PDF Version

May 31, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 28

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I would

like to welcome everyone here today.

In the

Speaker's gallery especially, I would like to welcome Principal Kyran Dwyer and

teacher Katie Clouston from St. Teresa's Elementary School. They are the subject

of a Member's statement this afternoon.

A great

welcome to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

We have a repeat visitor in

the Speaker's gallery, I would like to recognize Ms. Linda Ross. She is the

President and CEO of Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Advisory Council on

the Status of Women. She will be referenced in a Ministerial Statement today.

Ms. Ross is accompanied by her colleagues, Judit Lovas and Michelle Hanrahan

Brown.

Welcome

again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

In the public gallery, I just

had an opportunity to spend a few minutes with them. I would like to welcome

level I students from Smallwood Academy in Gambo. They are accompanied by Mr.

Roger Snook and Ms. April Adams. They are visiting today as part of a

Newfoundland and Labrador culture trip. They are learning about the House of

Assembly.

welcome you all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements

today, we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of

Ferryland, Conception Bay South,

St. George's - Humber, Baie Verte - Green Bay, and St. John's Centre.

Let the games begin, I was dared to say.

The hon. Member for Ferryland.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Annual

Volunteer Appreciation Night sponsored by the Town of Petty Harbour Maddox Cove

in honour of all the volunteers from their region. The event was held on Friday,

May 24 to acknowledge the tremendous contribution made by so many to the area

and I was delighted to be in attendance.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are known for their

generous volunteer work each year in our province. For many years we lead the

country in our hours of volunteerism. This is demonstrated by many great

volunteers from the Town of Petty Harbour Maddox Cove. I have had many

opportunities to work with these groups and see the tremendous work they have

done.

I want to commend the volunteers for their considerable

contribution and the many wonderful volunteers who give so freely of their time

and continue to do so. The volunteers of this town have made their town a better

place because of the work they do.

I would like to ask all Members of the House to join me

in congratulating the people of Petty Harbour Maddox Cove for the valuable

service they provide and continue to provide in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay South.

MR.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday afternoon I had the pleasure

of attending the Annual Ceremonial Review of the 2562 Queen Elizabeth Army Cadet

Corps in Conception Bay South.

I had the privilege of being a reviewing officer at the

ceremony and would like to recognize Commanding Officer Tony Kane for his

dedication to the cadet movement and the efforts of the cadets, their commanding

officers and the organizers of this fantastic event.

I would like to acknowledge some special awards

presented: Most Improved Cadet, Lieutenant Corporal Jacob Templeman; Most

Dedicated Cadet, Corporal Hannah Tucker; Master Warrant Officer Ashlee Tucker

and Warrant Officer Andrew Parker received the Army Cadet Service Medal for five

years of service; Chief Warrant Officer Leah Bartlett was presented with the

Cadet Service Medal for six years of service and the Royal Canadian Legion Cadet

Medal of Excellence.

During the afternoon's celebrations, displays were

performed by the drill team, band and flag bearers. I would like to commend them

for their great work and dedication.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in

congratulating the 2562 Queen Elizabeth Army Cadets and extend best wishes to

them for their continued success.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of St. George's - Humber.

MR.

REID:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to make all Members and indeed all listeners aware of one

of the premier cultural events taking place in the province this summer. The

Flat Bay Pow Wow will be held this year on July 13, 14 and 15.

A Pow Wow is a unique event signified by social

exchanges , cultural

sharing and ceremonial rituals. Indeed, the Pow Wow is a time of teaching,

learning, singing, dancing, feasting, sharing and healing. Pow Wows are an

expression of culture, pride and identity. It is a unifying ritual of the young

and the old, a recollection of the past and a celebration of the future.

The Flat

Bay Pow Wow is a showpiece of the cultural revival which is happening amongst

the Mi'kmaq people of this province. It is a must attend event for indigenous

people who want to reconnect with their heritage and for anyone in the province

who wants to fully understand the multicultural nature of our province.

Mr.

Speaker, I invite all Members of the House and the general public to attend the

Flat Bay Pow Wow held on July 13, 14 and 15 of this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Baie Verte - Green Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to

acknowledge a true entrepreneur, Mr. Wilbert Weir of Little Bay Islands.

Born in

1928, he received his sea legs at an early age as he spent the first 21 years of

his life fishing off Fishot Islands on the French Shore. He started his first

business at age 21. He built a small boat and travelled throughout the district

entertaining the locals with movies, usually Westerns, at the community halls.

He also operated a general store which grew to include a restaurant, pool hall

and dry goods.

In 1969,

after a terrible fishing season, he converted his old fishing schooner into a

car and passenger ferry that would operate between the islands of Green Bay. He

approached the provincial government for a subsidy to continue this service, and

walked the halls of Confederation Building for six months until it was approved.

His

favourite hobby was building Newfoundland banker dories and he has over 60 to

his credit. Very active in all aspects of community life, on January 26 of this

year, just four days short of his 90th birthday, Mr. Weir was elected as Deputy

Mayor of Little Bay Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. WARR:

What a pleasure for me to

honour my friend.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in applauding Mr. Wilbert Weir.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Walking

into St. Teresa's Elementary School is an amazing experience. They are a true

treasure in the middle of St. John's Centre and they have much to celebrate.

This

year their Literacy Action Team created creative programs to get students

reading. A Dress Up as your favourite book character and a family pancake

breakfast where parents read with their children in the gym after breakfast won

them the Indigo Love of Reading grant of $100,000 for new books to help their

students develop a whole new love of reading.

Their

Kids Eat Smart breakfast program serves up to 1,200 students every week, making

sure all students have a full belly to help them do their best in school. The

program co-ordinators and volunteers make this a huge success.

St.

Teresa's Pride is flourishing. Over 30 students, along with their teachers, are

actively involved in making a difference in student lives.

Congratulations Principal Kyran Dwyer and his team for developing an incredible

community of learning, inclusiveness and exploration for the lucky students of

St. Teresa's.

Mr.

Speaker, there is more to come. Bravo!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize World No Tobacco Day. Each year on May 31,

the World Health Organization highlights the health and other risks associated

with tobacco use as part of their advocacy for effective policies to reduce

tobacco consumption.

This

year, the theme is “Tobacco Breaks Hearts” focusing on tobacco's link to heart

and other cardiovascular diseases. The goal is to increase awareness about the

impact that tobacco use and the exposure to second-hand smoke have on

cardiovascular health.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide. Seven million of

those deaths are linked to tobacco use, including nearly 900,000 non-smokers who

are exposed to second-hand smoke.

Mr.

Speaker, our government committed in The

Way Forward to improve health outcomes for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

including reducing the smoking rate in the province by 4 per cent by 2025.

Budget 2018 , we included $250,000 for

smoking cessation programs. This includes ongoing support for the Newfoundland

and Labrador Lung Association Smokers' Helpline, the Alliance for the Control of

Tobacco and the Provincial Smoking Cessation Program for individuals with low

incomes.

Mr.

Speaker, today I encourage all of my colleagues in this hon. House, and all of

the citizens in our province, to join me in making every day World No Tobacco

Day.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I wish, too, to recognize

today as World No Tobacco Day. As this year's theme is Tobacco Breaks Hearts, we

are reminded of the negative impact which smoking and second-hand smoke has on

heart, lung and cardiovascular health.

I'd also

like to take a moment to recognize the many health care providers, non-profit

groups and organizations which support individuals on their quest to give up

their tobacco addictions. Groups and individuals such as these provide valuable

supports to individuals as they try to improve their overall health and decrease

their risk of cardiovascular and other diseases.

Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to take a moment to remark about the impending

legalization of cannabis and encourage government to implement smoking cessation

programs for cannabis smokers, similar to the programs currently in place for

tobacco.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. Newfoundland and

Labrador has the highest proportion of smokers in Canada. The national average

for smokers 15 years or older is 13 per cent. In our province it is 18.4 per

cent. That is way too high. I would like to see government set an even more

aggressive target than 4 per cent reduction by 2025. The health care

implications alone demand that.

So I say

to the minister, considering ours is the highest smoking rate in Canada, we

should be considering spending more than $250,000 on smoking reduction.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize a modern-day suffragette. A person who has

contributed greatly to the advancement of women and to ensuring equality and

equity are foremost in our society. Linda Ross is dedicated, tenacious and most

of all effective.

Her list

of accomplishments is lengthy. Ms. Ross has over 30 years of experience in

policy development and program planning and delivery in community development,

women's economic and social equality, HIV/AIDS and public health, both in Canada

and internationally. She has received the Lifetime Achievement Award from YWCA

St. John's Women of Distinction, the Aventis Pasteur Award and the Development

Education Award from the Canadian International Development Agency.

Since

2009, Linda Ross has been the President and CEO of the Provincial Advisory

Council on the Status of Women Newfoundland and Labrador. Ms. Ross works

tirelessly to effect change. Through her global experiences she understands how

to engage others in consultative process as well as move a team forward in

addressing complex issues.

This has

been very well evidenced by her incredible leadership in restorative justice,

violence against women, pay equity and improving legislation on safe and caring

schools as well as changes to the Family

Violence Protection Act .

Ms. Ross

is a tireless volunteer, contributing to many boards and committees, including

the College of Family Physicians of Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador Access to

Justice Committee, Chairperson of the Coalition of Provincial and Territorial

Advisory Councils on the Status of Women, Women in Resource Development

Corporation and Women Interested in Successful Employment.

Mr.

Speaker, please join me in thanking Linda Ross for her outstanding contributions

and wish her well as she retires from her position. She has made her place,

advanced our society and we are all the better for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of her statement. On behalf of all Members of

the Official Opposition, we congratulate Linda Ross on her impactful and

successful career and wish her well in her upcoming retirement.

