They still have to go through another set of criteria through the

NLC.

Mr.

Speaker, there's still plenty of time for discussion around these applicants.

The reality is before they can set up in any municipality they have to get

permits and so on from the municipalities to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister – knowing that it's very important, especially in

the very early stages. The first time this is ever happening, people are

expressing some concerns. I've received phone calls and spoken to people

directly face to face who in fact have some concerns about locations, and part

of the fundamental review process of that is for an applicant to file or publish

a notice before filing the application.

I ask

the minister: What steps are you going to take to ensure the public is aware of

these locations, they are properly published and what opportunity will people

have to object, as listed in the legislation under sections 22 and 23?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

operations are required to advertise for three consecutive weeks, including in

local papers. Mr. Speaker, there will be public notification of the applicants

as they apply and go through the process.

Again, I

have great confidence in the NLC and the work that the NLC are doing, that they

will ensure to the best degree possible that these applicants go through a

process that ensures public safety and the safety of youth, Mr. Speaker,

primarily the safety of youth, and that all of the regulations will be followed

as we put the regulations in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under

section 18 of the Cannabis Control Act

bill that's before the House, it says: “The board shall not issue a licence to

an applicant where … it would not be in the public interest having regard to the

needs and wishes of the public in the community in which the place or premises

of the cannabis store or cannabis retail location will be located ….”

I say to

the minister, it's very clearly laid out. It's involved in

section 18 and

sections 21, 22, 23 and others about the process followed. To me, it would be

very important to ensure that publication of applicants takes place as per the

current legislation.

Minister, will you make sure that happens?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, I've outlined in

my previous answer they will be required to advertise for three consecutive

weeks. They'll also be required to post in their storefront that location is

going to be a cannabis location. The applicants that are currently before the

board will have to follow the regulations and will have to follow the

legislation that is being put in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Topsail -

Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister referred early on to a go-forward basis.

I ask

him: For the 23 applicants that are now in the hopper, will he ensure they go

through that publication process so that people who have concerns, as outlined

section 18, can file an objection as outlined in

section 22 and the board can

consider holding a hearing as outlined in

section 23?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

It's a good question it is, I

heard one of the Members opposite say. I'll give the same answer which I believe

is a good answer to the good question.

The 23

applicants, Mr. Speaker, will have to go through the regulations, will have to

advertise for three weeks, will have to post on their storefront. They will have

to go through the process, yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Topsail -

Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted

to make sure we had it clear that the current 23 have to go through a

publication process so people can know if they want to file an objection,

because I know people who want to file an objection. I appreciate the answer

from the minister.

Under

the new federal law, limits will be set for legal levels of THC for drivers. Not

only that, but it will also lay out combinations if there's a level of THC and

alcohol for drivers.

I ask

the government to say and I ask the minister: On July 1, will police be ready to

evaluate levels of THC?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Justice and

Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

first thing that I want put out is just sort of a

preamble to everything which

is right now, according to our legislation, as of today driving impaired is

illegal. If cannabis is legalized tomorrow, driving impaired will be illegal.

Come July 1 or whatever date that this happens – we know right now that the

federal bill, the one the Member opposite is referring to, C-46, is not put in

place yet, but when that happens driving impaired will be illegal.

Obviously, there have been some challenges faced with the fact that there is no

federally approved device that can measure the amount of impairment. What we can

deal with is the presence of a drug. What I can tell you, after dealing with our

police chiefs and our police officers, we will be ready.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much Mr. Speaker.

Minister, in preparation for making your decision and announcement on Friday

regarding regulations for the 2018 salmon angling season, did you consult with

conservation groups and other stakeholders dedicated to preserving the salmon

resource?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very, very much, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the question because the answer obviously is a resounding yes.

I had an

opportunity to meet with not only conservationists but anglers who are the best

conservationists of our wild Atlantic salmon resources. I met with SPAWN, I met

with the rod and gun clubs associations of Newfoundland and Labrador. I did

offer to attend for two straight consecutive days the salmon advisory committee

process back in March 27-28. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans

unfortunately at that time denied me access or ability to participate in those

discussions.

I've

been in regular conversations with conservationists, and what we announced on

Friday were three very important measures. One, increased science capacity,

increased conservation, and increased conservationist activity, increased

angling activity.

All good

stuff, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I'll remind the minister that the salmon association for Eastern

Newfoundland put a request in for a meeting with the minister on April 9 and

still not have reserved anything back from the minister. So there's a group

there that you haven't consulted with.

Does the

province have the authority to change the salmon regulations and override DFO's

authority? And, if so, how do you propose to enforce these regulations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Excellent question, Mr. Speaker.

The

preamble, of course, not being totally accurate. I have met with conservation

groups throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, but there is one universal message

that all conservation organizations hold dear, which is the resource must be put

first. That is why no organization that truly embarks on a conservation

initiative would ever, ever suggest that increasing our science capacity,

increasing our opportunities for anglers to participate in that conservation

initiative, also increasing the overall conservation of the resource by limiting

the catch and mortality of the resource when things are critical, those are all

important things to true conservationists.

That is

why Friday's announcement is being heralded as a great, great initiative

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, the minister

didn't answer the question. I hope he'll probably go on, the next time he

answers, maybe answer that because we never know what answer we'll get out of

him.

Mr.

Speaker, how does the minister plan to address the confusion, uncertainty and

potential conflict on the rivers between anglers and others who have lost

business in rural Newfoundland because of his decision of delaying the printing

of licences in his announcement on Friday?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Fisheries and

Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I won't rise to the bait of the little bit of what could be

perceived to be a little passive aggression, but I will answer the question at

hand because it is an important one.

The

federal government obviously has jurisdiction over inland and sea coast

fisheries management under

section 91 of the Constitution.

Section 92 of the

Constitution provides property rights, control over property rights and

legislation over property rights to the provincial Legislature, to the

provincial government.

We're

acting within our

section 92 constitutional right. That's the same right that

gives us the authority to issue licences to begin with, Mr. Speaker.

It is

absolutely essential that we recognize that hook-and-release angling has been in

place since, I believe, at least 1984. It has been managed accordingly under

regulation. Those same regulations that have been in place for the same

enforcement procedures that have been in place for decades will be in place as

soon as the angling season starts (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Third

Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

mother of Skye Martin, who died seven weeks ago in the Clarenville Correctional

Centre for Women, has been desperately seeking information about her daughter's

death. She has absolutely no information from the Department of Justice. She is

going from agency to agency trying to gather information about what happened to

her daughter.

Will the

minister authorize the immediate release of all information regarding the death

of Skye Martin to her mother? Will he meet with her to answer the questions that

she has about the death of her daughter?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Justice and

Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, the first thing

I want to do is, again, express my condolences to the mother of this daughter

who's lost her life. This is a tragedy and one that happened in a provincial

facility.

Secondly, I will meet with anybody who comes to me. That is the first time the

request has been made. I certainly have no problem meeting with this individual

to discuss this. Similar to last night, I met with every inmate at Clarenville

Correctional Centre last night to talk about a recent tragedy that we faced

there.

The last

thing I would say is I have no issue releasing information, but we all know that

there are ongoing investigations as it relates to these tragedies involving the

chief medical examiner, the RCMP, as well as the outside independent force. I

don't want to do anything to compromise that but, certainly, I want to get

whatever information I can out there.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Third

Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, the death of

Samantha Piercey in Clarenville on Saturday is the second such death in seven

weeks at this institution. We understand that an investigation into these deaths

is ongoing and underway; however, this will take time. Indeed, it's already been

over a month in the case of the death of Skye Martin and action is needed right

now.

