PDF Version

May 30, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 27

The

House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader and gentleman who's celebrating his birthday today.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

call from the Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 22.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 22,

An Act To Amend The

Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

This

motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third

time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the order

paper.

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Am I too late to speak to it,

Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER:

Did you want to speak to –

MR. P. DAVIS:

Third reading.

Third

reading on the smoke-free – if I've missed my chance, I've missed my chance, but

MR. SPEAKER:

You'll require leave.

I'll ask

the Member if he wants you to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

Okay, please proceed.

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate it; I thank the minister and Members opposite for leave to speak to

the Smoke-free Environment Act, 2005 .

I just wanted to, very, very briefly, on the Smoke-free Environment Act, to

thank the Members opposite for their indulgence and their co-operation – I feel

the wind in here today, Mr. Speaker – just to speak to it.

On all

of these acts, I want to reiterate here of course, the importance of

discouraging people from smoking, which is what the environment act was really

considered for in the first place. I'm glad they're including marijuana under

the Smoke-free Environment Act because then it will be included in the process

of discouraging people from smoking any types of substances.

I just

wanted to take a moment to thank the government. I think it's a good thing for

them to include it in the Smoke-free Environment Act. Part of their legalization

of marijuana and processes in this province should always have the oversight of

discouraging people from smoking any types of substances, and putting it here I

think is the first step in doing that.

So I

thank them again for leave just to comment this morning.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

further speakers.

I am

going to repeat, is the House ready for the question?

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

This

motion is carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third

time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order

Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005,” read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 3,

third reading of Bill 23.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services and Deputy Deputy

House Leader, that Bill 23,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read

a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I have a

few more comments on this one than I did on the last one.

We had a

good exchange yesterday in the House in Committee on amendments to the

Highway Traffic Act . We had a lot of

questions to ask and we were here for a couple of hours in Committee. For most

of it we had a good exchange, at least most of it we had efforts from government

to answer some of the questions. I'm still not clear on some of them and I just

wanted to make a few comments in third reading on it.

One of

the aspects of this that's troubling is the government is about to pass a

provincial law for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that I don't believe you're

equipped right now to be able to enforce. That one being on zero tolerance for

drugs for novice drivers, drivers under 22 and commercial drivers. Zero

tolerance means a person under 22, a novice driver or a commercial driver cannot

have any presence of THC – which is the active drug in marijuana – while

operating a motor vehicle.

There

are two types of THC: there's active and then there's residual, which can be

detected, I understand right now, up to 60 days or longer after use of

marijuana. Right now for roadside screening for police there's no federally

approved screening device available right now in Canada. The federal government

is still going through the process.

I've

heard some comments from Members opposite being critical of Conservative Party

of Canada senators who they say got it hung up in the Senate. We know on Monday,

and we hear news reports Monday night, that the results of the Senate taking –

the Senate is quite often seen and is supposed to be the body has a sober second

thought, is the way it's quite often worded, on bills and legislations from

Parliament.

The

independent Liberal Members, as well as the Conservative Party of Canada

senators, unanimously agreed to over two dozen amendments from reviewing the

federal bill that's going to impact legalization of marijuana. The fact it is in

the Senate seems like they're doing good work. If they have two dozen bills

unanimously agreed to, which will now go back to Parliament for further review.

One of

the federal regulations is being able to detect quantities – nanograms – of THC

or the active ingredient in marijuana for drivers. In Newfoundland and Labrador,

the government has done a very good thing by creating zero tolerance, at least

for novice drivers, drivers under 22 and commercial drivers. But the problem

exists that the province is about to pass this legislation when there is no

roadside ability to determine for low quantities of THC if the provincial

legislation is being upheld.

Federally, the offences begin when there are two nanograms – when it comes to

the actual levels – of THC per millilitre of blood. That's when the offences

begin. Two to five is a maximum of $1,000 fine; five nanograms or more is a more

serious offence or higher fines. Then, there are also the 2.5 nanograms or more

when you have 50 millilitres of alcohol in the blood or more.

Provincially, having zero tolerance, which means anything above zero up to two

nanograms or more, would be the provincial level. If you have less than two

nanograms – if you have one nanogram, as an example, you haven't committed a

breach of any federal laws, any Criminal

Code of Canada laws, any of the laws that are being dealt with in Parliament

and the Senate, but you would have breached the law of zero tolerance here in

this province.

The

problem exists that right now the province does not have a mechanism to

determine on the roadside if a person has one nanogram which would be a

violation of zero tolerance. There's no way for them to determine that because

the roadside screening devices are not approved federally and do not exist in

the system right now. Police agencies have to procure them, obtain them. Police

agencies have to develop policy and they have to train officers in their use

before they'll be able to determine that. Some people have suggested it could be

a fairly long time for that part of the legislation to be able to be upheld.

When we

were in government I remember the Opposition saying to us: You can't pass

legislation you can't enforce. I remember Opposition Members making those

comments to us: You should never pass legislation – I suppose you can because

we're about to, but you shouldn't pass legislation if you can't enforce the

legislation. Sometimes what will happen is legislation will get passed in the

House, but it won't receive Royal Assent or come into power until a point in

time that all the checks and balances, equipment and training and so on is in

place to be able to make sure that people abide by that law.

The

second aspect of the Highway Traffic Act

bill, which I believe is worthy of discussion here today, is the aspect of

education. I asked government yesterday if they could give us an idea of what

their plan is on education and how they plan to educate people. I asked

ministers yesterday: Tell me what two nanograms means. What does that mean? I

raise it because people generally know that if you go out somewhere for a meal

with a partner, friend, spouse or something – you're having an evening meal

somewhere, if you go to a restaurant downtown and you have a meal – generally

speaking, you can drink an ordinary beer, or most people will believe they can

drink an ordinary beer. They have their meal, they have coffee and desert and

they'd be safe to drive home.

I know

many of us will say and encourage people: Do not drink anything before you

drive. That's an easy, solid rule to follow, but the reality is that many, many

people will do that. They'll go to a social setting, they'll have a drink or a

glass of wine or a beer and feel very safe that you're not going to fail a

Breathalyzer test or be impaired – especially if you're accustomed to drinking

alcohol – by that one beer, one drink.

course, the more drinks and beverages you have, the more likely you are to be

impaired to a level that would be considered to be criminal, or that your

blood-alcohol content would be above the legal limits. There are really two

aspects. Are you impaired? No matter what your level is, you could be impaired.

There are also legal per se limits that have been legislated federally – and

here, provincially, rules as well in provincial law – about how much alcohol you

can have in your system before you can drive.

I know

of circumstances where people have blown three and four times the legal limit,

very high, high levels of alcohol, but it was very hard to detect that they were

intoxicated because they consume so much alcohol on a daily basis they become

adjusted and used to it. The legal limit is 80. I've had people blow 250, 260.

I've had people that had alcohol levels of over 300 and look at them and say I

can't believe this person is this high.

remember a gentleman one time who had told me he drank a bottle of rum a day.

Actually, he had an accident with a police car while he was on the way to work.

He blew over 300 but never expected to really be that high. On the other side of

it, if someone has never, ever drunk and had a glass of wine, it may have an

impact on you. A glass of wine will have a greater impact, quite often, on an

older person than a person of middle age.

The

problem here is on drugs, trying to determine the level of drugs because zero

tolerance means zero. There's going to be a testing process. Does it pick up the

residual that can be detected for 60 days, or more, later? Does it only pick up

the active THC? There's no device available right now on a roadside to determine

if a person is between zero and two, which is what the provincial legislation is

going to say.

That's a

little bit of a problem that we had hoped the government could explain how

they're going to deal with that, but I really haven't heard the answer to that

until the licences are ready. It could be a year, it could be two years before

it happens – it could be three months – but they don't seem to have an idea on

that.

The

other aspect of the Highway Traffic Act

bill, the smoke-free workplace bill and the cannabis act – all of them – I

believe is on education. I know the Minister of Justice said that they've talked

about education for two years. They've been talking about the legalization of

marijuana and education has been a part of it. We asked them what their plan is

on education and we don't know what it is.

I would

expect the government has a plan right now for laying out an education plan. I

some highlights of very high-level factors that are designed, that people can

read really quickly and get an understanding of the dangers of driving. Don't

drive high is the headline on it. Your life can change in an instant.

Fast

facts it's referred to: 50 per cent of cannabis users don't think that it

affects their driving much, while one in five don't think it has any negative

impact at all. We know that's not right, so bringing in these new laws,

increasing the availability of cannabis to all members of society 18 years of

age and older, also comes with an inherent responsibility on government to make

sure people understand what the risks are.

We know

from the history of marketing and advertising that you have to send that same

message repeatedly – over and over and over again, sometimes for a long period

of time and a repeated number of times – before people start to get the message.

We do it in politics when we go out and ask people to vote for us. We don't put

out one sign; we'll put out hundreds of signs because we want people over and

over and over to support us in an election.

It's the

same kind of thing. Don't smoke weed or use marijuana, don't use cannabis, weed,

whatever you want to call it, hash, hash oil – don't use them and drive a motor

vehicle because there are risks. Even though 50 per cent of cannabis users don't

think it affects their driving much.

One-third, 39 per cent of those who have used cannabis in the past year have

driven within two hours of consuming cannabis. I've heard people talk about a

four-hour range because cannabis is different than alcohol. When a person

consumes alcohol if you stop drinking in a moment, generally speaking, your

alcohol levels in your blood will continue to rise for two hours after and then

they'll start to drop off. Generally speaking, if you're drinking and drinking

and drinking constantly and you stop, blood will continue to absorb alcohol for

two hours later; your alcohol levels continue to go up and then it starts to

come down.

So four

hours later, after stopping drinking alcohol, you could be where you were when

you stopped drinking four hours before. It takes a long time for that alcohol to

drop off. I'm told that with cannabis, with marijuana, with weed, it's different

than that. That as soon as it's smoked and absorbed, then it starts to drop off

very, very quickly. Within a few hours later, the effects of marijuana could

wear off, where alcohol can last for many, many hours.