As the

minister discussed, Ms. Ross has been an advocate of equality and equity for

over 30 years. Her list of accomplishments and impacts are endless.

Since

2009, Ms. Ross has served as the president and CEO of the Provincial Advisory

Council on the Status of Women. It was in this role that she made perhaps her

greatest contribution to this province as the Provincial Advisory Council grew

in its influence under her steadfast leadership and guidance.

Although

Ms. Ross is retiring, I'm sure that she will continue to volunteer in our

community and continue motivating others, especially women, in our community. I

first worked with Linda over 30-plus years ago and then saw the positive impact

she would have on our society and she continued to do that.

I thank

Ms. Ross for dedicating her career and volunteer efforts towards this quest for

equality. Our province is truly better off because of your efforts.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nine

years of dedicated service to the women and girls of Newfoundland and Labrador,

Linda Ross has much to celebrate and be proud of.

remember so clearly when I first heard the announcement of her appointment and

the excitement so many of us felt knowing that a feminist activist from the

community with strong creds was going to be our next president.

Having a

feminist heading up our Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women is so

crucial to advancing equality in our province. Linda has persistently and

fearlessly advocated for our women and girls.

Linda,

thank you for all you have done. Here's to your next adventure. Brava!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise and commemorate the life of Scott Simmons, a

man whose business, work and volunteer efforts impacted not only those

immediately around him but all of Newfoundland and Labrador and all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I offer

my condolences to the family, to the friends and the colleagues that surrounded

Mr. Simmons throughout his 85 years. His legacy inspires us to work relentlessly

for positive changes in our entire province.

A true

agricultural pioneer, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Simmons founded both Hammond Farm and

Scosim Farms. His innovation did not go unrecognized. He served on many, many

agricultural boards and committees and was inducted into the Atlantic

Agricultural Hall of Fame in 1997.

His

willingness to take chances, his strong work ethic and his appreciation for the

value of hard work and of money benefitted him and those around him

substantially throughout his diverse career as he advanced agricultural

initiatives.

Mr.

Simmons worshipped faithfully at the Salvation Army church and was an active

member of the band for much of his adult life. He was community-minded and

sought every opportunity to help those around him. In fact, Mr. Speaker, he was

a very early volunteer in New York City after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Mr.

Simmons serves as a prime example of what can be achieved through a combination

of hard work, determination, compassion and caring. We can all use Mr. Simmons

as an inspiration of strength and resources as catalysts for improving the

conditions in our province, the conditions we all cherish and value.

Please

join with me in recognizing a life spent helping others and a legacy which

continues to live on.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

We join

with government in passing along our deepest sympathies to Mr. Simmons's family,

friends and church community. As an agricultural pioneer, Mr. Simmons has laid

the groundwork for so many, including myself. I personally knew Mr. Simmons and

continue to be involved with his family, many of which continue to farm within

his precedent and are truly ag champions of the province.

Above

his accolades as a pioneer, business person and Agricultural Hall of Fame

inductee is his reputation as a hard-working and kind human being:

characteristics we should all strive to achieve in our lifetime. I would like to

take this opportunity to pass along my most sincere thanks for his contributions

to the industry and the province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for the

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm pleased to stand

with my colleagues and offer my condolences on our behalf to the family and

friends of Scott Simmons.

I want

to thank the minister who has recognized a number of men who have played an

important role in the agricultural industry's past. I think it's important that

he's using their lives as an opportunity to emphasize the important role the

industry has played in this province.

Scott

Simmons had a strong work ethic, a legacy of helping others and was a pioneer of

the industry he worked in. That is a legacy we can all be proud of and hope to

emulate.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

According to an ATIPPA posting it appears that Canopy Growth engaged in lobbying

activities with the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation as

early as September 2017; however, Canopy Growth had not disclosed the activities

in their required lobbying reports.

I ask

the Premier: Do you think it's appropriate for Canopy Growth to not report their

lobbying activities with your department?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation is engaged with any

number of business, client or anybody that is proposing to conduct business with

the government or with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's my

understanding that Canopy Growth did register with the appropriate mechanism

with the Registry of Lobbyists within Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

The minister didn't directly answer the question. Our information says they

didn't register properly.

According to Canopy Growth's lobbying disclosures, Canopy lobbied the Premier's

office and the Department of Justice before they registered with the lobbyist

registry.

I ask

the Premier: Do you think it's appropriate for Canopy Growth to lobby your

office or for your office to accept lobbying meetings without the proper

disclosures?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess

I can answer this as the Commissioner of Lobbyists is an office that falls under

the Department of Justice and Public Safety.

I don't

have this year's report in front of me. I will note that in the last number of

years there's been no activity listed or no negative activity listed. I would

look to the Commissioner of Lobbyists to provide input on this and see what they

have to say as it relates to inappropriate activity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

According to the registry, Canopy Growth has failed to

submit the required disclosure reports this spring leaving the public in the

dark on lobbying activities by this company since November.

I ask the Premier: Do you believe it's appropriate to work

so closely with Canopy Growth when they are in clear violation of the

Lobbyists Registration Act?

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, in this province we have a number of independent

offices that deal with

various issues. In many cases, we have independent offices of this House of

Assembly. One of those offices is the Commissioner of Lobbyists which is an

appointment. I will note that their most recent appointment was made by the

previous administration.

I have

not had any concerns brought to me about this particular company or any company

as it relates to lobbying efforts, but I'd certainly be willing to listen to

them if they were to arise.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Canopy Growth is publicly traded, and the deal with government would increase

the share value of the company, what precautions were taken to ensure this

information was kept confidential before the deal was announced? Were there

rules for anyone involved who had knowledge of the deal before announced, so

such individuals could not purchase shares in Canopy Growth?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of Tourism,

Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

say that within my Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation we

have highly professional staff. When they do enter into agreements with any

company or anybody who's looking to do business with the department or with the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, they follow the highest standards.

I would

say to the Member opposite that anybody who would engage outside of that scope –

that would be a criminal charge and that would be illegal activity.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

understanding is there was very little protection there in reference to this

file.

Tuesday, the minister was very vague on questions regarding education and

awareness so I'll ask again: Based on the government's proposed threshold, how

will an individual determine how much marijuana they can safely use before they

are considered impaired by way of your definition?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A couple

of points that I will make as it relates to this debate – which has been ongoing

in this House for the last few days. I think it's a very important debate.

One

point that I've made repeatedly is that it's hard to launch education and

awareness campaigns when the rules, the regulations and the legislation have not

been set yet. We are debating our own provincial legislation here in this House

which I look forward to passing at some point, but we also realize that there's

federal legislation, especially as it comes to

Criminal Code amendments which the

federal government makes. We cannot make those rules, they make it; in fact,

it's in the Senate right now.

Once

that comes out, we will be able to unveil a very extensive education and

awareness campaign for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The one point that

I continue to get across is that driving impaired is illegal.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In order

for laws to be appropriate and achieve intended success, the public must

understand the rules by which they will be judged.

How much

marijuana would need to be consumed in order to reach the two

nanograms-per-millilitre blood threshold?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Justice and

Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In order

for people to follow the laws, the laws actually have to be made as well. That's

what we are debating here and the federal government's debating as well.

What I

will say is this, it would be absolutely irresponsible for me, as a Minister of

the Crown and especially as the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, to say

that consuming any quantity may be okay. The fact is that our bodies react very

differently to any form of intoxicant, whether it's alcohol, whether it's

cannabis, whether it's prescription drugs.

What I

will say is this, there will be education and awareness that is put out there,

but I will not say that people should be able to consume and then drive. Doing

that will be illegal.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the

minister cannot explain it and there is no tool for police officers to test, how

can you be so confident that the public safety will not be jeopardized?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

I'll note a couple things. We debated a

Highway Traffic Act here in this House over the last number of days. The

Opposition and the government have all voted for that bill on multiple

occasions. The Opposition has supported it. They have supported the legislation

that we have put out there for the safety – and no amendments put out there. So

I would guess that the Opposition support the rules that we have put in place.

When it

comes to the levels of impairment, that is a federal law. That is not even made

right now. It's in the Senate. I can't talk about what it's going to be when the

law has not even been made.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We want

to make it clear, we here in the Opposition totally support the bill. We want to

ensure that the tools are available so that every sector of society can be

protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

The CEO of the Autism Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, Scott Crocker, is

calling on the provincial government to make changes as promised by the Liberals

in the 2015 election, to repeal a policy that denies care to those with an IQ of

more than 70.

Crocker

said, and I quote: I call it the most obvious, most blatant case of

discrimination that I can talk about when I mention autism spectrum disorder.

Does the

minister agree in this assessment? If so, why are we still waiting after three

years for you to deliver on your promise?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Speaker.

As I

have said on a couple of occasions this week in this House, we are working on a

person-centred strategy to allow for appropriate care on an individualized

person-centred basis that is not tied to a specific diagnosis.

acknowledge there are challenges with the old framework. We will have a new

framework in place by the fall, as I have said already to this House, and we are

quite happy to look at individual cases on a needs basis in the interim, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Autism Society says there has been very little progress in three years, and the

minister's assertion that they are working on it provides little comfort for

those waiting.

I ask

the minister: What exactly remains to be done?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

The work

is in progress; I have said it will be here by the fall. At the risk of sounding

provocative, I could ask the Members opposite what they did in 12 years when

they had the problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, the minister is

responsible for this file now, and we know that the public are lobbying for it.