I ask

the minister: What has he been doing right now to ensure all inmates are safe

and properly treated while incarcerated, particularly around mental health

services? Has anything yet changed at the institution because of these deaths?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Justice and

Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, it's a trying

time. I visited last night in Clarenville to talk to every inmate and every

staff member. They're shook up.

One

thing that I'm not going to do is I'm not going to cast blame right now. The

fact is that corrections is a trying job. It is 24/7, 365 in places that are

trying at the best of times.

Right

now what we do know is that we've had two situations where we've lost lives. We

take responsibility for those that are in our care and control, but what I'm

going to do is I'm going to continue to work with the correctional officers and

the staff to ensure that we have safe facilities in our province. That's also

why I continue to meet with and discuss these issues with inmates to ensure that

we have safe facilities.

That's

what I'm going to continue to do.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Third

Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, this is not

about casting blame, this is about getting information in a timely manner to the

family. The mothers are desperate for information. It's about the mental health

services in our prisons.

Mr.

Speaker, Skye Martin was transferred from the Waterford Hospital to Clarenville

Correctional facility on March 20 after about six weeks at the Waterford. Her

psychiatrist had prescribed a medication treatment regime and she was stable and

healthy.

After

less than a month, the psychiatrist at the correctional facility altered her

medication regime. Within weeks, her mother noticed her daughter was in

distress. She begged to go back to the Waterford to have her medication

restored. The day she died she was begging to go back to the hospital for help.

What we

are seeing, Mr. Speaker, is the criminalization of people with mental illness.

They are put in solitary confinement because of the lack of services, which

amounts to torture.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

question, please.

MS. ROGERS:

I ask the minister: Will he

immediately authorize mental health assessments for all inmates who need them by

psychiatrists and mental health workers in Eastern Health, and give them the

treatment they need right now?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of

the positive things, one of the positive changes that we have made, is we've

taken the recommendations for the All-Party Committee on Mental Health, which

recognized that we do need to do more. Certainly, I'd like to think that we as a

government and we as a department have listened to the fact that we do need to

do more as it relates to our inmates. We do need to change how things have been

done.

I'm

willing to do whatever is possible to ensure that our inmates are getting the

best of care. I'm going to continue to work with the staff right up to the

superintendent who I will point out is having a difficult time doing the job

when he is constantly being texted by the Leader of the NDP to provide

information.

We are

going to do what we can to get this done. I feel for those individuals involved.

I feel for the staff, I feel for those mothers. We will do what we can, but I'm

not going to have all the information come out on the floor of the House of

Assembly.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Oral Questions has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

I move, seconded by the

Member for Stephenville - Port au Port:

WHEREAS

government announced as part of Budget

2018 a $1-million investment for a new cost-shared cellular service pilot

project; and

WHEREAS

telecommunication services are essential for economic prosperity, social

development and global competitiveness;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House encourage providers and

municipalities to work together to expand coverage and provide cellular service

to communities in rural areas that are currently unserved.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader regarding the private Member's resolution.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Pursuant to Standing Order

63(3) the private Member's resolution just entered shall be the one to be

debated on Wednesday.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Point of order.

MS. ROGERS:

The Minister of Justice has

made allegations that I have constantly texted the superintendent casting

aspersions on the role that I'm doing in advocating on behalf of my

constituents. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. There have not been constant texts

to the superintendent of the prison, there has been one.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

I'll ask the hon. Government

House Leader if he has a comment, then I'll make my own.

ahead.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Pursuant to the information

that I have, I stand by my comments.

MR. SPEAKER:

I rule there is no point of

order; it's a disagreement between Members. We'll continue.

Thank

you.

Petitions.

Any

petitions? No petitions.

Orders

of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One

moment, please. I was kind of taken off my game.

I'd like

to call first reading, please, Mr. Speaker – just a quick moment.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

Sorry, I

wasn't expecting it that quickly.

I would

like to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Establish The

Innovation And Business Investment Corporation, Bill 26.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Deputy Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Establish The Innovation And Business Investment

Corporation, Bill 26, 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?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against?

The

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation to introduce

a bill, “An Act To Establish The Innovation And Business Investment

Corporation,” carried. (Bill 26)

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Establish The Innovation And Business Investment Corporation.

(Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

Tomorrow?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 26 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, second reading of

Bill 20, Cannabis Control Act .

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 20,

An Act Respecting The Control And Sale Of Cannabis, be now read a

second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting The Control And Sale Of Cannabis.”

(Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm delighted to have the opportunity to stand in the House of Assembly

today as we're considering the new

Cannabis Control Act , which is a piece of legislation that covers most areas

of regulation in the soon-to-be-created legal cannabis industry in Canada. In

particular, this act covers Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, as this is a completely new area of legislation, especially one that's

meant to regulate an entirely new industry, the legislation itself is quite

comprehensive. I imagine that when the bill makes its way to Committee there

will be many questions from Members opposite. I, along with the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety, welcome such questions and discussion.

I will

not spend much time discussing the specifics of the clauses in each section, but

I would like to briefly explain each of the sections of the act, why they were

put in place and what they will mean when cannabis is made legal. In general

provisions there is a

section that authorizes the NLC to exchange information

with the federal government department. I want to bring that

section to the

attention of all Members so that we can provide an update on the taxation.

The

provincial government intends to enter into a coordinated cannabis taxation

agreement with the federal government on the sharing of tax revenue around

legalized cannabis, as was reported after the federal-provincial-territorial

Finance ministers' meeting last year. The province will receive 75 per cent of

revenue from the excise tax in addition to HST revenue and markup.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if federal revenue exceeds the $100-million mark in

either of the years of the agreement – the first two years – the excess will be

distributed proportionally to every jurisdiction participating in the

coordinated cannabis taxation agreement based on their volume of sales in that

year. Under this agreement the federal government will bear the expense of

administrating the excise tax.

Mr.

Speaker, the province faces significant spending pressures as a result of

cannabis legalization from enforcement, to ticketing, to public education. The

costs will be borne by the NLC for administration. The revenue that will be

generated under this agreement is important to help offset these significant

costs.

The

first part of the act deals with authorizations and licences. Mr. Speaker, in

many cases this

section replaces the changes that we made to the

Liquor Corporation Act in the last

session of the House. We made these changes in November to an existing act

because it was the quickest way to allow the NLC to begin its important work.

Now that

we're prepared to put in place the new act, we are effectively replacing

everything that we added to the Liquor

Corporation Act in the last session and will be repealing those changes. The

Liquor Corporation Act will retain

authority of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation to be in the

cannabis business, but the Cannabis

Control Act will include most of the provincial laws relating to the

product. Mr. Speaker, I will speak to that again when we get into debate on the

Liquor Corporation Act amendments, but

I just wanted to flag those changes for all Members of the House.

Going

back to the piece of legislation that's before us today, this

section will grant

authority to the NLC to act as the regulator of the industry, including the

authority to grant and suspend licences, to regulate supply and to undertake

inspections. It will also set the rules governing licensed applicants, such as

the current stage in the NLC RFP process of providing public notice to local

stakeholders for feedback. It was an issue that was brought up during Question

Period, Mr. Speaker. I want to assure all Members that under the current stage

of the NLC RFP process, public notice to local stakeholders for feedback will be

provided.

Mr.

Speaker, the next part deals with inspections. I believe the Minister of Justice

and Public Safety plans to stand and speak to this bill. He may speak to this

section in more detail.