So this

point says 39 per cent of those who used cannabis in the past year have driven

within two hours of consuming cannabis. What I just explained, I think is the

reason for that. One hundred and forty-nine is the number of fatally injured

Canadian drivers who've tested positive for cannabis in 2014 – 149 – before

legalization. We know that the chiefs of police in Ontario just very, very

recently held a press conference and raised a flag to say, well, it's going to

increase.

My point

in doing this, Mr. Speaker, is just to again make the point which I believe is

very important. The government needs to start today with educating and

advertising. From the school levels, to young adults, to older adults, all

levels of society, so that everybody understands. Messages we've seen in the

past – if you're having a party and you're serving alcohol or serving drugs,

people holding that party have a responsibility as well. If you have someone

leaving your house or social event, we all have a responsibility to say please

don't drive; do you realize how much you drank, or how much you smoked or how

much you've consumed with drugs or alcohol. Please don't drive.

We do

that today. But I think it's an important point that we need to continue to hit

home to people, especially now with summer upon us. We wouldn't say it today

according to the wind blowing; we can hear over our heads here. But with summer

coming on us, it's a time when people start to barbeque, they go to social

events, they'll sit at an outside table at a restaurant and it's a warm day, so

the tendency is quite often to consume more and so on, and it's important to

continue to hit those messages about safe usage of all alcohol, all drugs, and

especially when it comes to driving.

So, Mr.

Speaker, if the government has any information they can help shed light on for

advertising or education, I'd be more than happy to hear what it is; and as

well, zero tolerance doesn't seem to me – we haven't actually been able to find

out if they have a way today to enforce that zero tolerance. If they do, I'd be

more than happy to hear the explanation, and I think people want to hear it as

well.

Thank

you for acknowledging me on this.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

wanted to provide a few comments here to third reading of this bill. There's one

point I'll certainly agree with the Member opposite on, is that obviously

education and awareness are going to be so important; it's going to be paramount

to this process that we need when you have a policy shift like this, and when

you have a fundamental change in basically how we've grown up and how we've

learned, when you take something from illegal to legal, that there is going to

be a lot of education that is necessary. That

part I agree with.

The fact

is that is it incumbent upon government, as well as all of our partners, our

agencies, parents, everybody has to play a role in this and to educate

themselves. We have to work with our federal partners to ensure that we provide

the materials and provide the information because if not people, as they do with

other things, may sometimes reach out to sources that are not always accurate.

That's where I think we can play our role and get the accurate information out.

One

thing that's hard to do, though, is that we cannot advertise about rules that

are not actually legislated yet. We know that when it comes to our provincial

rules and laws that we are laying out and debating here right now, that we have

to get that done first. The other

part is when we talk about the limits, the

nanograms two to five and so on, it's coming through the federal legislation.

It's hard to talk about that and say that we're going to put out brochures and

awareness in online sites on that when it's not actually done yet. We don't know

where it's going to go.

Again, I

cannot control that. That's the Senate. That is our Parliament. So we have to

see that, but once that comes out we have to be ready to move. I agree with what

the Member is saying. Once it comes out, you have to be ready to go from there.

And again, if things stay the same as they are now that's one thing. If they're

different, then you have to be ready to adjust course and move forward.

This is

not an education process that's going to last a couple of months. This is an

education process that's going to last some time. That's going to bring me back

to the other point that I do disagree with the Member opposite. When we say that

people have a general idea of their limits with alcohol, I disagree. Given the

impaired driving stats from this province and from this country, people don't

know their limits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS:

The only same limit is to have zero in your bloodstream. For us to suggest that

people have a good understanding, well given the fact that just about every day

we're seeing it on the news, I'm getting a press release from the RCMP picking

up an impaired driver, I'd say no. I'd say they don't.

In many

cases people are waking up the next morning thinking that they're good to go and

they're still impaired. It's still in their system. We've been dealing with that

for decades and people still haven't learned or they're choosing not to listen.

So to

think that we're going to transition here seamlessly, no, but I think we can

learn from the lessons here. We can learn from the mistakes and that comes back

to the education which we will get out. But you can't inform somebody about

something that has not yet been determined, and there's going to be a lot.

The

police are going to play a huge role in this, the medical community; the

education community are going to play a huge role in this. But again I come back

to our impaired stats right now on something that's been legal since before we

joined Confederation, and we still have people every day choosing to make that

stupid mistake – and that's the word I'll use, that stupid mistake of getting

behind the wheel impaired.

Now, a

couple of stats that I do want to put out here, because we've listened to

statistics and we talk about impaired statistics. Statistics Canada, when we

want to talk about – and again, we don't know. It's the same as when we talk

about financial projections on cannabis, we can't exactly send the auditor in to

the crowd that's currently selling cannabis and say show us the stats. We don't

know. We can anticipate, we can make best guesses based on the due diligence

that we have, but the fact remains we're going from the illicit market to the

legal market.

What we

can do is based on statistics that have been gathered by Statistics Canada –

Statistics Canada talked to people and they asked people about current use of

cannabis and plans for use post-legalization. Seventy-nine per cent of Canadians

– 79 per cent – so we're getting up to almost four-fifths said that legalization

would have no impact on whether they would try using cannabis or increase their

cannabis use; that's an important stat. The University of Calgary just put out

their own evidence series on this, related to legalization, and the study looked

at the experience of other jurisdictions which had legalized use, and page 15 of

that study, the headline is Canada can expect negligible or modest increases in

cannabis use.

It's not

a fear; it's not a misconception. It's still a possibility; it's within the

realm of possibility that the day it becomes legalized everybody goes down to

the store and tries it. That's a possibility. But there's also the very strong

possibility, based on the evidence that we can gather from other jurisdictions,

that that will not likely happen. Personally, based on my studies and what I

think – I think there may be, obviously, a spike. I think we've seen that spike.

So when

you look at other jurisdictions, Colorado and Washington, prevalence of use by

adults increased post-legalization. Washington State and Oregon, prevalence of

use by adults actually decreased slightly or remained flat. So again, we could

go the route of Colorado and probably increase; I think that's a very strong

possibility. And again, every place will be different, every province will be

different. But we can only base that on what actually happens.

One of

this – we wanted to legalize, to regulate, and to restrict cannabis for

non-medical purposes. One of the reasons is that we already know that there's a

pretty high percentage of our population that is using cannabis, including our

youth. That's why we've gone with the no tolerance from 22 and under or novice

drivers; 22 and under and novice drivers there is zero tolerance. I think that's

the right move.

I mean

there are a lot of statistics that one could find out there. What I think is

that we've achieved a very strong balance out there when it comes to this

legislation, which when we take nonpartisan outside sources such as the Atlantic

trucking association and such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, nationally, are

saying: What you've got here is good, very good, amongst the top in the country.

I take great assurance in knowing that these people, outside of government,

independent of government, free to say that what we have is no good or good and

they've said it's very good.

The

other thing I come back to is that education and awareness is important but

that's going to be a process that starts immediately, before legalization,

during legalization and after legalization. We have to continue that, because do

you know what? Let's talk about something when we talk – I agree with the Member

marketing is key.

We talk

about seat belts. I had one of the Members opposite during the

Smoke-free Environment Act talk

about when seat belts became legal. You'd think years later that it would be

common sense, yet our deaths in this province in road accidents because seat

belts weren't used have increased. They've increased in the last 10 years. We

had a very successful campaign out there, the Buckle Up campaign. You drive into

the gateway to the province, Port aux Basques, when you get off the boat, the

first sign there: Buckle Up. The sign is right there. We had great campaigns.

You

would think that you eventually don't have to keep putting that message in, but

the statistics given to me by the RNC say, no, unfortunately and sadly, that's

not the case. So do you know what? That's something we have to deal when it

comes to road safety in general.

You

think people would realize that, yes, driving at 100 kilometres an hour while

snap chatting is probably not safe. You'd thing that. You'd think that driving

100 on four lanes of highway, traffic going both ways while texting, you think

people would get that, but, unfortunately, they do not.

I have a

sad feeling that even with the excellent legislation that we have here, people

will not get message. So what can we do? What we can do is have strong

legislation, backed up by excellent enforcement and reinforced by strong

education and awareness that we continue over a period of time. That's what we

have to do, that's what we're going to do. On that point, I will agree with the

Member opposite.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

going to take much time. I know we're in third reading and we did a lot of

discussion yesterday when it came to a lot of questions that we did have.

I want

to ensure the House Leader and the Minister of Justice that I think we're on the

same page. I believe that everyone in this House is looking at this piece of

legislation and thinking it's a good piece of legislation and that the questions

we asked yesterday were around making sure that proper mechanisms were in place.

I agree

with the minister and I agree with my colleague from Topsail - Paradise that

this piece of legislation, it's important that we get it done right. I'm glad

that associations like MADD and the Atlantic trucker's federation and different

groups like that are on side, but I do have some concerns with the role of the

federal government more so than anything else, what they're going to introduce

with the new mechanism that needs to be put in place so we can do the proper

testing at the roadside. Those were a lot of the questions that I had yesterday.

Our

caucus is fully supportive of this bill. We will be voting for this bill. We

agree with MADD and we agree with different groups out there that anything we

can do to make our roads safe and ensure that people, whether it's drug

impairment, whether it's medication impairment, whether it's alcohol impairment,

we don't need them on our roads and we have to keep those people off our roads.

We all want to get home safe in the nighttime and we want to make sure our loved

ones get home safe in the night.

So, to

agree with the minister and to agree with my colleague that this is a good piece

of legislation, we'll definitely be supporting it. We had some questions

yesterday, I think we spent a couple of hours yesterday here asking some

concerns, but they were legit. I'm sure government has the same concerns when

they talk to their federal counterparts and talk to different groups right

across Canada, different provinces.

I'm sure

that there will be some changes down the road to the legislation as we go

forward. I want to just say that our caucus is supportive of this bill, but

we're really supportive of making sure that our law enforcement people, who we

appreciate, have the proper tools to be able to do their work and that the

education part, which we talked about yesterday, that we start right at a very

low level with children in our schools and that part gets played.