We encourage him to get to the file, get work done, help out the people here who

have particular needs and want to work on this file.

The

province lost a quality doctor and the minister doesn't know anything about it.

Cancer patients were sent home in Central; the minister blamed it on staff. The

health ethics board held up clinical trials; the minister didn't know there was

a problem. Now the ambulance audit is over six months late, and the minister is

waiting for the House to close before making it public.

Why are

you hiding the results of the ambulance audit?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

I would

not agree with any of the dots that the Member opposite has attempted to join

together. As I have already said this week, the ambulance audit was delayed by

the independent auditor because of issues around data validation.

This is

a hands-off, transparent and independent process. When it is available, within

the next two weeks or so, it will be released publicly. I can say no better than

that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister called the job cancellation for a radiologist who received a $50,000

government bursary a hiccup.

I ask

the minister: Can you provide some clarification of what decision-making process

led to the cancellation of the negotiated radiology position? Have you spoken

with Eastern Health?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

believe I've addressed this before, but for the sake of clarity, this was an

unfortunate incident. I have directed Eastern Health to look into those

circumstance. My department have been in contact with Eastern health and once

they have done their due diligence, I will hopefully be the wiser for it.

I would

point out, however, that in the last four years, Eastern Health has provided no

fewer than 60 bursaries. This is the first and only time in that period where

they have had this problem. I would argue that the program works, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the

Minister for Transportation and Works provide the House with an update on the

tender for the replacement of Bay d'Espoir Academy, which was destroyed by fire?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly appreciate the question. I must say to the hon. Member opposite that

the process is going forward. Obviously, it's very important for us to make sure

we address the needs in that particular area.

We know

that there was an impact in that particular area with the fire there and so

we're going to continue to look at that. We will make sure that provisions are

made to have that provided as quickly as possible, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, in March of this year the former minister of Education stated his

intention to start work on the school.

I ask

the current Minister of Education: Why has there been no announcement from

government on this project?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Education and

Early Childhood Development.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

there's been a fair amount of discussion in this House. We've made a significant

commitment to replacing that and, Mr. Speaker, we're continuing to do that.

We will

ensure the people that we will have the services available as soon as possible.

We continue to work on that to make sure that we have a proper replacement for

the facilities that were destroyed there, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind

the minister: Those are words, not announcements. We're looking for

announcements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

People in Bay d'Espoir are

looking for announcements, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the children of this region are going without adequate facilities and

have been denied access to quality education for over a year.

I ask

the minister: Can you provide definitive timelines for the completion of this

school?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Education and

Early Childhood Development.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You want

to talk about announcements – words – in my former role as mayor of Grand

Falls-Windsor, I often heard four announcements of the same project. So if

that's not words – that's not action. We have made a commitment and we are going

to action that, Mr. Speaker.

We are

very, very cognizant of the fact that we have made provisions there and we will

continue to do that. We will work with the people, but we have a commitment to

that replacement and that replacement will happen. They're not words, it will be

action. This government – we, as a government, we put words into action, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. PETTEN:

Actions speak louder than

words, Mr. Speaker, and we're not getting any here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

I guess it goes both ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

Lack of action. That's the

point, lack of action. Words are not action, action is what really means – and

they don't know what that means.

AN HON. MEMBER:

We built 45 schools.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

Yeah, we built 45 schools,

Mr. Speaker. I think our record speaks for itself.

Minister, the Premier and the former minister of Environment both stated that

the details of your carbon tax would be revealed this spring. This new tax will

impact everyone in our province.

Why are

you pushing until the fall to tell the people of the province how much they will

have to pay for a carbon tax?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

for the second day in a row, we get a chance to talk about carbon pricing and

carbon targets that were put in place by Stephen Harper. I don't need to remind

people in this province that the new Leader of the Conservative Party in

Newfoundland and Labrador wanted to be a member of Harper's team.

Carbon

pricing and carbon emissions are nothing new to the world, Mr. Speaker. I will

say today that some 195 countries around the world felt that there needs to be

some emissions reduction of carbon around the world. So they all agreed.

Mr.

Speaker, the targets are in place. We meet on a regular basis with the industry

leaders in our province making sure – and one thing that is becoming very clear

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Please proceed.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One

thing is becoming increasingly clear is that the industry leaders in our

province and the communities we are talking to, they want to make sure it's the

provincial model, not the federal model, Mr. Speaker. There are two options: a

federal model, a provincial model. Newfoundlanders have been telling us, don't

let the federal government backstop this, let it be a provincial model.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Before

we continue, before the temperature gets a little too high, I remind all

Members, I do not tolerate interruptions. It's starting to creep up, watch out.

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Premier: Can he provide an update on the unfair US tariffs imposed on the

paper industry in this province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

do so, but I'm going to finish off the other question. I got some interruptions

when I was speaking there, and I thank you for the cover.

I will

say as I finish that last question, is that any money that comes from carbon

taxation will be used at the discretion of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will say

this, as I said yesterday, we will not put this province in an uncompetitive

situation with other jurisdictions because of carbon pricing. There are a lot of

variables happening across this country right now. We will not rush this

through. We will take the time and do what's best for our province.

Mr.

Speaker, speaking of doing what's best for our province, there is a company,

Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, because of a decision that was made by a

protectionist president south of the border has an impact.

I'll be

glad to answer follow-up questions from the Member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We'll go

with A and B this time, Mr. Speaker, if we can. We'll look for the update.

In the

second part we'll look for: Can the Premier update the legal cost that's been

incurred to date? A few months ago you indicated it was half a million dollars.

Can we get an update on both of those, please?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We'll

answer all of the above, of course, like we try to do to get the information out

to the people of the province.

First of

all, on the tariffs for Kruger, we are working very closely with the company

themselves. As a matter of fact, it was just last Thursday that I had a meeting

with the ambassador to the US, the new ambassador, Kelly Craft, who is doing a

great job, and we updated her on behalf of our presentation that we've been

making south of the border with part of the legal team that I will say.

Mr.

Speaker, these costs are coming in. It is now – I can't give you the exact

number, we'll get this information for you, but we have made a commitment to

work with the company on behalf of all the employees in the forestry industry in

our province. What that exact amount is today, Mr. Speaker, they are creeping

up.

Mr.

Speaker, we must do so. We need legal representation in the US as part of our

submissions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, I've asked the

Premier before. As we know, signatories to all trade agreements are from

sovereign countries, which Canada would be the signature to this agreement. I

asked before about the federal government in terms of assisting with some of

those costs as it is an international trade agreement.

Is the

federal government assisting with that cost and/or have you asked them to assist

with the cost?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

We've

asked them, they are responding. We've met with Carr, we've met with O'Regan and

we've met with Minister Champagne and others. There is complete engagement, both

at the federal level and at the provincial level.

We are

doing our part here, Mr. Speaker. As I just said, with the ambassador as well.

There are governors in the US right now that are getting engaged. There are

senators in the US that are getting engaged. Everyone is starting to realize

that this is having a negative impact, not only on communities like Corner Brook

and communities around our province and Kruger, but it's also ironically having

a negative impact on many of the publishers in the US as well.

Mr.

Speaker, it's full on here. It's complete engagement. We will work with the

forestry industry in our province making sure that we will mitigate the impact

on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister: Does he stand by his previous commitment that any and all potential

partnerships involving the Abitibi timber stand will include the Town of

Botwood, the people of Central Newfoundland and their assets?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, we manage out

forest resources for the benefit of those communities that are connected to the

resource, those communities that have a long-standing tradition of the use of

the resource, and Botwood is very much one of those communities.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, it's really prudent, it's important that as we embark on new projects

that we ensure economic feasibility. We are engaged with the Town of Botwood for

their participation. But one thing we will not do is entertain 15 separate

bioenergy projects as the other side did during the course of their tenure when

they were investigating the opportunities and leave them aside.

We will

be announcing – this government will be announcing projects that will produce

real jobs, real results for the forest industry and for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, we've heard from multiple sources on the West Coast that one of the

previous proponents interested in setting up shop in Botwood is now being

courted by government to set up on the West Coast instead, while still utilizing

the Abitibi fibre.

Can the

minister confirm that this is indeed the case?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member has any information from reliable sources I

would encourage him to say what those reliable sources are and what that

information is, because I'm not aware that speculation of this variety is

serving anybody's interest. If there is somebody, something that he's aware of,

he should put it forth on the floor of the House of Assembly.

I will

say this, there has been huge interest, significant interest by many, many

players, many partners, many industrial proponents that this government is

entertaining and considering, but we will select projects which have economic

feasibility and viability, unlike their previous decisions which were just

simply to pander and then leave the projects high and draw.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, I'm a big

believer by learn from the past, don't live in it. I could talk about a hockey

stick factory that I think a Liberal government in the past started.

I still

didn't hear a commitment from the minister whether he is unaware of anything. He

actually reversed the question and asked me.

Almost a

decade ago, privately imported lumber from New Brunswick was the mechanism of

introduction of the spruce bark beetle in the Conception Bay region. Despite

evidence of population establishment, resource depopulation and subsequent

notification to the department officials, there has been no action to mitigate

the damage or establishment caused by this invasive species.

I ask

the minister and his department: Have they taken any action to control this

beetle and the threat it poses to our forest resources and the livelihoods –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Your

time has expired.

The

minister's response.

The hon.

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

What

we're also very keenly aware of and concerned about is the cucumber beetle and

its impact on activities which could reduce economic activity. The cucumber

beetle, I think was a thing of the past. Now we have to focus on things in the

future.

What we

have in Fisheries and Land Resources, we've invested significantly in insect

control science programs, insect control monitoring programs and we are on top

of all infestations as they occur. What we will not do is spend significant

resources, important resources on hypothetical situations.