Inspections are a significant tool, I will say, in the regulation of controlled

substances. This act will put in place the necessary framework for inspections

and law enforcement to effectively enforce the act. It sets rules regarding when

warrants are or are not needed in order to enter a premises, to search a vehicle

and rules around seizing contraband. Inspectors or police officers can enter the

premises of licensees, producers or other places of business without a warrant

to inspect the premises and to examine books or records to ensure compliance

with the act, similar to the Liquor

Control Act ; liquor licensees and places of establishment that sell alcohol.

Inspectors or police officers can enter other places, but with a warrant, where

it is believe that a contravention of the act is occurring or without a warrant

in urgent circumstances. Mr. Speaker, I want to note that for entering people's

homes defined as a dwelling place a warrant is always required. I felt it was

important to put people at ease in those situations. Inspectors or police

officers can also stop, detain or search vehicles without a warrant when they

reasonably believe that it may contain contraband cannabis.

The

third part of the act deals with rules for businesses and individuals, it deals

with possession, purchase and sale, consumption, transportation, advertising and

promotion of cannabis. This

part clarifies the business side of cannabis

operations from supply chain operations to sales and promotion. It puts in place

rules around the online sales, prices and commissions under the purview of NLC.

It will also prohibit companies from distributing cannabis without a licence.

There

has been a contest that we've discussed in the House during Oral Questions, Mr.

Speaker, and at a time that we did not have legislation in place, it was

premature to speak to that.

Without

speaking to any contest specifically, Mr. Speaker, I can say that there would be

a way for contests to be legal under the act. For instance, a company could

offer gift cards to a winner from a licensed retailer. If they had a gift card

from somebody who was legally able to operate as a licensed retailer, that would

be considered legal.

Mr.

Speaker, this part features many areas that the business community have been

seeking clarity on in recent weeks, so I'm happy to be able to provide greater

clarity to that today.

For

consumers, we're setting a limit for possession at 30 grams in public places,

which mirrors federal limits. Those who want to own cannabis plants in their

home for personal use can own a maximum of four plants per household, and that

also mirrors federal limits.

We're

setting a legal limit for cannabis use at 19 years of age or older. Furthermore,

individuals who are below the age of 19, will be prohibited from entering a tier

one or tier two establishment but will be permitted to enter a tier three or

four stores where cannabis is not the main item for sale, will not be in public

view and will not be sold to people under the age of 19.

Finally,

this

section prohibits smoking or consuming cannabis in public places and any

place set out in the Smoke-Free

Environment Act , in a vehicle or

boat or another place described through regulations.

I will

say, when it comes to boats, for example, if the boat is not in motion, Mr.

Speaker, if it's anchored and the operator of the boat is not partaking in the

consumption of cannabis, it would be considered legal to consume cannabis at

that time.

Cannabis

is a different kind of product from others that we've regulated, so in a certain

way, we have go treat it like alcohol, given the fact that it has the capacity

to impair. We also have to treat it similar to tobacco or vaping in that it can

affect people second hand. There are also areas where we are treating cannabis

as a unique product, unlike tobacco or alcohol.

The

fourth part deals with liability and offences and provides clarities around the

penalties for contravention of the act. This is another section, Mr. Speaker,

where I believe the Government House Leader we add some value when he speaks but

I will provide some initial details.

General

issues under the act are subject to fines of up to $10,000 and imprisonment for

up to one year when those offences are committed for profit or reward. Offences

that are not committed for profit or reward are subject to fines of up to $5,000

or imprisonment for three months.

Possession in a public place of more than 30 grams but less 50 grams, Mr.

Speaker, or possession of more than four plants, up to six, are punishable by

fines of $200. Possession of above 50 grams or above six plants, Mr. Speaker,

will be subjective to more punitive penalties under the legislation including a

minimal penalty of $300 and $25 for every gram of contraband cannabis that is

seized.

The

highest fines are for the sale of cannabis to a minor. These offences are

subject to progressively severe penalties including imprisonment for up to two

year and fines between $500 and $100,000.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure that this part of the, in particular, will lead to numerous

questions during Committee. I welcome that, and any time that we're talking

about penalties and limits, it certainly warrants a deep discussion in this hon.

House of Assembly. I know that in the recent legislation such as the

Highway Traffic Act amendments there

were detailed discussions.

The

final

section of the act gives authority to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

and the board of directors of the NLC to development regulations. There are some

parts of the legalization that we'll address through regulations, and as I

indicated during Question Period, those regulations are currently being worked

on by several officials within government and the NLC.

The

Lieutenant-Government in Council can set regulations around setting requirements

for containers in which cannabis can be sold and matters relating to the

modification of those containers; requirements for products other than cannabis

and cannabis accessories that a cannabis store may sell; designated places where

cannabis may be consumed or that they are not to be consumed in public places so

that it would be consumed in circumstances where it would otherwise be

prohibited, such as authorizing owners or operators of communal living

accommodations, hotels, multi-unit residential buildings or concert or event

venues, for example, to set specific outdoor areas for the consumption of

cannabis.

In the

final example, Mr. Speaker, you could think of something like a beer tent at a

music festival. That's what we're talking about. If you have a concert event or

a festival event, the organizers of that event, for example, can set aside a set

area that is away from people who do not wish to partake or to be affected that

would be considered legal to consume cannabis.

Regulations may also be used to set regulations for cultivation of cannabis. The

board of directors of the NLC, with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council, will be able to make regulations including setting the period of time

that constitutes a period of inactivity for a retailer or a producer, setting

establishing different classes of licences.

Mr.

Speaker, the act also authorizes the minister responsible for the NLC to set

fees and requires that the minister in this role conduct a review of the act at

least every five years. The first such review will need to happen no later than

Finally,

it sets the stage for future amendments and authorizes the enforcement of the

act by way of tickets under the Provincial

Offences Act .

Mr.

Speaker, we've said it many times that this is the most significant public

policy shift that this province has faced since we joined Canada in 1949. The

legalization of cannabis for non-medical use is a new industry; it's a new area

that we're looking at, which is why this debate will be so important, why these

regulations and why the legislation will be so important.

While

Members opposite have expected us to have all of the answers since day one, a

lot of due diligence has gone into this act. Being a new area, being an

unprecedented area for government to be in, Mr. Speaker, I have to say myself

and the Minister of Justice and Public Safety did not draft this legislation.

The Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation didn't draft his

legislation. This was work done by professionals in the Department of Justice

and Public Safety with the input of several other departments, officials from

several departments and officials from the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation.

I have

to commend them for the good work that they've done. They have spoken to other

jurisdictions; they've done a jurisdictional scan to find out what other

jurisdictions are doing. They've looked at jurisdictions where cannabis has

already been legalized to try and find out what can and should be done, Mr.

Speaker.

A great

deal of work and a great deal of thought has gone into this legislation. There's

absolutely no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that while we're putting this legislation in

place today, there will undoubtedly be situations such as the contest put off by

a business downtown that we honestly didn't anticipate when that contest first

happened. So there will, perhaps, be situations that occur that we don't

currently anticipate, because it is a brand, new area for government to be

operating.

We are

nimble enough and the legislation is nimble enough that will allow regulations,

as we go forward, to be changed, if necessary. I believe that officials have

done an exceptionally good job in putting this legislation in place. I believe

they're doing an exceptionally good job in looking at the regulations that will

be put in place, but this legislation will allow them to change regulations,

should that be necessary as we're moving forward and if something happens that

is not anticipated today.

The

officials have put a great deal of hard work in putting the legislation

together. I believe it is a solid piece of legislation. Again, given the

uncertainty that is common in a brand, new industry, if we need to make changes

in the not-too-distant future in the legislation, that ability is there.

Mr.

Speaker, that in no way devalues the hard work that the staff have put into

preparing this. The fact that there may be situations that are unexpected, it in

no way undervalues the work that's been put into developing this legislation and

the regulations.