The

minister just mentioned, as soon as you get off the ferry in Port aux Basques

the first thing you see is: Buckle Up. Those things are important. We're not

going to change everybody. While the minister says we'll still have somebody

that's doing this or doing that. No matter what happens, there will be people

that will be driving under the impairment of drugs and that's just a fact of

life.

We need

to make sure that we have everything in place to ensure that everyone's educated

on that it's illegal, and also that our enforcement people have the proper tools

to do the job.

I just

want to say that our caucus is, basically, on the same page. We all want to make

sure that our roads are safe for the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the

House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third

time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order

Paper.

motion, a bill, “ An

Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act ,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the

Order Paper. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 4,

third reading of Bill 24.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, that Bill 24, An

Act Respecting The Restraint Of Salary And Extinguishment Of Severance Pay For

Non-Represented Public Sector Employees And Statutory Officers Of The Province,

Bill 24, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

This

motion is carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act Respecting The

Restraint Of Salary And Extinguishment Of Severance Pay For Non-Represented

Public Sector Employees And Statutory Officers Of The Province. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third

time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order

Paper.

motion, a bill, “ An

Act Respecting The Restraint Of Salary And Extinguishment Of Severance Pay For

Non-Represented Public Sector Employees And Statutory Officers Of The Province ,”

read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill

24)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 5,

third reading of Bill 25.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 25,

An Act To Amend The

Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act, be now read a third

time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

This

motion is carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act. (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third

time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order

Paper.

motion, a bill, “ An

Act To Amend The Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act ,”

read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill

24)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 6,

third reading of Bill 26.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, that Bill 26, An

Act To Establish The Innovation And Business Investment Corporation, be now read

a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

This

motion is carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Establish

The Innovation And Business Investment Corporation. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third

time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order

Paper.

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

Corporation,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order

Paper. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Management Of Greenhouse Gas Act, Bill 27, and I further move

that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded by

the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment that he shall have

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Management Of Greenhouse

Gas Act, Bill 27, and that the said bill 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 Municipal Affairs and Environment to introduce a bill,

“An Act To Amend The Management Of Greenhouse Gas Act,” carried. (Bill 27)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Management Of Greenhouse Gas Act. (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

Thank

you.

motion, Bill 27 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 20.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole to consider the said bill.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against?

The

motion is carried.

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

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 20,

An Act Respecting The Control And Sale Of Cannabis.

A bill,

“An Act Respecting The Control And Sale Of Cannabis.” (Bill 20)

CLERK (Murphy):

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon.

the leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's

indeed an opportunity now to speak to Bill 20. We've gone through some heavy

debate over the last number of days on this important piece of legislation and

we're making progress here to be ready for the legalization of cannabis here and

we've had some good dialogue and we've gotten some clarification.

We have

a number of questions. Some of them may have been discussed and I know they have

been. We had a great briefing with staff last Friday and we did throw out

scenarios and that, but to have it on record and to get some more clarification

on where we are I'm going to ask the minister for some clarification on certain

things or group of ministers here who may be responsible for it.

Just a

couple of things here; we noted that the orders of cannabis will be placed or

cancelled only by authorized employees of NLC, which is a legitimate process.

Who will these people be, what positions, and how many will there be? Has that

been (inaudible)?

CHAIR:

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

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can

honestly say I didn't get down into the weeds on that aspect of the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. OSBORNE:

I trust NLC to – they're currently dealing in a controlled substance and

currently have buyers and people who are responsible for making shipment orders,

and I anticipate the same will happen with orders of cannabis.

CHAIR:

The hon. the leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank

the minister for that. I knew eventually somebody would get down in the weeds

when we started answering questions. I appreciate that. I suspect that'll be

used all morning.

Under

section 8, outlining information sharing, I know we had some discussion about

that because there's going to be information as part of it.

Has the

Privacy Commissioner been consulted about the information that's going to be

relevant to the cannabis laws?

CHAIR:

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

MR. OSBORNE:

Yes, it's my understanding that there was wide consultation on the information

sharing. It's my understanding that the information sharing will be with the

federal government for the purposes of taxation and our share of the excise tax

and so on. Information could be shared with law enforcement to ensure that if

there a concern of illicit activity, there may be information shared with law

enforcement officials as well.

CHAIR:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do

appreciate that and I do understand where the minister is coming from. But just

to be clear: Has there been a discussion with the Privacy Commissioner regarding

the sharing information with federal law enforcement, or the federal government

around taxation?

CHAIR:

The hon. the hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Yes, I apologize. I thought I

answered it that yes, there was consultation and then I went on to elaborate.

But yes, the Privacy Commissioner was consulted.

CHAIR:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Minister.

Section

9(1) reads: “The corporation may issue to a person an authorization to sell or

otherwise supply cannabis to a retailer in the province.”

I ask

the question: Has the NLC issued any authorizations yet? Will any other

suppliers besides Canopy Growth be allowed to sell to local retailers?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

I'm not sure if they've

supplied other authorizations but on the second part of the question, yes. There

are other businesses looking at setting up in various areas of the province and

NLC will be open to purchasing from those corporations as well.

CHAIR:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, are there any time frames on – and I know, and I've had a couple of

other entities or businesses come to me, particularly in my district, asking

about the process. They've gone through it. I've know it's a federal regulation

where there's a federal licensing process to be able to produce cannabis. I've

gone through that process.

Has NLC

had any major presentations to business people who may want to avail of that? I

know it's a federal regulation but keeping in mind if they get their licensing,

then obviously NLC has to be engaged with the purchasing of that product for

sale.

Has

there been a public presentation, an engagement? Does the NLC meet with

businesses who may be inquiring about the process?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

The initial legislation we

put in place in November, changes to the

Liquor Corporation Act , essentially gave NLC the ability to start dealing in

the business of cannabis and put out the RFP. This legislation is much more

detailed. It's my understanding that some of what you're asking about signing

with corporations or suppliers, part of what is in this legislation will allow

them to do that legally. So they'll have the ability, once this legislation is

done.

It is my

understanding from some discussions with the NLC – I have no intention of

micromanaging the NLC. I don't think any minister – I shouldn't go that far. I

don't think it's been the general practice of ministers to micromanage NLC

anymore than we would micromanage Nalcor or micromanage Eastern Health. We have

a CEO in those organizations and we have an executive team in those

organizations to do that.

I do

have a great deal of confidence in the fact that they've been involved in

controlled substances for decades and the fact that they're able to deal in

controlled substances, I have faith that any dialogue they have – but it is my

understanding that they are open to dealing with other businesses that set up in

the province. They're not only open but they're hopeful that there will be other

suppliers set up in the province as well and they will work with those

suppliers.

CHAIR:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree

with the minister that the NLC are very competent, very capable and very

successful in being able to ensure that things are done in a safe manner and it

does benefit the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Section

18 outlines where the board shall not issue a licence. One of these areas where

this applies is 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 ask

the minister: How will the public interest, needs and wishes of the public be

adjudicated? What about parents who are concerned about stores close to their

child's school?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

This language is very similar

to the language that's under the Liquor

Corporation Act in how they deal with liquor outlets and liquor agencies.

There is legislation in place to protect against minors from entering into tier

one or tier two stores. They're simply not permitted, even with adult

supervision, minors are not permitted in tier one or tier two stores, which is

different than even alcohol stores. If it's a completely dedicated alcohol

store, minors are still permitted in under adult supervision. So this is even

more stringent.

When it

comes to tier three or tier four stores, minors are permitted in those stores,

similar to what they would be with the liquor outlet store or convenience store

that sells beer.

What I

can say is that there are liquor outlets, there are liquor stores and there are

convenience stores that sell beer in much closer proximity to schools then

cannabis outlets. The regulations around cannabis are going to be even more

stringent than the regulations around alcohol.

Cannabis

in a convenience store, for example, will not be visible to anybody. A customer

will have to ask a clerk to – similar to a cigarette wall, I'm not saying that

they're going to be exactly like a cigarette wall, but similar to a cigarette

wall where customers can't see a package of cigarettes. They have to ask a clerk

to open a door on a cigarette wall so that the customer can pick their brand of

cigarette.

I won't

say there haven't been any instances, but we haven't had any earth-shattering

social issues with the fact that beer is available and minors can actually open

a beer cooler door and touch a box of beer in a convenience store because there

are regulations around the fact that minors cannot purchase beer and they have

to be ID'd. The regulations around cannabis will be even more stringent.

CHAIR:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank

the minister. I do agree and I do understand that every safeguard and due

diligence has been done, previously, around alcohol and tobacco and the e-vapes,

but also now as we look into the sale of cannabis. The issue here is – and we

all have received it from our constituents and public service organizations –

there's a bit more apprehension here because it's so new. People are not quite

sure of the impact. They're not quite sure on the uptake. They're not quite sure

of the criminal element, what impact it may have.

there's a little bit more apprehension, but I'm glad to hear that the

organization, the agency is extremely cognizant of ensuring not only the present

liability issues but the present responsibilities of ensuring that visibilities

around tobacco and e-cigarettes are not available to people who shouldn't be

accessing them and are not an enticement because you can look through the window

and see it. So I do acknowledge that.

I did

have some people phone me and ask me about the clarification between the

different tiers. Unless I'm wrong, the tiers one and two are, as the minister

just outlined, extremely controlled. There's an extreme set of regulations and

polices and laws that need to be adhered to. From visibility of the products, to

who can access it in that particular building, to how it's locked up and

secured. The tier three and four which are, as the minister said, part and

parcel where we now still have cigarettes in a convenience store or in a gas

station, we still have beer that is in coolers as part of that. The minister is

right – and I hope this continues – that we haven't seen a dramatic negative

impact because the visibilities are there. We're still hopeful that will happen

in the cannabis world.

In the

tier three and four there's a little bit more apprehension because of how

they're going to be promoted and the access and these types of things, but,

again, very diligent inspectors here from Service NL and the Liquor Corporation

about following and adhering to rules and regulations and laws.

One of

the things I did like when we had the briefing was around the severity of the

fines and potential imprisonment, in some cases, and particularly around losing

your licence. So it would be a big risk for a business to make a $20 bill and

give up a potential million-dollar business because they just thought it would

be a quick fix of a few dollars.