Invasive

species are important that we continue to monitor, and that's exactly, Mr.

Speaker, what we're doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure I speak

on behalf of those who rely on their livelihoods from the forest resources that

it's very disappointing that a joke may be made out of a very serious issue

that's (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, since yesterday

– and people watching the television program and lack of an answer regarding the

salmon season.

Can the

minister answer today whether he does have a date for opening the salmon season?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, as the House and

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador – the anglers of Newfoundland and

Labrador – are very aware, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans normally

provides us with a window or a time frame of 120 days to be able to prepare for

the printing of the licences and the production of the tags. One hundred and

twenty days is the norm.

We know,

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada made mistakes on the

first order they authorized that caused us to reprint at Canada's cost. Then, of

course, they made a second error with the second reprinting. That caused the

order to have to be reprinted.

The

difference here of, course, is that they left us for the third printing with

just 12 days. I can report to this House, Mr. Speaker, that salmon angling

licences will be available to the public by Monday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

A lot of

people in this province are really concerned when it comes to the fishery this

year. Particularly, the recreational fishery is wondering when the food fishery

will start. We know your good, good friend Minister LeBlanc won't give you any

answers, but have you found out anything from DFO?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

My great, great friend, the

Member for

Cape St. Francis, provides an important question. He really hits on something

that hits us all which is our connection, our social and wildlife connection, to

our resources in Newfoundland and Labrador. The food fishery and access to the

food fishery is fundamental to that.

We are very disappointed in the Department of Fisheries

and Oceans not providing these details at this point in time. I continue to

press the federal minister and the federal department to get answers for each

and every one of us. I ask him to join me with that and I'm sure he will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS.

ROGERS:

Mr.

Speaker, at the end of a three-month spring sitting we see government has done

little to help people looking for work. With unemployment soaring, government

refused to create an all-party committee on jobs, refused to modernize labour

laws to better protect workers, did nothing about pay equity or raise the

minimum wage to a living wage.

I ask the Premier: What can he say to the rapidly

increasing number of unemployed people in this province?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member opposite, I think we share some common views

on a lot of what she just said. There's a considerable amount of work that has

been done already based on the vision that we announced for the province in

The Way Forward in 2016, which is for

growth and sustainability.

Currently, we're somewhere in between the employment

numbers in our province of between 2010 and 2011. Of course, after 2011 most of

the impact in employment in our province was as a result of some megaprojects

that were done here.

We also

see some impact on employment numbers coming out of Alberta, Mr. Speaker. I will

tell you, fundamental to this government, we announced a Cabinet Committee on

Jobs where we have a number of Cabinet ministers that are focused on this.

We know

in creating jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, sometimes a government

investment is critically important, Mr. Speaker. We are doing what we can and we

will do what's necessary (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, after three

months in the House government has done little to ease the financial burdens of

families. Since government's punishing 2016 budget there has been no relief or

little from taxes, fees and levy.

More

parents see their children leave the province in search of work and, yesterday,

families learned their power rates will double in two years because of Muskrat

Falls; a looming crisis government has done nothing to address.

I ask

the Premier: What can he say to struggling families?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take

exception to some of the comments by the Member opposite. What the Member has

done is voted against a budget that has put in place poverty reduction for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at the very highest level ever in this

province.

What she

voted against was some $121 million that will go to support seniors and some of

the low income in our province, Mr. Speaker. I remind her she voted against

support for Legal Aid people and those using those services. As the Member steps

up today to ask questions, these are the things that she did not support.

recognize the challenges that a lot of families are facing in our province. That

is why we invested an unprecedented amount to poverty reduction in this year's

budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

After

three months in the House, government has done little to help seniors. No

improvement to home care, no reinstatement of the senior's dental plan, no

expansion of drug coverage for seniors, no relief for long wait times for

seniors housing and no extended coverage of over-the-counter drugs.

I ask

the Premier: What can he say to the seniors of the province who are looking to

him for assistance and relief?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Everybody is eager to talk

about the good things that we are (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Speaker, as the Member

opposite said we can't live in the past, but I guarantee you one thing, we've

been impacted by the past. Despite the tough fiscal climate that we have had to

operate in, this government has put in unprecedented measures for seniors, for

low-income people; $280 million in more than 100 poverty reduction measures.

The

Premier has already outlined the $121 million for the NL Income Supplement. We

put in place a Seniors' Advocate to help address some of the systemic issues

that seniors are facing. It's never been done before in this province. Mr.

Speaker, $7.5 million to add new treatment options under the Newfoundland and

Labrador Prescription Drug Program (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Child Advocate reports government is infringing on the rights of children by

clawing back child support payments from Income Support recipients, and is

violating the right of children to be supported by both parents as is recognized

in the UN Convention.

I ask

the minister: When will he recognize that child support is the right of the

child and stop treating it like parental income?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development?

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I really

do thank the hon. Member for that question. For this purpose she's singing from

the same page that I'm singing from.

As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, when I first got in the role back last August, I

was somewhat surprised that we were clawing back child support for income

purposes. What I did is I instructed my staff at that particular time to do a

review, which we're continuing to do. We are anticipating to have that completed

and certainly will become a budgetary discussion as we get into the spring of

2019. I am looking forward to that.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Oral Questions

has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Pursuant

section 8 and

section 10 of the Public

Tender Act , I hereby table report of

Public Tender Act Exceptions for April 2018 as presented by the chief

operating officer of the Government Purchasing Agency.

Further

tabling of documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

class sizes, adequate school space and healthy socialization is essential to our

children receiving the best quality education; and

WHEREAS

schools such as St. Francis of Assisi are without a cafeteria space and students

do not have the opportunity to move about during the day; and

WHEREAS

schools in Newfoundland and Labrador have some of the largest cap sizes and some

of the lowest rates of literacy; and

WHEREAS

the education system in our province must be designed to ensure that each child

has the ability to reach his or her full potential;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call on the House

of Assembly to urge government to: Call on the government to take action in our

education system and ensure smaller class sizes and provide sufficient personal

space per child to allow for a higher quality of education; take action to

address issues in schools such as St. Francis of Assisi which are without

adequate space and are using combined classes; and ensure that students have the

highest standard of education in a quality learning environment.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I presented the same petition yesterday and I told the parents of St.

Francis of Assisi that I'll continue to present their petition until we hear

answers and people start to listen. This is not only an issue that's in this

school. This is a very small school; probably 240 children go to this school.

But it's an issue in schools in the province.

A lot of

parents are concerned about the size of our classes and we all know – everybody

in this House of Assembly know, parents know, people in this province know it's

important that our children get the best quality and best possible education

that they can get. We also know that the lower the number of students in a class

and the one-on-ones that the teacher can give them, their education will

improve.

What

we're asking here today is for the government to have a look at this. We feel

and parents feel it's too high. Parents in this area have a different little

concern; they're talking about the socialization of their children. There is no

cafeteria in this school, so the children can't move about with their grade

fours or grade fives or grade six friends; they're in the one class all day that

long and that's where they eat their lunch.

What

we're asking is for the minister to have a look at this school. Combined classes

are not going to work. Just have a look at the school, have a look at the issues

the parents have in this school and we feel the class sizes are way too high.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development for a response,

please.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly thank the hon. Member for the petition and, of course, I know he's

been very passionate about the school within his district. We all share the same

concerns. Many of us have some similar concerns.

Mr.

Speaker, each year, the school board really looks at the enrolment for schools

and then they do some deployment of positions, depending upon enrolments.

Sometimes these enrolments and the deployment of staff are dependent upon the

types of services that are going to be provided to the schools.

While we

do have concerns and some concerns in those areas, we know that sometimes

situations can appear to not be productive; but, Mr. Speaker, I spent 30 years

in the education field and certainly many of the concerns that I had, as we

worked through it, there were always challenges.

I just

want to note as well that under the Premier's task force there are 82

recommendations. Come this September, we have identified certain schools that

we're going to be putting special services in, and that's going to be the first

step, and we're going to be working with the schools. We're going to look at

support services for schools and for students.

We want

to have a school system that's conducive to a good education and we will

continue to do that, Mr. Speaker. I would encourage the parents as well to have

a discussion with the school board, with their concerns and hopefully there will

be some resolution.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I stand

today with a petition entitled: Designated Parking for Cancer Patients at Dr. H.

Bliss Murphy Cancer Clinic.

These

are the reasons for this petition: Having a designated parking area close to the

hospital for cancer patients who are receiving treatment is vital. Cancer

patients often experience significant difficulty when walking long distance, and

are having difficulty finding available parking spaces close enough to a clinic.

Providing designated parking, permits and similar monitoring and enforcement

measures of these spaces could significantly improve access for cancer patients

to the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer clinic. Designated parking for cancer patients

is currently offered at a number of other hospitals and clinics across the

province.

Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the House of

Assembly as follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to

urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to encourage Eastern Health to

provide a designated parking area for cancer patients with at least 25 spaces at

the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer clinic.

I stand today and speak to this petition –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today and speak to this petition, which has 420

signatories, a petition similar to what I presented last week, Mr. Speaker. A

petition that is signed by cancer patients, that is signed by families and

friends of cancer patients, that are signed by people who support the call that

they are making in this petition.

It's hard having cancer, Mr. Speaker. A lot of us know that

from personal experience, from the experience of loved ones or friends. O ne

of the hardest things is when you have to go for treatments, especially

chemotherapy. It's not an easy thing. For some people with chemotherapy it's

weekly. Sometimes you have a cancer that requires daily treatments; it varies.