The

legislation, Mr. Speaker, and this act in its entirety is made in the spirit of

government's goals since day one to promote safety on our roads, in public

places and in our workplaces; to reduce the burden on the criminal justice

system; to keep the profits from the sale of cannabis out of the hands of

criminals; and to support new employment opportunities.

With

that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all Members for their attention and I look

forward to debate, to further questions clause by clause once we get into

Committee.

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 20, the control and sale of cannabis. This is, I

think as the Minister of Justice and Public Safety is saying, repeated before a

number of times, a significant policy issue across the country and a significant

change in how the sale of cannabis, obviously, is handled in terms of access to

it, and a whole range of different policy initiatives that reflect this change

that's coming forward, that was initiated by the current federal government as

an election platform, that they would follow through on this.

We're

going through a process now to answer the call in regard to that direction; and

on a provincial level of how that would be managed, implemented, produced, sold,

all those types of things that would be mandated as provincial authority and to

outline how that would work.

The

minister had alluded in his comments on introduction of Bill 20 about a time

frame and making sure it's done right. I think that he questioned maybe the

Opposition calling on having the answers and clear indication of what's

happening. I think our intent with this and always has been that the runway is

long enough to make sure that at this point in time the law, the legislation,

the regulations and policy are at a depth in scope that it does meet the needs

of the general public and all stakeholders as we move forward with this in the

province and outside.

That's

concern. There's understanding that at this point in time – and it's been

mandated by the federal government to do it at a particular time – there are

blanks that need to be filled in as we move forward. No doubt everybody

understands that.

What

we're saying is we need to have a minimum level of security to make sure that

we're proceeding in a fashion that health and safety of all concerned is

maintained, that it is efficient, that certainly the purchase, distribution and

retail is clear, public education is made available to all concerned – all of

our population – in regard to accessing it, in regard to the health effects.

Just like we've seen over decades in terms of smoking and education on the

effects of cigarette smoking and the changes that have evolved over the past 50

years in regard to that, not just in our province but across the country, and an

education on the negative attributes of that.

I heard

a while ago some physicians on a local radio station talking about no filters

being used in the smoking of cannabis in many situations and what that does in

regard to the intake of toxins and various other elements in it that you

wouldn't see today in cigarette smoking. These are the kinds of things that

people talk about and they want to have information on that.

We also

have research in the medical community that talks about the fact that the impact

of THC and different elements in cannabis can have undue or ill effects on brain

development for young people up to the age of 25, which most of the scientific

information says overall development goes to that age. We're legalizing it at

the age of 19; there are some concerns there as well in regard to the use of

cannabis.

That's

in the context of people wanting to understand it, that we have the information,

that we can make people aware so there could be informed decisions made in

regard to the road we're going down.

I was

interested to hear too that the minister talked about the revenue stream. This

is something in regard to this legislation we've talked about here in the House,

asked a lot of questions, first and foremost, on the cost of implementation.

There are several acts we're going to talk about over the next couple of days in

regard to this legislation and others, and many are interrelated; the

Cannabis Control Act we're talking

about here now, the Smoke -Free

Environment Act, 2005 , the Liquor

Corporation Act , Highway Traffic Act .

So all of those are intertwined and speaks to the issue of public safety, of

knowledge and expertise in moving this forward, and to make sure we're certainly

prepared.

This

piece of legislation we're talking about here, the minister referenced when he

was up and talked about the revenues, as I said, the returns and talked about

the fact that there's a federal-provincial agreement in taxation, in regard to

this sale of cannabis and how it all evolves. He talked about the fact that I

think the province would receive 75 per cent of the excise tax, which would be

collected from this; as well, I think HST would be applied to that. So we'd

receive our normal share from that as well. He referenced the fact as well that

there's a provision or an exemption of when you get over $100 million that there

would be a different calculation in regard to what would be returned back to the

province.

Again,

we have no clear indication. I know in some of the debate we had about this the

minister has indicated, and certainly through budget debate and Estimates, I

think he indicated somewhere in the range of $4 million to $5 million for the

first quarter of 2019. That would be a little over $20 million, I guess. He can

probably speak to that later in debate on what that number would actually be.

Based on

the fact there's an exemption of $100 million, it would seem to indicate they

have some preference in regard to that number. It would be interesting to see

what studies or if studies were done by the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor

Corporation in regard to gross profit and what the original projections were in

what's been estimated and what they think the amount of consumption will be.

There

have been various surveys done and the people in general in the province in

regard to what they think the consumption will be initially and how it would pan

out over a period of time. That varies from 20 to 25 per cent to 30 per cent,

some less, some more, depending on what study is done.

It will

be interesting to see where it falls out as we move forward. Ultimately, from

our point, the concern is that the taxpayers' money is not used to subsidize

something. It's been implemented by the federal government. We shouldn't, here

in the province, have any new costs related to this that we can't return and

return quickly to the Treasury of the province if we're using it to implement

this.

With

this, it's not only the legislation in the production, having access to

cannabis, issuing retail licenses, setting folks up to sell it, it's all about,

too, as I said before, providing the information, the knowledge. As well,

whether it's on the policing side, on the medical service side of things that

can often be related, there's a cost associated with all of that. We have to

monitor all that as we go forward to make sure we're receiving our full share in

regard to covering those costs. That's on the revenue side; the minister spoke

of when he got up and talked about that.

It will

be interesting to see, too, obviously through the Newfoundland and Labrador

Liquor Corporation there's currently, obviously, profit collected by the Liquor

Corporation and returned to the province through dividends, through revenues

every year, hundreds of millions of dollars.

It will

be interesting to see in relation to cannabis comparatively to alcohol and that

line of business what the return will be on gross sales from cannabis as we move

forward and other strains of it performs. Will it be close to what's invested in

the liquor side of things or will it be less? Again, I'm interested to hear, and

maybe the minister can talk when he gets up as well in Committee or at the end

of second reading.

Was a

study done by anybody? The Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, maybe Deloitte or

someone like that may have done a study to look at initially what the return

would have been on investments. I'm interested to see if that report exists, and

maybe you can share some information in regard to – if it is, or such a report

was done, maybe we could get a copy of that to see exactly what was described in

it.

One of

the issues that was brought up today in Question Period, I think it's very

important and goes to the issue of being prepared and ready, was related to –

this is the social conscious piece I guess in regard to such a significant

public policy change, as the minister has alluded to several times, in our

province. There are social norms in what's acceptable and what's not. With

prohibition on alcohol, we went through all of that over decades and we are

where we are today. Certainly, with the introduction and legalization of

cannabis it'll be a new social norm that we'll work towards.

As part

of that, the current bill, in a general sense, talks about the application

process getting certified as a retail sales provider, wherever that may be in

the province. Within the legislation – which is a good thing – there's reference

to making sure there's notice given, people have the opportunity to have a say

if there are concerns. As I talked about, those social norms or people's values

or how they perceive something differently than others could vary. Where

something is located in a community, where it's located to another facility,

whether it be a hospital, a high school, a playground, a recreational centre.

People have various issues and concerns with those, which is often good to be

able to express those.

I was

happy to see in the legislation that that's clearly outlined starting in, I'm

not sure,

section 18 I think and goes through four or five sections in regard to

what the process would be if an applicant – and I think there were 80 in the

last process, I don't think it was an RFP process – but there were 80 applicants

that came forward and I think 24 were accepted for retail outlets.

In the

legislation today, it speaks to a process where there's a posting, where there's

dialogue. People have a chance to come forward and express their views on a pro

or con and can even express concern in not approving a particular application.