So I

think the punishment there, or the incentives to follow the rules and

regulations, are well in play. I like the fact that we've gone to that level.

Some did say it's pretty extreme when we're talking $100,000 fines. Well, they

would be levied, I would think, in companies that are dramatically capable of

doing it but who've shown a full disregard for following the rules and

regulations and putting safety of our citizens in peril.

Section

18 also outlines – and this is (f)(ii) – that the board may not issue a licence

where it may cause inconvenience to a place of worship, school or hospital. So I

ask: Was this considered in the previous RFP process in which we're talking

about, the ones – and it was a little confusing at the time, but I'm glad it's

clarified now, that they were just what we consider a pre-qualifying application

process and now they have to go through the same process. I just want it on

record to see if that was talked about when the first call for proposals went

out.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

This wording is very similar

as well to the wording in the Liquor

Corporation Act . I think the only difference is in the

Liquor Corporation Act we say church

and in this act we say place of worship because I think there is more diversity

in our places of worship today, but similar wording to what's in the

Liquor Corporation Act .

Yes, it

is my understanding that these things were considered. In fact, there was a

point system set up when people applied for their licence and the closer they

were to a school, they were deducted points. So if somebody had a very, very

strong application but was within 600 metres of a school or 300 metres of a

school, they'd have points deducted because of their proximity to a school.

It was

considered, and in a conversation with the NLC, these things were heavily looked

at. The application was merit based, part of it was their proximity to places

like schools or places of worship.

CHAIR:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

I thank the Minister for

that.

This

leads into the next process, because we just want to clarify, and we've had some

discussion around this, that the 23 that are now still active and the four for

Canopy Growth – because one has since withdrawn – had gone through an original

RFP.

Now,

just so that we're clear, and the minister I think has stated this but I want to

clarify to what degree. All these 23, and I would think including the four

Canopy Growth retail locations, will have to go through the stringent processes

outlined in the legislation when it comes to the location, the municipality

regulations, the feedback from public forums from citizens and these type of

things. I just want to confirm that that's all.

I've had

people who want to fill out the application to apply but they want to know are

they at a disadvantage because somebody else didn't have to follow the same

regulatory process, or will not have to follow as they go forward? Can I get you

on record to explain that?

CHAIR:

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

MR. OSBORNE:

That's what this legislation is for. On a go-forward basis, including the

applicants who've already been given their pre-qualification, still have to go

through the remainder of the qualification process.

CHAIR:

The hon. the leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under

section 19 it outlines the application process for a retail licence. This is

what it states, a part of this notes that with an application must come

“evidence that the place or premises to which the licence will apply has been

approved in writing by an inspector.”

The

question I have here, for all those successful applicants of the RFP, did they

have to provide this? I've note you've noted that, but my question is: Who is

the inspector? I'm confused on who this inspector is that they're noting in that

piece of legislation.

CHAIR:

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

MR. OSBORNE:

I don't know the inspector's name, but –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. OSBORNE:

That, I'm not entirely sure.

There are inspectors with NLC. There are inspectors with Service NL. These

inspectors oftentimes cross paths. They'll probably both have the ability to do

some of this work. We can certainly find out if Service NL or if NLC

specifically will be carrying out this part of the inspection, but both

organizations have inspectors.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just

want to go back for clarity, Minister, and the question from my colleague in

regard to

section 21, the notice of intention to apply for licence. It says: “An

applicant for a licence shall give notice of his, her or its intention to apply

for a licence by publishing a notice before filing an application with the

corporation.”

That

particular provision triggers others in relation to

section 22, in relation to

an objection. “A person may object to an application for a licence by filing an

application with the board in writing before the deadline for filing an

objection and in a manner prescribed by the regulations.”

Then it

goes on to say in

section 23: “Where an objection is filed … the board may hold

a hearing to … submissions of the applicant and the person who filed the

objection.”

I know

you've said on a go-forward basis, and also there was reference my colleagues

said of the 23 retail outlets that were selected – I think there were 24

selected out of the 80 applicants and now it's 23. Just to be clear, those 23

applicants today, what's the timeline for them to make the public aware –

because that triggers the other avenues here to have objections heard and

determination made by the corporation whether hearings would be held.

What's

the timeline for these 23 – I think you referenced preliminary approvals – to

make that notice to trigger what you have outlined here in the legislation

starting with

section 21? What's the trigger-point for those 23 – so those that

have pre-approval will start the process to adhere to the legislation when we

pass it.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

I did get from an official –

to the previous question, the inspectors will be NLC inspectors. Just to answer

the previous question, the inspectors will be NLC inspectors.

Anybody

has to go through a pre-approval process. Even on a go-forward basis there's a

pre-approval process. If we have another applicant under the extended RFP, they

will have to go through the pre-approval process. Once that happens, under this

legislation it has to be advertised for three weeks in – it has to be posted in

conspicuous places within the municipality. I believe it is three conspicuous

places within the municipality that it will have to be posted. It will also have

to be posted in an obvious or a conspicuous place at the storefront at the

location in which they're looking for a licence.

The

timelines in how quickly this can be done, I guess in large part – those three

weeks would be involved, but in large

part it also goes hand in hand with the

applicant as well and how quickly they process their paperwork beyond the three

weeks. The three weeks is something that is very rigid. It's there, it's three

weeks; it has to be advertised for three weeks, but how quickly they can get

through the process depends on other permitting, municipal permitting, whether

or not they need modifications to the building, whatever the case may be. The

building, the premises still have to be inspected and approved for the use that

it's intended.

CHAIR:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That

clarifies that. I thank the minister for that.

Can

retailers apply for a retail location at any time or only when the NLC issues

RFPs?

I'll

give an example. Retailers who are not successful in this recent RFP, how long

will they have to wait before they can apply again or is there a restriction on

the timeline?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

They may be able to apply

again. I guess it depends on whether or not the NLC put out another RFP. I know

that – not getting into specific cases, I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't do that

to a particular applicant, it would be unfair. Any applicants who have not been

chosen can request in writing and the NLC will provide in writing why they

haven't been chosen.

We have

heard from different applicants and heard of cases in which applicants have not

been approved for a licence where other applications have been approved. What I

can say in that particular case, these were looked at on a merit basis. There

was a point basis. In some areas some people may have scored very, very strongly

and in some cases they wouldn't have scored as strongly as other applicants.

The NLC

had chosen the applicants with the highest score. Other applicants may have been

very close but may have been second, or other applicants probably didn't even

meet the threshold in what the NLC would have considered a minimum threshold in

points. I believe it was 60 points was the minimum threshold. If you didn't meet

the 60 points, whether there was another applicant or not, you wouldn't even be

considered because you needed to meet a minimum threshold with NLC on their

point rating system.

CHAIR:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just so

I'm clear, and I think the minister did make it clear. If an applicant – and the

threshold is 60 – for example, didn't have one of the components that were

necessary in the RFP but have since been able to rectify that, there's nothing

restricting them from making an application and then being reviewed again in the

process to see if they qualify for that level, that threshold?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Yes. Again, it depends on an

RFP. The NLC will limit the number of applications they accept and part of that

– again, we're getting into a business that we honestly don't know what the

sales volumes are going to be. We're making best estimates on what we believe

the sales volumes are going to be.

They've

limited the number of locations to try and help ensure that those locations have

a better chance of success. If we put too many locations in a municipality or in

an area, everybody suffers because they simply won't have the volumes if the

volumes aren't what we anticipate they will be. If they're well over what we

anticipate, they may look at putting additional locations, but it is on an RFP

basis. Somebody simply wouldn't be able to apply to the NLC and say I want to

put a location in such-and-such a place. The NLC would have to put that out to

an RFP in any event so that it's fair to everybody.

somebody made their intentions known to the NLC that they wanted to put a store

in a location that there wasn't a store, the NLC would have to put it out to an

RFP to give everybody an opportunity.

CHAIR:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

Fair enough – I'm just trying to clarify. We had 80-plus

applicants and obviously 24 were selected; 28 locations of which it's down to

27. I'll give you an example in my district. Bell Island doesn't have one. I'm

not quite sure if somebody applied and may have gotten turned down because they

didn't meet the criteria. If indeed they did, would they now have the ability,

without having the delay and wait for an RFP to go back and say I've rectified

or I have these three other things that I didn't have before – and it could be

the location, it could be the security and it could the financing, whatever it

may be – to now put in an application so that there would be a retail outlet

that could supply cannabis on Bell Island, keeping in mind the restrictions and

that?

I just want to clarify if there's any restriction. If there

are people who get inquiries or us here in any caucus, or your own Members, that

somebody says I applied but I got turned down because I didn't meet the

criteria, but I've since been able to improve that – there's nothing in

Glovertown, for example, and there's nothing in Wesleyville or whatever, can I

now go back or do I have to wait for the next call?

CHAIR: The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

What I would recommend for any Member of the Legislature who gets an inquiry, or

from any member of the general public for that matter, if they have an interest

in an area where there isn't a store or they believe an area is under-serviced,

I would suggest that they contact the NLC. If an area is deemed to have an

adequate representation of stores, they'll relay that on to the person. But if

an area is deemed to be an area that is under-serviced the NLC, I'm sure, would

entertain the expression of interest by the individual.

It is my understanding that they would still have to go out

to an RFP so that the process is fair to everybody. But if there's an area that

they've gone looking for an RFP and somebody failed, by all means, that

individual should contact the NLC. If they're able to strengthen their

application, they'd have an opportunity just like anybody else.

CHAIR: The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER: I am

not honourable?

CHAIR: Not

honourable?

MR. LESTER: No.

In reference to the

Natural Products Marketing Act which is a general act that covers

agricultural production in the province, there's no reference to cannabis

production. And production is part of the sale, so I question the minister: Will

there be amendments made to the Natural

Products Marketing Act to directly reference cannabis?

CHAIR: The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Yes, that's not my act. I won't speak for the minister responsible for that

particular act, but the minister may want to answer.

CHAIR: The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE: Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I'm just wondering in terms of the retail, and

particularly in terms of tier three, tier four, I guess they would be called.