But one thing is certain: Getting chemotherapy, especially as it is accumulates

in the body throughout the period of treatment, is not easy.

I think

I mentioned last week and I'll mention it again, I, myself, have seen people

coming from chemotherapy in wheelchairs being transported to their cars because

they are not in a state to walk from the hospital to their cars.

What

they are asking for, Mr. Speaker, is to have a designated parking area. The

petitioners are looking for something that would ensure that cancer patients

would have secure parking spots and will not have to have undue stress because

of long searches for space, as some of them have experienced.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I think

my time is up and I present this to the House and hope it is heard.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's an

honour to present this petition to the House of Assembly.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

opioid addiction is a very serious problem affecting many individuals and

families in our province, and the Bell Island area is no exception; and

WHEREAS

the effects of this problem have implications that negatively impact many

people, old and young; and

WHEREAS

support and treatment programs have been proven to break the cycle of addiction

and have helped many into recovery;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge government to: Establish a suboxone-methadone treatment plan

for Bell Island which would include a drug addictions councillor at the hospital

and a drug awareness program in the local schools.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I've spoken to this a number of times, and the reason I continue to do

it is because every time I speak to it there becomes more awareness from the

general public and from those in the health care. Every time I do it, somebody

else will reach out to me; somebody else will send an email. Somebody in another

part of the province will say we have the same issues in our community, we still

need some of these supports and we wish you the best. We know Bell Island is

taking a leadership role by its citizens from a volunteer point of view and by

the health professionals that are there.

We do

have some supports from the health professionals who are part of Eastern Health,

but they are restricted by not having a mandate to be able to provide the direct

services that are needed here and the two direct ones – there's a multitude of

things that are needed, but directly that's immediately needed is a methadone

and a suboxone treatment program. We need to have that immediately because we

have, unfortunately, a number of people who are struggling with opioid and

addictions issues who, on a daily basis, are taking the lead themselves and are

doing everything possible with the supports of their family and their friends to

beat this addiction, to become more productive in our society and to want to be

able to give back to our communities. But when it becomes so encompassing, when

you're dealing with ferries, travelling, costs out of their pockets, and some of

these individuals because of the situation have very little, if any, financial

security but want to be able to get back into having financial security and

being productive citizens.

As a

result, this is costing the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador much more

than it could be and less effective if we had the services available in their

own community where we have a fully-equipped hospital, where we have health

professionals who can endorse and support. We also have the community itself and

many agencies over there who are bought into the process of collaboratively

working to ensure there are supports before treatment, during treatment and

after treatment.

So what

we have here is what I say, and what we're proposing as a community, to be able

to set a template for the rest of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to

offer these services. So I'll have a chance to add this petition again in the

future.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you, Sir.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, 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 do adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

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

Chair recognizes the hon. the leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just so

our viewers at home will understand where we are now, we're on Bill 20 that we

have been debating. From a calendar point of view, I should say from an

operational point of view in the House of Assembly, we're basically into our

seventh day of debate on this particular bill, which is what it was meant to be.

It's a

very encompassing bill. It's a very important bill. It's part and parcel of

being prepared for what the federal government's piece of legislation or the two

pieces that they'll bring in in the near future and the impact that they'll have

on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the government, because the

government has to be the legislative process and the administrators of the

legalization of cannabis but, particularly, the selling of cannabis and all the

relevant restrictions and responsibilities that also go with that.

We're

talking about – and we've had this discussion, I'll just note a little bit where

it's been a day or so since we've had this discussion, to bring people up to

speed again – the provincial legislation related to cannabis, before I ask a few

questions to the minister and I know a number of my colleagues have some

questions here for clarification. I think we've already asked somewhere in the

vicinity of 50 questions and have gotten good responses.

Sometimes we go back and forth looking for some extra clarification and while

we're asking that we may get an email or a text from somebody who are asking:

Can you please clarify exactly what's meant in this situation, or I'm a

potential business person who would like clarification on this, or I'm a

particular person who will be using cannabis and would like to know my rights

and my responsibilities, or I'm a landlord and I need to know exactly what

impact it's going to have.

We've

been back and forth having this debate and just so we can clarify for people,

this is not a stand-alone bill. There are four particular bills here. This is

the largest one and I suspect this is the umbrella one that government must deal

with. Everything else must complement and fit in a continuum to ensure that this

bill fits well and meets the needs that it's set out to, while at the same time

clarifying for the general public what they're allowed to do, what they're not

allowed to do, where there are restrictions and where are the opportunities.

Part of

the plan here and part of how this was promoted is that there would be business

opportunities. There would be opportunities to create employment. There would be

opportunities to generate some additional tax revenue. There would be

opportunities for people who, in the past, partake in cannabis use and would

have to do it in secrecy and have to do it with a fear of repercussions legally,

could now do things legally in certain areas and would not have to worry about

prosecution once they're following all the rules and regulations that are put in

play.

We've

accepted this in our society, or particularly in this House, that this is a law

that will be enacted in the upcoming months, probably unlikely it'll be done in

the upcoming weeks, which was the original plan. So that gives us an opportunity

now to do some further debate here in this House, get the remaining questions

answered and go back to clarify any other issues that may be part and parcel of

it.

I just

want to explain to people before my colleagues get up and ask some more

questions, the first bill here is the

Cannabis Control Act , and that's the key one we're into now and that has the

general concept of what will be offered here and what would be some of the

particulars, particularly around the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor

Corporation, its regulatory process, responsibilities and the avenues for

distributing and selling and to a certain degree monitoring the cannabis use in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The

Smoke-free Environment Act is something that we've debated. It's a key act

because it's about everybody's safety in Newfoundland and Labrador. It's about

everybody's freedom to ensure that whatever other particular activities somebody

else has, it doesn't impose a safety risk to that particular citizen.

We've

gone through that and we've defined exactly what smoke free means. We've

designed and added the word cannabis and cannabis use to what already existed

around tobacco use, vapors and e-cigarettes to ensure that people still have

freedoms to use those devices and to partake in that, but that people who do not

still can feel secure that the environment that they are living in, or an

environment that they will want to travel in, or partake in will not be hindered

or they'd be restricted to it because of the impact of somebody who is smoking

cannabis may have on that.

That's

the second one that we've already had a full debate, a very inclusive debate and

I think we've come to a consensus on where we are with it and being able to move

that one forward.

The

Liquor Corporation Act , that's

particularly more about the financing, the operational part of it from a tax

point of view, the administrative, the collections and these type of things.

We've gone through that to ensure that rules and regulations are put in play,

but those who are going to be in the production and those who are going to be

into the distribution know exactly what it is that they have to have in play

when it comes the producing and selling. Then, obviously, the Liquor Corporation

needs to know how it works its template to outline to the general public what

its profit margins are, what its expenses are and what are some of the other

particular supports they need in play.

We've

talked about inspectors would have to be in play here. We talked about auditors

would have to be in play.

talked about public relations would have to be in play and maybe even some

advertising. When I say advertising it may not be advertising about let's go out

and use cannabis and here it's for sale and we have a sale over here, it's more

about the fact the general public will need to know their responsibilities and

the legalities of the use of cannabis. They're parts of the

Liquor Control Act .

The

fourth one is the Highway Traffic Act .

This is one that is fairly contentious only because there are a number of

unknowns. We all support it. We all feel that there have to be laws in play and

there have to be mechanisms to ensure that people do not drive impaired.

In a lot

of cases we talked about zero tolerance and if we could in some way impose that,

but we realize that's not realistic. At certain age categories, that was brought

in here. We put it in line with the same use of alcohol for impairment.

The

question becomes and the challenge is because this is such a new process – and

not only new for us in Newfoundland and Labrador but new for every province in

Canada – we don't have the mechanism, the device. We have great police

enforcement officers, we have some that are trained in a particular skill set in

being able to identify impairment for people who are under the influence of

cannabis or drugs. But unlike what has been developed over the last 30 years

when you talk about the Breathalyzer being 99 per cent accurate in being able to

determine a person's ability to drive and not being impaired and being able to

determine if they're impaired, and then being able to use that as a legal

argument in court that this person indeed was violating the

Highway Traffic Act and is indeed open

for prosecution.

We don't

have that mechanism here; there's been some discussion that there are

potentially maybe some out there. While we're waiting for that there is a bit of

apprehension about how do we ensure that people are not driving impaired? It's

not only about safety on the road for people who don't want impaired drivers,

there are legitimate, very cognizant, very law-abiding citizens who want to

ensure they're not impaired and that for whatever circumstance that they do

partake and that it wasn't an ability for zero tolerance, they do not want to

drive if they're impaired.

If there

would be a mechanism for them to know what that impairment would be, I know we

talk about nanograms for millilitres of blood but, again, we still don't have

clear answers as to what exactly that means. That's the apprehensive thing here

that people have, it's around the issue particularly related to how do we

determine if somebody is going to be impaired and the mechanism. Our police

forces need to have all the devices possible to ensure that they have the

ability to take people off the road who should not be on the road, who are

impaired, before they cause any havoc for anybody. Also, to be able to let the

general public know exactly: here is what we have, to be able to determine at

what level you are when you're driving. We've talked about some of the things

that are there relevant to those type of things, and we want people to be clear

on what it is we're proposing. We're going to have an opportunity over the next

number of hours to discuss that and get some clarification.