It's very formal and an engagement process for people's concerns to be heard. As

I said, that could be in a small community, it could be in a city or town, it

could be adjacent to some kind of public infrastructure that people have

concerns about. So I was glad to see that's there in a general sense. We'll

certainly talk about it when we get in Committee.

What I

did hear in questions asked by my hon. colleague was related to what's happening

now with those that's already been approved. Obviously, if it's fundamental

enough to put in this new piece of legislation and it's such a social policy

issue of significance that the minister has indicated, surely the same lens

we're going to put in this piece of legislation would be the same lens that

would've been provided or should be provided for those 80 applicants that we've

already gone through – I think there are 24 now.

I think

what the minister said, and I guess we'll get it confirmed later, is they will

have to go through and meet the clear definition or what needs to happen here in

that consultative – initially being posted, you make an application, it's

posted, and then you go through a process where the public can be heard. So I

think what he said, and we'll get it confirmed later, is what's in the

legislation now, those 24 would have to go through that current criteria that's

now set up.

I'm not

sure about those 80 applicants because should they have had that lens as well?

Again, if it's important enough to put in the legislation today and significant

enough, surely there's no exemption for anybody to this stage. We want to make

sure at the very least, that everybody has the ability if an actual retail sales

facility gets set up in their area – and I think it's very important.

I'd be

interested to hear how that moves forward as we talk about that as we go through

debate. I think it's important and I think the minister did confirm, based on

questions from my colleague, that indeed that process would be used for the 24

that are already accepted. So it would almost be a second phase of the process,

even though I guess they've been selected, to take them through the legislation

as it exists, to make sure that all people are heard on particular applications.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, I think it's the corporation as referred to

now would make that decision. That decision could be not to move forward,

because based on the representation of the general public and concerns in a

particular area, it could be the conclusion that they would not move forward.

Again,

there was reference to the local governance piece in the agreement to authorize

a particular retailer, and municipality was talked about. I know, looking at the

legislation, there's reference to the fact that municipality under authority. So

other questions we'd have when we go to Committee: Could a municipality

basically deny a retailer to be an authorized seller of cannabis to be licensed.

Ultimately, at the end of the day that municipality, based on their bylaws,

could have a number of variables that a new business coming in to set up would

have to meet and would have to get permits for. One that stands out would be an

occupancy permit. If the Liquor Corporation – or the corporation as it's called

now – went through all of this and they decided that, yes, we're going to award

that licence, the municipality could decide, no, we're not going to do that.

We're not going to issue a particular permit that's required for operations.

For all

intents and purposes, that would mean that awardment of that licence would not

be able to operate. That's interesting and we'll certainly want to talk about

that as we get through Committee as well. It's very important for local

governance. That's the whole knowledge piece, too, we talked about before, that

they have an understanding, they know what the rules are and it's not put on

them when it sort of happens when the application comes to them, but there are

discussions had. Even with the Municipalities Act, we don't see it here in the

list of acts that are being amended, but is there any need for an amendment to

something like a Municipalities Act to parallel and coincide with what we're

doing here in regard to this piece of legislation?

The

legislation as well, the minister mentioned, is certainly extensive. I think

there are four significant sections that deal with variable aspects of the

implementation of the policy; everything from access to information, ATIPPA.

There's reference to that in regard to how information is held, those types of

things. We talked about the tax structure and how that is going to flow. We

talked about the elements of profits and what refers to the public Treasury.

There's

one that I talked about when this came up in. Interestingly enough, in December

of 2017 in this House the current government brought in amendments to the

Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation. We made amendments then and a lot

of those are reflective of what's been put into this particular bill, the

Cannabis Control Act. We made those

changes in December 2017 to amend that, but for some reason now we're back again

with the Cannabis Control Act . Most of

those require an amendment to take those out of the Newfoundland

Liquor Corporation Act and bring them

into the new act, the Cannabis Control Act .

I don't

know if that goes to the element of not being ready or not really sure where

this is going, but it does lead to some questions in regard to what actually is

going on. Maybe the minister, when he gets up, can certainly clarify that and

speak to it. Why we had to make those changes in 2017 and now we're back taking

those out and putting them into a new particular act.

All of

that allows this to flow forward. One of the issues that I had asked before in

2017 – and I think the act speaks to that in some regards – is in regard to

trade and the implications. I know I asked at the time in regard to the recently

signed Canadian Free Trade and cross borders. We all want to see

interjurisdictional trade in Canada; it's been a great inhibitor over the years

in regard to the transfer of goods and services over borders. We've made some

progress on that.

The

Agreement on Internal Trade, I think, preceded the Canadian Free Trade

Agreement. I had some opportunity in prior years to be involved with that. That

was passed a couple of years ago to look at breaking down barriers between

interprovincial trade. In regard to cannabis and cross border, bringing it in

from outside I might assume, based on what I've seen, the corporation would be

the ones that you couldn't bring it in. It would have to be authorized by them

to bring it in. I'm not sure if there are any restrictions in terms of any

provincial jurisdiction, any inhibitor and how that could be done.

As well,

would it just have to come in interprovincially in Canada or could it be brought

in from the US? Could the corporation bring it in from Europe? What exactly the

rules would be in regard to that. In some respects you could get into various

tariffs, depending on other countries and where it would come from, but that

would be a determination, I would assume, by the corporation as it's called.

Currently, the one that comes to mind would be wines in terms of what's imported

from various jurisdictions around the world, various wineries. That's done

through the current Liquor Corporation. Could that happen through the

corporation now in regard to cannabis and the import from jurisdictions not only

here in Canada, but around the world and how that would work.

As well,

the question would be Canopy Growth – government has made an agreement with them

in regard to guaranteeing that they would produce so much and it would be

purchased here in the province. What would happen if another jurisdiction could

sell less or had a better market price, wholesale price that they could sell to

the corporation here, less than what Canopy Growth is growing here and selling?

There could be an opportunity for the same product, same strain, we'll say,

that's being produced elsewhere in the country, but is less than what Canopy

Growth would be providing here in the province.

Would

the Liquor Corporation or the corporation – I'm not sure whether they would

import that. Obviously, it's better for the customer here in terms of price, but

that's something that we'd certainly ask when we get to Committee in regard to

how that would work. What emphasis is on the corporation in regard to seeking

out product that's the same quality, same vintage, but at a cheaper price? If

it's outside, should we bring it in for a better value for the market here?

That's something as well we'll get to when we get to Committee.

As I

look at the various points going through in regard to the legislation, it's all

about the full gamut of the licensing structure and inspection procedures. It

sets out restrictions on sale, purchase, consumption, transportation,

advertising and promotion of cannabis, and sets out the offences and penalties.

In terms of titles and the various components to it, it's certainly vast in what

it is.

The

licensing structure; we talked a bit about that. Inspection procedures; I know

there's significant authority that's granted to the inspectors with the

corporation in regard to access, access to records, access to premises: all of

those types of authorities. There are issues related to restrictions on the sale

as well as purchase, consumption and also in advertising.

understanding is through Health Canada, or through the federal government, most

of the advertising will be generic. There won't be any – and we can talk about

that in Committee as well – specific advertising that's particular to one

producer or to one retailer, it will be generic across the country. That may

relate to what I spoke of earlier in regard to trade, interprovincial trade and

moving it back and forth.

If there

was an allowance to come in from another jurisdiction, another country, that may

pose some problems in regard to what's being brought in from the US or somewhere

else around the world in regard to how it's packaged. I would suggest it would

have to come in and have to be packaged at the corporation before it's put to

market. If it's a generic marketing scheme, it would have to be maintained no

matter where the actual product had come from.