I'm thinking of perhaps a store more than likely in a rural area because I think

in most of the urban areas it's probably in Loblaws and places like that. I'm

just want to take this scenario – if somebody went to a store and it would be

probably a convenience store and they probably have a liquor outlet and they

have different things in there, I'm assuming, to make it work because we've been

told that if someone had a stand-alone cannabis store, it probably wouldn't be

sustainable. It would probably have to be part of a mixed use.

My first question is: If somebody goes to purchase

cannabis, is this cannabis going to be in packages like a cigarette package or

some kind of a bagged package, or would there be situations where there would be

some kind of a bin, container, or whatever with cannabis in it and someone

actually takes out scales and starts weighing out marijuana? Is that possible or

is it all in bags and containers, first of all?

CHAIR: The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

It's my understanding that they will all be in sealed containers.

CHAIR: The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE: Okay,

thank you for that. I appreciate that.

I guess my next question along that is if it's in a

mixed-use store – for argument's sake – would there be a separate area within

that store for the cannabis sales so we did not have the situation – because I

know right now at a retail store, as an example, cigarettes are in a cabinet and

you can't even see the cigarettes. They are hidden, so to speak, and someone

goes up to the counter to get them.

Would this be a similar situation or would there be a

separate area so that we wouldn't have a situation whereby – I think I used the

example the other day where maybe you go to a Marie's or somewhere like that and

there are two cash registers side by side, so you have a little child here

getting a few candy counted

out, and then there's someone right next to them there handing over cannabis. I

think there should be a separate counter away from the other parts of the store.

Is that

how it's going to be or not?

CHAIR:

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

MR. OSBORNE:

I know I'm simplifying it, but I'll give a brief explanation of the four tiers.

Tier one

is a stand-alone store, similar to a Sony store or that type of thing. You go in

and it's specifically dedicated to cannabis and cannabis-related products. Tier

two would be a store within a store, similar to –

AN HON. MEMBER:

A liquor store at Dominion.

MR. OSBORNE:

Yeah, similar to a liquor

store at Dominion, so a store within a store. Tier three would be a separate

area. For example, if you went into a Shoppers Drug Mart and you see a postal

outlet within Shoppers Drug Mart, that's got its own counter. That counter is

specifically designated to Canada Post.

Tier

four would be similar to a convenience store with a cigarette wall where it's

not in public view. It would never be in public view, but you go in, you'd ask

for a product, they'd have to open up a wall similar to a cigarette wall,

retrieve the product and then put it through the cash register.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

I asked the minister for agrifoods if he could answer this question, please.

reference to the Natural Products

Marketing Act , it specifically said that products that are controlled or

administered under a specific act do fall underneath the

Natural Products Marketing Act .

Will we

be putting terminology in that act to directly reference cannabis?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

I appreciate, Mr. Chair, the hon. Member giving notice of the question earlier.

It's not

information that's currently available to me, but I will certainly get back to

the Committee with that information as soon as it is available to me.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

A secondary piece of legislation which is provincially held is the Right to Farm

legislation. It's basically legislation that protects farmers from what we call

nuisance complaints that would be any activities that could be considered normal

agricultural production and their adverse effects on neighbours or other

people's activities, property values such as that.

Will we

be referencing cannabis under the Right to Farm legislation as well?

CHAIR:

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

MR. OSBORNE:

I can add to the best of my

knowledge on this I understand that cannabis growth is federally regulated, so

I'm not sure if that would come under provincial legislation or regulations. The

federal government controls the growth of cannabis.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

The right-to-farm legislation

is not actually the permit to grow a product; it's actually a legislative

protection that enables farmers to conduct their business without the threat or

the encumbrance of unnecessary nuisance complaints. As it stands now, I would

think that cannabis production probably is outside what could be considered

normal agricultural practices. It is indeed a crop, of course, and I think

that's something that we're going to have to consider.

From

what I gather, the government has not considered that. Will that be in their

plans to amend the right-to-farm legislation to include cannabis?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

appreciate the question from the hon. Member and, as well, the previous reply

from the Minister of Finance. There are federal regulations around the

production of cannabis in terms of both safety and security. Those elements will

obviously be paramount. On the provisions of the right-to-farm provisions,

obviously that is taken on a case-by-case basis.

The

paramountcy of the federal legislation obviously would be in place here in this

particular situation. If there was an individual circumstance, where outside of

the federal jurisdiction, outside of the federal regulation there was an

overlapping or consistently parallel circumstance related to the right to farm,

we'd examine that on a case-by-case basis within the provincial legislation and

the provincial regulations. But that is not necessarily tied to this particular

product.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

I'm still a little bit

confused as to whether the government is going to recognize the production of

cannabis as an agricultural activity in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. I do understand that the minister is on record as saying they would

not be eligible for any – well, Canopy Growth will not be eligible for any

agricultural programs – but I think we really need to be clear as to if we're

going to protect this product and production of this product under either the

right-to-farm legislation or the Natural Products Marketing Act ,

there has to be a decision whether we're going to recognize this product as

agricultural production.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

All

federal, provincial and territorial ministers, all departments of agriculture

across the country have made a determinate opinion or conclusion that the

production of cannabis is not covered or would not be an eligible activity under

the Canadian Agricultural program. As such, it is limited in terms of the

eligibility for such funding.

Any

specific incident or occurrence would be under examination on its merits.

However, I will point out to the hon. Member that the relevance of the

particular question in terms of this particular legislation, that we're

reviewing before Committee at the moment, is not encompassed within this

particular legislation which is what is the subject of this Committee of the

Whole.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

I would like to differ in

opinion on the minister when it comes to the production is not under the purview

of this legislation, because it is. In order for us to enable it to become

legalized we are, therefore, sanctioning the production in our province.

To the

point of personal possession and production at home, I ask the minister: Will

the individuals who choose to do that be designated to purchasing their seeds

from a sole source via NLC, or will they be allowed to purchase seeds from

wherever they so choose?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

That's a very good question.

The seeds for the production of the plants, I'm not certain on that, but I'll

get an answer while we're still in Committee. My officials are listening to this

and we'll have the answer for you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

The reason why I asked this, of course, is because different genera of plants

have different qualities; therefore, the THC level in one particular variety of

plant can vastly differ from another. You could have a plant that is of

comparable toxicity to that which is being provided by the province, or you

could have something that is far more potent and that possibly could pose a

health risk. Not only is the seed a variation in the amount of THC, it's also

the production method.

Will

there be any regulations or references to the method of production in people's

homes that could further guarantee that we're not having a super plant as such,

versus a plant similar to that of what we are controlling and legalizing?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

I have the answer for the Member there.

Seeds

will have to be regulated by the NLC. The seeds for the growth of plants within

somebody's private residence would have to be regulated by the NLC. The seeds

for cannabis still fall under the same rules for sale and purchase. Based on

that, I think the risk of having a super strain or a super plant would be

limited.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

I didn't really see any punitive measures outlined in any of the legislation as

to the personal production and the restriction of using government-approved or

designated seed sources. As well, the production practices, that's nowhere

addressed.

Has your

department put any thought into how we, as a province, and we, as a Legislature,

can put safety protocols in place that would ensure the product that people are

producing at home is safe and comparable to that of what's going to be available

in your stores?

CHAIR:

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

MR. OSBORNE:

Any piece of legislation that goes through this House is followed up by

regulations.

The

regulations sometimes follow the legislation based on debate in the House: can

be added to, or changes made to regulations. That's the entire purpose of this

debate. Officials listen, and listen intently, to the debate. It may guide in

the development of some of the regulations. The issues that you're talking about

would be covered under regulations.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Will that be under the purview of Health Canada? Will Health Canada be approving

the strains of seeds that will be allowed to be produced at home or will that be

the NLC?

CHAIR:

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

MR. OSBORNE:

Yes, production is regulated by the federal government. Any strains that are

approved for growth would also be approved by the federal government.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just

wondering if you can give us, Minister, an idea of how security works with all

this. If you look at regular farms, people that are growing – like my colleague

here from Mount Pearl North – it's pretty wide open. In theory, anyone could

just sort of just walk in off the side of the road and start hauling up a few

carrots if they wanted to.

So I'm

just wondering in terms of growing marijuana, not the four in your house, but

growing marijuana at a production facility and so on, I'm assuming that there

must be very, very strict security measures in place to protect people from just

walking in and just hauling up plants and so on.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

I can say to the Member

that's not something that's covered under this particular piece of legislation.

In fact, it's not even under this department. I'll endeavour to get the answer

for you, but as far as I know, the only production that's been approved in this

province, to date, is indoor cultivation.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

I'd appreciate it, Minister.

If we could just get some idea, I'm just wondering. I know there's only been one

approved, but I'm just sort of wondering how it would work in terms of – because

someone asked me that, actually, yesterday, I think it was, that it wouldn't

just be out there wide open, that anybody could just go in and grab plants or

kids could. I'm sure that's not the case but I was just looking for some

clarification.

assume, as well, with retail shops and so on, there would be requirements in the

RFPs to make sure there's proper security because, obviously, that would be,

potentially, a pretty popular target for break and entries and so on, if there

was a shop there that's full of cannabis. So maybe you could comment on that as

well.

I guess

the other thing is I'm just wondering what process – when we went through the

RFP process, I know there were X number of people applied, 50 odd or whatever it

was and then there was 20 odd that was approved. There were ones that were

approved and others that weren't. I'm not sure if the ones that weren't approved

couldn't have been approved, it was just a choice, perhaps, to go with this one

over that one for whatever reason. I'm wondering what consideration, if any, was

given for local shops because a lot of these shops we know have gone to Loblaws.

Certainly, as a business, they can certainly apply for a shop just like anybody

else can apply for a shop. We know that they're going to employ someone at the

counter or whatever, same as anyone else would, but the difference is if it was

local, if it was a local shop or so on that did it, in theory, the profits and

so one derived from it goes back into the local economy as opposed to going to

the shareholders of Loblaws on the Mainland somewhere.

So I'm

just wondering what consideration, if any, was given some sort of preference for

local entrepreneurs versus Mainland outfits such as Loblaws.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

What I can tell you, first of

all, we'll try to keep things relevant to this particular bill. I will try to

answer your question that's not relevant to this, but at some point we've got to

try to stick to the bill.