One of

the questions I have here is around inspectors, and I'll go back to the cannabis

bill with the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation. I'm just asking for

some clarification and understanding because I've had one constituent ask me

about this particularly when it comes to placing a complaint. Can inspectors

receive complaints from individuals, and if an individual places a complaint

will their privacy be protected? I ask that to the minister.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wasn't

anticipating that question, but I will get an answer from officials. As soon as

I receive that answer I'll pass it on.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

It's

indeed a privilege to get up again. I'll state to the minister that this piece

of legislation, I am in favour of, and any piece of legislation I think we all

should be up on our feet. All Members on the other side should be up speaking on

this piece of legislation. It's very important to our province.

I have a

couple of questions for the minister. Minister, if you don't mind, I'm going to

put a couple of them together in the same one so you can respond to me.

I'm

concerned about the retail aspect of how we're going to roll this out, as we

would say. I know recently the NLC announced that there are 24 new retail

outlets in the province, and we've had questions in Question Period where we

asked about the schools, how close to schools. It's all new to me, the tier one,

the tier two, the tier three and the tier four and I think the public are

starting to get to know it.

I think

tier one, tier two is where you have to be over 19 to get into it. Tier three

and four, it could be your tobacco shops. It could be a local store or pharmacy

or something like that. It would have to be something like tobacco, where the

product is not visible. It would have to be away from anyone, that someone just

couldn't go in and pick it off the shelf or anything like that, and I understand

that.

The

concern I have – and it is in the legislation. I read it in the legislation we

had to review last week. It was about schools. Schools were mentioned, places of

worship were mentioned. There are some areas where people will have a say into –

I guess there'll be some kind of, almost like gazetted where it would have to go

out in the media so people will have an idea. If they have some objection to

where that was, they'd be able to go to a hearing or submit something to the NLC

so that they would be able to get their opinions expressed.

We live

in a society where nobody wants stuff in their backyard: not in my neighbour;

put it down the road in someone else's road but not in my neighbour. As

politicians, we deal with that on a daily basis, whether it's a new business

that's opening next door to your house and the effect it's going to have on the

resale of your house and stuff like that. We understand that, but in this

specific piece of legislation it does mention schools. It does mention places of

worship.

My thing

is we have a lot of small communities in the province. I spoke to a couple of

mayors in my district and they were wondering what consultations we'll be having

with municipalities on the opening of cannabis stores or whether it's going to

be part of the retail store. I understand that once, for example, a Liquor

Express gets issued a licence for a Liquor Express goes in, it does be gazetted.

It does have to go through some kind of a transfer and appeal, whether anybody

has that or whatever, but it also goes through the municipality.

question to the minister, and I'll have a supplement question after, but I'd

like to just – I understand if a municipality has concerns with proximity to a

school, it could be a daycare that they don't want it next to. Again, I

understand people are going to protest in anyone's neighbourhood but obviously

there is zoning in these towns and it would have to go under the zoning for the

town.

municipality, I'm wondering what say they would have and what the procedure is

when a retail store or anything is put in a community, or it could be put in St.

John's in a neighbourhood, Corner Brook in a neighbourhood, or it could be in my

Town of Flatrock.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Any

application would have to meet zoning requirements in a municipality. That would

be part of the process. The process through the NLC is they would be approved to

be a retailer but once it gets to the municipal level it would be up to the

municipality to decide whether or not it meets zoning criteria within that

municipality.

NLC will

not dictate to a municipality what the zoning is or whether or not a

municipality should allow something in a zoning. Those decisions will be made by

the municipality.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay. Not to try to move anything any differently but the recent 24 that were

submitted – now, one has withdrawn and I know the one that has withdrawn. I

spoke to the mayor of the town and they had no idea whatsoever that that

application was in.

I don't

know how the process works. Was there any consultation done with municipalities?

How was the consultation done to select the 24? Was it part of municipalities,

or maybe there's another stage that it goes on to and these 24 that are selected

now are not necessarily the 24 that are going to get a retail licence. I just

want to know. I was asked that by the mayor of the particular town.

I also

understand that where it was okay – while it could be just an address, maybe

there's another location they were probably going to put it on, I don't know,

but it was in a residential neighbourhood. Maybe you can answer that.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Yes, myself and the Member opposite did have a discussion about this. If that

were the address, the municipality would not have approved it in any event, is

my understanding.

The NLC

doesn't dictate to a municipality whether or not they should approve in a

particular neighbourhood. The initial process here is that people made an

application for a licence to be a retailer. So they've passed the initial stage

of that.

The

second part of that is they have to advertise for three weeks. They have to

advertise in a conspicuous place for three weeks, the newspaper and so on. They

have to put a post on the front of the location in a conspicuous place that they

intend to have that as a retail outlet, but they've also got to get approval

from the municipality.

The

particular situation you were talking about, while the NLC may have said your

application looks good, you've passed the first phase, they have to go through

the second phase, which is what's contained in this legislation where they have

to advertise for three weeks. They have to go through that process. They'd have

to get municipal approval.

So at

that particular stage, even if the people didn't back out, by the time they went

to the municipality the municipality would've said, not on. At that particular

point, they'd have to go back and say to the NLC they're looking for another

location. They would require municipal approval, obviously. The NLC are not

going to dictate to a municipality whether or not they should approve. It would

be up to each individual municipality and their bylaws and their zoning

regulations and so on, whether or not they approve a particular location.

On that,

before I conclude, I do have an answer to the previous question, so I'll read it

because I didn't know the answer but it did come from an official: a complaint

from a member of the public, whether or not the complaint or their identity

would be protected.

So the

response is: This may depend on the nature of the complaint but should not be

different from other complaints made to law enforcement. In many cases, an

officer or an inspector could investigate a complaint without disclosing the

identity of a complainant. If someone makes a complaint about an infraction and

would be a necessary witness on a prosecution, then their identity may be

disclosed in the course of court proceedings. We may need more info on the

context to answer further.

Hopefully that answers your question on that.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just

want to go back to the minister's commentary. My colleague from Cape St. Francis

asked questions about the application process. I thank him for his response.

That's one question I guess I've had, and it's come up in the House of Assembly

here at different times on the three locations in my district in particular,

close to schools, in churches I guess too if you want to look at it that way.

question is – and I listened closely when he explained. I guess I'm at a loss.

Because when the announcement was made we announced 24, and there has been 23

now as we all know – facilities. Why make an announcement on your – you're

permitting someone to apply. So basically, it's a two-tiered process. Most times

you apply across the board and you pick out your successful applicants. Why that

extra layer? I know it was asked in the House previous times about this process.

I'm

somewhat at a loss that we announced that these people can go and apply – and

they've had locations identified, which drew attention from me and my colleague

from Topsail - Paradise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

Thank

you.

MR. PETTEN:

So I don't know if you can

give me some more clarity. That's where I seem to struggle with – why is that

extra layer put there? In normal times, you just go and apply. You open the

application process, the government's (inaudible) open process; you review the

applications and these are your successful applicants. In this case we've got

this layer – it's an extra layer, I guess, of bureaucracy for want of a better

word and that is something that me, personally, and I know a lot of people find

that the bureaucracy sometimes gets a bit complicated.

This is

a 30-page application process to be allowed to apply to go to the municipal

government, advertise for your locations and get feedback, just like you're

starting from scratch again. I guess I'm at a loss and look forward to you

giving me some more clarity as to why we've got that extra layer of approvals

there. It seems to me a bit of overkill on the bureaucratic paperwork.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

I'll answer that, and not to

be factious, but we had numerous people saying when are we going to announce the

successful applicants for licence. If we didn't tell people who the successful

applicants were, well two things would have happened: We'd be criticized for not

telling people who the successful applicants for stage one were; secondly, those

individuals, if we didn't tell them who they were and tell the people who

applied who weren't successful that they weren't successful, they wouldn't be

able to go to stage two.

The NLC

are not dictating to a municipality where a location should or should not be. So

in order for somebody who is successful in the first stage of this process,

they've applied to be a retailor, the NLC looked at the applications and said

certain applications based on their business plan, based on the level of

security and the video cameras, based on their retail set-up and design, based

on their financial information, we believe these people are strong enough in

their application to proceed to the next level.

You have

to inform those people who they are in order to proceed and advertise for three

weeks. If you had some people advertising for three weeks and the people who

weren't successful weren't advertising, I mean how does that happen unless you

inform people who passed the first stage?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess

the question is: Were the applicants aware when they entered this process that

they would be going through this two-tier process, this extra layer? Was that

made clear to those applicants when they first approached NLC or your department

to apply, when the applications were being accepted? Was that something that was

clearly stated, or is that something that changed part way through the process?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

We said at the outset that

these applicants were applying for the first stage of approval. The applicants

themselves were informed that there was additional work that would be required.

When we announced the 24 successful applicants, we did say that there was

additional work that had to be completed before we could determine, of those 24,

who would be successful in being granted their licence.

These

are people who have passed the first stage. There were no surprises here.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I don't want to belabour this but still it's something that just

doesn't settle with me is that you make application, most people will have to go

and get a municipal sign-off, municipal approval. You go to Crown Lands to

purchase the Crown land, you have get a municipal sign-off – municipal approvals

it's called – before you can proceed, before any deals can be done. That's

usually the first stop you'll make: municipal sign-off. It comes with your

application; it's part of your process.

That is

one of probably the gaping – to me, that's one of the biggest issues that jumps

out at me with this process. If you went with a municipal approval, you would

alleviate all the other concerns that's listed out in the legislation about

proximity to schools, churches, of public interest. Because a municipality

that's their responsibility to look after the citizens; it's on a municipal

level.