Mr.

Speaker, a large

section of the legislation, what was added to the

Liquor Corporation Act , as I said, in

2017, some of that's been removed and we'll probably get some feedback on that

later on in debate. It's now been removed from the NLC act and placed in its own

act. That's the one we're talking about here today, the

Cannabis Control Act .

I know

the officials provided significant detail and information, slide deck, which

goes through the various pieces of legislation including this one, and provided

a lot of information. So we certainly recognize that and say thank you to the

officials for that.

It's

interesting to point out in this current legislation, we look at medical

cannabis and medical marijuana, I guess people are quite familiar with and have

heard about, it has been existent for some time. This particular legislation is

not meant to apply to medical cannabis, is my understanding.

The act

does not have any restrictions on education and research activities, except to

give regulation-making authority to LGIC. Orders of cannabis will be placed or

cancelled only by authorized employees of NLC. There's tremendous authority, I

guess, within this, with the corporation that's going to exist and oversee this.

So all of the control is going to rest with them very well in terms of how this

is written and, again, they may exchange information with a federal government

department or enter into an information-sharing agreement with a policy agency

in relation to the act.

that's significant power and authority too, in regard to the exchange of

information and how that would work. I don't know if that's worked out yet or

whether it's in the regulations, but that will be significant in regard to,

we're sharing information in regard to retailers and producers here in the

province, and maybe financial information, maybe information in regard to those

that could be charged, those that may be convicted, a lot of information. It'll

be interesting to see how that agreement and how that arrangement would be set

up, who would have access to it.

The

other one is the police services, the police forces. Obviously, here it's the

RNC and the RCMP that would be involved in items in regard to contraband and

breaking of the law, but as well anything related to this could be

inter-jurisdictional. It could be related to the black market, it could be

related to the underworld, in regard to criminal activity.

So it

will be interesting to see if the exchange of information would be involved with

police services and maybe other entities like the corporation here that oversees

it. Would there be exchange of information with other similar entities in other

jurisdictions, when interprovincial activity comes up that needs to be

investigated in areas of contraband or illegal activity?

The

federal-licensed producers must obtain authorization from NLC in order to sell

cannabis to retailers in the province – another element that exists. Mandatory

requirements for licence applications to hold public notice in the proposed

areas. We talked about that in regard to what exists today or what's in the

current legislation, what has transpired in regard to getting us from 80

applications for retail sales of 24.

In the

current legislation, the board may conduct a hearing where a person objects to

the issuance of a licence. That gets to issue, as I said before, in regard to

communities and regions where an application may have been made, people are

aware of it, but from that flows the ability for people to be able to speak to

it and speak to any concerns they have.

understanding is there will be a period for a retail licence up to a maximum of

five years. I did see reference to, in some of the notes we had, related to a

transfer. In a current period in that five years, instead of if something

happened, instead of that licence being cancelled, it can be transferred, which

causes a little of concern in regard to it could be an incentive just to get

involved with somebody who currently has a licence and get it transferred,

rather than going through a process that's outlined that I just talked about

beginning in

section 21 and 22, which is public notice and all those things

happen.

So I

don't know in a transfer, if all that process needs to be followed because it

would certainly be needed, because if that transfer is going to a different

area, again there may be some public discourse or public discussion that needs

to be had and it may not happen if a particular transfer occurred. That's

something we may get to in Committee as well.

Retailers are required to display their licence and comply with the federal

cannabis tracking system. That gets to the issue, I'm sure, of the federal

government in tracking the information, have the database and, as well, the

sharing of that information that was mentioned with the federal government and

the agencies there as well.

I'm not

sure, and maybe this is something we can discuss further, whether that tracking

system is ready today or is it available. I guess that gets to the whole issue

of – I think July 1 was the date for this and getting to when we get to actual

implementation once the law is passed here in the Legislature.

There

are also areas in regard to investigations into retail licences, existing

licences and the sale, purchase, supply, possession or transportation of

cannabis as well. There's also prohibition in regard to how much you can

possess, and the amount of cannabis you can possess at a particular time, also

what can be maintained in a residence, in a personal home; an organization,

whether they can possess cannabis or not.

The

minister spoke when he was up talking about fundraising draws and those types of

things that are not allowed. There was an incident a little while back in regard

to that transpiring, as well what adults may share in the amount of cannabis.

I spoke

earlier about a person under the age of 19 cannot enter a cannabis store. That

differs in regard to a cannabis store in a retail location. I remember reading

that in regard to a cannabis store would be – my understanding is it's specific

to the sale of cannabis, that would be it. In a retail location, which is a

cannabis store, someone under 19 wouldn't be able to enter that premises, but a

retail location would be a location where there would be various many other

things sold.

It could

be a convenience store, I guess, theoretically, it could be a liquor express

and, therefore, normally, someone under the age of 19 could enter that premises.

So if it is labelled a retail location, that under-19-year-old could enter that

location, much like they would today in a convenience store where there's a

liquor express. Obviously, they wouldn't be allowed to buy alcohol, but they

could still enter that retail location. So there's a difference in regard to the

two and what's available.

I don't

think in the current round there was any liquor express entities or convenience

stores. I'm not sure if any made the cut in those 24, I don't think. I've spoken

to a few people that did apply but were not successful in regard to that.

The act

talks about the authority of the corporation. Retailers can only purchase

cannabis from the corporation as an authorized producer. Some of the questions

we'll have relates to those that currently exist here and those that would exist

out of the province, not only in Canada but outside the borders as well, and how

that would work.

This

goes back to the fiscal management and operations and revenues coming back to

the province. Producers are required to remit reports and gross profits on a

monthly basis. I think that's somewhat similar to liquor sales as well.

Now,

this act too, the producer in this province would be Canopy Growth. There's been

$40 million, I guess, incentives, or I'm not sure what we'd call it, but, I

guess, on the other side, we're not giving them any money so it's really not a

transfer. Well, that's not correct.

There's

$40 million that won't be collected. My understanding is that will be paid for

Canopy Growth's capital costs, so buildings and what they need to construct.

They'll be allowed to, I guess, retain a percentage of these monthly remittances

to the corporation. In doing that, they'll be able to draw down on their gross

profits to cover their capital costs over a period of time.

So on

their monthly remittance, if they put in $100,000 gross sales, 10 per cent of

that or 20 per cent of that could be retained by them and not put into the

corporation, into the provincial Treasury of the people of the province, because

that 10 or 20 per cent of their retaining back would go to cover off their cost

of $40 million, if that's what they do when they build their infrastructure.

Which, when you think about it, is quite a deal because they're getting that

piece of infrastructure paid for which, at the end of the day, will be owned by

them. It won't be owned by the taxpayers who paid for it. As well, they can draw

down and get their return on their gross sales.

they'd have both of those going on, and that's why we've asked many questions

here in regard to that $40 million and if anybody else in the province has

gotten that or would anybody else ever get it.

That's

related to the actual remittance on a multi basis. My understanding about

legislation, there's no one permitted to give away cannabis in any way in a

promotion; not permitted to sell to an intoxicated person, very similar to

alcohol and all those type of things; it cannot be sold in vending machines or

self-service display; and the corporation will be the only online retailer.

Other retailers may sell online if approved by regulations.

The

online regulation and being able to get it cut or regulated or make sure that

there's a provision there to do it is challenging in and of itself. It will be

interesting to see the revenues that are not being accessed due to some of these

rules and how this will be managed.