Production is federal. I understand the note I just got back is that production

is federally regulated and there are very stringent security measures around

that, but again, I shouldn't even be speaking to that. It's not this

legislation, it's not my department. It doesn't come under the purview of this

particular legislation.

As far

as the retail outlets that were approved, I can tell you, as somebody who has a

great deal of pride in this province and what this province can do, every time I

see a sign for an Ontario or a Quebec construction company in this province, it

grates my nerves, but, unfortunately, that's the RFP process. While I would

prefer to see a local construction company have their sign up on projects that

we see in this province and in this city, we don't control that because of

interprovincial trade and interprovincial labour and so on.

The same

as this, the NLC did not distinguish between a local applicant or a national

applicant. They based it on its merits. There were no points for local versus

national. The applicants put their applications in, they were based on the

strength of the application. I don't know for sure but I would suspect, because

some of the national retail outlets have the money, the ability and the

expertise to sit down, fill out an application and put what's required. I do

know that one of the local people that was not screened in – because I asked for

some examples as why would this versus that – and it was partially based on

security measures and the lack of security that was detailed on their

application.

It's

very unfortunate. If that person has the ability to get in writing why they

didn't get it, if they're interested in applying again, can improve their

security measures and ensure that the security is there that the NLC require on

their application process, they would perhaps be successful.

I would

have liked to have seen more local applicants, just like I'd like to see local

construction companies as opposed to the Ontario or Quebec construction company

signs that I see. I find it always disappointing when I see that, but based on

the fact that it has to be merit based, it has to be fair and when an RFP goes

out, you can't simply choose a local company because that's what you want. It is

based on merit.

CHAIR (Reid):

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

I thank the minister for that

explanation. I certainly agree with him that it is very disappointing, albeit I

understand the restrictions he's talking about. Even if it's a local company,

they have to meet all the qualifications, criteria and the merits and so on. I

totally get that.

I guess

everybody feels disappointed when you see opportunities that seem to go to these

larger Mainland outfits and, at the same time, you have local entrepreneurs that

you would prefer to see them get the business, see them reinvest in their

business, hire local people – well, certainly the Mainland outfits would also

hire local people, but see the profits stay in Newfoundland and Labrador and be

reinvested. I think we all agree on that. So thank you for the answer, Minister.

The last

thing I have, Mr. Chair, I want to just for the record bring this into the

record because I received this from a constituent of mine. The minister perhaps

may want to comment, if he wishes, but it was sent to me from a constituent in

the Southlands area, also sent to the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the

Third Party, the Minister of Health, as well as the mayor of St. John's.

This

gentleman said: I understand the legislation will allow to grow up to four

plants in their home. I'm going to assume this includes apartments, condos, city

and provincial subsidized housing. Whenever we hear of marijuana grow ops, we

think of hundreds or even thousands of plants. These houses end up with so much

moisture and mold issues that ultimately many are considered health hazards and

are condemned until major restoration completed. Not only that, but these

houses, even when restored, still need to have a disclosure, when sold, that it

was a grow op. I can only assume this negatively affects resale value and,

ultimately, property taxes.

suspect we're going down a road where people who plan to grow their own will

grow far more than four plants and, admittedly, it will be difficult for

government to police this. While the numbers of plants likely won't approach

hundreds, I wonder how much damage will be caused to these residences given the

high-humidity environments required, at least in the early stages.

Who pays

to restore these residences for the city and the provincial subsidized housing?

What happens if I am in a condo and my neighbour causes damages to more than

just your own unit? I wonder if health care is aware of the potential for an

increase in respiratory issues related to these moldy environments. What happens

when a child is in this home environment? What is the impact to the house

insurance if this becomes an issue?

This was

just a concern. I'm not arguing the merits of it one way or the other, whether

it's exaggerated or not, but this is a concern that a constituent of mine wrote

to me and other Members of the House about. I committed to him that I would

bring the matter up in the House for the record and that's exactly what I'm

doing.

I have

no further questions. If the minister wants to respond, I'm sure he would

appreciate it.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

What I can say: Moisture that

you're talking about is from larger grow ops. Those are happening now. Without

this legislation and without cannabis being legalized there have been grow ops

in this province and in the city.

Whether

or not this entices somebody more than what they would have been enticed, those

issues are for law enforcement. They look at a number of things, electricity

usage and so on, to determine. Under this legislation a landlord does have the

ability to say, just like a landlord would have the ability now – as a landlord

in this city I put in the lease as part of the requirement that I do not permit

smoking in my property. I also put in my lease that I do not permit the use of

illegal substances in my property. I am not in that property every day to see if

they're smoking, but I put it in the lease. If I find there's evidence that

smoking happens if I go in for an inspection, I deal with it.

Landlords have the ability to say you cannot grow marijuana. That will be an

ability that the landlord has in a particular property, whether it's a building

or whether it's – that's an ability that is under this legislation to try and

prohibit, but grow ops are happening with or without this legislation. That's

happening and it's something that law enforcement currently has to deal with.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I said

that was my last question. I thank the minister for that response. I'm just

bringing forward the concern that was brought to me by a constituent. As his MHA

I have a responsibility to do it, so that's why I was bringing it forward.

People are going to have varying concerns because this is all new. It's

important that they have a comfort level.

The only

other thing that just came to my mind that I was going to ask, but I forgot

about, was I'm wondering when we had the briefing and it talked about four

plants, it talked about on the property. It didn't say inside your house, it

said on the property. I asked about it a couple of times and the answer we kept

getting back was the way the actual legislation is currently written – that

doesn't preclude changes in terms of regulation – it says property. That means

based on this that somebody, in theory, could have four marijuana plants out on

their front lawn or their backyard or whatever.

Obviously, that would be a concern for people and neighbours with children. I

don't know if it affects pets or not, but certainly children, that if all of a

sudden every second house – I'm not saying there would be but in theory a whole

bunch of people down the street all have four plants growing on their front

lawn, their backyard or whatever, that would be a concern. The way this is

written that could happen, but we were told that it could be addressed by

regulations.

I'm

asking the minister: Will it be addressed by regulations? Is the intent that

this would be grown inside, not outside where it could be accessed by children

and neighbours?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you.

I thank

the Member for his question. It's an important question. In fact, every issue

that's brought up here, every question that's brought up is important. As I

said, there are no stupid questions around this. It's a brand new industry; it's

a brand new area for the NLC and for government to be dealing in. If I had my

rathers, I'd rather not be dealing in it. But, unfortunately, it's something

that the federal government has said is going to be legalized and as a province

we have to deal with it.

Part of

what happens during debate – while things are covered under the legislation,

there are two things that can happen; either an amendment can come to the

legislation, which is part of this democratic process. I would say that if an

amendment were to come, we would consider an amendment. The other aspect of it

is officials listen intently to this debate and ideas that are brought up or

concerns that are brought up are often then later addressed through regulation.

That was brought up during the briefing that was supplied. It was brought up by

a couple of different Members, the fact that you can grow outside. According to

the way the legislation is written, you're absolutely correct.

Officials in my department have brought it to my attention that was one of the

concerns that was brought up that is going to have to be dealt with in

regulation. The intention is to deal with it in regulation. Whether or not we

prohibit somebody from growing in their backyard, the talk at this particular

point amongst officials is we may allow somebody to grow in their backyard, but

it would be have to be fenced and it would have to be secured. Things such as

that are what's being looked at.

Whether

we restrict it to just indoors or whether we allow it outdoors, the fact that

concern was raised – and it's a legitimate concern. It's the reason we have

these debates because officials are listening. Whether or not you have a

disagreement or whether all sides agree, there are very important issues brought

up. That is one of the issues that I believe is very important and absolutely

has to be dealt with.

CHAIR:

The hon. Member for Topsail -

Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I rise

at this point in time because my comment or my questions for the minister are

relevant to the topic that's taking place.

As an

Opposition we've been watching many different things. We haven't been able to

follow all of it because there's so much happening across the country right now

in legislatures, community groups, municipalities and police associations.

Chiefs of police are speaking out and laying their opinion and their thoughts on

the legalization of marijuana and how it's going to impact their relative

jurisdictions or the relative stakeholder groups that they represent. There's a

lot of that happening throughout the country.

There's

been some talk here in the House about how the Conservative Members of the

Senate have been holding up bills in the House. I referenced already this week

on Monday there was a clause-by-clause review of the bill in the Senate by the

Social Affairs committee. In the Senate and sitting on the Social Affairs

committee – I'm reading from The Canadian

Press

article – is Senator Tony Dean who is an independent Member. He was

appointed under the Liberals but sits as an actual independent and the sponsor

of Bill C-45 in the Senate. They actually, on Monday, passed more than two dozen

amendments to the federal legislation.

I have a

couple of questions on it. First, I wonder if the minister can tell me if any of

these more than two dozen amendments that were passed by the committee, if they

were endorsed by the federal government what impact would that have on

provincial legislation?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you.

obviously have to abide by federal legislation as well. If there's something

that happens at a federal level that's inconsistent with our legislation, we

would have to bring amendments into our legislation or address it in regulation.

This is

a brand new area for all jurisdictions. I'm familiar with the work of the

Opposition and the work of the independent Member, as I sat in both Opposition

and as an independent Member. I think I was extended an invitation yesterday

during the hanging of the Speaker's portrait that I hadn't sat in all four

corners. I've yet to do that. It's something I'll take under advisement.

The

reality is there are no stupid questions. While Members here in the House may

disagree, I truly look forward to all comments and all points that are raised by

all Members of the House because it does make for better legislation. If any of

those amendments are deemed to be accepted by the federal government and put in

place we would have to abide by what the federal government sets out in any

event.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Minister.

You may

not know, but I'm wondering – I'm sure your officials are tracking what the

federal government is doing. This provincial bill has not been passed yet and

there's still an opportunity here today for amendments if they were needed.

Is there

anything in the recommendations of the Senate Committee that if they were

approved by Parliament that would cause us to have to come back and make changes

to the bill that we're actually debating here today? What they've recommended,

is there anything there in those more than two dozen amendments that would cause

us to have to change, or cause you to have to change the bill that is before the

House here today?