So if we

had those checks and balances in place in the beginning, wouldn't you have

eliminated this process to have to go through a second level of approvals?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

I'm not going to say we're

going down the road to silly here now, but I will ask you a question. There were

86 applicants. Are you suggesting that we have all 86 apply for three weeks and

go pay for a municipal permit and go through all of that stage and put – because

we approved 24, which meant that we'd be asking 62 people to go through an

expensive process of advertising and getting municipal permits and doing

everything that's required in the second stage. Some of these processes are

expensive.

So are

you saying to those other 62 people we should have put them through a very

expensive, but very unnecessary process because they weren't going to be

approved in any event? Is that what you're asking?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

No, Minister, actually that's

not what I'm asking. I'm asking: Why wasn't the process made more clear and

straight forward? When you go to get municipal sign-off, that doesn't mean you

have through all of this big, long, expensive process. That's not what's

required every time.

Public

meetings are not held for every application that comes to a municipality. There

may be an advertisement, a little piece in the paper that may be advertised. My

guess is, if you're a business person, you're setting up a business, some

expenses – there's no doubt there are costs come into applying for this

originally. This application process, unless you were well established with a

full fleet of staff like a Loblaws, somewhere like that, most of those people

probably got some help, they would have gone to a business development area,

someone to give them assistance to do this. I mean, I would think that would be

a normal process.

I guess

I'll be very blunt in my response. I just don't know why it wasn't done – to me,

there is a missing point and it wasn't done right. I think this is an extra

layer that we're going through now because it just doesn't make sense. You

approve someone to go and apply.

If there

are 84 people going, get municipal approval. Sometimes that can be done by going

down and talking to a planner or something as simple as: you meet the crunch, it

shouldn't be an issue. Even that sometimes would be satisfactory to some, but

something, some approval or some sign off: Okay, a conditional approval subject

to this. Then there will be no extra expenses to them. Get something more firm

than what we have now, but now we're going to go back to a process and there's a

good chance that a lot of these people in this 23 may not be approved. Then

we're going back to square one.

It seems

like we're spinning our wheels and creating an extra layer of bureaucracy, I

guess you could to call it, to the applicant. It's probably an extraordinary

unfair burden placed on the applicants to get approval to know if they can

operate a store or not.

I don't

mean to belabour it, but it's something that, of all this legislation, the

various points of it that stuck with me and that's one of the ones. With all due

respect, most of your answers have not really clarified. It's not a matter of

creating extra layers for anyone but the process now has created extra layers. I

feel strongly that it's not a big deal. It's not a deal breaker to have to go to

a municipality and get a conditional approval.

If you

buy a piece of land to build a house, you go to a municipality, they'll give you

conditional approval for little or no cost. Then you're getting into the real

business when you get your approval and you have to get everything else in

place. That's when it costs money. That's the cost of doing business, but in

this regard I just don't understand why we couldn't simplify the process.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

I will say the application

process was absolutely clear right from the outset. So if there's anybody

confused here, I would suggest it's the Member opposite.

I'm not

sure if you've looked at the application process – it was 30 pages, I think – or

if you filled out an application process or if you've studied it, but nobody

else has complained that this was unclear or that this was an unnecessary

process. I'm not going to answer any further questions on this. I'm not being

factious, but I think we're going down a rabbit hole that's a little bit silly.

The

other aspect of this is the application process was very stringent. If we were

truly looking to add an extra layer of unnecessary expense for 86 applicants it

would be to say go get your municipal approval before you can put your

application in. That would be silly, because they wouldn't even know whether or

not they're going to get approved through the NLC and whether or not they're

even going to be an acceptable applicant with the NLC. I think that would be

rather silly and it would be an extra cost burden on those individuals.

The only

thing we're arguing here now is about the particular location, which is

something the NLC have said you need municipal approval on that location as

well. If somebody wanted to put in an application for a location, such as the

Member for Cape St. Francis which was very clearly in a residential

neighbourhood, but everything else about the application, the business idea, the

financing, the business plan, everything else was approved and at the end

of the day the municipality said no, we don't like this location. Well, then the

individual has the option to look for another location. They're still approved

to be a licence, quite simple.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I remind the minister, I don't think there's any

question in this House that's silly. It's one of the biggest policy shifts to

come out of his mouth himself, probably in our country. I take exception, there

are no silly questions coming from this side of the House, Mr. Chair. Every

question that comes from any Member in this House is valid. If he takes offence

that it's silly, well I won't make any apologies for that because I think every

question is very important –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR.

PETTEN:

Every question is very important. I'm only looking for answers. I ask for some

respect in that context, too. I have some questions.

I have three businesses in my district; there are

concerns being raised by the residents. It's not me; I didn't create those

questions, Minister. I take exception to you getting up and calling my responses

silly. If that's your rationale of trying to be humorous in this House, I take

exception to it.

We're debating a bill that's very important to this

Legislature and people of the province. It's one of the biggest policy shifts,

as you stated, and I'd appreciate some clear answers. Those questions I'm asking

you are not silly, Mr. Minister, I tell you that now, because a lot of people

have asked the same questions I'm asking. I question as well, and we have lots

of more questions to ask and we'll ask them. I take exception, there is nothing

here being said silly. We'll continue on but I hope we get some clear answers.

Section 24 reads: “Where the applicant requests, the

board shall provide written reasons for refusing to issue a licence.”

Have all applicants who were not successful in the

previous RFP process received written reasons?

CHAIR:

The

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

MR.

OSBORNE:

said in this House yesterday, Mr. Chair, that there are no questions that are

silly. The first time the Member asked a question it wasn't silly. I gave him an

answer. The second time he asked the same question, it still wasn't silly but I

gave him the same answer. The third time he asked the same question, I'm not

sure what he wants me to do. I gave him the same answer for the third time. I

said the process was getting silly.

I said very clearly yesterday there are no silly

questions on this because it is a big policy shift. But I do take exception, Mr.

Chair, to questioning the good work of the staff of the NLC, to questioning a

group of very professional individuals at a very professional organization that

has been dealing in controlled substances for decades and decades to say that

they put people through an unnecessary process when the process was very clearly

outlined from the very get-go – very clearly outlined. That's what I take

exception to.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd

advise the minister to check Hansard because I think he has a selective memory

there. He's forgotten a few quotes he said. He did say they're silly questions

and he never answered three times. He might be getting frustrated at me asking

the question because you know what? I guess I'm not getting any answers. Simple

questions.

Section

25(3); will a maximum five-year licence make small retailers more vulnerable

than their subsidized counterparts with larger stores to sell products? Has any

thought gone into that? Because as I say, Loblaws and Sobeys have a lot bigger

backdrop than a smaller independent operator. With the five-year licence, has

there been any – that's another thing that comes to mind too, with these

five-year licences.

I know

they'll have to reapply, but has there been anything in place, any backstop to

those people having to reapply and the possibility of losing? Is that going to

affect the licensing process or is that – what I'm trying to say I guess, is

that going to be – they're going to be at risk, it's going to be a deterrent, I

guess for want of a word. They have a five-year licence and then they're going

to go through the expense of getting set up and operational and then that

licence could possibly be – after the five-year period someone else could apply

and take the licence.

Will

they have a first right or refusal, I suppose for want of a better word. Will

there be any securities in place for those smaller retailers that are not

backstopped by a Dominion or a Sobeys so to speak, to protect them in the event

that other applicants come into the market?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

This process is the same

process that is in place for liquor outlets. They have a five-year licence. They

have to reapply at the end of the five years to get their licence back. There

had to be some time frame put on a licence. You couldn't give it indefinitely.

The

process for liquor outlets has been in place with a five-year renewal for quite

a number of years, and it's working quite well. It does keep retailers, liquor

outlets – it gives them an incentive I guess to operate within the rules and

fulfill their obligations, and that's the same expectation with cannabis

retailers.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Part II

of the legislation outlines inspection protocols and rules. Will liquor

inspectors also serve as cannabis inspectors? What training will be provided to

cannabis inspectors? Have any of these inspectors already – I know it's a lot of

questions, but it's all pretty well around the same kind of topic. Have any of

these inspectors already been trained, or will the RNC or the RCMP be asked to

assist these inspectors?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Yes, the inspectors will be the same inspectors. They will be inspectors through

the NLC. I fully anticipate that the NLC will ensure that they're properly

trained and equipped to carry out the inspections.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Section 28(

b) discusses the cannabis tracking system.

Will the

province have its own interim tracking system while the feds don't? How will the

store-product inventory tracking be done when there are holdups and burglaries,

fires and floods, et cetera, or spoiled product or whatnot? How will that be

done?

CHAIR:

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

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The

tracking system that's in place, seed to sale, I think it's called, is a federal

tracking system. That's a system through the federal government. It's not an NLC

system.

Outside

of that, some of the questions there are technical questions. I can certainly

ask the NLC and report back, but I don't know, I would presume it's the same as

alcohol in a retail outlet and how they track those and ensure that the tracking

is done.

Again,

the NLC have been in the business of controlled substances for a number of

decades. I have full confidence that they know how to deal in controlled

substances from the retail aspect, from the distribution aspect and from

tracking their sales.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Section

28 also discusses processes of the retailer. Will stores be prohibited from

offering refunds or substitutions for portions of product that fail to satisfy

customers?

CHAIR:

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

MR. OSBORNE:

That, Mr. Chair, I'm not certain. I can certainly check with the NLC. I know if

somebody purchases a bottle of alcohol and it's very clear that the bottle has

not been tampered with, the NLC will take a bottle and refund and allow somebody

to either take the refund and leave the store or purchase another product.

So I'm

guessing – I can clarify and provide an absolutely certain answer – if the

sealed container hasn't been tampered with, because the product will be in

sealed containers, that they'll probably have the same policy.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under

section 29: If the rules change for sellers that have already been approved are

subsequently opposed by neighbours, will the seller be able to transfer the

licence to another location or will the licence be lost to another applicant?