Online,

people, depending on what the price is going to be from a market perspective –

currently being sold now, we'll say, illegally. If the price that's being

charged underground after this is all passed and comes into force is not

competitive or is higher than what's being sold now today in the market, there's

been no incentive really to purchase that. That's something we'll have to see

and how that's dealt with through the new corporation and the new legislation.

The type

of product, the strain, all of those things will be overseen by the corporation;

standard rules in terms of what would be consumed in public. There's an issue in

regard to the Smoke-Free Environment Act. We're going to debate that as well as

we move forward over the next number of days, and where you can – in a vehicle,

in a boat, in a moving vehicle, all those kinds of things are serious issues

that need to be clear and inform the people as this rolls out.

As I

spoke earlier in regard to the information of this and how important it is for

people to have an understanding of it, it's laid out and we're well informed is

extremely important. While the minister did allude to some of this, that's where

the investment is and that's where we need to make sure that all are informed in

regard to moving this forward because it is new. There is, as I said, a change

in social norms in regard to this. Some people agree with it, some people don't;

but, in any case, there needs to be that information involved so that everybody

can feel that they have an understanding and can do well with it.

I'm sure

we'll hear a lot of debate over the next number of days in regard to the

legislation. As I said, there are four in total that we'll debate and all

intertwined in regard to actions moving forward. It's not just the use of

cannabis in a social environment; it's certainly how that relates to the

Highway Traffic Act and this

particular bill, enforcement, oversight. There are issues in terms of

occupational health and safety in regard to working in an environment under the

influence of cannabis and how that's dealt with. All of those need to be looked

at.

Smoke-free environment – as I said, we went through decades in regard to

second-hand smoke from cigarettes. There are rules and regulations in regard to

that today and how that works. This act and the use of cannabis would have to

mirror that in terms of protection of the general public, for those that choose

not to entertain in use. Because all rights need to be respected: those that

certainly engage in the activity and those that don't, and make sure that it's a

safe environment for all concerned.

Mr.

Speaker, with that, I conclude my comments. I certainly look forward to future

debate and rolling into Committee and asking a lot of questions and getting

clarity on this significant piece of legislation, as I keep referring the former

minister of Justice and Public Safety talked about. But there are a lot of

questions here and I think it's incumbent on government that they have some of

that information to give people the comfort level that as we move forward with

that they understand it, they feel safe and they can make informed decisions.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's an

honour and a privilege to take 20 minutes this afternoon to debate Bill 20, An

Act Respecting the Control and Sale of Cannabis. It's something that we've known

has been coming since the federal Liberal government was elected in 2015. It was

a campaign promise that they brought forward.

Mr.

Speaker, we're going to be ready as a province to roll this out whenever the

bill moves on from the Senate, gets Royal Assent federally. Like I said, we're

here debating today because we are going to be ready. We're going to get this

through, through good debate, good questions, and we're going to be ready for

the legalization, whenever that may be sometime in the near future.

So, Mr.

Speaker, before I start I'd like to thank the staff from all the departments who

put this bill together. I'd also like to take some time to thank the staff who

provided briefings for us this morning. I know this is the first of four bills

that are related to the cannabis legalization, and I'm sure we'll have some

lively debate over the next couple of days as we move forward on this.

When we

talk about the Cannabis Control Act ,

I'd like to just let people know what it's going to include. The

Cannabis Control Act will include the

most substantive provisions related to cannabis in the province. The act will

create a licensing structure for cannabis retailers; provide the Newfoundland

and Labrador Liquor Corporation with authority to administer and enforce the act

and regulations; regulate the sale, purchase, consumption, transportation and

use of cannabis; and set out offences and penalties.

Unlike

the other bills that we'll be debating today, Mr. Speaker, this is a brand, new

bill; it's not an amendment on anything else, which we'll see coming up. This is

the biggest policy shift that we've had in decades, Mr. Speaker, for the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So I do appreciate the concerns that the

Opposition do have.

Now, I'm

going to get to the Opposition a little bit later, because I think they've been

fear-mongering a little bit. I don't want to talk about that right now. I want

to talk about some positive things that we're bringing forward with this.

We have

here today, Bill 20, the Cannabis Control

Act . So we are going this to be proactive, to get ready for federal

legislation. We can have this mandated here today within our own bill, or we can

have it mandated to us from the federal government. It's better for us here in

the province to have our own bill, act, regulations around cannabis use and

legalization. We got a lot of people working hard within the departments, and

especially at the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, who's taking the

lead on this bill.

The

intent of this, when it was brought forward, the idea was brought forward by the

federal Liberals in the campaign of 2015, and once they were elected bringing it

in right now, is take the industry out of the hands of criminals. So we want to

take this industry out of the hands of criminals and give people a product which

isn't dangerous, which you could go to a licensed retailer and pick up your

supply. You're not funding the black market, you're taking money out of their

pockets and you're having a product that is a good quality product, Mr. Speaker.

If you

look at the fentanyl crisis; you look at anything else that we have. You have

marijuana, cannabis right now where people are smoking it anyway. They are

having this product that is dangerous to their health. So we're taking it out of

criminals' hands. People who are doing it now anyway, we're going to have a

regulated market where they are able to do it legally.

This is

one of the other things as well, Mr. Speaker; I know the Opposition talked about

how the courthouse is going to be filled with all the people that are going to

be breaking the law because of marijuana. No, Mr. Speaker, what we're doing is

actually clearing up the courts.

Right

now we have people charged with possession and trafficking of marijuana. We're

taking that away, freeing up space in our courts, so we can get cases through in

a timely manner. This is the second purpose of this bill, or of this

legalization. Right now it's being held up in the Senate, unfortunately.

The PCs

always ask us about, when are your federal cousins going to bring this into

place? You can't give us a date. Well, they should ask their Conservative

senators in Ottawa, what's the hold up? You don't have to serve as a senator, as

I just heard. No, b'y. What's Norm Doyle and those people – they're holding it

up right now. This is going to be a good benefit to the people in the District

of Bonavista, Mr. Speaker. We have some great opportunities.

Recently

in the media you may have seen that a local group has purchased the former OCI

fish plant in Port Union, Trinity Bay North. This presents a unique opportunity

for us, Mr. Speaker. I know a number of different groups were looking at this

facility. We had a group come in and purchase it, and they're great, young,

local people who want to do good things for the people in our area and create

jobs. Provide a product that is legal – a good quality product, Mr. Speaker.

They want to come in and do that.

Right

now, they are working with Health Canada to get their licence in place. They

have the facility bought; they bought it last week, closed the deal. What that's

going to do for us, should they get their licence, should they get everything

else in place, is that's going to create jobs. The (inaudible), that's the name

of the group. They're very community oriented, great local guys. They're working

with Health Canada right now. They've got their lawyer working on that, going

through the motions to try and get that licence should they be successful. Then

they're going to work with the province and NFLC to move forward on that.

Mr.

Speaker, any producer that has to get their licence has to go through Health

Canada. They're doing their work and they're going to work with NLC to become a

provider. This is very similar to the beer and spirits market, Mr. Speaker. So

when the Opposition get up and talk about how this is a bad thing, how we don't

know what we're doing, it's going to be regulated just like any other industry:

beer, spirits, any craft beer producer, any distillery. It's all got to go

through its checks and balances. You can't just decide you're going to start

growing cannabis one day and sell it the next. It doesn't work that way. It's a

very regulated system.

What

these people have done is they are going to renovate the old OCI building which

was damaged in Hurricane Igor in 2010 and has been lying dormant ever since.

That's going to create jobs, just in renovations alone. To have the support of

the public – they talked on the other side about the public outcry against

cannabis production in communities and how municipalities don't want it in their

town. Tell that to the 200 people that turned out to the Lions Club two weeks

ago in Trinity Bay North to support this initiative, to ask relevant questions,

to ask about how do they get a job.