MR. OSBORNE:

Our officials are still

assessing that.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Sorry, Mr. Chair.

Our

officials are still assessing what's being talked about in the Senate. Even if

the Senate make recommendations, it still has to go back to the House of Commons

and then the House of Commons would – so it's premature for us here to expect

that they may or may not be accepted, but if they are accepted and they impact

our legislation we would have to come back, yes. We'd have to make changes to

our own legislation.

We're

trying to keep the legislation nimble enough that we can deal with some of these

issues in regulation but you can't leave it so nimble that – it still has to be

rigid enough that it's enforceable. So we're trying to deal with legislation and

keep it nimble enough to deal with in regulations.

What I

can assure the Member is if the federal government put in place legislation that

would cause our legislation to need to be changed, then we would have to come

back. If that's prior to legalization, we'd have to come back during the summer

at some point to make alterations to our legislation. It's a bit premature at

this stage because they've got a whole process. We're doing this while they're

doing that.

I didn't

pick the timelines that the federal government imposed on us. If I did, I

probably wouldn't even be here – well, I'd be here, but we wouldn't be debating

this particular piece of legislation today.

If we

need to change the legislation, we will come back to do that.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Minister. I

appreciate that. I'm sure it's like all of us, we're challenged right now to

keep up with everything that's moving. It's a shell game that's happening in

many jurisdictions where things are changing.

One of

the points the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands was talking about

cultivation, because one of the amendments is to allow provinces to ban

homegrown marijuana if they so decide. We know Quebec and Manitoba have already

decided to prohibit home cultivation even though the proposed amendment isn't

passed by Parliament. Of course, according to the article, the reference as well

could set up a legal challenge, which the federal Justice minister has commented

on as well.

If the

federal government accepts that, the provinces have the right to prohibit

homegrown cultivation, which was I think to the point the Member for Mount Pearl

- Southlands –

MR. OSBORNE:

I think it is set to

(inaudible).

MR. P. DAVIS:

No, what they turned down was an absolute ban. There was also a motion for an

absolute ban. There was a 7-5 vote to reject a proposal by Conservative Senator

Judith Seidman that would have imposed a blanket prohibition right across the

country.

What

they did pass was to give the provinces the right to prohibit. Quebec and

Manitoba have already done that. There's lots of evidence, reason and so on to

deny home cultivation. I don't know if you discussed it earlier, if you did, I

apologize. I think in one of the jurisdictions, the federal MP leading the bill

– the name escapes me – had talked about Colorado. In Colorado, one of the

mistakes they felt Colorado made was allowing cultivation, homegrown marijuana,

and they didn't want Canada to repeat that mistake.

Now what

the Senate is saying, is give provinces the right – and I think this is where my

colleague over here is coming from – is there are so many nuances. You're right

when you say that grow-ops occur today, but if we have legislation that says the

law-abiding people don't do this, it's not right – because most people abide by

the law. If you say you're only allowed to have 28 grams of marijuana on you at

any particular time, or that's all you can buy, people will abide by the law.

Most people won't be out scheming and trying to find ways to break those laws.

So, yes,

grow-ops are going to happen anyway. If we prohibit the homegrown plants, there

seems to be a safer route, at least at this point in time; and, as you said

yourself, you could change policy after.

question for you, Minister, has government given consideration to that? Is it

something you've weighed out, and maybe give us a little bit of background? How

did you reach that conclusion not to prohibit homegrown marijuana given in

regard to all the circumstances?

I've

heard what you said earlier about, well, there are rules. You can do contracts

with your – as landlord-tenant relationships, you can put those things in place.

It seems to me like following what Manitoba and Quebec have done, just to say:

at this point in time, we're not going to allow home growing of plants, would

seem to be maybe the safest approach.

I'd be

very interested to know what you've done as minister, what government has done

to make that consideration.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

I would say, while I'm not

disputing that most people are law-abiding because I would agree with that, but

I think in this day and age while cannabis is not legal there's a lot of people

that don't abide by that law. It's a pretty common drug or pretty common

substance in our society today, which I think is the reason the federal

government is looking at making it legal and taking away …

I know

one of the NDP Members, I believe the leader for the NDP mentioned yesterday or

the day before in debate, or actually I think it's the Member for Signal Hill -

Quidi Vidi, that some people's lives have been destroyed because they may have

had a very small quantity of cannabis on their person and got charged and now

have a criminal record. While most people are law-abiding, I think cannabis is a

socially accepted substance for the most part today and it's something we're

dealing with as a result in this legislation.

There

are only two provinces that have outright banned home cultivation so far. I'm

not saying I'm going to shut the door on it but I know that we as a government

have consulted widely on this. What we've got in place here, how we've arrived

at it is through the consultation that has been done and I think people's

acceptance of the fact or people's desire that they'd like to have a plant at

home should they so desire.

The

other aspect of it is the fact that we've mirrored what the federal government

has said they are going to allow, and that's four plants. If the Member opposite

wants to put an amendment before the House and we can debate an amendment on

that particular issue, I'm open to that. I'm not pretending for a moment to say

that I know all the answers on this because I don't, but we have mirrored the

federal legislation or the federal standards on this that it would be four

plants.

I think

there is a desire amongst part of the population for sure that they be allowed

to have a plant and cultivate it within their own residence.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Minister.

And I

think it would be a good debate. That's a good idea and we've given

consideration to a number of amendments and, so far, we've chosen not to do that

but we may do that, and then that would be a good discussion to have tomorrow in

the House.

One of

the unanimously agreed-to amendments by the Social Affairs committee of the

Senate, and it was agreed to by all members – according to this

article I'm

reading from, they all agreed that the House of Commons and the Senate be given

30 days to review regulations before they're implemented.

I think

it's a good thing to do. This is, in your own words, the most significant policy

change since Confederation, or words to that effect, that government has done,

the legislation, the Cannabis Control Act ,

which is I think in total about 115 sections, and it very heavily refers to

regulation. So those people who don't really understand sometimes the

difference, or may not be aware of the difference, legislation is passed here in

the House of Assembly and regulation can be passed generally by the minister or

by Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet.

There

are numerous areas in this legislation where it refers to regulation, so there

are a lot of unknowns for us as legislators who are here passing this. The

Senate committee on Monday unanimously passed one of their more than two dozen

amendments and agreed that the House of Commons and Senate should be given 30

days to review regulation before they're implemented.

I would

ask, Minister, would you commit to doing the same thing for Members of this

House of Assembly, being the first time we're bringing in a

Cannabis Control Act . I understand

from earlier comments that regulations are being drafted, but what I ask is

would you commit here today to provide 30 days' notice or opportunity for

Members of the House to review the regulations before they're implemented.

CHAIR:

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

MR. OSBORNE:

I don't know if I can commit to that, and I'm not being facetious in any way

when I say that.

There's

a great deal of work had gone into this by officials, a great deal of

consultation has gone into this legislation. We're very close to June. Thirty

days would put us almost at July 1. We don't know the exact date of legalization

of cannabis in Canada; my guess is it won't be July 1, but it will be some time

this summer. If I were to commit to you today 30 days on regulations once

regulations are drafted, there's a very real possibility that that would put us

beyond the legalization date federally.

What I

can assure you is – I mean, I didn't draft this legislation, nor did the

Minister of Justice draft this legislation. This was done by officials who've

put a great deal of work and a great deal of effort into drafting this

legislation. Part of the reason the legislation refers to regulation here is

because we're trying to keep the legislation nimble enough that without having

to call the House back in the middle of the summer a year or two or three years

from now – if something happens in this brand new industry, in this brand new

product that we're dealing with as a result of the federal government legalizing

it, if something were to occur, such as a contest that we saw downtown and we

somehow need to deal with that and deal with it expeditiously, you've got the

ability through regulation.

I can

assure you that the officials within government, I believe, have done an

extraordinarily excellent job in putting this legislation together based on what

we know about this product to date, and based on the federal regulations and

trying to keep it nimble enough that if the federal government or the Senate

make changes and then it's brought back to the federal government and they make

changes, that we're able to act expeditiously enough that we can put it in place

by the date of legalization.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair, again.

I thank

the minister for his response and information. I agree, Minister. I know from my

own experience how much work and effort goes into trying to draft a bill,

especially a brand new piece of legislation like this, and there are times when

they do legislation whereby it's old legislation taken and made completely,

wholly new again, a whole new draft of essentially the same legislation with

numerous changes and then there's one which we quite often debate here in the

House, where there are small amendments; but still, even though the amendments

are small to us, I know officials have to review all the other legislations to

see what the impacts are on those very small changes, and I certainly appreciate

the work of those.

I was

talking to someone as I left here the other day. I think it was Monday night, we

were leaving around midnight, and there were a couple of public servants that

were walking out the same time and said it's late tonight. I said, yeah, you

know, I spent a lot of very, very early mornings coming into this building over

the last eight years and some very late nights leaving. I don't know if there's

ever a time that I was the first one in or the last one to leave. There are days

I've come to work at 5 or 5:30 in the morning and there are days I've gone home

at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning and I bet you somewhere in this building, or

the West Block, there was someone in the public service that were still working

or in ahead of me. So I certainly appreciate the value of the public service.

To your

comments about the delay, Minister, if a Senate committee, the independent

members – and the

article references two which were Liberal appointed – when

they agree to something, it suggests that quite potentially the Parliament may

be going to agree with what the Senate does. When there's a vote or voted down

or it's a narrow margin as the 7-5 vote, for example, for the blanket

prohibition on home growing of marijuana, when there's a 7-5 vote that would

indicate to you the government in power in Parliament may not be agreeable to

that particular motion and then the Senate supporting what they've discussed in

Cabinet and caucus.

However,

all of the senators in the committee agreed to these more than two dozen

recommendations, as I understand from this article. One of those is give the 30

days. If Parliament agrees to give senators and members of the House of Commons,

Members of Parliament, 30 days to review the regulations before they're

implemented, then that's going to delay the federal implementation anyway by 30

days.

appreciate your commentary that if you were to make that blanket commitment here

today or at least commit to say I will go back to the Cabinet and I will

advocate for that to be consistent with what the federal government is doing,

it's not going to push us beyond what the federal government is going to do

anyway.