Can the

licences be moved to a new location or to a temporary new location in the event

of damage to the existing property?

I'm

guessing that if it's in the same community, if an applicant has been approved

in the first stage – and we talked about this a few minutes ago, needing to get

approval through a municipality – and finds out that for whatever reason a

municipality is not going to approve their location, I'm guess that they would

have the ability to go back to the NLC, as an approved applicant, as long as

it's within the same geographic area, and look to set up another location.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Section

32 discusses a suspension by an inspector. How easily can store inspectors

suspend their licence? There has to be some clear

definitions of when an

inspector would suspend the licence, clear violation. I'm sure there would be

warning issued before the suspension of a licence. Do you have any idea what

would constitute the spending of licence?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

I have an answer to a

previous question that the Member asked, that's on orders of cannabis that need

to be placed by retailers through the NLC portal. The NLC will be tracking the

product. They'll be able to inspect books, records, inventories, et cetera. We

will not have our own separate tracking system since this would not be expedient

considering the federal government have the seed-to-sale tracking system.

Again,

the licence is for a specific location. A licence for an existing location can

be transferred, but a person would need to work with the NLC if they wanted or

we're looking to change location. It was the previous question to this

particular one.

If you

could ask the question again?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Just to be clear, you're

asking about the question of the changing of locations?

MR. OSBORNE:

No, you just asked a

question. I think I answered the previous one.

MR. PETTEN:

What's required to suspend a

licence? What triggers a licence suspension as opposed to a warning?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Yes, similar to liquor

outlets, the inspectors will be the same inspectors, but similar to a liquor

outlet, if the licence retailer is not operating within the conditions of the

licence or if there's illicit activity taking place or if there's – similar to

liquor retail outlets or liquor retailers outlined in the regulations. There

will be regulations put in place, the same as the regulations are in place for

retail outlets. They would have to abide by the conditions of their licence.

They'd have to operate in accordance with law. They'd have to be providing the

remittances to the NLC for products sold and sales tax and so on.

they're not operating according to the law, if they're not operating according

to the conditions of their licence, that's when an inspector would put a closure

order on the operation.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Section

39: If a retail licence is suspended, but following an investigation it's deemed

that the suspension should not have occurred or that the suspension was

wrongfully enacted, what compensation would be offered to the retail location,

if any?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

That's something that I can't

answer at this particular stage. I guess we're, in a way, talking about a

hypothetical situation. I guess it would depend on the circumstances and the

situation as to why an outlet was closed, but, again, I have full confidence in

the NLC.

We don't

hear of frivolous cases of liquor retail outlets being closed or licences being

suspended for liquor retail outlets. So I would imagine that there would have to

be a level of sufficient evidence to warrant that a retail outlet be closed.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Section

64 outlines possession rules. What is the limit one person can possess in their

home at one time? Can a person's four plants be located outside of the property?

If located outside, what safeguards are in place to prevent nearby children from

accessing them?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

I think we talked about one aspect of that; there are two aspects to the

question. Possession limits in a residence, there is no possession limits, per

se, in a residence. Personal possession can be up to 30 grams. If an individual

is hosting some sort of a get-together or I guess a social event on their

property, they can only possess up to 30 grams at a particular time, but if they

went back to a retail outlet and purchased another 30 grams, they could

transport that to their home. If they went back and purchased another 30 grams,

they could transport that to their home.

I don't

imagine they'd have an abundant quantity, the same as they'd have alcohol. I

have bottles of alcohol in my home that have been there for three or four years.

Alcohol has a different shelf life than cannabis would. I would suspect that

cannabis after three or four years certainly wouldn't have any shelf life or any

value.

As far

as the plants are concerned – the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands had asked

the same question yesterday or the day before yesterday about having plants

outside the home – according to the way the legislation is written, you can have

plants inside the home or outside the home.

It's

something that officials have been flagged with and regulations will deal with

that. I fully anticipate that if the regulations are going to allow plants

outside the home that they would have to certainly be secured. I'm not going

pre-dictate what a regulation is going to say here on the floor today, but I

would certainly anticipate that it would have to be in a contained area, whether

it's a fence or a locked greenhouse or whatever the case may be, but the

regulations will deal with whether or not plants are allowed to be outside.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With the

new regulations with cannabis where a person is permitted to have four plants in

their home, are there any regulation in place or any restrictions in place with

people who have children under 19 years of age? We know they're not allowed to

go into a tier one or tier two store, for obvious reasons. So if the cannabis is

being grown in a home and they have their four plants, are there any

regulations, stipulations to protect people under 19, under age?

Are

there any rules around how you have to grow those plants in your home? I know we

say you have to be your own parent and guardian, but is there any special

regulation, or is it you can grow them wherever and you have to control that

yourself?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

I think the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety provided an answer in Question Period to the same

question.

As a

parent, I've got household cleaners that I've got to ensure they're not in a

place that would endanger my children. I've got other products in my home that

I've got to ensure that they're not in a place that would cause danger to my

children. I have alcohol in my home. I actually keep my alcohol locked in a

liquor cabinet because I've got young children in my home. Not everybody has a

liquor cabinet that locks, but people who have bottles of alcohol, I would fully

anticipate that a responsible parent would ensure that the alcohol is in an area

or stored in such a way that it would not put their children at risk.

There

are no specific rules to say that a plant has to be so many feet high or in an

area in the house that is locked and away from children, but we fully anticipate

that parents would be responsible if they're going to have a plant in their home

that they would take responsible measures to ensure that their children are not

in danger.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just

go back, Minister, to your previous answer to the last question when I asked my

question about possession in their home at one time. You stated that you can

bring 30 grams at a time and I guess you can go back and forth, you can bring as

much home as you want.

As with

alcohol, we can go today and there's no limit what we can go and purchase from

the NLC for whatever reasons, just go purchase it and pay for it, as long as

you're of age to take it out.

I guess

if there are limits of 30 grams on possession, yet when you go home you can go

bring your 30 grams and go back and get 30 more and onwards for eternity

basically, there's no limits. I guess I'm going roundabout: Why do we have

possession limits when in your home that's still considered possession? It's in

your possession in your home whether that's 500 grams, yet we have 30 gram

possession rules.

you're comparing it – and we've married a lot of this to the NLC rules and

Liquor Corporation rules – we have no limits on alcohol for personal

consumption. So we have a limit on marijuana for personal consumption for 30

grams, yet when you go home you can bring home endless trips, the list is

endless and you just stated that yourself.

To me, I

just have trouble with that one. Could you elaborate further and give me some

rationale as to why there's a limit on possession on cannabis as opposed to

alcohol? Why it's not the same?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

There are a number of

reasons. Reason number one: the federal government set a personal possession

limit at 30 grams. Reason number two: if you've got four people above the age of

19 in your home then that would dictate that you could have 120 grams in your

home, for example. If one of those people leaves to go out but doesn't take what

they purchased at a cannabis store with them, then that's still in the home.

You

could have four adults in a vehicle each having 30 grams in their possession,

that's 120 grams in the vehicle but there's only 30 grams per person because

they've, obviously, got to get into the vehicle, but if those four adults live

in the same dwelling, that could be 120 grams. We can't control whether or not

people have to take that and put it in their pocket when they leave the house or

lock it in the cupboard when they get home. That would be very difficult to

police.

Again,

if you are having a social function or you're having whatever and you needed

more than 30 grams, you are allowed to provide another individual, provided

you're not doing it for monetary gain. If you wanted to provide some

recreational cannabis to a friend when they came to visit you at your home,

you're permitted to do that.

Primarily, the 30-gram limit is following the federal limit, but once you're in

your own home, we haven't set a limit for that. Again, it has to be in the

approved container; anybody purchasing, it would be in approved containers. When

somebody goes to their home, whether they take it out of the approved container,

similar to wine – you can take wine out of the bottle that it was purchased in

and put it in a decanter. So it becomes very complicated and almost unmanageable

if we were to say you can only have 30 grams per adult in a household.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

appreciate the explanation, but it still comes back, I guess, to I know the

federal government has put a 30-gram limit of possession but, really, the

possession amounts are endless after you leave the store; any one time, as long

as you've got 30 grams – you could have 3000 grams home in your cupboard, for

argument's sake, and there's nothing wrong with that.

So I'll

leave that, but –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

I'll leave it at that but

it's still possession. That still constitutes possession, whether it's in your

cupboard, in your car or in your pocket.

In the

briefing we were told that organizations could not use cannabis as a prize for a

fundraising. However, in responding to a question from the media, Minister, you

said that this is a grey area and talked about gift cards.

Can you

elaborate more today on what are the rules surrounding fundraising?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

If somebody were selling

tickets, they'd have to have a lottery licence, obviously. That's not a part of

this act, so I'm not going to go too far into that.

If a

company were giving away a prize, we often see automobile dealers giving away a

trip as a prize, as a draw for people – if they purchase a car, their name gets

put in to enter for a trip prize, whatever the case may be. We often see

fundraisers for charitable organizations where they give away gift cards to the

NLC. What we've said is that it's illegal for an organization to possess

cannabis. It's illegal for an organization to give actual cannabis as a prize.

But if they were to give a gift card to an authorized legal retail outlet,

that's not illegal.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

If you could correct me on

this, if I'm growing four plants at home and I want to have a social gathering,

I can share the product from those four plants with my guests – is that correct?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

The legislation very clearly

outlines the fact that you can have social sharing. You can't sell for profit.

You can't have monetary gain. But if you can legally have your four plants and

you have a guest come in and however you – I'm not