That

plant, Mr. Speaker, during the height of the cod fishery employed 1,400 people

year round. Then it was seasonal since the late '90s until 2010 when the shrimp

industry saw a lower number of jobs but still good jobs.

What the

PCs are saying, they don't support jobs in rural Newfoundland. They don't agree

with it. They're saying that municipalities are going to run them out of towns

with pitchforks. Well, they didn't do that. The 200 people at the Lions Club in

Port Union didn't do that two weeks ago. They were excited about this new

opportunity, and I'm excited about this new opportunity.

It has

municipal support. Council has been working hard to bring something into the

municipality of Trinity Bay North, Lower Catalina, Catalina, Port Union and

Melrose. Those people are crying out for work. They want to see that facility

utilized. I'm excited about that and I'm excited about the opportunity it

presents. I'm hoping they get their Health Canada licence and then we'll work

with them as a province.

They say

Canopy is going to have the monopoly on it. It couldn't be further from the

truth, Mr. Speaker. It's just more PC fear mongering, misinformation.

Mr.

Speaker, we are open for business for anyone who wants to come in to become a

producer. Like I said, you've got to go through your licensing; you've got to go

through all the rules and regulations that go with it. Like I said, you can't

just say I'm going to grow dope in my shed and tomorrow I'm going to sell it

because marijuana or cannabis is legal. You can't do that.

It's a

very, very lengthy process that takes time and you have to meet all

requirements. This isn't rushed. We're not pushing this through. That's why we

had to use Canopy, Mr. Speaker, because there is no licensed medical marijuana

or medical cannabis producer in this province. They treat cannabis like the

bogeyman, like they do everything else, and Quebec. Anything they don't agree

with is automatically wrong and the bogeyman, and you can't move forward on it.

Canopy is providing 145 jobs in this province.

Mr.

Speaker, should the facility in Port Union get up and running that's going to be

another 100 jobs in a market that's well needed. These aren't just jobs for the

sake of jobs, these are good jobs, Mr. Speaker. You have the renovation of the

facility. You have specialized people going in doing lab work, growing the

product. You have cleaning, you have office work, you have everything when it

comes to that. You're going to have a wide variety of jobs which is going to

bring more people into an already booming area. You're going to bring in highly

educated people, young people. That's going to put children in our schools, Mr.

Speaker. That's going to support our businesses for spinoffs.

When

they go out and say this is a bad thing, municipalities are going to run them

out of town, people don't want it. It couldn't be further from the truth. When I

first met with members of that group last fall, I had good discussions about our

area and some locations they may want to set up in, helped them look for land

and whatnot. They took an opportunity and ran with it.

Mr.

Speaker, this past February I met with another group out of Nova Scotia who are

interested in the Newfoundland market. They're coming here because the Province

of Nova Scotia isn't as progressive as us when it comes to cannabis production

and sale. They are coming looking here.

When

they talk about all of the mass exodus out of Newfoundland and Labrador where

you have your Marine Atlantic ferries packed because no one wants to live here

anymore, we actually got business wanting to come here. They want to come here

because there's opportunity.

Mr.

Speaker, that gets back to the PC fear mongering. They've been doing it for

three years now. They haven't got a record of their own to stand on after 12

years of government so they have to fear monger to try to discredit what we are

doing.

Mr.

Speaker, they get here week after week after week after week in Question Periods

and all they're doing is recycling their same questions over and over again. The

former leader, the former premier, gets up and interrogates us on the minutiae

and the mundane, things so negative about cannabis production. It's coming

whether we like it or not. The federal government, if we don't bring in this

act, will mandate what we do. I'd rather have a made-in-Newfoundland plan than a

made-in-Ottawa plan. Would you rather have that, Mr. Speaker? I think you would.

Then,

the new leader of the Opposition in the House of Assembly gets up and asks the

same questions over and over again. He talked about you approved a retail

location 600 metres from a school – are you in favour of that – trying to get

the gotcha moment so their henchmen up on the fifth floor can do a video of it.

That's all they're trying to do. They're gotcha moments; they're trying to scare

people.

This is

no different than what we do with beer, tobacco and spirits right now, Mr.

Speaker. You have to be 19 years of age to purchase those products; you have to

be 19 years of age to enter those facilities. This is no different. What the PCs

are getting on with is pure foolishness; gotcha moments that their henchmen on

the fifth floor can put on a YouTube video, put on Facebook and other social

media. That's all they're at. It's unbelievable what they've been doing.

What

they're doing is they're speaking out against rural jobs. They don't want to see

rural jobs. In all intents and purposes, that's what they're getting on with day

after day after day in Question Period. They don't want to see that. I sit here

every day like yourself, Mr. Speaker. That's what I've taken from the questions

they ask every day. They want to see this federally thrown down our throats. If

we didn't bring this in now they'd say: How come you didn't do it? Now they're

saying: You're rushing it through. You can't have it both ways; you're talking

out of two sides of your face. You can't do that.

Mr.

Speaker, we are seeing the PCs day after day after day in Question Period

portraying honest business people, who are running honest business, as bogeymen

who are dishonest and would sell this product to minors. They went down that

road. They're portraying honest business people who run honest businesses as

bogeymen and criminals. In their line of questioning, that is what they're

saying.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Shameful.

MR. KING:

It is shameful.

Mr.

Speaker, just before I conclude my remarks – I have a few minutes left – they're

going to talk about where can you smoke it and where can you buy it, all that

sort of stuff. When it comes to consumption you're allowed to have 30 grams in

your possession and you're allowed to have four plants within the place which

you reside.

It can't

be consumed in public places. If they think I'm going to walk down Water Street

tomorrow with a joint hanging out of my mouth blowing it in the wind, it's not

like that. It's like alcohol; you can't do it in public places, Mr. Speaker. You

can't do it anywhere that smoking is prohibited under the Smoke-free Environment

Act.

You

can't do it in a vehicle or a boat. We're going to talk a little about

amendments to the motor vehicles act shortly. I hope to speak to that one as

well because the fear that they have going out there – they're saying that

enforcement officers won't be doing their job, everyone is going to be riding

around high when the laws are already in place, Mr. Speaker. That's what they're

saying.

That's

not what I'm saying, that's what they've been saying in Question Period month

after month, week after week and day after day. Those are the kinds of questions

they've been asking. Discredit the people who are out there doing the good work

on a daily basis, discredit the good people that we have working putting this

bill together. Mr. Speaker, we're not doing that. We're going to move forward.

We're going to have a Newfoundland-made bill that's going to serve the people of

Newfoundland – I should say we're going to have a Newfoundland-and-Labrador-made

bill that's going to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Getting

back to this, cannabis may not be consumed in any place prescribed by

regulations. Medical cannabis users may continue to use cannabis in public

places, subject to the restrictions laid within the Smoke-free Environment Act.

Mr. Speaker, we're serious about this. Like I said, you can't light up anywhere,

you can't vape anywhere. If you are found doing something wrong, if you possess

more than the allowable limits, between 30 and 50 grams or five-to-six cannabis

plants, you're going to be fined $200. Youth possession is punishable by a $100

fine.

Selling

cannabis to a person or to people who are intoxicated is punishable by a fine of

$500 to a $100,000 and up to two years in jail. When they get up and ask

questions about the good people who are operating these businesses and saying

they're going to sell to minors and portray them to be dishonest and bogeymen,

that's not the case. I don't think any retailer out there wants to be fined

between $5,000 and $100,000 with two years in jail. They're not going to do it,

much like now you don't have people selling to minors. Right no