MR. OSBORNE:

We don't know (inaudible.)

MR. P. DAVIS:

I certainly agree, Minister.

The minister has commented that we don't know if the House of Commons or

Parliament is going to agree to that amendment to provide 30 days, but my

suggestion is and what's suggested in the

article when it refers to Independent

Senator Tony Dean, it says among committee members supporting the amendment was

independent Senator Tony Dean, a sponsor of the bill. And that suggests that the

amendment has the government's blessing. If that's what's happening there, then

there's a pretty good chance they may provide that 30-day window.

All I'm

asking for today is: Will you at least give consideration to that? It's new,

ground-breaking legislation for our province. We've asked probably more

questions on these four bills combined than any other four bills that ever came

to the House of Assembly before. I can tell you, Minister, in all sincerity,

we're listening to the public commentary. We're listening and reading emails

that we're receiving, the lineup in the coffee shop when you're talking to

constituents and citizens. You're meeting people or you get phone calls at our

office and asking questions about it. It's a significant change. To be clear

again, we've never said we're against it; we just want to make sure we

understand it. People want to understand what's going to happen, how it's going

to be implemented, what the rules of play are and so on.

Having a

bill that officials who drafted the legislation told us themselves, I think

their words were: Heavily driven by regulation or words to that effect – the

rules are going to be heavily driven by regulation. When we're asking questions

we say what's going to be in the regulations. That's going to be in the

regulation. Of course, they resisted answering my question if the regulations

were ready or not, which they would do anyway. They'd leave that to you to

answer.

I think

it was very important. This is so significant. I think there's been benefit here

today. You just recommended we bring forward an amendment to debate on a

question of home growing.

MR. OSBORNE :

I didn't recommend, but I said if you want to bring it forward.

MR. P. DAVIS:

We can bring it forward. To me it was a recommendation, so I appreciate the

recommendation.

We're

certainly going to consider that because we'll probably have debate continue on

until tomorrow. We'll certainly consider that. It may be something we do because

it's a matter that we've talked about here as a caucus. We've had landlords

contact us. People who have rental properties have spoken to me about it and

said what am I going to do? Someone is going to get a $100 fine because they

have plants growing. Or am I going to evict them because they have a plant

growing in their house that I don't want them to have. Or an outright ban seems

it would be and making it provincial legislation would be simpler, cleaner and

easier for landlords and property owners to manage.

Anyway,

the 30 days is something I'd ask you to consider, or at least ask you if you'd

bring it back to your Cabinet colleagues for consideration. At least give

consideration to say we'll see what Parliament does. If Parliament provides that

30-day notice, we should do the same thing for the House of Assembly.

CHAIR:

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

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you.

I will

clarify for the Member: I'm not going to suggest he was trying to put words in

my mouth, but just to make sure that everybody understands I didn't recommend

that he bring forward an amendment. I will say if he does bring forward an

amendment, we will gladly debate it and consider it.

On his

suggestion on the 30 days on the regulations, there are a couple of aspects here

that I will talk about. One of them is every single piece of legislation that we

pass in this Legislature has attached to it regulations. Those regulations don't

come back to the floor.

I'm not

suggesting that the Member's question doesn't have merit, but government can't

be handcuffed to say that we're going to bring all regulations back to the

floor. Every jurisdiction in Canada has regulations attached to the legislation

that they're bringing in on this particular legislation here, including the

federal government.

The

discussion, and the suggestion that was made by the Member, does have merit

because it is such a huge policy shift. What I will say is that I can't, in and

of myself, make that decision. I don't know logistically what that would mean. I

do know that if I committed to it today, it may put us beyond the time frame at

which point we'd be criticized for not being ready for the legalization date. I

can't commit to that today, but what I will say is that I will take his

suggestion under advisement.

CHAIR:

The hon. Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Chair, I move that the

Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Shall

the motion carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

The hon. the Member for

St. George's - Humber and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

MR. REID:

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of

the Whole have considered matters to them referred and have directed me to

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred

and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When

shall the report be received?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

When

shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, given where

we are in the day, I would suggest that we recess until 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

This House stands recessed

until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

Thank

you.

Recess

The

House met at 2 p.m.

MR.

SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

There

are several guests today that I'd like to introduce to this House of Assembly.

In the Speaker's gallery today to my right I would like to welcome Lisa Browne,

CEO of Stella's Circle, and her parents Mary and Derm Browne. Ms. Browne is the

subject of a Member's statement this afternoon.

Welcome

to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Also in the Speaker's

gallery, I would like to welcome and recognize Mr. Bernie Mercer who will be

referenced in a Member's statement today. Joining him are Major Lorne Pritchett,

Major Barb Pritchett, Rick Webber, Gord Wheadon, Vanessa Loveless and Claudette

Hillier.

Welcome

to you all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

A very special welcome to a

young lady who is up here in the public gallery. I would like to welcome Sarah

Clarke. She will be the subject of a Member's statement this afternoon. Sarah is

accompanied by her mother, Ayla Tipple, and her stepmom, Kelsey Drover.

Welcome

to you all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Also in the public gallery

for a Ministerial Statement today are members of the Association of Early

Childhood Educators. Joining us we have Helen Sinclair, Skye Taylor, Joanne

Morris, Jennifer Newman, Karina Lamontagne and Mary Walsh.

Welcome

to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Et enfin, nous rejoignant

aujourd'hui dans la galérie publique il y a M. Gaël Corbineau. Il est avec la

Fédération des francophones de Terre-neuve et du Labrador. Il est ici au sujet

de la célébration de la journée provinciale de la francophonie.

Bienvenu, Monsieur.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we will hear from the Members for the Districts of Stephenville - Port au Port –

or may I say Port au Port today – Mount Pearl - Southlands, St. John's East -

Quidi Vidi, Topsail - Paradise and Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

The hon.

the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. FINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Monsieur

le président, c'est un grand plaisir pour moi de prononcer ces quelques mots à

l'occasion de la journée provinciale de la francophonie à Terre-neuve et

Labrador et de reconnaître les finissants de l'École Sainte-Anne.

Located

in the historic francophone community of Mainland (La Grand'Terre) on the Port

au Port Peninsula, École Sainte-Anne is one of six all-French schools in

Newfoundland and Labrador. On May 18 I attended the school's graduation ceremony

that saw 12 graduates celebrate with their families, school staff and community.

Of the 12 graduates, three in particular were recent recipients of significant

scholarships to the University of Moncton.

Oneisha

Félix has been awarded the Bourse d'excellence académique which is valued at

$4000. Sydney Benoît was awarded the Bourse d'excellence Roméo-Leblanc with an

approximate value of $24,000. Harrison Vallis has been awarded multiple

scholarships: the Bourse d'excellence académique de l'Université de Moncton, the

Bourse Gilbert-et-Jeannine Finn/Assomption Vie and the Harrison McCain

Scholarship – the latter only being presented to five students in all of Canada.

The total value of scholarships for Harrison is just over $26,000.

Monsieur

le president, je demande à tous les membres de la Chambre de l'assemblée de se

joindre à moi pour féliciter les récipiendaires des bourses et aussi tous les

finissants de l'École Sainte-Anne.

Bravo et

felicitations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday

evening I had the pleasure of attending the 4507 Mount Pearl CLB's Annual Awards

Banquet. The CLB was first established in Mount Pearl on January 18, 1956, as

part of the 911 St. Mary's CLB Company. It remained that way until 1964 when it

became a company of its own and was given the number 4507, operating out of the

Church of England located just off Park Avenue on what is now Jubilee Place.

Since its inception, this group has been providing tremendous opportunities for

physical, mental and spiritual growth for young people in my community,

regardless of religious affiliation.

Thank

you to the officers, the parent volunteers and the parishioners of the Parish of

the Ascension for their support of this group. A big congratulations to last

week's award winners including LTC Outstanding Achievement recipients, Madison

Caul and Luke Crews; Most Improved Cadet, Jeremy Newell; Best YTC, Ryan

Snelgrove; Best JTC, Logan Crews; Best NCO, Jacob Sampson; the Sergeant Paul

Maybe Scholarship recipient, Steven Wiseman; the Cannon I. Sheppard Christian

Soldier Award recipients, Amber Dawe and Shelby Caul; and Best Overall Cadet,

Jessica Hollahan.

I ask

all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the Mount Pearl CLB

on 62 years of supporting youth in my community and wish them many more

successes in the years to come.

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'm

delighted to recognize Lisa Browne, chief executive officer of Stella's Circle,

whom Atlantic Business Magazine has

recognized as one of the Top 50 CEOs for two years in a row.

Stella's

Circle provides services to adults who face many barriers to fully participating

in their community, including everything from mental health challenges,

homelessness, criminal justice involvement and long periods of unemployment.

Lisa

joined Stella's Circle in 2015, having spent nearly a decade managing multiple

portfolios as a director with Eastern Health. She has served on boards including

for The Rooms, the Community Foundation of NL and Memorial University. She is

also an associate with the Harris Centre, and serves on the board for Food First

NL.

Lisa's

recognition is a tribute to her commitment to social justice and community

advocacy, which are at the heart of the social enterprises of Stella's Circle.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Lisa Browne, one of the top CEOs

in Atlantic Canada again this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, recently my colleague from Conception Bay South and I attended a

heartwarming event. On May 9, Louise and Bernie Mercer from my district, Topsail

- Paradise, held a food drive again this year in Conception Bay South to honour

their two late children's birthdays. Alex and Riley Mercer shared the same birth

date, though years apart, and both were lost to brain cancer – Alex when she was

still in elementary school, and Riley as a teenager.

Both

parents wanted to do something special for their birthdays and also wanted it to

be a community event; thus, three years ago S.O.A.R – Spirit of Alex and Riley –

began. The food drive, headquartered every year at the Salvation Army church in

Long Pond has been embraced by residents as a way to honour the Mercer family's

courage and grace, and to help them give back to the community by supporting the

efforts of the food bank, which has a growing list of people dependent upon it.

This

year